Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 706 of 1484 (803235)
03-27-2017 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 699 by PaulK
03-26-2017 5:00 AM


Re: No case at all
PaulK runs away:
quote:
So everyone can see that you were misrepresenting my posts. Fine.
This would be where you provide more details of such rather than merely asserting.
quote:
The actual point that I was making is that Faith failed to take that into consideration and that failure seriously undermined her case.
Thus showing that you didn't actually read my post.
The specifics of Faith's faith (oy!) are irrelevant because, in the end, she has every right to believe whatever it is that she wants. And it certainly isn't the law's place to try to convince her otherwise regarding her faith. When we were having this exact argument over race, the exact same arguments by Christian bigots were used: God says. And the courts actually tried to use that argument to uphold segregation. The lower courts in the Loving v. Virginia courts said that god had separated the races for a reason and if it weren't for the machination of humans to travel outside those areas, they'd stay separated as god intended and thus, we cannot allow interracial marriage.
The Supreme Court didn't wander down that lane. The legal foundation for why we must allow interracial marriage has nothing to do with a "misunderstanding" of what the sin of Ham was. After all, the Mormons were still using that logic to deny black people the priesthood and there was nothing to be done about it as far as the law were concerned. People have the right to believe whatever bigoted nonsense they wish and to justify it any way they choose, including by using religious arguments that others feel to be misguided.
The law only cares about rights. As I have pointed out to Faith repeatedly, anybody who wishes to exert more control over their clients need only establish their business as a private contractor. If you want your picture taken, going to Glamour Shots in the mall means they have to take your picture because they are a public accommodation. Anne Geddes, on the other hand, is a private contractor and she has the ability to say no.
And thus, Faith isn't being asked to choose. She can keep her religious objections to treating gay people as human beings worthy of dignity and respect as well as cater only to weddings that meet her nebulously defined standards of religious "purity."
Oh, it's nice for us to try and engage with her on her religion. After all, it's nice for her to not be a bigot, but that's a completely separate issue. That isn't the way to achieve legal standing for gay people. We cannot wait for all the bigots to suddenly figure out what they were doing because that will never happen. There will always be people who cannot be happy unless other people are miserable. Therefore, we need the law to manage their actions and that means we need justifications that are independent of their religious irrationalizations. Trying to change a specific bigot's opinion about their religion is a good thing and may (mind you, I said, "*may*) solve a local problem, but it doesn't solve the bigger problem because the next bigot doesn't care.
Now, if you will simply admit your error and apologize, we can consider moving on. But, thanks to your behaviour, there is very little hope of that.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2017 5:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 709 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 12:12 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 707 of 1484 (803237)
03-27-2017 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 700 by Tangle
03-26-2017 5:09 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
Ok, I wasn't going to bring this up
Considering that Modulous and I have both been bringing it up, that's a very telling remark, wouldn't you say? You didn't want to respond to the point that we've been bringing up with you for days on end.
quote:
because even though you're being a total idiot and being as big a bigot as those that you oppose, we're on the same side of the discrimination argument.
Except we're not.
Hint: You need to stop and consider if you're about to engage in black-or-white thinking, that because we're not on the same side of the discrimination argument, that means you're in favor of laws like what happened in South Dakota or the various "bathroom bills."
Just because your actions didn't send someone to the hospital doesn't mean you're their friend.
When you accuse people of "artificially targeting bigots," when you claim that people suing for their right to public accommodation are distractions from the "real campaigns to be fought," that their attempts to to do so "just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive," then you're not on their side.
You are assigning a nefarious purpose to gay people and that, by definition, is homophobic bigotry. It requires gay people to justify their fight for equality as legitimate with you as the arbiter of what is a "real campaign."
quote:
And given what you say above I think the argument that you may risk alienating those that support you is proven.
If you cannot support gay people in their fight for equality without immediately whining about "artificial targeting," you are not a supporter.
See, Tangle, this is what you've been avoiding: You aren't a supporter. You think you are. You think that because you did right in one area, that someone means you've done all the work. That there's nothing left for you to do and if everyone were to just do what you've done, then there wouldn't be any problems.
But then we see that no, you still have work to do: You still have an automatic response that gay people fighting for their rights is somehow "alienating."
quote:
Do you recognise anything below?
Yep. And it's part of the solution...
...and part of the problem.
Because it's got people like you thinking that anybody who actually makes life difficult by demanding their rights be respected here and now is somehow "alienating" instead of a rallying point.
Have you read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"? Modulous rewrote it to apply to gay people, but I should certainly hope you're sophisticated enough to see how it applies to gay people without having to literally substitute the words for sexual orientation for the ones for race.
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
...
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
That last point is the salient one, Tangle: There is *never* a "good" lawsuit. It will always result in people being "alienated." Even people who you might have once thought were your "allies."
But if they are "alienated" because you had the temerity not to shrug it off, then they weren't your allies. Surely you've heard of the cliche about learning who your friends are, haven't you? This is how you do it: When you have been harmed and fight back, when you demand to be treated with dignity and respect and find that the only way to do so is to make a scene or file a lawsuit, your friends will stand with you because they understand precisely what is at stake. They won't hem and haw and talk about "artificially targeting bigots" or whine about feeling "alienated" or act like what you are doing isn't a "real campaign" and call you "petty and unnecessarily aggressive."
They'll stand by you. You don't expect them to necessarily take up arms with you. Nobody can fight all the battles. But you do expect them to not undermine you. Because if they do, they aren't your friends.
Can you name a single example of this "artificially targeting bigots" claim? Your attempt to Trump your way out of it by saying that you didn't say that...somebody else did and you were just repeating it...won't fly. You wouldn't have said it unless you thought there was some merit to it. So it's time for you to put up or shut up.
If none of the specific cases that have been mentioned here are examples of this "artificial targeting of bigots," if all of them are "real campaigns," if none of them "make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive," then who does? When did it happen? Who were these people?
Why were you so quick to jump to a claim of alienation regarding the mere idea of gay people suing public accommodations?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2017 5:09 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 2:50 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(5)
Message 708 of 1484 (803239)
03-27-2017 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 703 by New Cat's Eye
03-27-2017 11:10 AM


Re: The Main Points
New Cat's Eye writes:
quote:
I'm not seeing much of a line between writing a speach and designing a cake.
As someone who used to decorate cakes, let me help you:
As someone who sells and decorates cakes, I have certain designs and styles that I will do and, conceivably, certain designs and styles that I will not do.
My reasonings for those must be in compliance with various statutes regarding both my rights and the rights of other people.
For example, if I make a simple two-layer cake with white frosting, then that is clearly demonstrated as something that I am willing to do and, as a public accommodation, I am not in the position of telling someone that I won't do it for them out of some sense of First Amendment rights. It is the identical cake. Nothing about the purchaser of the cake changes it to some other kind of cake.
Now, suppose I offer that I will write a message on the cake. I could sell one that says, "Happy Birthday." But by doing so, I have demonstrated that I am willing to do that and, as a public accommodation, I am not in the position of telling someone that I won't do it for them out of some sense of First Amendment rights. It's the identical cake. Nothing about the purchaser of the cake changes it to some other kind of cake. If I'm willing to write, "Happy Birthday John," on the cake, I can't balk at writing, "Happy Birthday Jane."
But suppose, upon learning that I will write upon the cake, you ask me to write, "Fuck You!" on it. I can say no to that and claim my rights to deny you service. The fact that I am willing to write, "Happy Birthday," on it doesn't carry over to the claim that I must therefore be willing to write anything and everything demanded on the cake.
But here's the thing: If I can be shown to have written such things for other people, I can't then deny it to you. At my place, we didn't allow for profanity on cakes. Not for you, not for anybody.
So when it comes to a wedding cake, the question is: Is it the former or the latter? Is it "Happy Birthday" or is it "Fuck You"? In places that have anti-discrimination laws that protect on the basis of sexual orientation, it's the former: A cake is a cake is a cake. That the people purchasing it are a gay couple doesn't change the cake. There is no difference between a cake bought for a straight couple to serve at their wedding reception and a cake bought for a gay couple to serve at their wedding reception.
Now, said baker may not have any wedding toppers of a same-sex couple to place upon it, but that's not an actionable issue nor has anybody even dreamed of suing over that purpose. You can't sue a kosher deli for not having pork, after all.
And to that end, the florist in Washington learned her lesson: Since the couple getting married doesn't change the floral arrangement, she has decided that she will no longer do weddings: Not for you, not for anyone. If for whatever reason she feels that she is incapable of living up to the requirements of a public accommodation when it comes to weddings, all she has to do is not do weddings. You can't sue a kosher deli for not having pork.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2017 11:10 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 709 of 1484 (803258)
03-28-2017 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 706 by Rrhain
03-27-2017 6:00 PM


Re: No case at all
quote:
PaulK runs away
And Rhain continues to lie. Where is this "running away" ?
quote:
This would be where you provide more details of such rather than merely asserting
You've made it quite obvious enough.
quote:
Thus showing that you didn't actually read my post.
The fact that I understand my point (where you do not) shows that I did not read your post ?
The rest is simply irrelevant to my point - thus showing that the failure is on your part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2017 6:00 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 3:31 AM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 710 of 1484 (803259)
03-28-2017 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 707 by Rrhain
03-27-2017 6:28 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Rrhain writes:
You still have an automatic response that gay people fighting for their rights is somehow "alienating."
Why not read what I say instead of inventing what I say? If nothing else it would save you time. I'm not going to keep repeating it just so you can keep misinterpreting it.
Start again, turn you bias off - the entire world is not against you. Recognise your friends or lose them.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2017 6:28 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 3:55 AM Tangle has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 711 of 1484 (803260)
03-28-2017 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 709 by PaulK
03-28-2017 12:12 AM


Re: No case at all
PaulK continues to run away:
quote:
And Rhain continues to lie. Where is this "running away" ?
That. That right there. That's you running away. By claiming you are being "lied" about rather than engaging, you are running away. By doing everything except focus on the topic at hand (Faith's faith, the claim of others that she is misguided in her interpretation of her book that describes her faith, the position of the law in managing that, and how that affects interactions of people like her with gay people), you run away.
quote:
You've made it quite obvious enough.
Indeed. I keep providing your full posts, thus providing complete context, as well as links back to the original so that people can be certain that I am not lying that you wrote what you actually wrote whereas you have failed to actually defend your own argument with any support but instead have done nothing but cried, "Liar!"
People have tried to convince Faith that she is misinterpreting the Bible, have they not? Your original post directly stated so, or am I lying when I say that? Should I quote you?
She has rejected their attempts, has she not? Your own post directly stated so, or am I lying when I say that? Should I quote you?
With regard to the law, that's irrelevant, is it not? Do we really need to go over why? You haven't actually bothered to respond to that aspect of the argument.
Thus, the running away. I have, with your help, made it quite obvious.
quote:
The fact that I understand my point (where you do not) shows that I did not read your post ?
No, the fact that you have failed to defend your argument in the face of factual contradiction shows that you did not read my post.
Here is what you said in Message 699 (notice once again which one of us is quoting the other and which is merely asserting "LIES!"):
The actual point that I was making is that Faith failed to take that into consideration and that failure seriously undermined her case.
And yet, I responded directly to that in my original response to you (Message 151):
It is most definitely considered. But who's going to have that conversation with them? The judge? Can you say, "First Amendment violation"? The law isn't there to tell you what to think or provide you with a sermon on what the True Meaning of Christmas is. It is simply there to regulate your actions. It doesn't matter why you're violating the law by discriminating against gay people.
And to that end, people have the right to be bigots. If they want to insist that their religion requires that gay people be considered tantamount to Satan, that's their right. After all, you're assuming you know the religion of the person being the bigot.
And as we have seen with Faith, trying to point out that the Bible doesn't say that or does say this other thing doesn't actually do anything. She's certain that anybody who contradicts her is an idiot and in league with the devil.
Remember, the florist in Washington who refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding was refusing to provide service to someone she claimed was a "friend." She had been happy to provide her services to these men for years. She certainly knew they were gay. There were any number of chances at conversation to discuss what the Bible instructs.
But it doesn't matter. That's not what the law is for. Even if we assumed that they had those conversations, she's still free to reject it all and maintain her position.
What she doesn't have is the right to deny them service.
In all my dealings with Faith on this subject, I've not attempted to change her mind about her religious beliefs because I maintain she has a right to them. After all, I've long argued with her on what the Bible actually says, and it still hasn't changed her mind. And in the end, it's irrelevant. The law doesn't care why a business owner treats their customers equally, only that they do.
See the highlighted parts? They go directly to that point: Faith doesn't think she has a poor grounding in Christian doctrine. First, you're assuming that you do. And given that pretty much everything in the Bible is contradicted at some point or another by another part of the Bible, the idea that there is such a thing as a "good grounding in Christian doctrine" is pretty difficult to justify in and of itself. I mean, the very basic premise of Christianity, salvation, is unresolved: Is it through faith, like Paul says, or works, like Jesus says? Is it OK to kill (Ecclesiastes says yes but Mark and Luke say no. Heck Exodus and Deuteronomy both have a prohibition against killing as one of the direct commandments of god...and then give you specific reasons to kill people.) If there were such a thing as a "good grounding in Christian doctrine," there wouldn't be so many sects. All Christians are "cafeteria Christians," emphasizing the parts they like and ignoring the parts they don't.
Which leads to the second point: It is irrelevant if she has a "good grounding in Christian doctrine" or not: Her faith is hers and she gets to have it no matter what. Are you saying that anything would change if she came out as a "Faithian" rather than a "Christian"? Is the label by which she identifies herself really that important? She has a vision that gay people are the work of the devil. So be it. While it's a wonderful thing for us to try and convince her that she's wrong in this regard, in the meantime that doesn't actually help the people who are being discriminated against by her and people like her. They don't have time for her to renounce her convictions. They're being discriminated against now.
quote:
The rest is simply irrelevant to my point
That. That right there. That's you running away. Rather than engaging, you simply ignore everything you don't like and run away.
Rather like Faith.
That you might be better off seeing that your objections have poor grounding in rhetoric and debate - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
quote:
thus showing that the failure is on your part.
If I responded with merely: "PaulK continues to lie. Where is this 'failure on my part'?" would you consider that a reasoned, rational, and sufficient response?
I'm realizing that I failed to make any bets regarding the flip side. I knew I wouldn't continue to talk about this if you didn't, but I didn't put any bets down on you being able to simply let it go. If you are really that certain that everything I say is a lie about this, why do you continue to respond? What is it that you're getting out of this? From whence this obsession with me?
This ends with you, Paul. I'm still willing to stand by that bet: You stop responding and let's see how long I can go without bringing it up.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 12:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 3:48 AM Rrhain has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 712 of 1484 (803261)
03-28-2017 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 711 by Rrhain
03-28-2017 3:31 AM


Re: No case at all
quote:
PaulK continues to run away
And again that is false.
quote:
That. That right there. That's you running away. By claiming you are being "lied" about rather than engaging, you are running away. By doing everything except focus on the topic at hand
Correcting your misrepresentation of my argument rather than discussing a point you wish to introduce is not "running away".
quote:
Indeed. I keep providing your full posts, thus providing complete context, as well as links back to the original so that people can be certain that I am not lying that you wrote what you actually wrote whereas you have failed to actually defend your own argument with any support but instead have done nothing but cried, "Liar!"
You have yet to address my actual argument. You just keep on misrepresenting it despite repeated corrections. That - as well as the false accusation of "running away" - is why I call you a liar.
Quoting my post doesn't magically make your claims about it correct. They just let everyone see you are misrepresenting it.
quote:
And yet, I responded directly to that in my original response to you
And we can see that you do not address the point. How can gay marriage be seen as an attack on Christianity when its significance to Christian doctrine is deeply in question ? Suggesting that Faith has a blind spot to the question maybe excuses her failure but it hardly protects her argument.
quote:
That. That right there. That's you running away. Rather than engaging, you simply ignore everything you don't like and run away.
No, that's me pointing out that you are introducing a topic outside of my argument which I have no interest in discussing with you. I will not be bullied into discussing a topic of your choosing and the attempt to do so disqualifies as a person I am interested in discussing pretty much anything with.
So, I will just go on defending my words and you can take your topics to someone who thinks you are worth talking to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 3:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 715 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 4:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 713 of 1484 (803262)
03-28-2017 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 710 by Tangle
03-28-2017 2:50 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
Why not read what I say instead of inventing what I say?
You *do* realize that I am directly quoting you, yes? Are you saying you didn't write the following:
Message 41:
Similarly, why ask a right-wing fundamentalist jerk-off to bake you a cake if you're queer? Some people are just looking for a fight.
Message 73:
There are activist gays that think that they can make progress by outing law breaking bigots.
Message 121:
It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.
Message 129:
There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive.
...
Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.
Message 136:
Just for completeness, I'm saying that I believe that it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes - to go actively looking for them to make examples. Pick more strategic targets, make a point of standing above the bigots not simply against them and impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner.
Message 143:
LGBTs have won the major argument, so don't go around deliberately targeting baking bigots, it doesn't look good.
Message 152:
Yet you're behaving like a total arsehole. How do you think that plays with your real opponants?
Is it your claim that I "invented" all of that?
quote:
I'm not going to keep repeating it just so you can keep misinterpreting it.
Repeating what? That you think there are gay people there who "artificially target bigots"? Oh, and lest you try to claim that I am "inventing" this and that you never really said it, let's recall that you doubled down on that claim:
Message 694:
Stings for bigots would be an effective way of publicising the campaign would it not? And surely you don't doubt that many more radical actions have been taken than that?
Are you saying you didn't write that, either? That I'm "inventing" it?
Exactly what was the point of accusing gay people of creating a "sting"?
Oh, and before you say I'm somehow not including the complete context, I'll continue your quote. You finished it up with:
I'm not even sure it's a bad idea anyway, so whatever point you are trying to make is lost on me.
But that directly contradicts your other statements:
There are activist gays that think that they can make progress by outing law breaking bigots. Personally, I think they are doing more harm than good.
So which is it, Tangle? Would a "sting for bigots" be something that "does more harm than good," that "alienates" people, is just an example of people "looking for a fight," that "doesn't hep the cause," and "doesn't look good" or are you "not even sure it's a bad idea"?
For the umpteenth time: Can you name a single example of a gay person suing for recognition of their right to public accommodation that is an example of "artificially targeting bigots"? Can you give us any example of a lawsuit where you would tell the plaintiffs that your desire to ensure that it "doesn't look good" trumps their need for redress from discrimination? Is that your argument? There are times when discrimination is OK because to fight against it would not "look good" and that's more important? It's more important to look good than to feel good?
Time to actually pay attention to what you're saying. Turn your bias off. You are not as supportive as you think. Recognize your bigotry or you will be taken to task for it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 710 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 2:50 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 4:44 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 714 of 1484 (803263)
03-28-2017 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 713 by Rrhain
03-28-2017 3:55 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Rrhain writes:
So which is it, Tangle? Would a "sting for bigots" be something that "does more harm than good," that "alienates" people, is just an example of people "looking for a fight," that "doesn't hep the cause," and "doesn't look good"
It's all their to read Rrhain. If you care to read all that I say instead of cherry picking you'd perhaps understand. But at this point you're simply convinced by your own bias so I'm just going to let you continue to tilt at your windmill until you get bored.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 3:55 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 4:59 AM Tangle has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 715 of 1484 (803264)
03-28-2017 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 712 by PaulK
03-28-2017 3:48 AM


Re: No case at all
PaulK runs away:
quote:
And again that is false.
That. That right there. That's you running away. You failing to engage but simply whining about "misinterpretation" without providing any sort of additional argument to justify it is running away. You have yet to address the actual response made. You just keep running away, crying, 'Lies!"
Merely asserting that you have been misinterpreted doesn't magically mean you have been. That just lets you run away faster.
quote:
How can gay marriage be seen as an attack on Christianity when its significance to Christian doctrine is deeply in question ?
FINALLY!
See, this is an actual response. Of course, I already answered it, but let's see if I can rephrase my argument:
Who are you to say what is or is not Christian doctrine? Especially to someone else? You may understand what *you* mean by "Christianity," but you are not the arbiter of what it means for anybody else. Judaism has a huge tradition of interpretation of what the sacred texts say and mean with various scholars making different statements over the centuries. I'm reminded of the seders I used to have with my friends: They went on for hours because we decided to follow *all* the traditions of carrying out the haggadah that we could find (wouldn't want to do it wrong.) If Jews can have hundreds of different ways to eat some lamb chops and boiled eggs, why should we deny that breadth of interpretation to Christianity? The Bible clearly talks about marriage and not a single example exists within the Bible of a same-sex couple getting married (though David and Jonathan do seem to have a thing for each other, they don't actually get married.) So for you to say that it is somehow beyond the pale for a Christian to come to the conclusion that marriage is only for opposite-sex couples is the height of arrogance.
And from a legal standpoint of anti-discrimination, that question is irrelevant. Suppose there were an eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt not marry any two people of the same sex for any reason nor suffer any couple that has identical genitalia to be treated as such." Would that somehow make a difference in how anti-discrimination policy should be carried out?
Don't people have a right to their beliefs?
Isn't the law supposed to concern itself with actions rather than beliefs?
It all might be well and good to work on people's beliefs such that they are motivated to engage in certain actions out of a sense of righteousness rather than merely seeking to avoid penalties, but is that a job for the law? Yeah, I get it that we'd really like it if Faith could see that the Bible doesn't say that their immortal soul is in danger simply because they sold a tied gathering of roses and star jasmine to a "sinner" for the purposes of celebrating said "sin."
But even if we could, that doesn't mean Faith would then say, "Oh, you're right! I shouldn't treat gay people like that!" It is just as likely that she would then say, "Then I don't believe in the Bible but in my own personal religion." And then we're back to square one. Realizing that the Bible doesn't say what you think it says doesn't mean you necessarily change your mind regarding your principles. It may mean that you find new justifications for them.
To bring it back to marriage, you and I may start off thinking that interstate recognition of same-sex marriage is required under Full Faith and Credit. And yet, jurisprudence regarding the issue can lead one to suspect that it doesn't actually require it. Suppose for the sake of argument that we buy that interpretation. But our response isn't to say, "Oh, then I guess states can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages carried out in other states." It's to then go to the 14th Amendment and its guarantee of due process and equal treatment under the law. In essence we're doubling down: Not only do they have to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states the way they recognize the mixed-sex marriages of other states, they have to perform them for same-sex couples themselves just as they perform them for mixed-sex couples.
Faith gets to have the same response if she so chooses. Even if we convince her that the Bible doesn't say that, that doesn't mean she's going to change her mind about gay people. She can just as easily come up with another justification for her position. Thus, we need to work for public policy that is independent of a person's religious justification for discriminating against gay people.
quote:
Suggesting that Faith has a blind spot to the question maybe excuses her failure but it hardly protects her argument.
But you don't get to say that she has a "blind spot" because even if she didn't, it doesn't change anything regarding how anti-discrimination policy is to be carried out.
You are assuming that she has a blind spot. That assumption is predicated on the idea that you are better at interpreting the Bible than she is.
And you're not.
But even assuming you are, all she has to do is claim that she's following her own internal religion and we're right back where we started.
quote:
No, that's me pointing out that you are introducing a topic outside of my argument which I have no interest in discussing with you.
That. That right there. That's you running away.
Now, if you truly believed that, you'd simply stop responding. Certainly after all this time you have figured out that I'm going to keep returning back to this. If you truly have no interest in discussing this, why do you keep responding?
quote:
I will not be bullied into discussing a topic of your choosing and the attempt to do so disqualifies as a person I am interested in discussing pretty much anything with.
(*chuckle*)
"Bullied"? Sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, you really don't know what that word means, do you? The only reason this continues is because you keep responding. Nobody is forcing you to respond. Twice now I have directly told you that if you drop this, I will, too. This makes three. Are you saying that this is some sort of reverse psychology on my part to force you to respond? That you can't help but respond when told that you can drop the conversation and walk away at any time? And that I somehow know this and am using this vulnerability against you? Do I really have that much power over you?
quote:
So, I will just go on defending my words
And where did you do that other than in this post?
quote:
and you can take your topics to someone who thinks you are worth talking to.
So far, that appears to be you. After all, you keep responding.
Fourth time, Paul: This ends with you. Let's have a contest! You drop it and we'll see how long I can go without bringing it up! Of course, it'll be interesting to see how long you can go before responding to a post that you have gone on and on and on about how little you are interested in responding to (13 times in this thread, by my count, and 2 more over in the other.)

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 3:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 717 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 5:16 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 716 of 1484 (803265)
03-28-2017 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by Tangle
03-28-2017 4:44 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
It's all their to read Rrhain.
Yes. You contradicted yourself.
So which is it? Are we supposed to believe you when you made these statements:
Message 41:
Similarly, why ask a right-wing fundamentalist jerk-off to bake you a cake if you're queer? Some people are just looking for a fight.
Message 73:
There are activist gays that think that they can make progress by outing law breaking bigots.
Message 121:
It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.
Message 129:
There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive.
...
Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.
Message 136:
Just for completeness, I'm saying that I believe that it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes - to go actively looking for them to make examples. Pick more strategic targets, make a point of standing above the bigots not simply against them and impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner.
Message 143:
LGBTs have won the major argument, so don't go around deliberately targeting baking bigots, it doesn't look good.
Message 152:
Yet you're behaving like a total arsehole. How do you think that plays with your real opponants?
Or are we supposed to believe you when you made this statement:
Message 694:
I'm not even sure it's a bad idea anyway
Is a "sting for bigots" something that "does more harm than good" or is it something that might not be such "a bad idea anyway"?
For the umpteenth time: Can you name a single example of a gay person suing for recognition of their right to public accommodation that is an example of "artificially targeting bigots"? Can you give us any example of a lawsuit where you would tell the plaintiffs that your desire to ensure that it "doesn't look good" trumps their need for redress from discrimination? Is that your argument? There are times when discrimination is OK because to fight against it would not "look good" and that's more important? It's more important to look good than to feel good?
Be specific.
Of course, at this point you're simply convinced by your own bias so you're just going to run away.
You've got the same deal as PaulK: This ends with you. If you are truly as baffled as you claim you are regarding the response you're getting, if you truly think this isn't worth continuing, why do you keep doing so? Is somebody forcing you to respond? Do we need to call the cops so that you can be rescued from your tormentors? Give us a sign!

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 4:44 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 718 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 5:22 AM Rrhain has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 717 of 1484 (803266)
03-28-2017 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 715 by Rrhain
03-28-2017 4:47 AM


Re: No case at all
We'll take the usual lying as read.
quote:
See, this is an actual response. Of course, I already answered it, but let's see if I can rephrase my argument:
First, it is simply pointing out the significance of the item Faith failed to address.
Second your "answer" fails to deal with the actual point.
quote:
Who are you to say what is or is not Christian doctrine?
Since it is Faith's argument you are defending it would be better for you to explain why Faith IS the person to say what is or is not Christian doctrine. Aside from the fact that I was raised as a Christian and continued to learn about it through discussions on various forums at least I - unlike Faith - am aware of and accepts that there is a diversity of Christian thought. And of course, it is known that there are Christian churches which have held gay marriages, so the idea that all Christianity is against them is something that needs defending rather than simply being assumed.
quote:
But you don't get to say that she has a "blind spot" because even if she didn't, it doesn't change anything regarding how anti-discrimination policy is to be carried out.
My post was not about how anti-discrimination policy is carried out.
It is about how there is "No case at all" that gay marriage is an attack on Christianity.
If you wish to defend Faith's argument to the contrary then please do so instead of talking about "how anti-discrimination policy is carried out" which is clearly a different subject and not one I was addressing at all in the sentence you choose to focus on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 4:47 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 6:35 AM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 718 of 1484 (803267)
03-28-2017 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 716 by Rrhain
03-28-2017 4:59 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Rrhain writes:
If you are truly as baffled as you claim you are regarding the response you're getting
Who said I was baffled? It's quite clear what's happening, we get it from Faith all the time.
if you truly think this isn't worth continuing, why do you keep doing so? Is somebody forcing you to respond? Do we need to call the cops so that you can be rescued from your tormentors? Give us a sign!
Watching delusional bias at work is extremely interesting. But I'll try to help you out by repeating something I said earlier in yet another attempt to get the simple point I'm making across.
Tangle writes:
Just for the record, I obviously disagree that the people that refuse these services are right to do so. They are wrong both according to the law, according to an objective view of how people should treat and think of other people and also, rather sadly, contrary to Christian teachings of loving your neighbour and do as you would be done by. Jesus would not discriminate in this way. Your views are not Christian Faith.
I defend the rights of LGBT people to fight for their right to be treated fairly and to take all legitimate actions to do.
But I'm saddened that having won those hard earned rights very little consideration seems to being given to those that now find themselves wth beliefs that are at odds with the new reality.
The cases so far raised that have been found wrong in law are very finely balanced, the harm - if any - is slight, and the discrimination indirect to the point of insignificant. From memory, the UK case finished with a 500 fine - equivalent to a minor traffic offence.
My personal view is that the cause would benefit from displaying tolerance to minor infractions rather than pursuing them through the courts.
But I've said this many times now so I'll give it a rest for a while.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 716 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 4:59 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 720 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 7:04 AM Tangle has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 719 of 1484 (803268)
03-28-2017 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 717 by PaulK
03-28-2017 5:16 AM


Re: No case at all
PaulK runs away again:
quote:
We'll take the usual lying as read.
That. That right there. That's you running away.
Are you saying you didn't write what you were quoted as having written?
quote:
First, it is simply pointing out the significance of the item Faith failed to address.
But we know she's never going to address it because...wait for it...SHE DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU. See, you don't get to tell her what she believes. She does. You can say that she's misinterpreting her own faith all you wish, but you aren't the one with her faith. She is.
Do you honestly not see the irony in you claiming I'm misinterpreting your claims about Faith's misinterpretation of her own faith? That thing you want to apply to Faith...I'm applying it to you. Notice how pissy you've become regarding it? What makes you think it's going to work on Faith? Notice how defensive and righteous you have become? What makes you think Faith is going to react any differently?
quote:
Second your "answer" fails to deal with the actual point.
Except it does: It is irrelevant whether or not Faith's interpretation of the Bible is based in a "good grounding of Christian doctrine." It's *her* faith, she's entitled to it, and the law still doesn't care what it is.
quote:
quote:
Who are you to say what is or is not Christian doctrine?
Since it is Faith's argument you are defending it would be better for you to explain why Faith IS the person to say what is or is not Christian doctrine.
Because it's *HER* faith. Who the hell are you or I to tell her what she does or does not believe? Remember, even if we could convince her that the Bible doesn't say what she thinks it says (and clearly, we can't...just like I can't convince you that you did say what you actually said), the result is not necessarily her suddenly realizing that she's been treating people gay people poorly all along, her changing her ways, and her feeling guilt and contrition over her actions.
There is also the distinct possibility that she simply retreats further into her own opinion of how things are supposed to be. You know...
...running away.
Just like you.
quote:
Aside from the fact that I was raised as a Christian and continued to learn about it through discussions on various forums at least I - unlike Faith - am aware of and accepts that there is a diversity of Christian thought.
Great. What's that got to do with Faith? She isn't you and her faith is hers to use as she sees fit. One of the challenges of accepting diversity is that there are people out there with completely whacko ideas and they are as entitled to their crazy opinions as you are. Yeah, go ahead and try to engage with them regarding it, but don't expect to ever get through with them and don't base your public policy on things that only work if you manage to convince them they were wrong.
quote:
And of course, it is known that there are Christian churches which have held gay marriages
Yep.
And she literally believes they are works of the devil. That is, after all, one of the claims of many Christians: That the devil can quote scripture. So your attempt to tell her that she doesn't understand what the Bible says and means is nothing more than the devil trying to tempt her away from the Way, the Truth, and the Light.
So now what? If I recall her statements over the years correctly, she thinks she's actually had contact with god himself. Who are you and I to tell her that she should contradict what god has told her? If god came down and told her that her understanding of the Bible is correct, what chance do you and I have of convincing her otherwise?
And more importantly, when it comes to the legal standing of anti-discrimination policy, why should we even try?
quote:
so the idea that all Christianity is against them is something that needs defending rather than simply being assumed.
And how's that going? Have you made any progress with her? Are we going to base our public policy on whether or not Faith finally comes around to the idea that gay people are not Satan's turds?
quote:
My post was not about how anti-discrimination policy is carried out.
But mine was about Faith's right to her faith, which you seem to be of the opinion she doesn't have a right to. As you may recall in my original post to you regarding this:
In all my dealings with Faith on this subject, I've not attempted to change her mind about her religious beliefs because I maintain she has a right to them. After all, I've long argued with her on what the Bible actually says, and it still hasn't changed her mind.
That's me pointing out the ludicrousness of trying to tell another person what they believe. It'd be lovely if we could change her mind, but she has a right to believe what she believes. No matter how much you tell her that the Bible doesn't say what she thinks it says, she's never going to listen. You are the devil, the devil can quote scripture, and you trying to tell her that she doesn't understand the Bible is just the work of the devil.
quote:
It is about how there is "No case at all" that gay marriage is an attack on Christianity.
And yet, she still doesn't believe you. The Bible doesn't say anything about same-sex marriage and all references to marriage are to mixed-sex couples so for you to come along and suggest that she doesn't understand the implications of that is naught but arrogance.
You know...kinda like how I keep quoting you and pointing out what you actually said and you keep calling me a liar. Funny how you want to make that argument with regard to yourself but won't let Faith make that argument for herself.
quote:
If you wish to defend Faith's argument to the contrary then please do so instead of talking about "how anti-discrimination policy is carried out" which is clearly a different subject and not one I was addressing at all in the sentence you choose to focus on.
That you don't understand how Faith's beliefs aren't tied to how we manage anti-discrimination policy in a thread devoted to anti-discrimination policy shows just how disconnected you are.
Question: What is the end goal of convincing Faith that the Bible doesn't say what she thinks it says?
Or are you going to run away and not answer that question, either?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 5:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 721 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2017 7:17 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 720 of 1484 (803270)
03-28-2017 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 718 by Tangle
03-28-2017 5:22 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
Who said I was baffled?
Well, for the specific word, "baffled," that would be me. It was based off you saying, and I quote (Message 714):
so I'm just going to let you continue to tilt at your windmill until you get bored.
See, that's you indicating that you don't actually understand why I keep making the argument that I'm making. You know: "Baffled." Perplexed, befuddled, puzzled, bemused, confounded, etc.
Or are you saying you do understand precisely why I'm making the argument that I'm making...you're just running away from it?
quote:
It's quite clear what's happening, we get it from Faith all the time.
Yep. Upon being shown directly what was said, she denies it and runs away.
Just like you.
Or are you going to again deny that you said the following:
Message 41:
Similarly, why ask a right-wing fundamentalist jerk-off to bake you a cake if you're queer? Some people are just looking for a fight.
Message 73:
There are activist gays that think that they can make progress by outing law breaking bigots.
Message 121:
It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.
Message 129:
There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive.
...
Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.
Message 136:
Just for completeness, I'm saying that I believe that it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes - to go actively looking for them to make examples. Pick more strategic targets, make a point of standing above the bigots not simply against them and impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner.
Message 143:
LGBTs have won the major argument, so don't go around deliberately targeting baking bigots, it doesn't look good.
Message 152:
Yet you're behaving like a total arsehole. How do you think that plays with your real opponants?
Is it your claim that I "invented" all of that?
I mean, watching delusional bias at work is never entertaining. Instead, it's pitiful and sad. But, I'll keep repeating your own words back at you until you decide to accept responsibility for your own words.
quote:
Just for the record, I obviously disagree that the people that refuse these services are right to do so.
Nobody said you weren't. This wasn't about the people who were discriminating.
This was about the people who were discriminated against. You said that they were "petty" for standing up for their rights.
You directly stated that they were doing so "artificially," even though you couldn't come up with a single example of it ever happening. And you directly stated that for them to stand up for their rights (again, notice that nobody is saying that you're intimating that they were NOT discriminated against or that the people who did discriminate against them were NOT wrong...this is about the reaction of those that were discriminated against) would be wise not to stand up for their rights lest it "alienate" others as it wouldn't "look good."
quote:
I defend the rights of LGBT people to fight for their right to be treated fairly and to take all legitimate actions to do.
Ah...there's the word: "Legitimate."
Why the assumption that the people who are suing for their right to public accommodation might be something other than "legitimate"? What makes you think you get to say what is "legitimate" or not?
There's that assigning of nefarious purposes to gay people again....
quote:
But I'm saddened that having won those hard earned rights very little consideration seems to being given to those that now find themselves wth beliefs that are at odds with the new reality.
And thus, you show you aren't actually an ally but rather a bigot.
What makes you think that no such consideration has been given? Anti-discrimination law isn't new. And for at least one of the instances involved, the business was created *after* the inclusion of sexual orientation into the anti-discrimination law and accompanied by a statement by the owners that they would directly defy such after they saw another business run afoul of the law.
Bigots don't get to be coddled. It's not asking too much for a public accommodation to service the public like they said they would. "Do your job" is not an unreasonable request.
quote:
The cases so far raised that have been found wrong in law are very finely balanced, the harm - if any - is slight, and the discrimination indirect to the point of insignificant.
And with that, you show that you aren't an ally but a bigot, pure and simple.
You think you get to tell someone else that the discrimination they experienced was "indirect to the point of insignificant"?
You know what's coming, Tangle:
Fuck you.
You don't get to tell someone else that their lives are insignificant.
quote:
From memory, the UK case finished with a 500 fine - equivalent to a minor traffic offence.
And thus, you show you're a bigot.
It's only worth it if it costs millions of dollars? It isn't homophobia unless someone dies or at least is sent to the hospital?
You know what's coming, Tangle:
Fuck you.
A person's life is not measured in money.
quote:
My personal view is that the cause would benefit from displaying tolerance to minor infractions rather than pursuing them through the courts.
And thus, you show you're a bigot.
You don't get to decide what is "minor" to another person. You don't get to tell others to "shrug it off."
You know what's coming, Tangle:
Fuck you.
You don't have the luxury of living their lives for them.
quote:
But I've said this many times now so I'll give it a rest for a while.
And you still haven't learned from the last time you got slapped down trying to say this claptrap.
Nobody's expecting you to take up arms.
All that's expected of you is to not undermine people you claim to be "friends" and "allies" with. See, that's the lie of the "Some of my best friends!" argument: Friends don't treat each other like that.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 5:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 722 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2017 7:50 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024