Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I wouldn't say that. States' rights is invoked every time a region of the country has a disagreement with the federal government. It has been used for the defense of gun rights, land rights, energy rights, objections to the EPA, mineral management service, the BLM, the TSA, the NSA, opposition to seatbelt mandates or speed limits, abortion, and many economic concerns such as the maximum length of a semi trailer. It is downright idiotic for someone to say that states' rights is always associated with discrimination.
Would you like some clarification?
"State's rights" is the defense used for a state's right to discriminate.
Better?
Again, this doesn't alter the statement. State's rights = state's right to discriminate. It is only when the Federal government intervenes that these so called "protected classes" achieve justice. Yes, I'm refering to Jim Crow / 24th Amendment and now the treatment of gays.
The case was made in post #19, which you replied to in the same post I'm quoting. You didn't actually provide an argument, of course, but you replied to it.
So here's ANOTHER dollar. Go buy TWO clues. You seem to need them both.
You can keep on believing that BS trash you're regurgitating, but it only demonstrates your lack of knowledge. If you want to look like a fool to everyone reading your posts, that's fine with me. I'm just trying lead you to water. It's up to you to drink it.
So to listen to your viewpoint homosexual students should be lawfully bullied in hopes they will feel like killing themselves?
No, they should just have to deal with bullying like everybody else does. They shouldn't be a protected class...period.
There should be no specific "anti-gay bullying" laws.
Not hard to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
The poster surely thinks states should have been granted the right to decide if blacks are a protected class, and if not, then to legally discriminate against them, or in other words keep the Jim Crow laws in effect.
The issue jumps the shark once you draw a parallel from homosexual "oppression" to slavery.
So to listen to your viewpoint homosexual students should be lawfully bullied in hopes they will feel like killing themselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
No, they should just have to deal with bullying like everybody else does. They shouldn't be a protected class...period.
So you profess ignorance regarding the effects of patterns of discrimination in society. This kind of Pollyanna ignorance is often spewed to try to rationalize bigotry and hate - the ridiculously naive (typically feigned) belief that the day something is recognized on some impotent resolution as wrong that suddenly hundreds of millions of bigots and haters, and bigoted and hate-driven institutions, will reform themselves and behave like honorable members of society.
It must be nice to be the descendant of the victimizers rather than the victims, never having a care about the inhumane because you either commit it or otherwise are free from its effects. What is interesting is that in the real world, outside the right-wing echo chambers and where their sycophants trod, it isn't even a question. Patterns and practices of discrimination have been taken as such for more than a generation, and remediation of the patterns and practices - not just the anecdotal instances - taken to be an expected consequence. What we're seeing here is a deliberate regression of the social progress made by society over the last hundred and fifty years - an attempt by bigots and haters to try to reset expectation to how they were when slavery was accepted, when setting fire to the homes and businesses of Jews was an acceptable means of addressing competition, etc. That's the world they want to return us to. It's pretty sad to watch what some people will say and do in the interest of rationalizing the inhuman behavior they wish to engage in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Moral decline.
The perspectives you express indeed do indicate a moral decline in society - a veneration of callous disregard for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
The issue jumps the shark once you draw a parallel from homosexual "oppression" to slavery.
Because in your corrupted perspective, taking a child away from the non-biological lesbian mother is in no way parallel in offense to forcing someone to work against their will. It's not unusual for those trying to rationalize offensive perspectives, like yours, to refuse to see parallels which aren't tautologies. If something is a modicum less severe than something else, blindness apparently ensues with regard to how an offense can be parallel to another offence albeit at a different scale of offense. What a convenient myopia.
So you profess ignorance regarding the effects of patterns of discrimination in society. This kind of Pollyanna ignorance is often spewed to try to rationalize bigotry and hate - the ridiculously naive (typically feigned) belief that the day something is recognized on some impotent resolution as wrong that suddenly hundreds of millions of bigots and haters, and bigoted and hate-driven institutions, will reform themselves and behave like honorable members of society.
It must be nice to be the descendant of the victimizers rather than the victims, never having a care about the inhumane because you either commit it or otherwise are free from its effects. What is interesting is that in the real world, outside the right-wing echo chambers and where their sycophants trod, it isn't even a question. Patterns and practices of discrimination have been taken as such for more than a generation, and remediation of the patterns and practices - not just the anecdotal instances - taken to be an expected consequence. What we're seeing here is a deliberate regression of the social progress made by society over the last hundred and fifty years - an attempt by bigots and haters to try to reset expectation to how they were when slavery was accepted, when setting fire to the homes and businesses of Jews was an acceptable means of addressing competition, etc. That's the world they want to return us to. It's pretty sad to watch what some people will say and do in the interest of rationalizing the inhuman behavior they wish to engage in.
You opinion duly noted. And, seriously, through your superfluous use of sophisms...you really could have just said.
"I THINK HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE A PROTECTED CLASS"
LOL
And yes, everything subsequently supporting that would have been dismissed. You are correct.
Quote:
Because in your corrupted perspective, taking a child away from the non-biological lesbian mother is in no way parallel in offense to forcing someone to work against their will. It's not unusual for those trying to rationalize offensive perspectives, like yours, to refuse to see parallels which aren't tautologies. If something is a modicum less severe than something else, blindness apparently ensues with regard to how an offense can be parallel to another offence albeit at a different scale of offense. What a convenient myopia.
You opinion duly noted. And, seriously, through your superfluous use of sophisms...you really could have just said. "I THINK HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE A PROTECTED CLASS"
Except that that wasn't my entire point. I realize that dumbing things down is a standard tactic for avoiding the substantive repudiation of what someone supports. Clearly, you considered the substantive point to be "superfluous" and thereby left yourself failing to understand what was posted. In another thread, someone is denying the existence and effect of price gouging. Here we see someone denying the existence and effect of institutionalized discrimination. Deny deny deny, and then capping off the vacuous evasion with trying to laugh off having your perspective repudiated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
LOL
No matter how much you try to dodge and evade, and try to make it seem like you have a valid point, you have one major problem: You're bending yourself into a pretzel to avoid admitting that something you support is wrong. I don't expect you to climb out of the rhetoric echo chamber your comments come from, but I do hope that, at least in your heart, you begin to start admitting the offensive nature of that which you support.
Except that that wasn't my entire point. I realize that dumbing things down is a standard tactic for avoiding the substantive repudiation of what you support. Clearly, you considered the substantive point to be "superfluous" and thereby left yourself failing to understand what was posted.
In another thread, someone is denying the existence and effect of price gouging. Here was see someone denying the existence and effect of institutionalized discrimination. Deny deny deny, and then capping off the vacuous evasion with trying to laugh off having your perspective repudiated:No matter how much you try to dodge and evade, and try to make it seem like you have a valid point, you have one major problem: You're bending yourself into a pretzel to avoid admitting that something you support is wrong. I don't expect you to climb out of the rhetoric echo chamber your comments come from, but I do hope that, at least in your heart, you begin to start admitting the offensive nature of that which you support.
No, you haven't done anything to support that I am wrong. There is no wrong or right here...just consistent and inconsistent.
Bottom line is this - gay bullying is NOWHERE near being on equal footing as slavery. You trying to make a 1:1 example from a lesbian getting a child taken away from her and a slave being forced to work against his will is, at best, intellectually dishonest. Why? Because you can take ANY dynamic and apply it to a 1:1 example and come out with the same result.
That it is "wrong".
Of course, the only one who was being dismissive was you by disregarding the scale of the respective examples.
Gay bullying is NOT a pandemic and if it is..then YOU must show that it is and how them being a protected class is warranted. Which all you have been able to offer is some bleeding heart grandiose of how there are MILLIONS OF ANGRY BIGOTED HATERS and INSENSITIVE PEOPLE
Oh my! Yes...we have to subdue the masses and pacify these people as a PRIORITY.
Also, because this perpetual boogeyman has perpetuated itself over nonillions of yearsssssss
Well, if that's the case. I hope you are organizing your battalion and heading down to your local town halls to fight for fat kids being a protected class too.
No, you haven't done anything to support that I am wrong.
Do you really think any reasonable person will take your word in appraising the quality of the comments repudiating what you wrote? I'm just curious how far the self-deception goes; does it go far enough to serve as foundation for a vacuous belief that you actually could be viewed as a reasonable, impartial source for such an assessment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
There is no wrong or right here...just consistent and inconsistent.
An interesting comment. Again, trying to gauge how far your self-deception goes... Can you admit that within the same context, there can be different sets of consistent facts? Once you can admit that different sets of facts can be consistent within their own sets, and each set lead to different and perhaps conflicting conclusions - that being a premise of basic logic - you'll be half-way to realizing the problem with your comments. Yes, there is wrong and right. Wrong and right aren't, as you've perhaps alluded to, reflections of inference and proof, but rather are reflections of the aggregate values of society. The self-centered right-wing has a long way to go, rewriting the history of the last hundred and fifty years, to wipe away the evidence of the trend away from their callous and corrupt preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
Bottom line is this
No. The bottom line is this: Institutional patterns of discrimination are actionable by society. Even if you don't like it. Even if it characterizes your own preferences as corrupt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
Gay bullying is NOT a pandemic and if it is..then YOU must show that it is and how them being a protected class is warranted.
That's already been done a number of times. Until homophobes started actively working to protect their ability to commit such offenses, the trend has been steadily toward more and more states considering the facts and acknowledging and ratifying that fact. If you actually knew anything about the history of the matter you're attempting to discuss, you'd know that. Instead, you keep expressing comments from the void, from a position of ignorance of the history of anti-discrimination as it pertains to homosexuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
Well, if that's the case. I hope you are organizing your battalion and heading down to your local town halls to fight for fat kids being a protected class too.
Because, of course, in your world, terrorizing children because of their weight is noble. I sure hope people who think like that don't live anywhere near the children in my family.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
