Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**myotch** · 05-31-2012, 07:15 PM

(05-31-2012 07:09 PM)Qrayze Wrote:
(05-31-2012 05:18 PM)myotch Wrote: And you saw it with the humor intended

The only thing funny about the question is your nescience* I made it part of my signature to mock you, not flatter you.

*my new all-time favorite noun

Well, thanks anyway. Coming from you, I think it will be well received by all. It serves my purposes.

~~Persnickety Polecat~~ · 05-31-2012, 07:32 PM

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: I don't think the colonialists were superior by being merely European. Obviously, the Europeans held some advantage in building settlements and cities, trading and commerce, law, etc., or their culture wouldn't wouldn't have prevailed.

Europeans prevailed because the Native Americans lacked natural immunity to many of the diseases brought here by the immigrants. The slaughter of buffalo in order to force starvation, forced migrations, deliberate infection with small pox, and worse atrocities have swathed this country in the blood of its original inhabitants.

elfdream · 05-31-2012, 07:55 PM

There were cities and settlements, trade and commerce before the Europeans arrived.
People do not realize how terrible the effects of these new diseases were. It was the equivalent of The black death in the middlle ages. That is why the Europeans were able to take over so easily.

DaisyDeadhead · (This post was last modified: 05-31-2012 09:15 PM by DaisyDeadhead.)

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: Wait. My religious beliefs shouldn't affect my view of legislation, judicial decisions, gay-rights advocacy. My religious beliefs should be kept personal. But, in my business, I should also keep quiet about having to pay spouse benefits to homosexuals if I were opposed to homosexual marriage? If I own a home I am renting out, I shouldn't have a preference over the type of tenant I want living under my roof?

Okay, so this sentence means you think whites should be allowed to keep the blacks out? Because apparently you don't realize: that is where this line of argument originated.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: Methinks this whole stuff about "keeping your religious beliefs to yourself" is a freakin' lie.

Other religious people exist who do not find it necessary to discriminate, you know. Should I name a few?

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: I am not prejudiced. It needs no explanation. I am not against gays. I am against gay marriage.

"I am not against Jews, I am against JUDAISM", said Stalin, consigning a few more to the Gulag.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: I am not against homosexual sex. I am against gay marriage.

"I am not against rich people, I am against CAPITALISM", said Pol Pot, throwing a few more into the ditch.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: I am not against hiring a talented gay person. I am against a law mandating that I give a gay person spousal benefits because he or she is in a "marriage" I do not believe to be a marriage.

"I am not against hiring black people, but I shouldn't have to give them health benefits for, you know, the whole family--they breed like rabbits of course. I don't believe in people of different races associating with each other. Etc Etc" --Lots of southerners in the 60s.

What you believe is not the point: that is your religion, but why are you allowed to force this on the rest of us?

We live in a secular state and we ALL have to support things we do not "approve of" or believe in. Just because you don't believe in something, should not give you the right to discriminate, which is what you are talking about, with pride.

I don't believe people should be fundies or go to fundie churches, in fact, I would like to end all tax-support that churches get, but that is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. I have to support all of your church property with my taxes, against my will. Now, maybe you should have to do something against YOUR will once in awhile?

That is how an egalitarian society works.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: I am against the state mandating to me, a potential landowner for the purposes of being a landlord, by law what criteria I cannot consider when considering rental applicants.

So you DO want the right to refuse people on the account of race?

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:By extension, you believe private businesses should have the right to discriminate, don't you? It logically follows from what you have said here.

I'll put it this way. The law harms the people it is seemingly protecting when it mandates what criteria cannot be considered *by a private company* in hiring To make a racial bigot hire a black man is much more cruel to the black guy than allowing the bigot to hire who he wants

So you are saying yes????

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: My wife is hispanic, and she gets mistaken for a black person more than a few times a week...

Is this where you digress and try to say you are not a racist because some of your best friends...? Your wife, your sister, your neighbor, your childhood friend. (My God, after 40 years of arguing with you people, I can write these damn scripts in my sleep.)

DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO HIRE PEOPLE ACCORDING TO RACE? YES OR NO?

Please get some guts, and try to answer a direct question. If I want St Ignatius, I know where to find him.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:If Holiday Inn didn't want black tourists, they should have had the right to continue to exclude them, correct? And you want that same right to discriminate, yes? The Civil Rights Act interfered with business, is this your view?

That's different. Holiday Inn is owned by the InterContinental Hotels Group, PLC, and is a publicly traded company. The rules are different for publicly traded, because publicly traded necessarily means publicly-owned. And publicly-owned necessitates a higher standard of business practices.

I know that. That was not my question: Do you think it is acceptable FOR ANY REASON to discriminate on account of race?

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: But, let's trade Holiday Inn for a privately-owned Sam's Stateline Sleep'n Shack. Sam is KKK,and he don't like us Catlick's much. And my wife is hispanic, and because the his state line location is near the water, my wife's hair frizzes up something fierce. He see's her darker skin, frizzed-up hair, and the Papal Bobble-head on my dash. He declines us lodging.

I'm ok with that. Perfectly fine with it. It's his private property, and he can do with it what he wants.

So, you DO believe racial discrimination IS acceptable.

(Take note, this is the kind of person also against gay marriage. At least he admits his racism, even if he tries at first to equivocate.)

The situation you have described is illegal and against the law. Just like the Chuck Phelps situation, you people seem to think if YOU do not define something a certain way, well, then it magically isn't. "I don't think its racist, so its not!"... excuse me, THERE IS A LAW and it defines the situation, your WHIMS do not. You (racist) people were allowed to run the world on your whims, and you SCREWED IT UP which is how the law got changed IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You have described what is legally an act of discrimination. It doesn't matter what you are "fine with"--I certainly am NOT fine with it. Everyone is not you, and you are not the moral arbiter for the world, even though you clearly believe you should be.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: Now, there is a market correction available. I can write up reviews on his site stating

Websites did not exist in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed. So, this option did not then exist. Would you therefore agree the Civil Rights Act was necessary?

Or not, since you obviously disagree with the letter of the law in every respect?

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: that he denied us service based on racial or religious reasons (if he gave us those reasons). People can be warned against staying there. And let's say like-minded individuals are attracted to his place. It's perfectly good. He has created a niche market.

Ayn Rand, call your office.

Your thinking is abominable.

I just have to keep remembering that many Catholics are social justice Catholics, not horrific Ayn Randians who believe in Survival of The Fittest. Speaking of which, if you believe that crap, why aren't you a Darwinist?

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: I would not hire a gay if I had to pay spousal benefits to someone I personally believe is not married to my employee.

Okay, so you admit you are a bigot. Thanks for that.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: Discriminate is a great word.

Here comes Chesterton.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: We tout the people with "discriminating tastes". Discrimination is essential to just about everything we humans do. I, you, lucreborgia, actively discriminate against people every day - who is worthy of our friendships, which political candidate we will vote for, which song we like and don't like.

My God, I hate Ignatian BULLSHIT.

You are a racist. Spin that anyway you like.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:They closed those pools, I wrote a whole post about that, BTW: http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2012/0...-home.html

And? They closed their pools and threw away a chance to make money. What is it to you?

I guess you think those Freedom Riders were full of shit too, for caring about justice. I realize you don't, but some of us do.

"What's it to you?" What kind of Christian reply is THAT?

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: I know a business owner that closed his doors because his employees voted to unionize. So what.

So what? Again, what kind of Christian reply is that?

He is now going to burn in hell, doesn't that concern you?

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: Private businesses must be allowed to serve who they want to serve. Eventually, those who have made bad decisions will go out of business.

Let's review:

So, if they want to keep out the blacks, that is FINE BY YOU. Just clarifying your racist ideology. If they travel 80 miles in the desert and finally find a motel but... it won't take them? Fine by Myotch.

He used to be a Christian, but he decided charity sucked.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:I guess you would have believed that they were right, to fight against integrating the pools? I mean, since you are making the same arguments here.

I can believe they are wrong, while still being of the conviction that a law forcing them to operate their business in a certain way is wrong-er.

Which makes you a racist. Congratulations.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: I don't see anything in Scripture that says "til death do you part". But I see a practical side to what I've prescribed.

We do not live in a Christian country, much less a Catholic country. Your religious and racist rules should not be forced on the rest of us.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:Wait, I am confused. You say you've never heard of the book?

Wonders of the internet. I just googled the title, and read some excerpts. Great stuff. Hilarious.

What was hilarious? Oh right, the idea of gay marriage, all by itself, just makes you laugh. (Because I find history kinda boring, and certainly not funny.)

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:Oh wait, you Googled your gurus to tell you what to think of it.

Well, can you deny what the book is about? A synopsis of thousands of such "brotherhood commitments" and declaring them "homosexual marriages"?

Um, you read a mere excerpt in five minutes and you know about alla that exhaustive historical research already? (PS: They were BOTH brotherhood and sisterhood.) They were unions of unmarried people who then lived together. What would you call it?

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:Once a fundie, always a fundie. SOMEDAY, one hopes, you will learn to think for yourself.

Kind of like your agreement with the book's premise that the Catholic Church married gay people all through the dark ages. You come to that conclusion by yourself, didja?

Um, not at all. I was on a (Catholic) email list discussion about it back in the late 90s, when there were so many discussions about it. You don't remember all of that controversy? How did you miss it? (Oh right, you've been Catholic since last Wednesday, I forgot, yet you suddenly know everything.) The list was active for about 6 months, all different perspectives represented. We read the book and the Fordham pages about it as well (some taken down, some still up), circled back to The Golden Legend I and II, got in several long email discussions about it. Etc. So, the answer is no. I wrestled with the history for a long time, since I did not at first believe the church was so varied in so many areas and had to finally read Raymond Brown, whom I had put off.

Because of course, the accounts I was reading challenged the Catholic Answers Magazine propaganda that the Catholic church was theologically united until the Reformation. It wasn't, it wildly varied in different geographic locations.

But yes, I know the okeydoke, and I realize that you subscribe to it.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:Wow, I think I am getting it... I used the above example without realizing I really was talking to a racist. Because that is a thoroughly disgusting, racist thing to say.

I explained before that I meant their nature worship, totems, etc., and did not mean their living as animals. It might be easier for you to think I'm a racist, but I don't apologize for what I was trying to say.

Of course you don't. Most racists are quite proud of themselves, it was once explained to me that it IS the sin of pride.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:BTW, your Christianity is just as much of "a cult" to the Hindus, as their faith is to you. Simply name-calling and proclaiming that the dark people of the world don't matter and their religions are not as good as yours is, is a very poor anthropological argument.

OK, you got in your head that I'm a racist, so now you don't even read what I'm saying.

I read it fine... you said, repeatedly "I'm fine with it"--you think racism and discrimination is peachy keen and your God-given Christian right.

You are "fine" with it.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: Of course, I am comfortable with it because I know the meaning of "cult", and not that knee-jerk reaction you display when the word is written.

Your term ANIMALISTIC is the problem. Since you are exhibiting animalistic behavior in this thread, I find it amusing you call others animalistic.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:If the Native Americans "smoldered" --that was the fault of European colonialists that you think are so superior. I mean, they were animalistic and therefore in your view, deserved to be extinguished, right? John Wayne uber alles.

I don't think the colonialists were superior by being merely European. Obviously, the Europeans held some advantage in building settlements and cities, trading and commerce, law, etc., or their culture wouldn't wouldn't have prevailed.

Smallpox in blankets given to Indians might have had a little bit to do with it. And don't forget the wholesale slaughter.

You have a highly-selective version of history... I take it you went to fundie schools?

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:Serious illnesses, food-poisoning, lack of air conditioning and refrigeration (etc) throughout every language and culture, have a universal meaning: death and disease. But I bet you think those are okay to change, right? I realize, some people like Jehovahs Witnesses and Christian Scientists want to stay medically backward, but most people, even most religious people, do not.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Approval of gay marriage isn't nearly on the same par as reducing suffering and death.

OMG, you don't get it, do you? IT IS EXACTLY THAT! People are suffering and dying because they are ALONE. They are depressed and bullied by people like you, who openly debate their humanity and say it is "fine by you " if people do not hire them. They have no health insurance because PEOPLE LIKE YOU WILL NOT HIRE THEM.

Married people live longer than single people, which is a verifiable fact.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: But, where lack of refrigeration, rampant food poisoning, environmental disease, starvation, and warlords exist, you can probably get a better idea of what "civil rights" should be about.

Yes, and whom people LOVE seems pretty silly in light of that doesn't it? But you think denying people health insurance (since you think its fine not to hire them if they have the dreaded "gay spouse") is "fine" too.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: I see Gd's providence through nature. You see...what?

I see the work of selfish pseudo-libertarians like yourself, engineering the world to make it all Christian (specifically Catholic, truth be told), gettiing rid of the inferiors, mandating laws to benefit the people you approve of, penalizing or disappearing the people you do not approve of.

At least, that is the world you have described here.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: I was addressing the point made that not allowing gay marriage was all about Christian law. This is demonstrably not true.

Excuse me? You haven't demonstrated shit, except your own racism.

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: The Bible is silent about gay marriage. I am against it for other reasons

.

Something is happening but you don't know what it is, do you Mr Jones?

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote:
Quote:I take it you think these countries were doing the right thing? If not, why do you choose to continue the repression/oppression?

I have no power to oppress or repress.

This, he says, after saying who he will fire and hire according to whether they have a spouse he approves of or not. This, he says, after he makes it clear he would deny a motel room to black people. This, he says, after he makes it clear that he thinks discrimination is "fine"... are we in Bizarro World?

(05-31-2012 07:11 PM)myotch Wrote: I don't agree with atheist countries' abhorrent treatment towards homosexuals. I've got nothing against gays, come to think of it.

I simply don't see the need to extend to them marriage rights.

Because they are asking us! If you have nothing against them, why not SHOW THEM CHARITY and give them what obviously means so much to so many of them?

You say you have nothing against them and then deny them the one right they want over all others? = The right to NOT have to go to a lawyer first, so their spouse will automatically get their stuff if they die. Right now, only the affluent gays (who can afford lawyers) can protect themselves against this happening. Poor gays die and their partners get nothing, their parents come in and take the car and the furniture, and you think this is "fine". You think if one goes to the ER, the partner should be denied entry, since of course only spouses and families are allowed in. You think if one dies, their children should be taken away by the state, rather than stay with the only parents they have ever known.

When you deny marriage rights, you say to gays: When all of this to happens to you, it's FINE with me!

All of these situations I described above, have happened to people I know. They are not fictions. They could be prevented in one easy way, but apparently, you want them to continue to happen. This means, you REPRESS AND OPPRESS.

And you are proud of it too.

**myotch** · 06-01-2012, 01:52 AM

Quote:Okay, so this sentence means you think whites should be allowed to keep the blacks out? Because apparently you don't realize: that is where this line of argument originated.

Let me put this in a context you can understand.

I am against racism.

I am for the right of racists to live, breathe, and act within their conscience as long as their rights do not interfere with the rights of others.

I am against burning the US flag. I think it is morally reprehensible and in bad taste.

I am for your right to burn a flag as a right to free speech.

I do not care what homosexuals do behind closed doors. I am against the state mandating that I, as a rental property owner, must provide those closed doors, the bedroom which those closed doors conceal, and the house that contains those doors and bedroom to a homosexual couple IF I FIND homosexuality to be morally reprehensible.

Quote:Other religious people exist who do not find it necessary to discriminate, you know. Should I name a few?

You discriminate. You judge others by your own standards. You discriminate on whom you will spend your time and emotions. Maybe even your money or resources. Why do the rights necessarily given to private property owners offend you so much?

Quote:"I am not against Jews, I am against JUDAISM", said Stalin, consigning a few more to the Gulag.

This is exactly why I fear the likes of you getting into power. You see, Stalin is more on your side of the political spectrum than I. I, more or less, have a live-and-let-live approach to life, and my argument against something like homosexual marriage is an intellectual one, and besides talking about it on forums like this, really doesn't go anywhere, do anything.

But, as Orwell points out in Animal Farm, when the rabble-rousing pigs end up running the joint, they act in a way they "think" the ousted ones acted, except they become much worse tyrants.

Quote:"I am not against rich people, I am against CAPITALISM", said Pol Pot, throwing a few more into the ditch.

Stalin. Pol Pot. Leftist pig tyrants. And on your side of the political spectrum, not mine.

Quote:I am not against hiring black people, but I shouldn't have to give them health benefits for, you know, the whole family--they breed like rabbits of course. I don't believe in people of different races associating with each other. Etc Etc" --Lots of southerners in the 60s.

That's racist bigotry coming from your fingertips, not mine.

Quote:What you believe is not the point: that is your religion, but why are you allowed to force this on the rest of us?

Hmmm. What I believe is exactly how I run my business, my affairs, my property.

But again, I have not and do not delivered a religious argument against gay marriage. There is no religious argument against gay marriage. The Bible is silent on Gay Marriage. And to provide a religious argument against gay marriage while not addressing a thousand other things in our culture and society which goes against the Bible would be hypocrisy.

I understand your need to paint this as a religious argument, because you don't have a leg to stand on in addressing any real point I make. Yours is a stance of desperation. Mine has solid footing in the meaning of words and 5000 years of civilization.

Quote:We live in a secular state and we ALL have to support things we do not "approve of" or believe in. Just because you don't believe in something, should not give you the right to discriminate, which is what you are talking about, with pride.

Again, my stance is not one of religious pretext.

Quote:I don't believe people should be fundies or go to fundie churches, in fact, I would like to end all tax-support that churches get, but that is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. I have to support all of your church property with my taxes, against my will. Now, maybe you should have to do something against YOUR will once in awhile?

What tax support do you speak of? I'm genuinely curious, here.

Quote:That is how an egalitarian society works.

If we lived in an egalitarian society, I might agree with you a bit more. While I would maintain that there is equality of opportunity, it would seem that there is no particular equality in fundamental worth or social status.

Quote:So you DO want the right to refuse people on the account of race?

I would certainly hope that people not make, say, racial decisions like that. But I am *for* a racist's right to make such a decision.

The ACLU does not have to give any credence to racism or racist organizations IN ORDER TO protect the fundamental free speech rights of the KKK.

Consider the words of a man I find repulsive, Larry Flynt: "If the First Amendment can protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."

If private property rights are protected even with a racist bigot, good people like you and me are protected as well.

Quote:So you are saying yes????

It is not a racist, bigoted thing to say "yes". So, yes! Though I would not personally exercise my property rights in such a way. If i had a business, i would want to make more money. If I had rental property, that lesbian couple just might be incredible landscapers Smile

If I were hiring, and the best and the brightest ad man was a married gay, it might be worth it to me to consider the effects of spousal benefits.

But I should not be mandated by the government in any of these areas. My business. My property. No one has a right to be a part of them.

Quote:Is this where you digress and try to say you are not a racist because some of your best friends...? Your wife, your sister, your neighbor, your childhood friend. (My God, after 40 years of arguing with you people, I can write these damn scripts in my sleep.)

Please. We live in Georgia. This isn't some intellectual rabbit trail. We live it.

Quote:DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO HIRE PEOPLE ACCORDING TO RACE? YES OR NO?

YES! That does not mean I am a bigot. I also think I have the right to refuse employment on whatever arbitrary system I could devise - if they are wall-eyed, or they have a scar on their chin, or if they wore a plaid tie to the interview. IT IS MY BUSINESS. I feel that I am the lone arbiter of how it operates. Not one single person has a right to work for me or any other private business.

Quote:I know that. That was not my question: Do you think it is acceptable FOR ANY REASON to discriminate on account of race?

No! That does not mean that I believe government should mandate private companies' hiring policies. I personally would not mind hiring any gender, any race, any sexual orientation (perhaps excluding those involved in pederasty or beastiality or necrophilia). But I do believe that a private company should retain the right to hire whoever they want to, even if they are racist, misogynists, homophobes, religionist, atheist, whatever.

Quote:So, you DO believe racial discrimination IS acceptable.

I did not say his actions are "acceptable". I did say that his actions were his right. I also believe that I, as a consumer, have the recourse to sully his name with a true account of what happened.

The racist, or any business owner behaving badly, will eventually have to face some rather ugly media and market action against him. I believe the market will prevail.

Quote:(Take note, this is the kind of person also against gay marriage. At least he admits his racism, even if he tries at first to equivocate.)

And also take note that this is a libertarian point of view regarding the rights of private property owners. The examples given to me are extremes. I believe if freedom and liberty is protected at the fringe extremes where the rights of others have not been infringed upon, then my liberty and freedom is protected as well.

Quote:The situation you have described is illegal and against the law.

How so? If it is, then it shouldn't be. Where is liberty? Is there a special redundancy clause that makes it both illegal and against the law?

Quote:Just like the Chuck Phelps situation, you people seem to think if YOU do not define something a certain way, well, then it magically isn't. "I don't think its racist, so its not!"... excuse me, THERE IS A LAW and it defines the situation, your WHIMS do not. You (racist) people were allowed to run the world on your whims, and you SCREWED IT UP which is how the law got changed IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Racist? Do you understand what the word means? I do not think there is a superior race. I certainly wouldn't marry who I married if I thought this was so.

So, question....Do you think that the ACLU is necessarily racist when it supplies legal counsel to the KKK or skinhead organizations?

Quote:You have described what is legally an act of discrimination.

More to the point, I think I described myself being the "victim" of such discrimination, and being perfectly OK with it. And don't think something similar hasn't happened in my 20 years of marriage.

Quote:It doesn't matter what you are "fine with"--I certainly am NOT fine with it. Everyone is not you, and you are not the moral arbiter for the world, even though you clearly believe you should be.

Then you do not believe in freedom and liberty. It's just that simple. I believe in a person's right to be bigoted towards me....Because I believe in freedom, liberty, the ability for a person to follow their own conscience. I do not believe the government telling private individuals what they can or can't do or say with the caveat that the rights of others were not infringed.

I do not believe I have a right to stay at some bigot's hotel. I do not have a right to anyone's time or effort or money.

I also believe that the market will prevail when business owners behave badly. Would you buy products or services from someone you know is a racist? Neither would I. Would you tell others that the business was owned by a racist? I would, too.

Quote:Websites did not exist in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed. So, this option did not then exist. Would you therefore agree the Civil Rights Act was necessary?

Yes! I think we can do away with some of it now. I don't think a restaurant would make African Americans have their own restrooms anymore, or their own water fountains, or eat outside. I think we are also mature enough in that sense now that we can take the training wheels off. And if a racist restaurant owner wants to impose black people restrooms or water fountains or picnic tables out back...do you think in this day and time that restaurant would in any way be solvent in a year of business? Think about it.

Quote:Ayn Rand, call your office.[/i]

Sigh. What a woman. She and Maggie Thatcher. Hmmmm.

[quote]Your thinking is abominable.

My thinking is liberty. It is sometimes messy. It is always good.

Quote:I just have to keep remembering that many Catholics are social justice Catholics, not horrific Ayn Randians who believe in Survival of The Fittest. Speaking of which, if you believe that crap, why aren't you a Darwinist?

Because most of Darwin's specific theories have been proven wrong. The only thing of his that remains is the broader natural selection. Too bad a Catholic Priest beat him to that punch some time earlier.

But, yes. I believe in evolution.

BTW, I do believe in social justice. I just think that, given some time, the training wheels have to come off and people have to be trusted.

Is the government the most efficient at charity work? Or do private charities do better?

Democrats are supposed to believe in the essential goodness of man. But, at what point can man be trusted to do good without the state forcing him to?

Quote:Okay, so you admit you are a bigot. Thanks for that.

Nothing bigoted there. I am a small business, and I probably wouldn't want to hire anyone with a spouse anyway, if I had to pay spousal benefits. The definitive part of what I said was "if I did not believe"... I would hope you would see that more as a hypothetical. But given your penchant for wanting to paint me as every evil thing under the sun....Maybe you should try to know me.

Quote:You are a racist. Spin that anyway you like.

Again, you don't know what the word means, nor can you deduce my supposed racism from the during of pointed questions you delivered.

Quote:I guess you think those Freedom Riders were full of shit too, for caring about justice. I realize you don't, but some of us do.

Again, you don't know me. I realize the desperation you must feel to paint a Christian, a Catholic, a Conservative/Libertarian as every bad thing in the book. Who knows, some of it may stick.

Here's the way I look at it. Whether the buses of Birmingham were private companies on contract to the city, or actual city buses, they had an obligation to every citizen of Birmingham to provide service and not dictate where the black folk sat.

Say what you will about Randian market theory. In Birmingham, the media did what it was supposed to do according to Randian philosophy. The freedom riders did what they were supposed to do, according to Randian philosophy. Birmingham blacks did what they were supposed to do according to Randian philosophy by boycotting the transit system. Here, Randian philosophy played out and was much more effective on a global scale than the slow movement of Legislation and the Courts.

Yeah, I admire the freedom riders - some of whom became martyrs of the Civil Rights movement. I admire the priests and the nuns that came down from New York to be a part of that. I love everything about that explosive time, except for the fact that it was a necessity.

Quote:What kind of Christian reply is THAT?

Answer the question. What's it to you?

Quote:He is now going to burn in hell, doesn't that concern you?

Now, you know nothing of the situation, but you would judge him. With unionization and the immediate demands, his small company would not be able to make the margins and remain solvent. It wasn't a choice that he should close his doors, and it's not the choice he would have wanted to make. He closed out of necessity.

Quote:So, if they want to keep out the blacks, that is FINE BY YOU. Just clarifying your racist ideology.

But I'm no racist. I believe that a company that would do such a thing would necessarily go out of business. If a guy wants to run his business into the ground by being stupid, by all means, don't try to stop him. Someone that bent on self-destruction will take you along with him.

If the government limits liberty to try to help this man not be self-destructive, then the man will destroy himself, and limit the liberty of everyone else.

Quote:If they travel 80 miles in the desert and finally find a motel but... it won't take them? Fine by Myotch.

Totally finely Myotch. It has nothing to do with racism on my part. I believe in competition. The hotel that refuses service for any arbitrary reason only gives his competition a competitive and moral advantage. Wouldn't you agree?

Quote:He used to be a Christian, but he decided charity sucked.

Charity by government mandate ceases to be charity.

Quote:Which makes you a racist. Congratulations.

How so?

Quote:We do not live in a Christian country, much less a Catholic country. Your religious and racist rules should not be forced on the rest of us.

I have not made a religious argument, here. I am no racist. If I were a racist, I'd be a very poor one.

The ONLY positionI have taken here is one of liberty. I know you do not like the idea of private property, private business, or liberty.

I find what actions racists take to be vulgar, cruel, and mean-spirited. I do not agree with racists, racist ideology, racist methods. I do believe that if you give racists freedom and liberty to do what they want - as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others - they will hang themselves with slack rope given to them.

Quote:Um, you read a mere excerpt in five minutes and you know about alla that exhaustive historical research already? (PS: They were BOTH brotherhood and sisterhood.) They were unions of unmarried people who then lived together. What would you call it?

Quote:Um, not at all. I was on a (Catholic) email list discussion about it back in the late 90s, when there were so many discussions about it. You don't remember all of that controversy? How did you miss it? (Oh right, you've been Catholic since last Wednesday, I forgot, yet you suddenly know everything.)

8 years or so, but who's counting. I'm Catholic now, that's what matters.

Your five minutes in Buddhism - found Nirvana yet? (sounds condescending. doesn't it?)

Quote:Of course you don't. Most racists are quite proud of themselves, it was once explained to me that it IS the sin of pride.

Pride is a human sin, not a Christian sin. All major religions warn against it, no? You, me, everyone is susceptible to it. Might I point out your arrogance in this thread?

Anyway, I'm not a racist. I realize your need to paint me with such broad strokes, which fits nicely within the little paradigm you've made for yourself. I don't adhere to any ideology that suggests white people are superior. To be frank, I picked my wife because first, I loved her, and second, because her Hispanic family was everything that white family was not: supportive, affectionate, caring, and "there". I love my wife. I love the culture that she came from. I thank God for her and everything about her.

It has nothing to do with "my hispanic wife, my gay brother, my black friend" or any other condescension you feel justified throwing my way. Kindly, I wish you'd shut up about the race thing, because you don't know me, and you are being intentionally insulting about it. No skin off my nose if you don't though. It says much more about the content of your character than what you'd like others to think of me.

Since you've been preaching to the greater audience in you response to me, it is now my turn:

Folks, this is what lefty liberalism has turned into. No intellect. No polite conversation about differences. No even a fathomable philosophy is being communicated. The politics of the left has turned into mere name calling for those in disagreement. Racist. Homophobe. Never mind that one can have nary a racist bone in his or her body, lived a life in harmony with people of other races, is thankful that those he worships with are not only different races, but different nationalities and from different cultures. And never mind the fact that one can go as far as one can go within his religious faith to at least the intellectual support or agreement with homosexuals, but can't and won't go the extra 5 yards to say that homosexuals should be able to marry, for reasons that are by and large, secular reasoning from an historical, anthropological, etymological, and societal perspective.

I hope you would all agree that the name-calling is counterproductive to discussion.

Quote:I read it fine... you said, repeatedly "I'm fine with it"--you think racism and discrimination is peachy keen and your God-given Christian right.

I disagree with the racism. I agree with a racists' or anyone else's right to freedom and liberty. To be philosophically constant, I must be satisfied that a racist can and will use his or her liberty to do things I do not agree with. As long as the racist does not infringe on the rights of others, he or she has the freedom to do what they want.

Likewise, I do not agree with everything leftist progressives do or say. But I appreciate their right to do or say anything their conscience dictates, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. That is what I am fine with.

No person in this land has the right to the property or time of anyone else.

I am consistent in this philosophy.

Are you consistent with your philosophy?

Quote:Smallpox in blankets given to Indians might have had a little bit to do with it. And don't forget the wholesale slaughter.

You have a highly-selective version of history... I take it you went to fundie schools?

You are right. I really haven't studied that aspect of American history, and probably should familiarize myself a little more. I know about the Trail of Tears (geez, all the way back from 1st Grade), and know a little about the smallpox blankets. Wasn't Manhatten sold for, like, $24 bucks to the European settlers? I also know about wars from both sides. The frnehc allied with several Native American tribes to fight the British, but I couldn't give a time frame.

So, here, you are right. It probably would do me some good to read up on it.

Quote:OMG, you don't get it, do you? IT IS EXACTLY THAT! People are suffering and dying because they are ALONE. They are depressed and bullied by people like you, who openly debate their humanity and say it is "fine by you " if people do not hire them. They have no health insurance because PEOPLE LIKE YOU WILL NOT HIRE THEM.

I haven't bullied anyone, dear, sweet, simple Deadhead. I could not hire anyone at this point, simply because I could not afford to pay for someone else's healthcare. Heck, I'm on my wife's plan - I can't even pay for my own! If I were to take on someone else, it would have to be an LLC or a partnership,and that's only if I could justify the expense of the lawyer and the articles of partnership or corporation.

But let's say I could justify it. I would not be bullying anyone. I would be finding the person who would be a good fit for me and my business. and it's my business. Should I feel bullied into making a decision on hiring because of the potential of getting sued, or have a criminal complaint about me if (the operative word here is "if") I didn't feel that a homosexual would be a good fit for my company(regardless if his or her homosexuality was actually the reason why they would not be a good fit)?

I have to ask - would my employee be interested in work that might be against his core beliefs? What if we do work for a Christian tee-shirt company or a church?

Quote:Married people live longer than single people, which is a verifiable fact.

If this is an actual statistic, are we to assume that this benefit would transfer over to a homosexual couple, given that homosexual marriage in the modern age in the West is a mere dozen years old? Were homosexuals even considered in the sample? I'm afraid this would be a meaningless statistic.

Quote:Yes, and whom people LOVE seems pretty silly in light of that doesn't it? But you think denying people health insurance (since you think its fine not to hire them if they have the dreaded "gay spouse") is "fine" too.

All I know is that I couldn't afford it. If I had a guarantee that I was hiring the best and the brightest who happened to be gay and married, and that his employment with me would be financially beneficial, I think I would have to consider hiring him. But, the state mandating that I cover his spouse....Just seems a bit heavy handed, don't you think?

So I hire him, and I don't cover his spouse. Should I be jailed?

Quote:I see the work of selfish pseudo-libertarians like yourself, engineering the world to make it all Christian (specifically Catholic, truth be told), gettiing rid of the inferiors, mandating laws to benefit the people you approve of, penalizing or disappearing the people you do not approve of.

If that were our game, heck, all we would have to do is ban birth controoOOOh crap....That's EXAACTLY what we're doing. Oh my....We are living the Darwinist dream! The Mormon's are doing the same thing, but they eat healthier and don't smoke.....OK, Pope, time to tighten the reins just a bit!

Quote:This, he says, after saying who he will fire and hire according to whether they have a spouse he approves of or not. This, he says, after he makes it clear he would deny a motel room to black people. This, he says, after he makes it clear that he thinks discrimination is "fine"... are we in Bizarro World?

It's my business. Shouldn't I have a say in who gets hired and fired? Again, your problem is not my supposed racism. Your problem is private ownership.

Quote:Because they are asking us! If you have nothing against them, why not SHOW THEM CHARITY and give them what obviously means so much to so many of them?

If you are a parent, you should know that it's not always the right thing to do give someone what they want by the sole virtue of them wanting it. it would be the epitome of un-charity to give them something you know is wrong from many different perspectives.

Quote:You say you have nothing against them and then deny them the one right they want over all others?

The problem is looking to the government for a solution.

if this were a conservative problem, here's how I think it would go down.

Prenups are pretty much standard fair for heterosexual couples, right? So, let's say set up a site or even brick&mortars that sold pre-made prenups. That prenup agreement has a stipulation that, if the gay marriage fails, they can contest who-gets-what with a specified ombudsman, whose decision is final. The conservative answer would be to create an entire culture, with it's own marriage traditions, etc. Create businesses that attracted gays for employment (not unlike, say, Disney or many places in Vegas). A veritable chain upon chain of successful businesses. As far as hospital visits go, start pressuring the hospitals to make accommodations. Now, keep in mind, some hospitals are religious in nature, and might not be open to this. That's OK. Specify which hospitals you prefer to go to in an emergency. Small towns don;t tend to have religious hospitals, so that's ok.

Create both the demand and the supply. This seems gargantuan, but given that only 13% of the population is gay, it might not be such a huge task as you might think. Also, you would have allied heterosexual companies who would be interested, simply because there is money to be made.

Within the culture, create your own traditions, marriage ceremonies.

Most of all,make yourself needed. That is one thing the capitalists/conservatives do well. Provide products, services. Establish charities and outreaches for the greater common good.

Don't make "gay" out to be "special". If it's natural, be natural. Forget the stereotypes of drag queens and hot pants. These do nothing for the "cause". If you want to be respected, be respectable, and that means keeping in mind what others find respectable.

Marriage predates civilization. It's not anything gays can really compete with. Marriage laws, like it or lump it, were developed for the protection of women and children. Retrofitting marriage into something it simply wasn't made for will not, in the long run, do anybody any favors. But if you create your own culture, your own expectations, your own way to dealing with breakups and custody of adopted children...if you take responsibility in every sense of the word, without expectation of the government to validate your being gay, it would, in the long run create a better respect.

A lot of people feel, well, forced and pressured into "accepting" homosexuality. Every time ya turn on a sit com, it's there. Read the news, it's there. And there's people like me who don't really care what anyone does in privacy, but really don't want to find homosexuality entertaining, and don't really care if some celebrity is gay. I'm not gay. It's simply not my issue. Force it down my throat, and I'll end up barfing it all up.

Or how about this. Instead of creating new state and local law and a protected class...Simply repeal existing law and ordinances where it specifically states marriage is between a man and a woman. Then, get married.

Quote:The right to NOT have to go to a lawyer first, so their spouse will automatically get their stuff if they die. Right now, only the affluent gays (who can afford lawyers) can protect themselves against this happening. Poor gays die and their partners get nothing, their parents come in and take the car and the furniture, and you think this is "fine". You think if one goes to the ER, the partner should be denied entry, since of course only spouses and families are allowed in. You think if one dies, their children should be taken away by the state, rather than stay with the only parents they have ever known.

Despite what you must think of me, I don't think this is fine. This can be addressed, however, with adjustments to the law well short of new marriage law.

Quote:When you deny marriage rights, you say to gays: When all of this to happens to you, it's FINE with me!

I know you think this way. It is not what is meant by me when I say I am against marriage.

Quote:All of these situations I described above, have happened to people I know. They are not fictions. They could be prevented in one easy way, but apparently, you want them to continue to happen. This means, you REPRESS AND OPPRESS.

Oh, here we go with the "some of my best friends are gay" routine. Oops...That's your line.

I am not in power, so I repress and oppress no one. I'm supportive of the gays I know, and I am respectful of everyone who deserves respect, gays included. It's rather simple. My position against gay marriage is one of a societal, historical, and etymological context. Gays have had gay relationships from time immemorial. Even in societies that actively promoted homosexuality. Yet no one ever thought to give homosexuals the status of marriage. Not in any way that has ever caught on, never in a significant way that has brought enough benefit to society as to justify it's continuance.

So, maybe, just maybe, it's time to just consider that marriage is simply not a gay thing. Marriage existed before civilization. Gay relationships...maybe, but not to any great societal import.

lucrezaborgia · 06-01-2012, 03:16 AM

If only 13% of the US is gay, what is the likelyhood that a small business is going to be swamped with gay people needing coverage?

lucrezaborgia · 06-01-2012, 03:17 AM

Also, it wasn't myotch that said that, it was EC I think

P.S.S.

Marriage wasn't about protecting women and children. Why do you keep repeating this?

**Scorpio** · 06-01-2012, 06:01 AM

(06-01-2012 03:17 AM)lucrezaborgia Wrote: Also, it wasn't myotch that said that, it was EC I think

I don't remember if he said anything. I do remember engaging one of our other posters who basically said:

"The Native Amercians should thank God that the white man came to America."

Yeah it was a package deal. Here ya go Mr. Native American, here's some wholesale genocide, some diseases you have never encountered before and a little corner of a territory you can now call home. But we did bring you some Bibles.

~~Persnickety Polecat~~ · 06-01-2012, 08:15 AM

Quote:Folks, this is what lefty liberalism has turned into. No intellect. No polite conversation about differences. No even a fathomable philosophy is being communicated. The politics of the left has turned into mere name calling for those in disagreement. Racist. Homophobe. Never mind that one can have nary a racist bone in his or her body, lived a life in harmony with people of other races, is thankful that those he worships with are not only different races, but different nationalities and from different cultures. And never mind the fact that one can go as far as one can go within his religious faith to at least the intellectual support or agreement with homosexuals, but can't and won't go the extra 5 yards to say that homosexuals should be able to marry, for reasons that are by and large, secular reasoning from an historical, anthropological, etymological, and societal perspective.

No intellect ... progressives collectively have no intellect and we're all a bunch of name-callers. Yup -- good thing you hit the nail dead on the head with that one. Hey, thanks for yet again lumping all of us into one big pile. We are all unique individuals, just as you, Mominator, and the other conservatives on the board are unique individuals. You are way out of line saying otherwise, and it's a poor debate tactic, to boot.

Quote:I hope you would all agree that the name-calling is counterproductive to discussion.

Says the man who just called several people names who weren't even involved in name calling. Hey, thanks for that!

Ricardo · 06-01-2012, 10:01 AM

Myotech,

I disagree with you, but these issues are hard to lay out in the open and talk about. Thanks for trying.

I’m not sure there is a “perfect” solution to the problems of the world. (Please, don't Jesus-juke me.)

Most of us, I believe, do think that the French Revolution’s ideals - Liberty, Equality and Fraternity- are pretty neat goals to aspire to.

LIBERTY: “Let the market take care of this,” you say. When we claim Liberty above all, even if we have to sacrifice Equality and Fraternity, we have seen what happens: Monopolies, Robber Barons, deplorable working conditions for men, women and children, few rich on the backs of the many poor.

EQUALITY: “Workers of the World Unite!” We’ve also seen what happens when we sacrifice Liberty and Fraternity to make everyone as equal as possible. It don’t work.

FRATERNITY: I wish I could say this is the way to go: to figure out how much of Liberty and Equality to constrain in support of both the individual and the whole community.

Unfortunately, we are making this up as we go. What worked well yesterday may stop working today and be a real problem tomorrow.

Solutions in a country of immigrants may not work in a country where there is a firmly entrenched caste system. A working model from NYC may fail completely in Peoria. A successful community model in Lake Wobegon may be useless in Georgia.

There were very good reasons for the 1964 Civil Rights act.

Yes, we will sometimes err on the side of one of our ideals, while causing some harm to our other ideals. BUT, even the definition of “what is harmful” is relative: In the 60s we absolutely had to force all businesses to serve “negroes,” as a way of changing the social fabric of society. It worked, somewhat. Today the mere idea of separate bathrooms is inconceivable. Some of the regulations still in place are no longer helpful. We need to keep evolving our laws to adapt to the changes.

Is that supposed to be the job of government?

Ideally, no. But sometimes we as a society need a push that can only be done through the government of all of us.