PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on October 04, 2018, 08:02:09 AM
-
I don't recall barack having 50% approval at any time in his presidency beyond the first few months.
I guess the media and democratic (communist) party should have trained their ignorance and hypocrisy on him instead of saving it for President Trump.
The timing couldn't be better because the mid-term is just about a month away and the democrats (communists) are so invested in hate for the sake of hate that they are determined to drown themselves before they are willing to act like adults.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/prez_track_oct04
-
ANOTHER story that the lame stream (communist party) media won't be covering is our energized economy and it is a large part in why President Trump has such healthy approval...
Weekly Jobless Claims at 49 Year Low
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/04/us-weekly-jobless-claims-sept-29-2018.html
The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits fell to a near 49-year low last week, pointing to sustained labor market strength, which should continue to underpin economic growth.
The labor market, which is viewed as being near or at full employment, is steadily boosting wage growth...
-
Trump is living rent free in millions of heads across the fruited plains and by driving them nuts and getting them to expose themselves and their dirty tricks it is turning people in the middle off for them - if the purported blue wave ends up as a red wave due to their nonsense the Left will be violently unhinged.
'Gimp
-
One thing is certain. Partisanship is on the rise. There was a time in the early 60s when the left and right had a few common goals, and those things that weren't common could be chatted about over a beer or glass of wine. We began to separate clearly as Vietnam wore on, and MLK was killed. Today, even mentioning some conservative views in public is grounds for a screaming fit.
I think as we achieve much of our Maslowian self-actualized goals, we become more attuned to small or less consequential differences. I certainly see that on the left, but the right engages in it to some extent as well(no cake for gay partners, etc).
-
One thing is certain. Partisanship is on the rise. There was a time in the early 60s when the left and right had a few common goals, and those things that weren't common could be chatted about over a beer or glass of wine. We began to separate clearly as Vietnam wore on, and MLK was killed. Today, even mentioning some conservative views in public is grounds for a screaming fit.
I think as we achieve much of our Maslowian self-actualized goals, we become more attuned to small or less consequential differences. I certainly see that on the left, but the right engages in it to some extent as well(no cake for gay partners, etc).
Correction, gay couples can have all the cake they want, they cannot force an artist to create art he/she finds offensive/counter to his/her closely held personal beliefs (slavery is out of fashion you know) - and yes, there is a YUGE difference between what you said and what the reality of that suit and eventual acquittal actually was.
'Gimp
-
Baking a cake for a gay couple = slavery.
Nice. Extreme Partisanship Statement: Proven.
-
Trump is living rent free in millions of heads across the fruited plains and by driving them nuts and getting them to expose themselves and their dirty tricks it is turning people in the middle off for them - if the purported blue wave ends up as a red wave due to their nonsense the Left will be violently unhinged.
'Gimp
The riots, violence and general tantrum put on by the democrats (communist party) after President Trump was elected will be small potatoes compared to the wave of hate that will come our way the day after the mid-terms if the democratic party (Communist Party) fail to gain the majority in both houses.
Violence is so attractive to democrats (communists) these days and threats, wishes for people to die painfully, castrated and in agony, by democrats (communists) angry at not getting their way, has become so common place that people just look beyond it and ignore the dangerous wave of hatred sweeping the left (communists) these days.
-
Baking a cake for a gay couple = slavery.
Nice. Extreme Partisanship Statement: Proven.
I think you are playing at being stupid now.
FORCING someone to perform an act of art on behalf of someone else, without choice is forced servitude and does qualify as slavery. You knew that but wanted to act like an ass just because you know how.
-
I think you are playing at being stupid now.
FORCING someone to perform an act of art on behalf of someone else, without choice is forced servitude and does qualify as slavery. You knew that but wanted to act like an ass just because you know how.
Fine with me. All I'm pointing out is that both sides engage in extreme partisanship, which is the theme of your thread. There are conservatives who are invested in hate as well. I've never heard of gays assaulting or killing heteros for their lifestyle, but I suppose somewhere in the vast universe of hate it may have happened. I have heard, on multiple occasions of the opposite being true. As well as taking the objections to abortion juuuuuuuuust a bit too far by murdering the doctor. Partisanship - writ large on both sides(ahem - just as Trump correctly claimed about the Charllotsville riot).
-
I think you are playing at being stupid now.
FORCING someone to perform an act of art on behalf of someone else, without choice is forced servitude and does qualify as slavery. You knew that but wanted to act like an ass just because you know how.
He doesn’t have to play at being stupid. ::)
-
Baking a cake for a gay couple = slavery.
Nice. Extreme Partisanship Statement: Proven.
ARTICLE XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
-
Fine with me. All I'm pointing out is that both sides engage in extreme partisanship, which is the theme of your thread. There are conservatives who are invested in hate as well. I've never heard of gays assaulting or killing heteros for their lifestyle, but I suppose somewhere in the vast universe of hate it may have happened. I have heard, on multiple occasions of the opposite being true. As well as taking the objections to abortion juuuuuuuuust a bit too far by murdering the doctor. Partisanship - writ large on both sides(ahem - just as Trump correctly claimed about the Charllotsville riot).
Or pro-abortion protestors giving a roundhouse kick to a pro-Life woman for the sin of being pro-life?
https://youtu.be/z7SqtIe5rZQ
And how many partisan Republicans have attempted mass murder or attempted assassination of one particular party at a softball practice?
No comparison about violence today.
-
Or pro-abortion protestors giving a roundhouse kick to a pro-Life woman for the sin of being pro-life?
https://youtu.be/z7SqtIe5rZQ
And how many partisan Republicans have attempted mass murder or attempted assassination of one particular party at a softball practice?
No comparison about violence today.
Another excellent example of extreme partisanship.
-
Baking a cake for a gay couple = slavery.
I think the rest of the thread is exhausted...so...
Isn’t slavery involuntary servitude for which you are not compensated? You understand that no amount of money is compensation for being forced to do do what you despise? Compare ”offend almighty God” with any amount of money and it isn’t even in the same league for some people.
You don’t agree, but you aren’t forced to agree with them. You are just denied the right to invalidate their religious belief.
-
I think the rest of the thread is exhausted...so...
Isn’t slavery involuntary servitude for which you are not compensated? You understand that no amount of money is compensation for being forced to do do what you despise? Compare ”offend almighty God” with any amount of money and it isn’t even in the same league for some people.
You don’t agree, but you aren’t forced to agree with them. You are just denied the right to invalidate their religious belief.
That's not the common definition I'm familiar with. It also misses the point that retail bakers are not forced to be retail bakers. So a comparison to slavery is extreme.
-
That's not the common definition I'm familiar with. It also misses the point that retail bakers are not forced to be retail bakers. So a comparison to slavery is extreme.
Do you mean like comparing Judge Kavanaugh defending himself against the sleazebag, commies on the democrat side of the senate aisle, calling him extreme and demanding he be dropped because of his 'extreme partisanship?' Your argument is all bullshit.
What you meant to post, but lacked the courage, was that you don't like to think of fellow democrats as being such fascists as to force someone to work against their will, and you will fight to keep that point from having a place at teh discussion table.
It's just like the other thread where levelwing can't live with my description of a lesbian moderator because he's a pussy and has been silenced by political correct nazis and thinks I should be too.
Once you democrats (communists) decided you were the keeper of allowable speech, you all went ego crazy trying to enforce it.
-
That's not the common definition I'm familiar with. It also misses the point that retail bakers are not forced to be retail bakers. So a comparison to slavery is extreme.
You missed the points that this applies to everyone, not just bakers and that every mus do something Conner isl to thrive. In this country, not having a hill job condemns a person to being a second class citizen.
I don’t think it is extreme at all. There are no whips and manacles, but those are not required to be slavery either. There is a demand that a task be done, no option to avoid that task and punishment for failure to comply. That sounds like the major elements Of slavery to me.
The point is that at least some people hold beliefs what are not negotiable and nullifying then or forcing them to violate those beliefs created great social injustice through lack of respect.
-
Do you mean like [...keyboard diarrhea...]
Yes, I do mean like that.
-
You missed the points that this applies to everyone, not just bakers and that every mus do something Conner isl to thrive. In this country, not having a hill job condemns a person to being a second class citizen.
I don’t think it is extreme at all. There are no whips and manacles, but those are not required to be slavery either. There is a demand that a task be done, no option to avoid that task and punishment for failure to comply. That sounds like the major elements Of slavery to me.
The point is that at least some people hold beliefs what are not negotiable and nullifying then or forcing them to violate those beliefs created great social injustice through lack of respect.
But there is an option to avoid that task..
Slavery is so far away from having to comply with non-discrimination laws that I could drive a truck through the gap. A much more convincing argument against these laws is, in my opinion, that of the Libertarians.
-
Yes, I do mean like that.
That's because you can't help yourself.
And just because you can't help yourself, doesn't prove anything othe than you have very little to back up your agitation except for sarcasm and stupidity. So go ahead and pretend t be morally superior because you are so politically correct. It means nothing to me, anymore than your histrionics and whining.
-
That's because you can't help yourself.
And just because you can't help yourself, doesn't prove anything othe than you have very little to back up your agitation except for sarcasm and stupidity. So go ahead and pretend t be morally superior because you are so politically correct. It means nothing to me, anymore than your histrionics and whining.
Your outrage overfloweth. I shall dumb it down for you.
1) Me: Comparing anti-discrimination laws to slavery is extreme.
2) You: You mean extreme like the Kavanaugh bullshit?
3) Me: Yes, like that.
4) You: <insert mouth frothing>
-
Your outrage overfloweth. I shall dumb it down for you.
1) Me: Comparing anti-discrimination laws to slavery is extreme.
2) You: You mean extreme like the Kavanaugh bullshit?
3) Me: Yes, like that.
4) You: <insert mouth frothing>
You really should take your utter s or centered bullshit on the road and perform for snowflakes in college and lesbian feminists who hate men.
They’ll eat up your garbage.
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/crazed_leftist_tweet_about_ruining_kavanaugh_gives_the_lefts_game_away.html
-
You really should take your utter s or centered bullshit on the road and perform for snowflakes in college and lesbian feminists who hate men.
They’ll eat up your garbage.
Your random outrage generator is broken. You might want to switch to this one: http://www.fightliberals.com/Inside-the-Book/Liberal-Insult-Generator.html?insult=1344586928
-
Your random outrage generator is broken. You might want to switch to this one: http://www.fightliberals.com/Inside-the-Book/Liberal-Insult-Generator.html?insult=1344586928
Your ass is showing... but that’s nothing out of the ordinary.
-
Just a little throw back............
Trump has given zero indications that he won't appoint far-left judges.
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.MAGA!.\...
-
But there is an option to avoid that task..
And that option is...die? Starve? Be homeless? Forego life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?
The Libertarian argument and the slavery argument come from the same source and for the same reason. Do you really think that when you can command some one to do your bidding of your will over theirs that the quibble about chattel ownership matters?
-
And that option is...die? Starve? Be homeless? Forego life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?
The Libertarian argument and the slavery argument come from the same source and for the same reason. Do you really think that when you can command some one to do your bidding of your will over theirs that the quibble about chattel ownership matters?
Upon reconsideration, I agree that the common element is Liberty. I still have a tough time likening it to the literal owning of people. The fact is, the scenario in question is not slavery as people understand the term. And I think it does a disservice to the cause to jump immediately to that extreme. I think there is a good, Libertarian argument to be made against anti-discrimination laws, but that argument doesn't begin by calling it the same as slavery.
-
Upon reconsideration, I agree that the common element is Liberty. I still have a tough time likening it to the literal owning of people. The fact is, the scenario in question is not slavery as people understand the term. And I think it does a disservice to the cause to jump immediately to that extreme. I think there is a good, Libertarian argument to be made against anti-discrimination laws, but that argument doesn't begin by calling it the same as slavery.
Of course there is not literal owning. It's an analogy not an equivalency. Within the area where the compelled service is required, the compulsion is as destructive as slavery is.
-
Of course there is not literal owning. It's an analogy not an equivalency. Within the area where the compelled service is required, the compulsion is as destructive as slavery is.
Your original response of support was to a post that said "baking a cake = slavery". That's not an analogy, it's an equivalence. And I'm interested in your reasoning how the scenario in question is "as destructive" as slavery.
-
I think there is a good, Libertarian argument to be made against anti-discrimination laws, but that argument doesn't begin by calling it the same as slavery.
The principle of non-aggression is considered central to Libertarian political philosophy, which makes it hard understand how to make anti-discrimination laws work without an initiation of force.
See further on the history and criticisms of the principle:
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression (https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression)
Rothbard's definition is the most recent:
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."
-
Upon reconsideration, I agree that the common element is Liberty. I still have a tough time likening it to the literal owning of people. The fact is, the scenario in question is not slavery as people understand the term. And I think it does a disservice to the cause to jump immediately to that extreme. I think there is a good, Libertarian argument to be made against anti-discrimination laws, but that argument doesn't begin by calling it the same as slavery.
In post 11 I wrote the entire text of the 13th Amendment. In that language, involuntary servitude is placed in the same position as slavery. I agree that what we are talking about isn’t the same as owning another human being, but I think you’ve been dwelling on the wrong thing to make others look foolish.
Do you not agree that involuntary servitude much more accurately applies to this and related cases?
-
In post 11 I wrote the entire text of the 13th Amendment. In that language, involuntary servitude is placed in the same position as slavery. I agree that what we are talking about isn’t the same as owning another human being, but I think you’ve been dwelling on the wrong thing to make others look foolish.
Do you not agree that involuntary servitude much more accurately applies to this and related cases?
I suspect you are wasting you time. Once asecrest feels his ego is at stake, he stops and digs his heels in, then the childish smears and sarcasm quickly follow.
What doesn't seem to happen is for him to soberly review the topic and respond without reaffirming his opinion.
When he's not doing that, he's kind of fun to spar with.
-
Well I'm the one who brought slavery into this, and I stand by my comparison - being FORCED to do something you are morally opposed to is slavery.
As that case eventually made clear, part of the issue, and the difference between 'real' discrimination laws such as in housing, is that in this case the baker is also an artist and is exercising a certain amount of creative expression - it is the forced creative expression that was the underpinning of the eventual acquittal/dismissal of charges.
I suspect Asechrest knows this but is willingly extending the decision beyond it's expressly defined limitations - but I don't know that to be true. He is certainly no dummy and I would think understands precisely what the high court decision ultimately was and was not, and what it does and does not protect.
'Gimp
-
Well I'm the one who brought slavery into this, and I stand by my comparison - being FORCED to do something you are morally opposed to is slavery.
I had observed that some of the commentariat on the comments section of reason.com articles will simply post "Slaver!" in response to any post that argues explicitly or implicitly for the use of force. So your "it's all just a form of slavery" view is fairly common (at least among libertarians.) When I first saw it being used I didn't like it because it wasn't an argument or terribly nuanced. But in the last year I've changed my view and find "Slaver!" concise and to the point. Slavers ain't gonna be swayed by online jawing, so just tell 'em what they are.
Remember - the civilized modern slaver does not demand 50 lashes of the baker, but re-education. If they resist education, only then is punishment to be meted out - taserings until compliance is observed.
-
The principle of non-aggression is considered central to Libertarian political philosophy, which makes it hard understand how to make anti-discrimination laws work without an initiation of force.
See further on the history and criticisms of the principle:
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression (https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression)
Rothbard's definition is the most recent:
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."
Thanks. Libertarianism is relatively new to me. My reading on the Libertarian perspective vis a vis anti-discrimination laws centered around the right of association (and the converse - right not to associate).
Is violence defined as physical? I could easily be convinced that the threat of imprisonment is a threat of physical violence. But what about other means, such as fines, etc.? I'm inclined to apply the NAP in the other direction: The state has no right to involve themselves in the matter because the issue -- a baker "discriminating" against a class of people -- does not involve an act of aggression.
In post 11 I wrote the entire text of the 13th Amendment. In that language, involuntary servitude is placed in the same position as slavery. I agree that what we are talking about isn’t the same as owning another human being, but I think you’ve been dwelling on the wrong thing to make others look foolish.
Do you not agree that involuntary servitude much more accurately applies to this and related cases?
1 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2988.msg52309#msg52309), 2 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2988.msg52313#msg52313), 3 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2988.msg52403#msg52403), 4 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2988.msg52542#msg52542)
Those are four instances where the scenario in question was likened to slavery. So no, I don't think I'm dwelling on the "wrong thing" to make others look foolish.
And yes, I do believe that the case is much closer to involuntary servitude than slavery. A bit more on this down below.
I suspect you are wasting you time. Once asecrest feels his ego is at stake, he stops and digs his heels in, then the childish smears and sarcasm quickly follow.
What doesn't seem to happen is for him to soberly review the topic and respond without reaffirming his opinion.
When he's not doing that, he's kind of fun to spar with.
Actually I usually only treat you this way. That's because, when faced with an opposing view, you typically attack the man and not the message. It may be because you're substantially immersed in supportive views here, and so you're shocked to find that someone might disagree with you, but I'm not sure.
Well I'm the one who brought slavery into this, and I stand by my comparison - being FORCED to do something you are morally opposed to is slavery.
As that case eventually made clear, part of the issue, and the difference between 'real' discrimination laws such as in housing, is that in this case the baker is also an artist and is exercising a certain amount of creative expression - it is the forced creative expression that was the underpinning of the eventual acquittal/dismissal of charges.
I suspect Asechrest knows this but is willingly extending the decision beyond it's expressly defined limitations - but I don't know that to be true. He is certainly no dummy and I would think understands precisely what the high court decision ultimately was and was not, and what it does and does not protect.
'Gimp
I take issue with what I consider to be the extreme position that being forced to do something you are morally opposed to -- and let's be clear that one can be morally opposed to almost anything -- is slavery. The problem with distilling an issue down to one extreme equivalence is that it actually weakens the argument unless the equivalence is nearly cast in stone. In the instant case, you'll find that many people disagree with the contention that it is slavery. Slavery is the literal owning of a person as a piece of property. In fact, I've never seen the definition you suggest, though I admit I'm not incredibly well-read. From my perspective, there is a veritable chasm between that and anti-discrimination laws.
Can we test the logic for a moment? If being forced to do something you are morally opposed to is slavery, are all those who are morally opposed to paying taxes slaves? Is conscription slavery to those opposed? Selective service? Are those morally opposed to forced driver licensing on supposed "right to travel" reasons slaves? Certainly, a case could be argued against some or all of those. But by taking the extreme measure of calling it slavery, we've opened it up to easy criticism, and perhaps easy disproof.
I also note you criticize me for extending beyond expressly defined limitations. But a declaration so-defined -- forcing action on those morally opposed is slavery -- is not one of nuance. It is one of absolute, and so demands testing outside the limitations of the existing scenarios.
--
The interesting part is that I am increasingly swayed by arguments against anti-discrimination laws. But not on grounds that it is slavery, but, rather, on grounds that the state should have no say in how private transactions carry on, as long as rights of others are not infringed, and upon grounds of the right to (not) associate.
-
I’m with asechrest on this one. I haven’t entered the discussion before because I find the slavery comparison a bad one, that detracts from the point. There are too many dissimilarities to make a strong argument. And I do feel that there is a different kind of violence than physical, namely violence to the soul, that is harder to quantify or govern.
-
I see it as common sense. A business owner should be free to make his/her own decision of who they want as a customer, period. In the case of the cake, there were plenty of places the couple could have ordered a cake but they chose to target this business and cause the owner pain by making an example of him because they felt entitled.
-
Thanks. Libertarianism is relatively new to me. My reading on the Libertarian perspective vis a vis anti-discrimination laws centered around the right of association (and the converse - right not to associate).
Is violence defined as physical? I could easily be convinced that the threat of imprisonment is a threat of physical violence. But what about other means, such as fines, etc.? I'm inclined to apply the NAP in the other direction: The state has no right to involve themselves in the matter because the issue -- a baker "discriminating" against a class of people -- does not involve an act of aggression.
1 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2988.msg52309#msg52309), 2 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2988.msg52313#msg52313), 3 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2988.msg52403#msg52403), 4 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2988.msg52542#msg52542)
Those are four instances where the scenario in question was likened to slavery. So no, I don't think I'm dwelling on the "wrong thing" to make others look foolish.
And yes, I do believe that the case is much closer to involuntary servitude than slavery. A bit more on this down below.
Actually I usually only treat you this way. That's because, when faced with an opposing view, you typically attack the man and not the message. It may be because you're substantially immersed in supportive views here, and so you're shocked to find that someone might disagree with you, but I'm not sure.
I take issue with what I consider to be the extreme position that being forced to do something you are morally opposed to -- and let's be clear that one can be morally opposed to almost anything -- is slavery. The problem with distilling an issue down to one extreme equivalence is that it actually weakens the argument unless the equivalence is nearly cast in stone. In the instant case, you'll find that many people disagree with the contention that it is slavery. Slavery is the literal owning of a person as a piece of property. In fact, I've never seen the definition you suggest, though I admit I'm not incredibly well-read. From my perspective, there is a veritable chasm between that and anti-discrimination laws.
Can we test the logic for a moment? If being forced to do something you are morally opposed to is slavery, are all those who are morally opposed to paying taxes slaves? Is conscription slavery to those opposed? Selective service? Are those morally opposed to forced driver licensing on supposed "right to travel" reasons slaves? Certainly, a case could be argued against some or all of those. But by taking the extreme measure of calling it slavery, we've opened it up to easy criticism, and perhaps easy disproof.
I also note you criticize me for extending beyond expressly defined limitations. But a declaration so-defined -- forcing action on those morally opposed is slavery -- is not one of nuance. It is one of absolute, and so demands testing outside the limitations of the existing scenarios.
--
The interesting part is that I am increasingly swayed by arguments against anti-discrimination laws. But not on grounds that it is slavery, but, rather, on grounds that the state should have no say in how private transactions carry on, as long as rights of others are not infringed, and upon grounds of the right to (not) associate.
Great post. I agree with the last paragraph although sometimes they might be necessary. Even so they can have terrible unintended consequences. Take racial segregation and housing discrimination. Prior to 1964, black communities in cities were far better off than they are now and one reason was that the higher socioeconomic class of blacks provided a stabilizing effect. Black professionals, business owners and preachers provided jobs, services and a strong moral foundation. There is more than one reason for the decline but it seemed to begin with desegregation. Those upper strata blacks then could move out to the "burbs" but those of lower ability were left behind and became the inner city poor. Then came "project" housing, factories closing, more jobs lost, welfare, the drug war and so on. The more "fixes" were applied the worse it got.
What would have happened without forced desegregation? No one knows but possibly, if the government had also kept its hands off the economy, the black community would have continued its upward trend and eventually integration may have occurred gradually and smoothly.
But maybe the Civil Rights Act was necessary to avoid a domestic war so while I agree with the libertarian viewpoint, I also believe we cannot always rigidly adhere to a theory but must deal with present circumstances. Possibly the election of Obama was one such concession. He was horrible for the nation, bad for the economy and divided races more than ever, however he did accomplish one historic landmark (electing the first black president), and that did provide an emotional victory for blacks, as explained by a black in one of the walk away videos. That particular person since has come to see that voting on skin color alone is wrong, we should vote on issues and character, but it did mean something to have achieved that moment in history.
-
I see it as common sense. A business owner should be free to make his/her own decision of who they want as a customer, period. In the case of the cake, there were plenty of places the couple could have ordered a cake but they chose to target this business and cause the owner pain by making an example of him because they felt entitled.
Were you good with it when Woolworth prohibited blacks from sitting at the lunch counter? I'm only asking to help clarify parameters, not to argue the point.
I can go along with an analogy like "forcing a baker to bake a penis cake is a little like slavery because . . . blah blah blah.
But I can't go along with "forcing a baker to bake a penis cake is = slavery.
On the other hand, I get annoyed when people nit pick analogies. Rarely is any analogy perfect.
-
Your original response of support was to a post that said "baking a cake = slavery". That's not an analogy, it's an equivalence. And I'm interested in your reasoning how the scenario in question is "as destructive" as slavery.
Certainly outright chattel slavery with chains and whips is not a comparison. I also usually use "a form of slavery" because a person is trapped by legal code into doing something repulsive against their will.
If you recall, I limited the scope to the area in question. Within that narrow scope, everything about the person is subverted and ceases to publicly exist. Their ideas, their beliefs, their views, their thoughts, their personality no longer matter. Slavery is a legal matter of ownership and these laws give ownership of a part of your life to other people. Your religion is no longer yours, it is subverted by whoever brings a demand to you. That is so counter to the ideas of the United States that I am shocked that more people to do see the social harm and injustice being done by it.
-
Liberals are always ok with forced discrimination, as long as it is forced in such a way to benefit a subset that they feel they control.
The idea that reverse discrimination is good, is a fantasy imposed on Americans by civil rights whores with one goal in mind, which was and is today, self enrichment.
The idea that a perverted, mentally damaged homosexual, or pervert wanting to take pictures of young girls and women has freedom to invade a restroom is the kind of sick logic the left has imposed to empower themselves and purchase votes, while forcing everyone else to shut up, or be called names by hypocrites of the first order and sued by asshole lawyers who are basically vultures of the progressive ilk.
Every single facet of the civil rights movement has become all about personal power going to towards the left and personal choice going away from everybody. The party of pro-choice is the most anti-choice pack of scum on earth.
-
Were you good with it when Woolworth prohibited blacks from sitting at the lunch counter? I'm only asking to help clarify parameters, not to argue the point.
I can go along with an analogy like "forcing a baker to bake a penis cake is a little like slavery because . . . blah blah blah.
But I can't go along with "forcing a baker to bake a penis cake is = slavery.
On the other hand, I get annoyed when people nit pick analogies. Rarely is any analogy perfect.
My personal belief is the two do not equate. If you start doing that for every little group that feels discriminated against for anything, where do you end up? We're the cake seekers barred from entering and purchasing from every bakery? I think not. Where do you see the government not imposing itself? What if I go into a bar and ask for a Coors and they say we don't serve that here, can I sue because they didn't have the beer I wanted?
-
What if I go into a bar and ask for a Coors and they say we don't serve that here, can I sue because they didn't have the beer I wanted?
Hell yeah!
-
My personal belief is the two do not equate. If you start doing that for every little group that feels discriminated against for anything, where do you end up? We're the cake seekers barred from entering and purchasing from every bakery? I think not. Where do you see the government not imposing itself? What if I go into a bar and ask for a Coors and they say we don't serve that here, can I sue because they didn't have the beer I wanted?
Doh! You had me until Coors. Good God, man, at least sue for Guinness!
-
Anchor Steam really.
-
A salient and sober addition to our thoughts and discussion about slavery. ::)
-
Doh! You had me until Coors. Good God, man, at least sue for Guinness!
Hell, I don't even drink beer ;D
-
A salient and sober addition to our thoughts and discussion about slavery. ::)
If this ignorant child actually knew what a Republic was, she would see she is the dullest knife in the drawer.
-
Doh! You had me until Coors. Good God, man, at least sue for Guinness!
What kind of red-blooded American man doesn't love piss in a can?
-
Unbelievable. Feinstein thinks reopening investigations into Kavanaugh is a compelling campaign promise?
https://gab.ai/Thomas_Wictor/posts/38939902
-
What kind of red-blooded American man doesn't love piss in a can?
Coors: made from the piss of horses with Rocky Mountain spotted fever.
-
I stopped believing in polls after the last Presidential election. The only poll that matters is on the first Tuesday in November.
-
I stopped believing in polls after the last Presidential election. The only poll that matters is on the first Tuesday in November.
Rather than placing your doubt and mistrust on "polls", perhaps you should be placing your doubt and mistrust on the organizations that purposely tilted the polls to try to influence the outcome.
Polls conducted correctly are usually quite accurate. We just don't see many people doing them right any more.
-
Rather than placing your doubt and mistrust on "polls", perhaps you should be placing your doubt and mistrust on the organizations that purposely tilted the polls to try to influence the outcome.
Polls conducted correctly are usually quite accurate. We just don't see many people doing them right any more.
There's a lot of truth in that post.
-
Rather than placing your doubt and mistrust on "polls", perhaps you should be placing your doubt and mistrust on the organizations that purposely tilted the polls to try to influence the outcome.
Polls conducted correctly are usually quite accurate. We just don't see many people doing them right any more.
I know this is true because Snopes told me so.
(snort...) :o
/sarcasm
-
Unbelievable. Feinstein thinks reopening investigations into Kavanaugh is a compelling campaign promise?
https://gab.ai/Thomas_Wictor/posts/38939902
It is stunning. I simply can’t believe that the radical, far left, vindictive and often violent side of the democrat party (the side that all democrat politicians except for Joe Manchin seems to be playing to) represents more than a fringe element of the democrat party.
What IS frightening is the character of the people who keep electing DiFi, Pelosi, and most stunningly Maxine Waters. Proof that aliens have in fact invaded and impregnated numerous Californians.
-
I believe, in this day and age, we see the early polls do all thy can to try and mold the elecorate to what they would like. As we move closer to election day they realize their reputation is also at stake and thus let their polls better reflect the electorate. In the end, election day is the true arbiter of what they electorate was truly thinking.
-
I believe, in this day and age, we see the early polls do all thy can to try and mold the elecorate to what they would like. As we move closer to election day they realize their reputation is also at stake and thus let their polls better reflect the electorate. In the end, election day is the true arbiter of what they electorate was truly thinking.
This is why the Media (and the Dems) created the "Blue Wave" mantra.
-
It is stunning. I simply can’t believe that the radical, far left, vindictive and often violent side of the democrat party (the side that all democrat politicians except for Joe Manchin seems to be playing to) represents more than a fringe element of the democrat party.
What IS frightening is the character of the people who keep electing DiFi, Pelosi, and most stunningly Maxine Waters. Proof that aliens have in fact invaded and impregnated numerous Californians.
When your message is limited to who you HATE, playing the Kavanaugh card alongside teh HATE President Trump card is about all you have to work with.
-
Think of this. Is the blue wave coming in or going out?
-
Think of this. Is the blue wave coming in or going out?
Going out. And the tide is dropping.
-
At the Houston rally tonight with Ted Cruz, President Trump just revealed the October surprise he’s been tweeting about. It’s a 10% tax cut for all Americans.
-
At the Houston rally tonight with Ted Cruz, President Trump just revealed the October surprise he’s been tweeting about. It’s a 10% tax cut for all Americans.
But Kamala and Sparticus have said they want to revoke the previous tax cuts and give the poor $500 a month.
Let's see......tax cuts for the majority of workers or no tax cuts and yet another welfare scheme.....
Hmmmmmmmm".........tough choice!
-
Trump NV rally attendance 4X the Obama rally.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/attendance-at-trumps-nevada-rally-quadruples-obama-event-at-unlv-arena
-
Trump NV rally attendance 4X the Obama rally.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/attendance-at-trumps-nevada-rally-quadruples-obama-event-at-unlv-arena
It chaps my hide when Obama takes credit for Trump’s accomplishments.
So low.
-
It chaps my hide when Obama takes credit for Trump’s accomplishments.
So low.
He is a loser, and feeling it now. You have to hate America to want to Fundamentally Transform it. Can you imagine having to live with Michelle?
-
Can you imagine having to live with Michelle?
Wookies aren't so bad. Or so I hear.