Well, thank you for illustrating why science is the only way to truth - not belief systems which are inherently unscientific (f.ex. religious). Science is the cure for such unscientific nonsense as you quoted from that textbook or other such beliefs. Quite clearly, those beliefs did not stand the scientific test of evidence. And therefore were rightly discarded. Science has a mechanism for rejecting unsound beliefs and wrong claims - unlike religion, where nothing and no one can prove that it's wrong to murder innocent people in order to get access to 72 virgins in heaven - because religion is not susceptible to objective evidence, it being purposely based on "you must believe". Good post, illustrating the importance of science as opposed to "belief" systems! Thank you!
You mean the truth that keeps changing? What's was true yesterday, isn't true today, and what's true today isn't true tomorrow. That truth?
So how did you choose to be straight? I can't imagine myself being able to "choose" to be sexually aroused by the sight of another man's nude body -- especially to the point of being able to maintain an erection necessary to perform various sex acts. I guess you and I are quite different, but my sexuality was not a choice at all.
You mean the truth that keeps changing? What's was true yesterday, isn't true today, and what's true today isn't true tomorrow. That truth?
Truth doesn't change, our understanding of it however is always being perfected. A scientific theory is always provisional - and held as such, pending further evidence. Which means that a Newtonian understanding may be superseded by Einsteinian. And tomorrow, Einstein's physics may be amended by something else - but always based on evidence. Unlike religion, which proclaims timeless "truths", not subject to evidence, only to random claims.
Btw. at no time has evolutionary theory claimed "superiority" of one race vs another - there was never such scientific consensus. Yes, textbooks may have claimed this or that, or some educator, or some propagandist, or even a crank scientist may have claimed it in the context of evolutionary theory, but that was never held to be a scientific truth by the science establishment. Unlike for other things, where the scientific establishment really had a consensus in favor of a theory that was later subject to being overthrown (based on - wait for it - scientific evidence!).
The only way to get closer to truth is by the methods of science. Which is why the steady march of science eventually got us to land a man on the moon, while thousands of years of praying failed to so much as lift a feather off the ground. You're welcome.
You mean the truth that keeps changing? What's was true yesterday, isn't true today, and what's true today isn't true tomorrow. That truth?
Truth doesn't change, our understanding of it however is always being perfected. A scientific theory is always provisional - and held as such, pending further evidence. Which means that a Newtonian understanding may be superseded by Einsteinian. And tomorrow, Einstein's physics may be amended by something else - but always based on evidence. Unlike religion, which proclaims timeless "truths", not subject to evidence, only to random claims.
Btw. at no time has evolutionary theory claimed "superiority" of one race vs another - there was never such scientific consensus. Yes, textbooks may have claimed this or that, or some educator, or some propagandist, or even a crank scientist may have claimed it in the context of evolutionary theory, but that was never held to be a scientific truth by the science establishment. Unlike for other things, where the scientific establishment really had a consensus in favor of a theory that was later subject to being overthrown (based on - wait for it - scientific evidence!).
The only way to get closer to truth is by the methods of science. Which is why the steady march of science eventually got us to land a man on the moon, while thousands of years of praying failed to so much as lift a feather off the ground. You're welcome.
Because there is no confirmed instance of prayer succeeding in a measurable way. We've had millennia of religious practices of a staggering variety of religions and uncountable claims - yet no objectively confirmed instances of success of any.
Scientists through the ages have kept perfecting our understanding of physics - and we have objectively confirmed their theories by being able to employ that understanding to land a man on the moon - that landing is documented extensively and objectively.
We have no temple anywhere and no group of religious practitioners anywhere who can demonstrate any effect that is extra-scientific. No rocket has launched through prayer from any temple. When people pray for the recovery from sickness or debilitation, it is never for something that exceeds the simple law of statistics - statistically certain numbers of cancers are in remission spontaneously, regardless. Those who pray would of course claim "prayer did it" - but you can't show that's what happened outside of statistics. Meanwhile, if asked to, for example grow a limb back (like a lizard can grow back its tail) - prayer has never ever in the history of mankind managed to do that, there's no single confirmed case. That's because statistically the chances of a limb growing back spontaneously is zero, so the religious hucksters can't take advantage of random remissions, the way they can do for cancer, getting your sight back etc..
If you know of any case where we can objectively document an effect of prayer, please report that immediately and you're certain to win untold riches and fame.
Because there is no confirmed instance of prayer succeeding in a measurable way. We've had millennia of religious practices of a staggering variety of religions and uncountable claims - yet no objectively confirmed instances of success of any.
Scientists through the ages have kept perfecting our understanding of physics - and we have objectively confirmed their theories by being able to employ that understanding to land a man on the moon - that landing is documented extensively and objectively.
We have no temple anywhere and no group of religious practitioners anywhere who can demonstrate any effect that is extra-scientific. No rocket has launched through prayer from any temple. When people pray for the recovery from sickness or debilitation, it is never for something that exceeds the simple law of statistics - statistically certain numbers of cancers are in remission spontaneously, regardless. Those who pray would of course claim "prayer did it" - but you can't show that's what happened outside of statistics. Meanwhile, if asked to, for example grow a limb back (like a lizard can grow back its tail) - prayer has never ever in the history of mankind managed to do that, there's no single confirmed case. That's because statistically the chances of a limb growing back spontaneously is zero, so the religious hucksters can't take advantage of random remissions, the way they can do for cancer, getting your sight back etc..
If you know of any case where we can objectively document an effect of prayer, please report that immediately and you're certain to win untold riches and fame.
There are millions of things we can't scientifically measure, but yet we know they exist. When a loved says they love you. Do not not believe it because you can't scientifically measure it?
They (broadly conservatives) are always against the civil rights of the era
So just more libel, then.
And they always lose.
Oh, and lies.
Why do you care what others do with their private parts?
Why do you care what others do with their voices? How dare you stifle my right to shout whatever I want!
Why do you care what others do with their hands? How dare you stifle their right to pass military and government secrets to the enemy!
Originally Posted by Fred Maxwell
Because that's totally analogous to baking a cake for a couple about to get legally married, right?
Under the law, yes. Quit trying to strawman and move the goalposts.
...a living wage...
Explain why all work demands wages.
Explain why all work demands living wages.
Explain why people must be forced to purchase products.
Learn something about economics.
You just can’t help hitting EVERY major point, can you?
A “living wage” is defined by what your currency or money can purchase. Inflation is a consequence of the destruction of the purchasing power of the dollar. Restore said power and fewer people will be whining about $15 minimum nonsense.
I wonder why threads on equality always quickly end up into this bile spewing on this board. I don't think I've seen such venom and nastiness from conservatives on other tech boards. And always, of course, with utter disregard for FACTS.
The HERO ordinance extends protection to same sex couples and transgender people, the same protection other minorities already benefit from. Believe it or not, in many states it is perfectly legal for an employer to terminate an employee, or for a landlord to kick out a tenant, just because they find out they're gay or transgender. I'm outraged that this is actually becoming a left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal issue. It should be a fair vs. unfair issue, and I honestly don't believe anybody who is against this protection qualifies as fully human.
Of course, the ultra conservative religious nuts have seized and politicized the issue, and have been spending a fortune in lying and misleading propaganda, trying to reduce this important law to a "bathroom law" and attempting to terrify people into believing that this law is meant to allow sexual perverts to enter women's bathrooms and abuse little girls. There isn't a shred of reality behind this garbage, but they sure are putting massive amounts of money behind it.
As far as comparing gays to child molesters... Congratulations, you place yourself in the same category as abject people like Pat Robertson, who at least has the excuse of being senile (although he was always vile).
It is not a civil rights issue. "Civil" rights are about unchangable characteristics that a person is born with. A person can't change their skin color, nationality, gender (irregardless of outward appearances), etc. being gay is a choice, and by definition should not be a civil right. It can be whatever right you want to call it, but it's not a civil right. (Might I suggest post modern or liberal rights?)
A person is going to do what a person is going to do. We can't stop that. However, the institution of marriage was defined and given by God, and He was explicitly clear. To step outside of those bounds man is taking it upon himself to redifine what God has put in place, in essence saying we know better than Him. Gay marriage is not marriage at all, but wishful, lustful desires and ultimately a form of rebellion against God.
Ultimately, it is not my place to judge, because 1: many liberals have not accepted the gospel, 2: I am a sinner myself and have my own tendencies to keep in check, and 3: God is the ultmate, perfect judge who will judge all in the age to come.
I can't change people's minds. Only the Holy Spirit can. It is my job though to spread the gospel, that is to say that while we were still sinners, the Lord Jesus Christ died to save us from the punishment (wrath) from God for those who believe.
Well, there's an example of where religion - a belief system that's not based on science - has led you astray: you seem to think that "being gay is a choice". Had you paid attention to science instead, you'd know that homosexual behavior is very widespread in the animal kingdom, and f.ex. penguins don't one day decide to "be gay". Same for humans - including you. You didn't one day make a choice to "be straight" (assuming you are straight), and the gay person didn't one day wake up and decide to be gay (especially those gay people who never even heard of "gay", but experienced those feelings completely puzzling to them). It's not a choice.
You are also wrong that ""Civil" rights are about unchangable characteristics that a person is born with" - your religious rights are civil rights. See f.ex.:
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion (or lack of religious belief) in hiring, firing, or any other terms and conditions of employment. The law also prohibits job segregation based on religion, such as assigning an employee to a non-customer contact position because of actual or feared customer preference."
So you are wrong on what "civil rights" are. Religion is not an "unchangeable characteristics that a person is born with" - yet it most definitely is a civil right.
If anything, if we were to go with your definition of civil rights - "unchangeable characteristics that a person is born with" - gay would be a civil right and religion would not. How do you like 'em apples?
"However, the institution of marriage was defined and given by God, and He was explicitly clear."
I would like to draw your attention to the U.S. constitution. We have separation of church and state and just because you believe something or other about God, is not grounds for making a law that applies to gay people, or atheists, or any U.S. citizen for that matter. If you have to start an argument based on "bible" or "god" or anything, please understand that such a justification is irrelevant legally.
"To step outside of those bounds man is taking it upon himself to redifine what God has put in place, in essence saying we know better than Him. Gay marriage is not marriage at all, but wishful, lustful desires and ultimately a form of rebellion against God."
Quite apart from the fact that "god" is a mythological creation, and has no bearing on U.S. law, you are quite mistaken as to marriage being "defined" once and for all (by "god" no less) and it not being possible for man to "redefine" it. Marriage has been continuously redefined through history. Constantly. Including when we redefined to allow black and white people to enter marriage (Loving vs Virginia). Please go back and read all those religious arguments by the opponents of black/white marriages - they too claimed "bible" on their side. More of the same nonsense. Now we allow men to marry men and women to marry women. No biggie - just another change in a constantly changing institution. It has never stopped changing and this is just more of it.
Anybody can read the bible any way they want, and because the bible - and religion - is not based on objective science - there is no way to say this interpretation is wrong and that one is right. The bible is also inherently contradictory. Which again means you can't objectively even prove any given interpretation. There are those who believe the bible advocates homosexuality - because Jesus had only bros as apostles and never had sexual relations with women, and by a careful interpretation, they derive the homosexula commandmant - go forth and be gay. As good an interpretation as its opposite. Which is why no sensible government tries to rule based on the bible. Use it for kindling, but not for lawmaking.
Why do you care what others do with their voices? How dare you stifle my right to shout whatever I want!
Why do you care what others do with their hands? How dare you stifle their right to pass military and government secrets to the enemy!
Under the law, yes. Quit trying to strawman and move the goalposts.
Obviously not you, since you don’t seem to care enough about your argument to have it be accurate.
Waiting for a relevant question.
Which you have never read and don’t understand, even in THIS context, so your continued insistence on this irrelevant matter is just funny now.
Oh great, now it’s THAT argument...
I consider you to have absolutely no knowledge of the contents of the Bible.
Proof, then.
Explain why all work demands wages.
Explain why all work demands living wages.
Explain why people must be forced to purchase products.
No, it’s just leftists who send death threats to children and adults alike for not going along with their mental illnesses. Oops!
Aww, cute. I’m not sure if that’s a fallacy of composition or a sweeping generalization.
You just can’t help hitting EVERY major point, can you?
A “living wage” is defined by what your currency or money can purchase. Inflation is a consequence of the destruction of the purchasing power of the dollar. Restore said power and fewer people will be whining about $15 minimum nonsense.
You don’t comprehend the concept at all.
For something to be "libel" it would have to be false. Nothing I wrote is false. It's not enough to simply call something "libel" without adducing proof that the statement is false. Insofar as I can gather you call "libel" my claim that conservatives broadly were always opposed to civil rights of the era. In that, you are provably wrong - definitionally:
Adherents of political conservatism are "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions" - such as continuing the institution of slavery (my example). Historically, conservatives were pro-slavery, abolitionists were progressives of their era - factually, historically true. Women's suffrage (my example) - conservatives were against, progressives of the era were in favor, historical fact. Civil rights for people of color, my example, (see passage of civil rights legislation signed by LBJ) - conservatives of both parties (Dems and Repubs) against, progressives for - historical fact. Gay rights - same thing.
If you have any doubt, please consult any historian or political scientist and ask: historically, which political orientation, conservative or progressive tends to be for civil rights and which against. You will have a powerful answer to your question of "libel". Being sensitive to the law, I even included the qualifier "broadly" conservative, allowing for rare exceptions, such as some conservatives who on occasion may be in favor of a particular civil right. But that merely makes my statement extremely accurate and therefore not libel: "They (broadly conservatives) are always against the civil rights of the era, whatever the era may be - whether we should keep a king, or allow people to vote, whether we should keep slaves, or free them, whether women should be allowed to vote or not, whether civil rights should be extended to people of color, and so on forever."
"lies" wrt. "And they always lose" - please see the context, which is that the always refers to long term, which I made clear at the beginning of that post. And I stand by this. Conservatives lose civil rights fights in the long term.
"Why do you care what others do with their voices? How dare you stifle my right to shout whatever I want!"
I don't. As long as it does not impinge on the rights of others - as gay people's sexual practices between consenting adults does not.
"Why do you care what others do with their hands?"
I don't. As long as it does not impinge on the rights of others - as gay people's sexual practices between consenting adults does not.
"How dare you stifle their right to pass military and government secrets to the enemy!"
Apparently it breaks the law - and therefore there are consequences to that. If it is provable that the enemy as a result can hurt our society, then the law is working as intended. There is harm.
In contrast, no harm has ever been shown in gay people engaging in sexual activities between consenting adults - and this, has been litigated. The opponents were asked to prove harm in gay sex in the case (specifically sodomy) of Lawrence vs Texas:
They were unable to show harm. Therefore the United States Supreme Court decided that anti-Sodomy laws were unconstitutional.
They were asked again to show harm in the case brought to the California Supreme court. They were unable to - and the court ruled against them.
They were asked again to show harm in the recent gay marriage case at the Supreme Court. They were unable to - and the court ruled against them.
In contrast, cases against spies and those who released confidential information to the enemy, were judged guilty, and the harm caused was the biggest part of the argument by the prosecution.
Any more questions? If you are still confused, I recommend more education. Judging by your responses, I would indicate 101 courses as more your speed: intro to poli-sci 101, history 101, law 101.
Yeah, the first sentence there–literally the first thing out of the gate–that was false.
You have deluded yourself into believing that civil rights is not a conservative thought. Cyrus the Great laughs.
The rest of your diatribe is an amusing conflagration of the beliefs of modern conservatives and the beliefs of historic liberals.
You said your lies for the purpose of damage, so that’s pretty much it.
And yet it’s still wrong, no matter the context.
Congress shall make no law... ...abridging the freedom of speech...
It can’t break the law. No law can exist that does this.
The biggest delusion yet.
Why do you believe that lies and logical fallacies are an actual argument?
Time to concede I'd suggest. You do have a habit of selectively quoting partial quotes in your responses to try to make your reply seem better. That's really a bad habit.
Time to concede I'd suggest. You do have a habit of selectively using partial quotes in your responses to try to make your reply seem better. That's really a bad habit.
Congress shall make no law... ...abridging the freedom of speech...
It can’t break the law. No law can exist that does this.
I suppose, technically, Congress didn't make the law, but Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution defines Treason as including giving enemies of the country "Aid and Comfort". Passing state secrets to the country's enemies is usually seen as giving them aid.
The biggest delusion yet.
I'm curious. What harm has been shown to be caused by two consenting adults engaging in homosexual activity in the privacy of their home?
Under the law, yes. Quit trying to strawman and move the goalposts.
No, terrorist front organizations are not the same under the law as engaged gay couples. There are not prohibitions against denying service to organizations financing terrorism in the anti-discrimination statutes in Seattle, Oregon, Houston, or elsewhere in the U.S.
Quote:
Proof, then.
Under this article are a cesspool of comments with right-wing commenters celebrating his company's troubles as proof that liberalism, socialism, etc. are doomed to failure:
It doesn't. You are welcome to volunteer your labor for any number of charities and non-profits. If you want to split firewood for yourself or your neighbor, no one is stopping you. It's only when it's a for-profit business that labor is required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Explain why all work demands living wages.
Because society should not be subsidizing your business by helping to bear the cost of supporting your underpaid workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Aww, cute. I’m not sure if that’s a fallacy of composition or a sweeping generalization.
It's a statement of fact: Your fellow conservatives have murdered multiple doctors who provided legal abortion services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
A “living wage” is defined by what your currency or money can purchase. Inflation is a consequence of the destruction of the purchasing power of the dollar. Restore said power and fewer people will be whining about $15 minimum nonsense.
You don't understand economics at all. Should we start restoring the purchasing power of the dollar by requiring that McDonald's go back to this pricing menu?
Should we force gas stations to revert to these prices for gasoline and car washes?
This isn't a problem with wages -- it's a problem with greed. Executive and stockholders want to keep raising prices and profits, adding to inflation, as worker productivity soars and wages stagnate.
This isn't a problem with wages -- it's a problem with greed. Executive and stockholders want to keep raising prices and profits, adding to inflation, as worker productivity soars and wages stagnate.
Great post, but TS will quote snippets of what you type and answer them as if the partial quote is what you said. He should be banned for this.
AI Mods.. are there no rules about selectively quoting in heated exchanges? If he cannot articulate a full answer to a full comment then he should not reply.
Great post, but TS will quote snippets of what you type and answer them as if the partial quote is what you said. He should be banned for this.
AI Mods.. are there no rules about selectively quoting in heated exchanges? If he cannot articulate a full answer to a full comment then he should not reply.
I'll add my voice to yours. Repeatedly using partial, out-of-context quotes in order to misrepresent another AI user's positions or questions should be grounds for accruing infractions, with enough infractions leading to a ban.
Comments
You mean the truth that keeps changing? What's was true yesterday, isn't true today, and what's true today isn't true tomorrow. That truth?
...being gay is a choice...
So how did you choose to be straight? I can't imagine myself being able to "choose" to be sexually aroused by the sight of another man's nude body -- especially to the point of being able to maintain an erection necessary to perform various sex acts. I guess you and I are quite different, but my sexuality was not a choice at all.
You mean the truth that keeps changing? What's was true yesterday, isn't true today, and what's true today isn't true tomorrow. That truth?
Truth doesn't change, our understanding of it however is always being perfected. A scientific theory is always provisional - and held as such, pending further evidence. Which means that a Newtonian understanding may be superseded by Einsteinian. And tomorrow, Einstein's physics may be amended by something else - but always based on evidence. Unlike religion, which proclaims timeless "truths", not subject to evidence, only to random claims.
Btw. at no time has evolutionary theory claimed "superiority" of one race vs another - there was never such scientific consensus. Yes, textbooks may have claimed this or that, or some educator, or some propagandist, or even a crank scientist may have claimed it in the context of evolutionary theory, but that was never held to be a scientific truth by the science establishment. Unlike for other things, where the scientific establishment really had a consensus in favor of a theory that was later subject to being overthrown (based on - wait for it - scientific evidence!).
The only way to get closer to truth is by the methods of science. Which is why the steady march of science eventually got us to land a man on the moon, while thousands of years of praying failed to so much as lift a feather off the ground. You're welcome.
How do you know praying has failed?
How do you know praying has failed?
Because there is no confirmed instance of prayer succeeding in a measurable way. We've had millennia of religious practices of a staggering variety of religions and uncountable claims - yet no objectively confirmed instances of success of any.
Scientists through the ages have kept perfecting our understanding of physics - and we have objectively confirmed their theories by being able to employ that understanding to land a man on the moon - that landing is documented extensively and objectively.
We have no temple anywhere and no group of religious practitioners anywhere who can demonstrate any effect that is extra-scientific. No rocket has launched through prayer from any temple. When people pray for the recovery from sickness or debilitation, it is never for something that exceeds the simple law of statistics - statistically certain numbers of cancers are in remission spontaneously, regardless. Those who pray would of course claim "prayer did it" - but you can't show that's what happened outside of statistics. Meanwhile, if asked to, for example grow a limb back (like a lizard can grow back its tail) - prayer has never ever in the history of mankind managed to do that, there's no single confirmed case. That's because statistically the chances of a limb growing back spontaneously is zero, so the religious hucksters can't take advantage of random remissions, the way they can do for cancer, getting your sight back etc..
If you know of any case where we can objectively document an effect of prayer, please report that immediately and you're certain to win untold riches and fame.
There are millions of things we can't scientifically measure, but yet we know they exist. When a loved says they love you. Do not not believe it because you can't scientifically measure it?
So just more libel, then.
And they always lose.
Oh, and lies.
Why do you care what others do with their private parts?
Why do you care what others do with their voices? How dare you stifle my right to shout whatever I want!
Why do you care what others do with their hands? How dare you stifle their right to pass military and government secrets to the enemy!
Under the law, yes. Quit trying to strawman and move the goalposts.
Explain why all work demands wages.
Explain why all work demands living wages.
Explain why people must be forced to purchase products.
Learn something about economics.
You just can’t help hitting EVERY major point, can you?
A “living wage” is defined by what your currency or money can purchase. Inflation is a consequence of the destruction of the purchasing power of the dollar. Restore said power and fewer people will be whining about $15 minimum nonsense.
I wonder why threads on equality always quickly end up into this bile spewing on this board. I don't think I've seen such venom and nastiness from conservatives on other tech boards. And always, of course, with utter disregard for FACTS.
The HERO ordinance extends protection to same sex couples and transgender people, the same protection other minorities already benefit from. Believe it or not, in many states it is perfectly legal for an employer to terminate an employee, or for a landlord to kick out a tenant, just because they find out they're gay or transgender. I'm outraged that this is actually becoming a left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal issue. It should be a fair vs. unfair issue, and I honestly don't believe anybody who is against this protection qualifies as fully human.
Of course, the ultra conservative religious nuts have seized and politicized the issue, and have been spending a fortune in lying and misleading propaganda, trying to reduce this important law to a "bathroom law" and attempting to terrify people into believing that this law is meant to allow sexual perverts to enter women's bathrooms and abuse little girls. There isn't a shred of reality behind this garbage, but they sure are putting massive amounts of money behind it.
As far as comparing gays to child molesters... Congratulations, you place yourself in the same category as abject people like Pat Robertson, who at least has the excuse of being senile (although he was always vile).
It is not a civil rights issue. "Civil" rights are about unchangable characteristics that a person is born with. A person can't change their skin color, nationality, gender (irregardless of outward appearances), etc. being gay is a choice, and by definition should not be a civil right. It can be whatever right you want to call it, but it's not a civil right. (Might I suggest post modern or liberal rights?)
A person is going to do what a person is going to do. We can't stop that. However, the institution of marriage was defined and given by God, and He was explicitly clear. To step outside of those bounds man is taking it upon himself to redifine what God has put in place, in essence saying we know better than Him. Gay marriage is not marriage at all, but wishful, lustful desires and ultimately a form of rebellion against God.
Ultimately, it is not my place to judge, because 1: many liberals have not accepted the gospel, 2: I am a sinner myself and have my own tendencies to keep in check, and 3: God is the ultmate, perfect judge who will judge all in the age to come.
I can't change people's minds. Only the Holy Spirit can. It is my job though to spread the gospel, that is to say that while we were still sinners, the Lord Jesus Christ died to save us from the punishment (wrath) from God for those who believe.
Well, there's an example of where religion - a belief system that's not based on science - has led you astray: you seem to think that "being gay is a choice". Had you paid attention to science instead, you'd know that homosexual behavior is very widespread in the animal kingdom, and f.ex. penguins don't one day decide to "be gay". Same for humans - including you. You didn't one day make a choice to "be straight" (assuming you are straight), and the gay person didn't one day wake up and decide to be gay (especially those gay people who never even heard of "gay", but experienced those feelings completely puzzling to them). It's not a choice.
You are also wrong that ""Civil" rights are about unchangable characteristics that a person is born with" - your religious rights are civil rights. See f.ex.:
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-religion.cfm?
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion (or lack of religious belief) in hiring, firing, or any other terms and conditions of employment. The law also prohibits job segregation based on religion, such as assigning an employee to a non-customer contact position because of actual or feared customer preference."
So you are wrong on what "civil rights" are. Religion is not an "unchangeable characteristics that a person is born with" - yet it most definitely is a civil right.
If anything, if we were to go with your definition of civil rights - "unchangeable characteristics that a person is born with" - gay would be a civil right and religion would not. How do you like 'em apples?
"However, the institution of marriage was defined and given by God, and He was explicitly clear."
I would like to draw your attention to the U.S. constitution. We have separation of church and state and just because you believe something or other about God, is not grounds for making a law that applies to gay people, or atheists, or any U.S. citizen for that matter. If you have to start an argument based on "bible" or "god" or anything, please understand that such a justification is irrelevant legally.
"To step outside of those bounds man is taking it upon himself to redifine what God has put in place, in essence saying we know better than Him. Gay marriage is not marriage at all, but wishful, lustful desires and ultimately a form of rebellion against God."
Quite apart from the fact that "god" is a mythological creation, and has no bearing on U.S. law, you are quite mistaken as to marriage being "defined" once and for all (by "god" no less) and it not being possible for man to "redefine" it. Marriage has been continuously redefined through history. Constantly. Including when we redefined to allow black and white people to enter marriage (Loving vs Virginia). Please go back and read all those religious arguments by the opponents of black/white marriages - they too claimed "bible" on their side. More of the same nonsense. Now we allow men to marry men and women to marry women. No biggie - just another change in a constantly changing institution. It has never stopped changing and this is just more of it.
Anybody can read the bible any way they want, and because the bible - and religion - is not based on objective science - there is no way to say this interpretation is wrong and that one is right. The bible is also inherently contradictory. Which again means you can't objectively even prove any given interpretation. There are those who believe the bible advocates homosexuality - because Jesus had only bros as apostles and never had sexual relations with women, and by a careful interpretation, they derive the homosexula commandmant - go forth and be gay. As good an interpretation as its opposite. Which is why no sensible government tries to rule based on the bible. Use it for kindling, but not for lawmaking.
So just more libel, then.
Oh, and lies.
Why do you care what others do with their voices? How dare you stifle my right to shout whatever I want!
Why do you care what others do with their hands? How dare you stifle their right to pass military and government secrets to the enemy!
Under the law, yes. Quit trying to strawman and move the goalposts.
Obviously not you, since you don’t seem to care enough about your argument to have it be accurate.
Waiting for a relevant question.
Which you have never read and don’t understand, even in THIS context, so your continued insistence on this irrelevant matter is just funny now.
Oh great, now it’s THAT argument...
I consider you to have absolutely no knowledge of the contents of the Bible.
Proof, then.
Explain why all work demands wages.
Explain why all work demands living wages.
Explain why people must be forced to purchase products.
No, it’s just leftists who send death threats to children and adults alike for not going along with their mental illnesses. Oops!
Aww, cute. I’m not sure if that’s a fallacy of composition or a sweeping generalization.
You just can’t help hitting EVERY major point, can you?
A “living wage” is defined by what your currency or money can purchase. Inflation is a consequence of the destruction of the purchasing power of the dollar. Restore said power and fewer people will be whining about $15 minimum nonsense.
You don’t comprehend the concept at all.
For something to be "libel" it would have to be false. Nothing I wrote is false. It's not enough to simply call something "libel" without adducing proof that the statement is false. Insofar as I can gather you call "libel" my claim that conservatives broadly were always opposed to civil rights of the era. In that, you are provably wrong - definitionally:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative
Adherents of political conservatism are "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions" - such as continuing the institution of slavery (my example). Historically, conservatives were pro-slavery, abolitionists were progressives of their era - factually, historically true. Women's suffrage (my example) - conservatives were against, progressives of the era were in favor, historical fact. Civil rights for people of color, my example, (see passage of civil rights legislation signed by LBJ) - conservatives of both parties (Dems and Repubs) against, progressives for - historical fact. Gay rights - same thing.
If you have any doubt, please consult any historian or political scientist and ask: historically, which political orientation, conservative or progressive tends to be for civil rights and which against. You will have a powerful answer to your question of "libel". Being sensitive to the law, I even included the qualifier "broadly" conservative, allowing for rare exceptions, such as some conservatives who on occasion may be in favor of a particular civil right. But that merely makes my statement extremely accurate and therefore not libel: "They (broadly conservatives) are always against the civil rights of the era, whatever the era may be - whether we should keep a king, or allow people to vote, whether we should keep slaves, or free them, whether women should be allowed to vote or not, whether civil rights should be extended to people of color, and so on forever."
"lies" wrt. "And they always lose" - please see the context, which is that the always refers to long term, which I made clear at the beginning of that post. And I stand by this. Conservatives lose civil rights fights in the long term.
"Why do you care what others do with their voices? How dare you stifle my right to shout whatever I want!"
I don't. As long as it does not impinge on the rights of others - as gay people's sexual practices between consenting adults does not.
"Why do you care what others do with their hands?"
I don't. As long as it does not impinge on the rights of others - as gay people's sexual practices between consenting adults does not.
"How dare you stifle their right to pass military and government secrets to the enemy!"
Apparently it breaks the law - and therefore there are consequences to that. If it is provable that the enemy as a result can hurt our society, then the law is working as intended. There is harm.
In contrast, no harm has ever been shown in gay people engaging in sexual activities between consenting adults - and this, has been litigated. The opponents were asked to prove harm in gay sex in the case (specifically sodomy) of Lawrence vs Texas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
They were unable to show harm. Therefore the United States Supreme Court decided that anti-Sodomy laws were unconstitutional.
They were asked again to show harm in the case brought to the California Supreme court. They were unable to - and the court ruled against them.
They were asked again to show harm in the recent gay marriage case at the Supreme Court. They were unable to - and the court ruled against them.
In contrast, cases against spies and those who released confidential information to the enemy, were judged guilty, and the harm caused was the biggest part of the argument by the prosecution.
Any more questions? If you are still confused, I recommend more education. Judging by your responses, I would indicate 101 courses as more your speed: intro to poli-sci 101, history 101, law 101.
Yeah, the first sentence there–literally the first thing out of the gate–that was false.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative
You have deluded yourself into believing that civil rights is not a conservative thought. Cyrus the Great laughs.
The rest of your diatribe is an amusing conflagration of the beliefs of modern conservatives and the beliefs of historic liberals.
And yet it’s still wrong, no matter the context.
Congress shall make no law... ...abridging the freedom of speech...
It can’t break the law. No law can exist that does this.
Time to concede I'd suggest. You do have a habit of selectively quoting partial quotes in your responses to try to make your reply seem better. That's really a bad habit.
Nah, sorry.
I’m not going to stop multi quoting. It aids with reading comprehension.
See what I did there? You thought I’d validate that but really I’m subverting it by also quoting this and explicitly calling it out.
What’d I screw up? Give an example. Which of my replies was wrong? Give an example.
I'm curious. What harm has been shown to be caused by two consenting adults engaging in homosexual activity in the privacy of their home?
Under the law, yes. Quit trying to strawman and move the goalposts.
No, terrorist front organizations are not the same under the law as engaged gay couples. There are not prohibitions against denying service to organizations financing terrorism in the anti-discrimination statutes in Seattle, Oregon, Houston, or elsewhere in the U.S.
Quote:
Under this article are a cesspool of comments with right-wing commenters celebrating his company's troubles as proof that liberalism, socialism, etc. are doomed to failure:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/1/dan-price-seattle-ceo-who-set-company-minimum-wage/
Quote:
Explain why all work demands wages.
It doesn't. You are welcome to volunteer your labor for any number of charities and non-profits. If you want to split firewood for yourself or your neighbor, no one is stopping you. It's only when it's a for-profit business that labor is required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Explain why all work demands living wages.
Because society should not be subsidizing your business by helping to bear the cost of supporting your underpaid workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Aww, cute. I’m not sure if that’s a fallacy of composition or a sweeping generalization.
It's a statement of fact: Your fellow conservatives have murdered multiple doctors who provided legal abortion services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
A “living wage” is defined by what your currency or money can purchase. Inflation is a consequence of the destruction of the purchasing power of the dollar. Restore said power and fewer people will be whining about $15 minimum nonsense.
You don't understand economics at all. Should we start restoring the purchasing power of the dollar by requiring that McDonald's go back to this pricing menu?
Should we force gas stations to revert to these prices for gasoline and car washes?
This isn't a problem with wages -- it's a problem with greed. Executive and stockholders want to keep raising prices and profits, adding to inflation, as worker productivity soars and wages stagnate.
circa 2013
Jeez, cutting off what i said part way through, are you a script writer for Fox News?
Great post, but TS will quote snippets of what you type and answer them as if the partial quote is what you said. He should be banned for this.
AI Mods.. are there no rules about selectively quoting in heated exchanges? If he cannot articulate a full answer to a full comment then he should not reply.
Great post, but TS will quote snippets of what you type and answer them as if the partial quote is what you said. He should be banned for this.
AI Mods.. are there no rules about selectively quoting in heated exchanges? If he cannot articulate a full answer to a full comment then he should not reply.
I'll add my voice to yours. Repeatedly using partial, out-of-context quotes in order to misrepresent another AI user's positions or questions should be grounds for accruing infractions, with enough infractions leading to a ban.