Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52
  1. jewel's Avatar
    Posts
    638 Posts
    Global Posts
    666 Global Posts
    #21  
    People get angry when race is being violated. But when sex is being violated they say it's their right.
  2. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    That's my point. That's me being prejudiced. Not being a racist. Being a racist would be my acting on my prejudice in a negative way towards her non white suitor. It's subtle, and I'm sorry if I'm terrible at explaining it. Prejudice is not based on action, it's just a bias, a preference. Racism is a negative action.
    That's okay, I just want to be clear. So, by your definition, if I believe Jews are evil and Blacks are inferior to White Gentiles but I lead a peaceable life and just keep it to myself, I'm not a racist?
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    That's okay, I just want to be clear. So, by your definition, if I believe Jews are evil and Blacks are inferior to White Gentiles but I lead a peaceable life and just keep it to myself, I'm not a racist?
    I tend to agree with Micael. Racism is defined by action or by an outside source. In your example others might consider you a racist were they to see the result of your feelings and beliefs but if you kept it to yourself and never acted or did anything negative to the folks you dont care for why would anyone accuse you of racism.

    Bias and prejudice are part of who we are. We all have it in many different forms. Racism is the name OTHERS give to our biases.

    Example: If I dont like blacks, I dont like blacks. I dont sit in front of the mirror and say "dude, youre a racist". However if I tell my coworkers I dont like blacks, someone is likely to call me a racist.

    If meat eaters and non meat eaters were races you could interchange vegan with black and the vegans would say I was a racist be cause I dont like vegans.

    I dont have a problem with either group in the example, but IF I did, I am entitled to my opinion whether anyone likes it or not. I don't think those who regularly play the race card think i am entitled to my opinion, however.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    I dont have a problem with either group in the example, but IF I did, I am entitled to my opinion whether anyone likes it or not. I don't think those who regularly play the race card think i am entitled to my opinion, however.
    Thats next. The "thought police" are right around the corner. It's already started with "hate crimes" legislation.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #25  
    Look at England and Canada as prime examples of hate crime countries. In jail for what we consider normal and protected speech. It is here now in the US when it comes to sexual orientation - let us remember to protect a small group against any criticism and punish the vast majority of people who do not agree with them.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Look at England and Canada as prime examples of hate crime countries. In jail for what we consider normal and protected speech. It is here now in the US when it comes to sexual orientation - let us remember to protect a small group against any criticism and punish the vast majority of people who do not agree with them.
    What are you talking about? People put in jail for talking about sexual orientation? I am totally confused.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    What are you talking about? People put in jail for talking about sexual orientation? I am totally confused.
    Not to mention the "vast majority" that thinks it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8. #28  
    Oh so very wrong there. There are very definite lines with both topics that are not crossed in many work places. Crossing = termination.

    Quote Originally Posted by jewel View Post
    People get angry when race is being violated. But when sex is being violated they say it's their right.
  9. #29  
    Surely you jest. Marquette Warrior: Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views.

    Surely you have looked through this mass of print: Violence against LGBT people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Surely you have read this: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/07/s...rimes-head-on/

    Surely: House Judiciary to Examine Homosexual Hate Crimes Bill

    I am shocked!

    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    What are you talking about? People put in jail for talking about sexual orientation? I am totally confused.
  10. #30  
    We do? I do not. My neighbor across the way does not. My boss does not. My kids do not. What bunches of people do have a problem with is the unfair extra protection given to a very small minority, giving them preferential treatment, which is not what our laws are about. Somewhere long, long ago it was written that justice should be blind.

    You do have this tendency to go emotional in these discussions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Not to mention the "vast majority" that thinks it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals.
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    We do? I do not. My neighbor across the way does not. My boss does not. My kids do not. What bunches of people do have a problem with is the unfair extra protection given to a very small minority, giving them preferential treatment, which is not what our laws are about. Somewhere long, long ago it was written that justice should be blind.

    You do have this tendency to go emotional in these discussions.
    Ok, I'm going to lean on the left on the gay rights issue, because to me, it's the majority that gets the unfair extra protection when it comes to marriage. There's no logical reason to deny gays the right to marry..... only emotional ones.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Ok, I'm going to lean on the left on the gay rights issue, because to me, it's the majority that gets the unfair extra protection when it comes to marriage. There's no logical reason to deny gays the right to marry..... only emotional ones.
    They are too fixated on the word "marriage." If they would just push for the same rights without using the word it would be done already. There are too many conservative people who also happen to be religious and don't want the definition of the word changed.
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by NickDG View Post
    They are too fixated on the word "marriage." If they would just push for the same rights without using the word it would be done already. There are too many conservative people who also happen to be religious and don't want the definition of the word changed.
    Hence why I said it was not logical, but emotionally based. You've made my point. It's not the gays that have the word problem. It's the religious conservatives. (actually, not just conservatives. I know liberals who are religious as well)

    Isn't it ironic that usually it's the conservatives that are pointing to the emotion based thinking of the liberals?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Hence why I said it was not logical, but emotionally based. You've made my point. It's not the gays that have the word problem. It's the religious conservatives. (actually, not just conservatives. I know liberals who are religious as well)

    Isn't it ironic that usually it's the conservatives that are pointing to the emotion based thinking of the liberals?
    The emotions come from both sides. The gays DO have the word problem as they keep fighting for it, along with the other side who doesn't want to let go.

    It's a mess, all over a word.
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by NickDG View Post
    The emotions come from both sides. The gays DO have the word problem as they keep fighting for it, along with the other side who doesn't want to let go.

    It's a mess, all over a word.
    The "mess" is called discrimination, and it's immoral.

    As far as the word:

    To the gay - It's usage would be a recognition of equality. It's saying you're equal to me, and I'm equal to you. We have the same right to pursue happiness. We can both declare commitment to our loved ones in the same way.

    To the religious - It's denial of usage for gays is a recognition only of differences. It's saying you're not equal to me, and I have a different set of special reserved places that you can't enter. I'm happy with it. Work your own happiness out some other way.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    I tend to agree with Micael. Racism is defined by action or by an outside source. In your example others might consider you a racist were they to see the result of your feelings and beliefs but if you kept it to yourself and never acted or did anything negative to the folks you dont care for why would anyone accuse you of racism.

    Bias and prejudice are part of who we are. We all have it in many different forms. Racism is the name OTHERS give to our biases.

    Example: If I dont like blacks, I dont like blacks. I dont sit in front of the mirror and say "dude, youre a racist". However if I tell my coworkers I dont like blacks, someone is likely to call me a racist.

    If meat eaters and non meat eaters were races you could interchange vegan with black and the vegans would say I was a racist be cause I dont like vegans.

    I dont have a problem with either group in the example, but IF I did, I am entitled to my opinion whether anyone likes it or not. I don't think those who regularly play the race card think i am entitled to my opinion, however.
    But why let other people define that word for you? You and I both know that if we harbor racist thoughts we're racist no matter who else knows about it. In the same way, hypothetically, if we're the nicest people outwardly but inwardly think we're better than everyone else, we're arrogant. Right?

    And, don't misunderstand, I'm not saying this should be a matter of public policy or anything like that. I just think we need to come to agreement on what the terms mean so that we don't end up letting people with certain political motivations define them for us.
  17. #37  
    Hmmm... I use to try to stay out of these discussions in public forums, but this discussion seems to be going relatively civilly, so I'll drop 2 cents.

    Quote Originally Posted by NickDG View Post
    The emotions come from both sides. The gays DO have the word problem as they keep fighting for it, along with the other side who doesn't want to let go.

    It's a mess, all over a word.
    I've got a simple solution: Government gets out of the "marriage" business. So, instead of issuing "marriage licenses" they issue "union licenses." You take the "marriage" aspect to your spiritual group (church, family, what every suits your needs).

    The problem with the word "marriage" is universality. Allow states to issue marriages to same-sex couples, break up the Defense of Marriage Act, and they apply across all states. Unfortunately, not all states offer Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions.

    So, the thing with what I suggested is the government can offer its benefits to unionized (that word sounds terrible...) couples, and religion isn't involved. At least here in California there are laws against citizens suing churches for denying services (you can't sue a church for not marrying you because of something that goes against the church's beliefs).

    To me, it seems to be a win-win: same-sex couples get equal rights universally, no religion is "threatened," the government "make[s] no law[s] respecting an establishment of religion," churches still get to marry to their beliefs (conservative churches can refuse to marry same-sex couples while liberal churches can marry same-sex couples).

    Unfortunately, both sides are a bit stubborn about it... So yeah, it is a mess...


    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    We do? I do not. My neighbor across the way does not. My boss does not. My kids do not. What bunches of people do have a problem with is the unfair extra protection given to a very small minority, giving them preferential treatment, which is not what our laws are about. Somewhere long, long ago it was written that justice should be blind.

    You do have this tendency to go emotional in these discussions.
    I used to have an argument, or I read an argument, about how anti-discrimination laws could be achieved without the "preferential treatment" aspect. I want to say that it was along the lines of "murder is murder and is bad anyway you look at it." I wish that I could remember it.

    I'm not sure that the anti-discrimination laws directly target people having and voicing an opinion (I am sure that some do try to, unfortunately), rather they target how the opinion is expressed. You can say you hate somebody, but you can't ransack their belongings to make the point. Though, this should already be covered by normal laws that are not aimed to protect a certain class of individuals. Unfortunately, there are parts of this great country that still operate on a selective basis.

    The system has flaws from both directions.
    Did you know:

    webOS ran on a Treo 800 during initial development.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #38  
    There shouldn't be two punishments, one for when they prove hate was involved, and one if they cannot. Murder is murder. Is that close to your argument?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    But why let other people define that word for you? You and I both know that if we harbor racist thoughts we're racist no matter who else knows about it. In the same way, hypothetically, if we're the nicest people outwardly but inwardly think we're better than everyone else, we're arrogant. Right?

    And, don't misunderstand, I'm not saying this should be a matter of public policy or anything like that. I just think we need to come to agreement on what the terms mean so that we don't end up letting people with certain political motivations define them for us.
    Groovy I think you missed my point. We are allowed to have our opinions and biases. It is a part of what makes us who we are. The problem comes from one group trying to decide what is "fair" and "proper" and "won't make others feel bad". That's the part I have a problem with. I mean what's next? And aren't I allowed to be a racist and/or arrogant or anything else if I keep it to myself? Maybe youre a racist if you harbor racist thoughts, but I'll kindly ask you to keep your judgments of me to yourself. No matter who I don't like I dont have to admit anything to myself or anyone else and I dont need you defining anyone but yourself.

    Racism. A term that is bandied about on all sides and rarely in the proper context. Example: disagreeing with Obama isn't racism because he's black. Pretty stupid. But I have heard people called racist because they disgree with him. Are we now going to say that only people of the same race can disagree? Stooopid!!!

    And why do we care if someone thinks we're arrogant? Or a racist? Are those things illegal? No Should they be? No.

    Or we could legislate proper behavior and respect and not have any of this to deal with.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  20. #40  
    The concept of racism is stupid. Groovy's tribalism is far more accurate. As my World Civ professor used to say, simply basing similarities on the melanin presented in the skin is a ludicrous way of comparing humans. Tall, dark, people with certain bone structures have far more in common with tall, light people with certain bone structures than short, dark people with certain bone structures.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions