[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[vayanui8]

>groups shouldn't be discriminated against
>groups should be allowed to be discriminated against

Those are two contradictory positions. It's up to you to figure out which one is more important than the other.

This is not contradictory. He is stating that he personally does not believe it is the morally right decision. That doesn't mean that the government should enforce that belief on everyone.

 

[Lacius]

This is not contradictory. He is stating that he personally does not believe it is the morally right decision. That doesn't mean that the government should enforce that belief on everyone.

Then he apparently values B over A.

 

[sarkwalvein]

To follow up with Foxi4, check this out. This is advocacy without legislation that ended in policy change.
https://futureworldblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/chick-fil-a-the-aftermath/

That just made me remember a very laughable president of a South American country that was convinced eating chicken made you gay.
Seriously, he was THE PRESIDENT.

 

[Lacius]

To follow up with Foxi4, check this out. This is advocacy without legislation that ended in policy change.
https://futureworldblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/chick-fil-a-the-aftermath/

While Chick fil A was never discriminatory as far as I'm aware, it is a good example of how homophobia does not necessarily lead to a hurt bottom line.

 

[brickmii82]

While Chick fil A was never discriminatory as far as I'm aware, it is a good example of how homophobia does not necessarily lead to a hurt bottom line.

Um...ok.. I guess they just changed policy because they felt like it?!?



Did you read it through? Seriously? Ijs.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

That just made me remember a very laughable president of a South American country that was convinced eating chicken made you gay.
Seriously, he was THE PRESIDENT.

Gonna look this up, never heard of this guy, and good laughs are soul food!! Lol

 

[Lacius]

Um...ok.. I guess they just changed policy because they felt like it?!?



Did you read it through? Seriously? Ijs.

Yes, I read it. The information is ancient. Their policy on discrimination was just them saving face; that was never the problem. The homophobia came specifically from donations to anti-gay groups and anti-gay causes, and those donations have not stopped.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Gonna look this up, never heard of this guy, and good laughs are soul food!! Lol

Gonna make it easy for you.

 

[Foxi4]

>groups shouldn't be discriminated against
>groups should be allowed to be discriminated against

Those are two contradictory positions. It's up to you to figure out which one is more important than the other.

Only if you live in the world of absolutes. I believe that they shouldn't discriminate, as a business owner I wouldn't, but I'm not willing to prohibit them from doing so because it's their business, not mine. "Shouldn't" doesn't mean "should be prohibited from" - it's their business, they choose who to trade with.

I don't think you know what a free market is when you believe groups of people can be excluded from it. A free market doesn't mean people get to do whatever they want. Companies can't poison people or be otherwise negligent.

A free market also isn't free if you tell businesses who to do business with - that's a controlled economy. Consumer protection has nothing to do with this, products shouldn't be sold under false premises or falsely labelled. There's a huge difference between the two concepts.

As I've said more times than I care to remember, there's a price to being allowed to participate in a business that caters to the public. If you're going to run a business that caters to the public, then one of the requirements is that you cater to the public. A business also benefits from government-provided services, such as roads and asset-protection. If the price of admission (freedom, for example) is too high, then one shouldn't be running a business.

Completely false. Running a public business does not mean that you have to sell goods and services to the entirety of the public - take OEM manufacturers for example. Some companies only do business with certain kinds of customers, in this case, other companies.

What about when it doesn't hurt their bottom line, which it usually doesn't? You don't appear to have thought this part through.

It does a 100% of the time, because you have a customer who is willing to give you money and you refuse to take it - that's hurting your bottom line, it has no financial benefit.

A predisposition for child-rape and/or being sexually unfulfilled and celibate for the entirety of one's life are pretty negative.

Or you can role-play with a youthful-looking partner and lead a healthy sex life. Y'know, the option's there.

Can you give me an example of incentives that would work? Because if these incentives don't work nearly 100% of the time, then people are still being excluded from participating in the public goods and services system.

Tax cuts. If you don't exclude anyone, you pay less because your goods or services are more accessible. I'm against affirmative action, but that's basically the exact same thing you're praising the government for in terms of handling black's, women's and homosexual's issues.

I also want to quickly note that what you're describing sounds a lot like the criticisms of the feminist movement back in the day. "If only you ladies stopped being such cunts and asked nicely."

I only said that people have agency and should rely on it - feminists did and it worked.

 

[gbaboy123]

you know talking about politics should be consider a disrespect to anyone so why don't we all move on and forget the hell out of this worthless shit

 

[brickmii82]

Yes, I read it. The information is ancient. Their policy on discrimination was just them saving face; that was never the problem. The homophobia came specifically from donations to anti-gay groups and anti-gay causes, and those donations have not stopped.

You're tip toeing around my point by dismissing an obvious response to what would be devastating PR, in favor of your cause. But it's cool. We just disagree here. While I agree with the morality of your cause, I disagree with your proposed solution.

 

[Foxi4]

Chick fil-a was ran by a homophobe, it did not discriminate against customers, the point is null and void either way since that's not what we're talking about. Homophobes can run businesses too, who knew, right?

 

[Lacius]

Only if you live in the world of absolutes. I believe that they shouldn't discriminate, as a business owner I wouldn't, but I'm not willing to prohibit them from doing so because it's their business, not mine.

Then you can't claim to care much about discrimination.

A free market also isn't free if you tell businesses who to do business with - that's a controlled economy.

Completely false. Running a public business does not mean that you have to sell goods and services to the entirety of the public - take OEM manufacturers for example. Some companies only do business with certain kinds of customers, in this case, other companies.

If a business explicitly caters to the public, which is the qualifier I've used this entire time, that business should not be able to decide which groups of people based on immutable characteristics it discriminates against. If you care about discrimination, then you should advocate for policy against it. If you don't, then you don't actually care that much. Policy is objectively the only effective way to curb discrimination of this kind.

Consumer protection has nothing to do with this

This entire discussion is about consumer protection.

It does a 100% of the time, because you have a customer who is willing to give you money and you refuse to take it - that's hurting your bottom line, it has no financial benefit.

I assumed you were again referring to the potential backlash and/or boycotts against a business. For many businesses, the few instances of discrimination is a small price to pay to screw the gay customers, and that's unacceptable. Your point that economic backlash is a disincentive only works if businesses are not willing to pay the price. If we're talking about just the money they lose when they turn specific customers away, that's usually not a hinderance to those likely to discriminate.

Or you can role-play with a youthful-looking partner and lead a healthy sex life. Y'know, the option's there.

Ignoring that you didn't address the aforementioned predispositions and urges, what you mentioned is uncommon and unrealistic. Granted, it's been about a year or two since I listened to a podcast on the subject, but voluntary chemical castration appears to be the coping mechanism of choice, and it usually doesn't even work. It's a pretty difficult life for a lot of these people because they're predisposed to inherently harmful behavior.

For the nth time, I don't know why we're talking about this, and it's offensive to groups who are actually the targets of discrimination.

Tax cuts. If you don't exclude anyone, you pay less because your goods or services are more accessible. I'm against affirmative action, but that's basically the exact same thing you're praising the government for in terms of handling black's and homosexual's issues.

When I originally asked the question, I knew you were going to propose something along the lines of a You're Not a Dick taxcut. Given the number of businesses that don't discriminate, that's a lot of lost revenue. It's also convoluted as fuck compared to a law that says no discrimination. Finally, if a business decides it's willing to forego a taxcut it never had in the name of discrimination, your plan has failed.

 

[Lucifer666]

If you're white, you can't be discriminated against, noted. Genius troll or idiot? I'll let everyone decide for themselves.

If you're white you can be discriminated against, just not on the basis of your skin colour. In the nigh on impossible chance that that does occur, it's bullying more than it is racism in that sense of the word; racism is systematic and backed up by historical oppression, not one outlier's unusual view of white people.

I find it incredibly ironic that you are accusing all Trump supporters of being rascists and then you decide to claim the fact that they are white as a negative trait

It's not a negative trait on its own, but it speaks volumes when you appeal only to a group that happens to be a dominant one/non-minority. Begs the question of why you are unpopular to other groups.

No, I wouldn't, because I live in the real world and I know that the man is not a magician. Those people were already in the voting pool, nothing has changed - he didn't conjure up additional "meanie racists" with his bag of fairy dust and his book of magic spells. You have no evidence that Trump supporters have "no regard for life", by the way - that's a complete fabrication on your part. Last I checked, it was Trump supporters that got eggs and stones thrown at them, not the other way around.

The very policies suggested point to a lack of regard for life. Banning Muslims from entering the country on account of a fear of terrorism, being 'pro-life' AKA anti-choice (notice how the care is only for the foetus before it is born and does not extend to its inevitably shitty life conditions when born to a parent that does not want a child), building a wall to keep out immigrants, etc. It's not fabrication. You're a smart man Foxi4 and I frequent your postings because of that; I shouldn't have to explain how Donald Trumps' policies (whether 'an act' or not) are harmful.

See, this is what the regressive left does - they stick a label on you, a label they made up by the way, and decide whether you're *worth* protecting or not. You're not allowed to have a dissenting opinion in a free country in the 21st century, you're only allowed to think in one very specific way. If you don't, it probably means that you're a backwards religious idiot and you need to be distroyed - you're too stupid to see things their way. That judgement is made with no evidence or stats, it just "has to be true". Where's your evidence? Or are you just throwing accusations in the wind? Are you suggesting that Trump supporters *deserve* to have stones thrown at them? Who's the facist here?

That's not really a valid argument. I could turn the tables and say "the regressive right oppose being placed under categories of hateful groups rather than actually rebut against the arguments of the left." Right-wingers (at least the sort that Trump appeals to, can't think of a more accurate term atm) are referred to by such terms because that's what their political stances correspond to. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is an act of homophobia; it goes beyond just an opinion. When Trump describes Obama's housing of Syrian refugees as a "tremendous flow" that needs to be stopped because "we don't know what they're planning", he fails to see them as civilians who've been wronged by a corrupt, self-destructive government and instead perceives them as a unanimous body conspiring against the country; an unrealistic image formed by his preconceptions of people from the Middle East. It's racism in a nutshell. (Mind you, I'm not saying that refusing to take refugees in is racist in and of itself; I am commenting on his rationale for not wishing to do so.)

 

[Foxi4]

Then you can't claim to care much about discrimination.

Because I value freedom? Or because I want to achieve equality without sacrificing freedom in the process? Or because I think that the ends don't justify the means? Okay. Don't guilt trip me into fighting other people's battles - I have my own methods, like not doing business with people I find morally bankrupt. I fight with my wallet, not with hot air. I don't need nor want the government to strong-arm people who disagree with me into submission. You should never load a gun that one day can be aimed at you.

If a business explicitly caters to the public, which is the qualifier I've used this entire time, that business should not be able to decide which groups of people based on immutable characteristics it discriminates against. If you care about discrimination, then you should advocate for policy against it. If you don't, then you don't actually care that much. Policy is objectively the only effective way to curb discrimination of this kind.

Opinion, not fact. Telling people not to hate each other achieves nothing in my book, they need to come to that conclusion themselves.

This entire discussion is about consumer protection.

Of course it's not. Your rights as a consumer are not violated if someone doesn't want to do business with you - they would be violated if someone took advantage of you or exposed you to harm in the process of doing business with you or sold you a product or service that is not as described in the agreement. You cannot claim that your rights as a consumer were violated if you didn't consume any product or service in the first place.

I assumed you were again referring to the potential backlash and/or boycotts against a business. For many businesses, the few instances of discrimination is a small price to pay to screw the gay customers, and that's unacceptable. Your point that economic backlash is a disincentive only works if businesses are not willing to pay the price. If we're talking about just the money they lose when they turn specific customers away, that's usually not a hinderance to those likely to discriminate.

You're not saying anything here. Like I said, there is a potential customer that you refuse to serve, thus you earn less. Social backlash against a business only makes it worse, but is not necessary in the equation.

Ignoring that you didn't address the aforementioned predispositions and urges, what you mentioned is uncommon and unrealistic. Granted, it's been about a year or two since I listened to a podcast on the subject, but voluntary chemical castration appears to be the coping mechanism of choice, and it usually doesn't even work. It's a pretty difficult life for a lot of these people because they're predisposed to inherently harmful behavior.

There are potentially thousands of closet peadophiles who cannot seek therapy because sexologists under the current letter of law are obligated to inform the authorities of anyone who is potentially a peadophile, regardless of whether they offended or not. By seeking help and seeing a specialist they expose themselves to criminal investigation and becoming social pariahs, losing their jobs and jeopordizing their well-being even if they've never broken the law. These people are actively persecuted against and live in the shadows with noone to turn to. Your sweet chit-chat about urges is the real cognitive dissonance here - everyone has urges, but not everyone's a rapist. We're not slaves to our urges - as reasonable creatures we can control them to a large extent. In fact, there are people who choose a life of celibacy, for instance for the sake of spiritual enlightenment, in spite of their urges. It's hard not to see parallels here to how homosexuals were treated in the past - as immoral, disgusting outcasts. They need help, therapy, often times they realize it, but they can't get any because society stereotypes them as monsters. Surely you can see that it's a problem, not much unlike the treatment of homosexuals.

For the nth time, I don't know why we're talking about this, and it's offensive to groups who are actually the targets of discrimination.

Hits too close to home, huh?

When I originally asked the question, I knew you were going to propose something along the lines of a You're Not a Dick taxcut. Given the number of businesses that don't discriminate, that's a lot of lost revenue. It's also convoluted as fuck compared to a law that says no discrimination. Finally, if a business decides it's willing to forego a taxcut it never had in the name of discrimination, your plan has failed.

Of course it didn't - everyone else gets ahead of the game. Businesses are already unfairly taxed, time to tax them less. You asked for one example, here it is. The sole purpose of a business is to make money - if they can make more money, it would be unreasonable to not adjust to the new policy.

If you're white you can be discriminated against, just not on the basis of your skin colour. In the nigh on impossible chance that that does occur, it's bullying more than it is racism in that sense of the word; racism is systematic and backed up by historical oppression, not one outlier's unusual view of white people.

Racism is the discrimination of an individual or group based on their race. That's it. Your definition reeks of tumblr. You need to qualify your statements, for instance say "institutionalized racism" and you'll make more sense. White people can and are discriminated against - not as much as minority groups, but it happens and it's not "just bullying".

The very policies suggested point to a lack of regard for life. Banning Muslims from entering the country on account of a fear of terrorism, being 'pro-life' AKA anti-choice (notice how the care is only for the foetus before it is born and does not extend to its inevitably shitty life conditions when born to a parent that does not want a child), building a wall to keep out immigrants, etc. It's not fabrication. You're a smart man Foxi4 and I frequent your postings because of that; I shouldn't have to explain how Donald Trumps' policies (whether 'an act' or not) are harmful.

None of what you mentioned is harmful to *life*, he's not advocating for gas chambers.

That's not really a valid argument. I could turn the tables and say "the regressive right oppose being placed under categories of hateful groups rather than actually rebut against the arguments of the left." Right-wingers (at least the sort that Trump appeals to, can't think of a more accurate term atm) are referred to by such terms because that's what their political stances correspond to. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is an act of homophobia; it goes beyond just an opinion. When Trump describes Obama's housing of Syrian refugees as a "tremendous flow" that needs to be stopped because "we don't know what they're planning", he fails to see them as civilians who've been wronged by a corrupt, self-destructive government and instead perceives them as a unanimous body conspiring against the country; an unrealistic image formed by his preconceptions of people from the Middle East. It's racism in a nutshell. (Mind you, I'm not saying that refusing to take refugees in is racist in and of itself; I am commenting on his rationale for not wishing to do so.)

I never said that's not the case, extremism is harmful and present on both sides of the debate. Just a few hours ago we had a guy advocating throwing stones at people who disagree with him, specifically Trump supporters - that's harmful to life.

 

[XDel]

As promised. Challenge me, I dare you!

"Make Love Not War" - Herbert Marcuse

Herbert Marcuse Discussing Marxism, Frankfurt, His Role behind the Hippie Revolution.

 

[Foxi4]

As promised. Challenge me, I dare you!

"Make Love Not War" - Herbert Marcuse

Herbert Marcuse Discussing Marxism, Frankfurt, His Role behind the Hippie Revolution.

Oh God, it's like kryptonite to my libertarian sensibilities! I'm getting intellectual blue balls just thinking about this, should I press the Play button? M-marxism? H-hippies? I can already feel my d*ck shrivel, can someone please break my back so that I could chew my balls off? Or just shoot me while guns are still legal, I beg for the sweet release of death. ;O;

The difference between pedophilia and homosexuality is that when a pedophile acts on his or her impulses, statutory rape occurs, which will invariably psychologically harm any child regardless of whether or not physical harm takes place (although physical vs. psychological could even be debated at this point, given that people with PTSD have actually been proven via brain scans to have had their brain structure altered), while when a homosexual acts on his or her impulses (with another consenting adult/teen of the same age), there is no psychological or physical harm being done to either of the two people

Not all peadophiles are offenders, just like not all straight people are rapists. You bought a story a news agency sold you, the reality is quite different. By demonizing these people, who clearly have a problem and often times realize that, you're sentencing them before they've committed any crime. You're turning them into monsters, just like homophobes turned gays into monsters and how bigots turn transsexuals into monsters today. "Don't let trans people into the bathroom, they'll rape you!" - eerily similar, isn't it?

Anywho, I've said enough on the matter. I was drawing a simple parallel, but I was told that "it's offensive", so I'll let it go.

EDIT: Herp-a-derp, see below.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Not all peadophiles are offenders, just like not all straight people are rapists. You bought a story a news agency sold you, the reality is quite different. By demonizing these people, who clearly have a problem and often times realize that, you're sentencing them before they've committed any crime. You're turning them into monsters, just like homophobes turned gays into monsters and how bigots turn transsexuals into monsters today. "Don't let trans people into the bathroom, they'll rape you!" - eerily similar, isn't it?.

You seem to have missed the part where I said "when they act on their impulses." I said nowhere in there that all pedophiles are offenders, I in fact implied the exact opposite

 

[Foxi4]

You seem to have missed the part where I said "when they act on their impulses." I said nowhere in there that all pedophiles are offenders, I in fact implied the exact opposite

If they "act upon their impulses" then they molest. If you meant that they have impulses, then we all do. I find many women attractive all the time, but I don't drag them into dark alleys to molest them - that means that I'm *not* acting on an impulse. If I did, I would attempt to bed everyone I find attractive, but I don't. The problem here is that we only hear about pedo's who do offend, those who don't are invisible.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

If they "act upon their impulses" then they molest. If you meant that they have impulses, then we all do. I find women attractive all the time, but I don't drag them into dark alleys to molest them - that means that I'm *not* acting on an impulse. If I did, I would attempt to bed everyone I find attractive, but I don't.

And that was exactly what I was implying. We all have a predisposition to various impulses, but only the worst of us will give into them in a way that will harm others. It is those people that the "mental illness" label is catered for

 

[XDel]

Why is it globally in style now to be philosophising over pedophiles already? I thought that wasn't going to rear it's ugly head again (in America, Canada has had NAMBLA for a while now) for at least another 10 years. Yet just one year after Gay Marriage was illegal forced upon Churches, Transgender issues and yes, Pedophilia have already made their way into public discousre, this bringing the public gutter even closer to the rim and closer to spilling over.

You know back in the day, mid 19th century back, people used to philosophize and debate over more practical matters, when they were not side tracked by human error, and the elitist non-sense that anyone who desires to be in control, has. Regardless, they focussed more on the practical, on how to keep shelter, how to keep food, how to keep health, how to keep warm, and how to improve one's lot, preferably as peacefully and respectfully as possible. Then comes the 20th century, and as many many many people had predicted, we all went bat shit mad, lost in a Minotaur's labyrinth of meaningless trivia.