Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:33 pm UTC

If, in a hundred years, homosexuality is mainstream, I will stop opposing it.


You realize that things become mainstream because people stop opposing them? You're basically saying "if you win everyone else over, I'll come around".

That's...great? Why do we care? Like, what is this except a really good argument for why no one should listen to you or care what you think?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:33 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Well, I'd like it to happen with as little upset to the status quo as possible. Build recruitment and make money and advance as a society without upsetting the current society, until the minority has enough strength to form its own society where what was its deviance is now the norm. Practically, I expect them to commit the wrong and oppose the existing order. But why should I join in with something that I think is wrong?
I'm actually less interested in your preferences and more interested in how you can think a given social order is totally in the wrong if it's trying to simply assert its human rights but totally in the right if it's already established as the dominant paradigm.

You make no sense. None. At all.

"I won't mind equal rights for and acceptance of homosexuals in a hundred years once it's clawed its way to legitimacy, but now that people *disagree* it's simply abominable!" What the actual fuck!
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:41 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:a Christian parent doesn't have to support a gay kid (indeed, currently, many don't!)

Look, I know I'm supporting Steroid's point here, but... not yet they don't. They goddamn well should. The way some parents treat queer kids (including "trying to change them" and "kicking them out of the house") is child abuse.

Steroid wrote:If that were the case, they wouldn't have pride parades, they'd have "equal legal rights while maintaining the same level of shame" parades.

The same level of shame as whom?
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:49 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:They're trying to make people in general accept them. Christians don't want to do that. Doing that destroys their status as Christian, according to them. QED, homosexuals are saying that a Christian can't be Christian.
All Hail Steroid I, Space Pope.

Seriously, though. This is wrong. No part of Christianity requires the persecution of homosexuals, or any other group. "He that is without sin, cast the first stone" and all that.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Jave D » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:02 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Everyone is getting tired of you making this claim while ignoring the statements that are being made; NO ONE IS TELLING CHRISTIANS TO STOP LIVING AS THEY WANT.
YES. THEY ARE. They're not threatening to pass a law against it, but they are telling them. The homosexual movement is trying to get people to change their values in their favor. If a Christian has a child who comes out as gay, the Christian is supposed to accept it and support them instead of withdrawing or trying to change them. If a homosexual starts a business in the Christian's neighborhood, the Christian is supposed to not automatically refuse to patronize that business, but consider its merits. When the Christian is among his friends, but there are some non-Christians of the right-wing stripe, he's supposed to censor himself and not talk about his feelings regarding homosexuality. That is telling Christians how to live.


Only you could equate "not being a bigoted, abusive fuckwad" with "being told how to live."

Just kidding. You and a lot of other people who don't seem to understand Christianity.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Radical_Initiator » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:05 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:
Steroid wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Everyone is getting tired of you making this claim while ignoring the statements that are being made; NO ONE IS TELLING CHRISTIANS TO STOP LIVING AS THEY WANT.
YES. THEY ARE. They're not threatening to pass a law against it, but they are telling them. The homosexual movement is trying to get people to change their values in their favor. If a Christian has a child who comes out as gay, the Christian is supposed to accept it and support them instead of withdrawing or trying to change them. If a homosexual starts a business in the Christian's neighborhood, the Christian is supposed to not automatically refuse to patronize that business, but consider its merits. When the Christian is among his friends, but there are some non-Christians of the right-wing stripe, he's supposed to censor himself and not talk about his feelings regarding homosexuality. That is telling Christians how to live.


Only you could equate "not being a bigoted, abusive fuckwad" with "being told how to live."

Just kidding. You and a lot of other people who don't seem to understand Christianity.


A lot of people want to be bigots. They don't want to be called bigots, but it's exactly what they are. And they don't want to be told not to be bigots, which they don't think they are, except those (gay/black/jewish/hispanic/etc.) people just keep ...

I agree with Steroid here. Don't tell the bigots how to live. Tell them where to live. Preferably somewhere devoid of oxygen.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Lucrece » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:17 pm UTC

Haha, homosexuals can do anything heterosexuals can. Like, travel across the world and states as families with their children and be recognized as such, without threats of jail time or murder in the street by indignant heterosexuals.

I guess that must be the reason why pretty much every damn biologist or anthropologist abroad tends to be a white straight guy and not a mestizo gay man or South Asian lesbian.

Isn't the point of privilege someone's trying to protect the ability to enjoy exclusive institutions and goods?
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:18 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:Only you could equate "not being a bigoted, abusive fuckwad" with "being told how to live."

Just kidding. You and a lot of other people who don't seem to understand Christianity.


Including, apparently, a lot of Christians. Agreement as to what, exactly, constitutes Christianity seems to be wildly lacking.

Personally, not really a Christian, but I don't see why some of them gripe so much about gays "telling them what to do". I've literally never had folks knock on my door with pro-homosexual literature, trying to convince me to join them. The same is not true of Christians. So...by any reasonable standard, Christians have been telling people what to do for quite a long time...so I don't see why so many people are so immensely bothered by others expressing their opinions.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:20 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Blacks, women, and homosexuals should all have their rights. But whites, men, and straights should not lose their privilege in order to accomplish it.


Everything you need to know about Steroid in a nutshell:

Steroid wrote:I'm a straight white male bigot, gosh-darn it, and why can't those uppity n****rs, wimmin and queers stay in their place?


If you are equating civil rights with privilege, you are, as has been stated, wronger than wrong.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:I don't think they were bad things. I am saying that if I were around during them, I would have thought that they were bad things. If, in a hundred years, homosexuality is mainstream, I will stop opposing it. Blacks, women, and homosexuals should all have their rights. But whites, men, and straights should not lose their privilege in order to accomplish it.


Why is "mainstream" relevant? Is a McDonalds burger an objectively superior product because everyone eats them? Why should I care at all about what is popular? If the dude's lifestyle includes marrying another dude...why would I care? Or hell, if his lifestyle consists of wearing seventeen hats at all times, why is that my problem? I mean, I'm not gonna start wearing a bunch of hats, because I don't particularly want to, but if their differences are harmless, why attempt to "fix" them?

If everyone slavishly followed the mainstream, we'd have a pretty boring, stagnant culture.

No, that's not "only" what they're saying. If that were the case, they wouldn't have pride parades, they'd have "equal legal rights while maintaining the same level of shame" parades. They wouldn't be asking for more homosexuals on television. They wouldn't be publishing books with gay characters. The homosexual lobby is in large part a social lobby. They're trying to make people in general accept them. Christians don't want to do that. Doing that destroys their status as Christian, according to them. QED, homosexuals are saying that a Christian can't be Christian.


They can ask for whatever they want. They can print whatever they want. They can be proud of whatever they want. All of these are things Christians and basically everyone else does too. Seriously, none of that is special. However, there ARE legal differences in the area of marriage. So, you sort that out, and really, it's just a social thing, and everyone can happily support whichever ideals they want. Not liking/wanting to be gay? Whatever. Have fun not being gay. Trying to use law to force people into your preferences? Not cool. That's the line.

And in today's world, homosexuals can still do any of the things they want to do, with the one exception of a point of contract law. They can couple, have sex, own property, and anything else a straight can do. It's just that some people don't like them for it. Boo-fucking hoo.


I don't care about people disliking others. Hell, people can dislike me for all manner of stupid reasons. But, yknow, if you are free to publicly dislike me for stupid reasons, I'm certainly free to publicly dislike them and their stupid reasons. That's fair play.

And, of course, if the contract law point got fixed, then we'd be to equality under law.

Steroid wrote:Well, I'd like it to happen with as little upset to the status quo as possible. Build recruitment and make money and advance as a society without upsetting the current society, until the minority has enough strength to form its own society where what was its deviance is now the norm. Practically, I expect them to commit the wrong and oppose the existing order. But why should I join in with something that I think is wrong?


You've defined it as wrong, but not outlined why. You've also described this "wrong" as a necessary part of social change. Unless you think all social change, ever is wrong, then the necessary steps of enacting it should not be wrong.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

webzter_again
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 4:37 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby webzter_again » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:45 pm UTC

edit: this post removed as context was fixed... so now this post has no context. :twisted:
Last edited by webzter_again on Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:57 pm UTC

Oops, thanks, fixed that up.

User avatar
felltir
has a sniper scope and a trigger finger.
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:01 pm UTC
Location: Back in't home town. Never at home.
Contact:

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby felltir » Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:44 pm UTC

Steroid. I am going to attempt to follow your logic through.

If you say you will accept things that are the norm, the opinions held by the majority, then your opinions need to change. Not everywhere, but here.

Because here, the majority of people think that non-Christian, non-white, non-cis, non-male, non-straight rights ought to be advanced, privileges of the majority (in society) reduced accordingly.

I am not saying in American society that view is the majority. It likely isn't. And as such your opinions wouldn't need to change (whilst conversing in American society). But here, in this internet-based society, that view IS the majority view. Provably. As such you should not try and change the established order (which, here, is arguing for more rights for minorities) and instead embrace it.
Spoiler:
RoadieRich wrote:He's a super flexible furry martial artist from London. She is a Rabbit breeding mad scientist from Michigan. They fight crime!
The Great Hippo wrote:I THINK THE SOLAR SYSTEM MIGHT BE AN ATOM OF OXYGEN.


Blog

he/him/his

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:01 pm UTC

felltir wrote:...privileges of the majority (in society) reduced accordingly.

Actually, I don't think the privileges of anyone should be reduced. Elevating the rights and freedoms of minorities and those without equal rights to be equal to those with rights and freedoms doesn't have to come at the expense of anyone. As we've stated numerous times in this thread, granting non-Christians the same civil rights as Christians doesn't mean we're stepping on the rights of the Christians.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
felltir
has a sniper scope and a trigger finger.
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:01 pm UTC
Location: Back in't home town. Never at home.
Contact:

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby felltir » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:20 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
felltir wrote:...privileges of the majority (in society) reduced accordingly.

Actually, I don't think the privileges of anyone should be reduced. Elevating the rights and freedoms of minorities and those without equal rights to be equal to those with rights and freedoms doesn't have to come at the expense of anyone. As we've stated numerous times in this thread, granting non-Christians the same civil rights as Christians doesn't mean we're stepping on the rights of the Christians.


Touché. However, I was more thinking about things like me, as a white man, having the privilege of being paid more than an equally skilled black woman. That privilege cannot remain if her rights to equal pay are upheld.
Spoiler:
RoadieRich wrote:He's a super flexible furry martial artist from London. She is a Rabbit breeding mad scientist from Michigan. They fight crime!
The Great Hippo wrote:I THINK THE SOLAR SYSTEM MIGHT BE AN ATOM OF OXYGEN.


Blog

he/him/his

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:44 pm UTC

felltir wrote:Touché. However, I was more thinking about things like me, as a white man, having the privilege of being paid more than an equally skilled black woman. That privilege cannot remain if her rights to equal pay are upheld.


That's not a right under many viewpoints. It's certainly desirable, though, that equally skilled people be compensated equally. Results in a more efficient labor market, and in the long term, a better society.

However, jumping straight to comparing endpoints is a bit of a shortcut. It is not the job(nor is it desirable) for the government to guarantee equal outcomes to all. You do want equal treatment under law, though. A different minimum wage based on race would be a terrible thing, obviously. Or different marriage rights, to bring this example back to the current topic.

You can't legislate that a given viewpoint be represented fairly, or end up with equal popularity...these things are horribly subjective, and unlikely to work out anyway, but you definitely can solve the legal imbalance, and that's essential. And, it really takes nothing from anyone. I lose absolutely nothing as a straight white male if some gay folks want to get married. I can still do exactly the same things I could before. Not a dollop of freedom is lost on my part. However, freedom is gained by then. Net win for all concerned.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Elvish Pillager » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:53 pm UTC

felltir: Depends how you describe it semantically. You'll lose comparative privilege, but literally speaking, comparative privilege isn't a thing that has a quantifiable affect on you.*

Like, let's say I (a white person) get paid $100,000 a year and "B", a person of color working the same job at the same skill level, gets paid $50,000 a year. Then B's boss raises zir wages to $100,000. On account of the fact that I haven't lost anything whatsoever, it seems kind of ridiculous to say that I've lost a privilege; therefore, I insist that "I get paid more money than B for the same work" is not, literally speaking, a privilege that I have. Rather, "I get paid $100,000 for this work" is a privilege that I have and B doesn't.

(This is completely a statement about terminology and shouldn't be taken to be a statement of my beliefs about privilege itself, just the way we talk about privilege.)

* well actually it is, but only through indirect effects, and those indirect effects don't all benefit you anyway, since inequality hurts everyone
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:02 pm UTC

I am interested in the question, what is my obligation to the LGBT community? Not being a Christian I have no religious qualms, so this is purely a question of tolerance. Do I need to do more than tolerate? By tolerate, I mean accept their existence without either condoning or condemning. If tolerance is sufficient in and of itself, then how can the law be changed? That requires at least minimal positive action on my part in changing the law. To me this is the crux of the matter.

webzter_again
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 4:37 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby webzter_again » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:07 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:felltir: Depends how you describe it semantically. You'll lose comparative privilege, but literally speaking, comparative privilege isn't a thing that has a quantifiable affect on you.*


It seems more contextual than that to me. Suppose I lived in a country where only "males" were allowed to hold jobs. If, overnight, a law was passed that stated anyone could have a job then, suddenly, the competition I face for any given job has doubled. Ignoring any positive social aspects or positive long-term economic aspects, in the short-term losing comparative privilege does have a quantifiable affect on me.

Steroid wrote:Christianity, and the anti-gay part of it, didn't become the majority through illicit means. They became so by a long, steady build of influence, power, and results.

...
The homosexual culture in particular, and the multicultural view in general, both have a long way to go before they reach the status that Christianity already has. And this is the heart of our difference. To you, power is the source of oppression. To me, it's evidence of past success.


Well, apparently my side* has come a long way based on your criteria for success. We can shoot up your side and not even make headline news. Influence and power, baby**

* speaking as someone who used to be on a side probably pretty closely in line with your side

** troll troll troll
Last edited by webzter_again on Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Garm » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:09 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I am interested in the question, what is my obligation to the LGBT community? Not being a Christian I have no religious qualms, so this is purely a question of tolerance. Do I need to do more than tolerate? By tolerate, I mean accept their existence without either condoning or condemning. If tolerance is sufficient in and of itself, then how can the law be changed? That requires at least minimal positive action on my part in changing the law. To me this is the crux of the matter.


I think the answer to that is to allow same-sex partners access to the same rights as hetero couples and then get on with your life. There might be something I'm missing.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Lucrece » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:15 pm UTC

The same is the case for balancing pay. If you raise salaries for the previously marginalized, then that's less money available to open more higher paying positions for white dudes. Wealth distribution changes so white people don't have the guarantee of higher paying jobs when now the pool of prospects has been widened.

It's a constant narrative I hear around wealthier family members in Venezuela, because they're aware they're hoarding the wealth and would not like for that to change, since their goal is to solidify and expand their power advantages. To organize a society closer to a fair system would mean significant adjustments in their lifestyle.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Elvish Pillager » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:31 pm UTC

webzter_again wrote:
Elvish Pillager wrote:felltir: Depends how you describe it semantically. You'll lose comparative privilege, but literally speaking, comparative privilege isn't a thing that has a quantifiable affect on you.*


It seems more contextual than that to me. Suppose I lived in a country where only "males" were allowed to hold jobs. If, overnight, a law was passed that stated anyone could have a job then, suddenly, the competition I face for any given job has doubled. Ignoring any positive social aspects or positive long-term economic aspects, in the short-term losing comparative privilege does have a quantifiable affect on me.

There, the relevant privilege is "I have the privilege of being able to easily get a job if I want one." To continue the metaphor, I would say that everyone should have that privilege*, both "males" and non-"males". If "males" must temporarily lose that privilege while we institute equality, that's undesirable but necessary, and doesn't contradict what I'm saying in any way.

Very rich people technically have some privileges that can't be had by everyone at once (e.g. "I have the privilege of being able to burn a million quid if I want to"), but for most people, the point of getting more money is to have a stable, comfortable life. A less-stratified society with better education and better safety nets can be more stable and comfortable for everyone than our current one is even for rich people.

* I don't actually say that because I'm against the institution of employment as it currently exists, but if we must stay within the existing framework, it's a good privilege for people to have.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:48 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I am interested in the question, what is my obligation to the LGBT community? Not being a Christian I have no religious qualms, so this is purely a question of tolerance. Do I need to do more than tolerate? By tolerate, I mean accept their existence without either condoning or condemning. If tolerance is sufficient in and of itself, then how can the law be changed? That requires at least minimal positive action on my part in changing the law. To me this is the crux of the matter.


As a non-LGBT person, I consider this sufficient. You also should, as a matter of course, oppose intolerance by any party via governmental means. If organization x is anti-gay, well...free country. They're free to be wrong. But if they're getting government to impose unfairness, not kosher.

So, if a vote comes up to give them the same rights we have? Sure I'll vote for it. Only fair, and I'd want them to do the same for me, right? Big hubbub over chicken sammiches? I'm going to ignore it entirely, and eat 'em whenever I feel like it, same as before.

Lucrece wrote:The same is the case for balancing pay. If you raise salaries for the previously marginalized, then that's less money available to open more higher paying positions for white dudes. Wealth distribution changes so white people don't have the guarantee of higher paying jobs when now the pool of prospects has been widened.

It's a constant narrative I hear around wealthier family members in Venezuela, because they're aware they're hoarding the wealth and would not like for that to change, since their goal is to solidify and expand their power advantages. To organize a society closer to a fair system would mean significant adjustments in their lifestyle.


Meh. Money is merely a proxy for wealth, and wealth isn't static. Balance of wealth and absolute wealth are pretty unrelated. I mean, I'd rather be in the bottom 25% of wealth in the US than in the top 25% in Somalia. How well I'm doing relative to those around me doesn't really matter as such. I'd rather just be doing better off overall.

There isn't a finite amount of wealth in the world. Wealth is constantly created and destroyed. In the long run, equitable salaries regardless of non-work related stuff should make you more competitive. After all, you can more easily hire the qualified workers your competitors are discriminating against. This makes you better able to create wealth. The "hoarding" perspective or static wages perspective heralds back to mercantilism...that's an economic view that's been pretty soundly disproven ages ago.

Elvish Pillager wrote:There, the relevant privilege is "I have the privilege of being able to easily get a job if I want one." To continue the metaphor, I would say that everyone should have that privilege*, both "males" and non-"males". If "males" must temporarily lose that privilege while we institute equality, that's undesirable but necessary, and doesn't contradict what I'm saying in any way.


Honestly, I don't feel that establishing equality requires removal of privilege at all. Doubling the amount of workers, provided you do so in a reasonably graduated fashion, leads to double the amount of paycheck earning people who can be buyers. Net effect...the economy just grows. Having more competent workers is pretty much never a bad thing.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby DSenette » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:00 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
So, if any of the boo-fucking-hoo scenarios pop up, and in your hypothetical Armageddon where the gay agenda has won, these Christians can still do any of the things they want to do; a Christian parent doesn't have to support a gay kid (indeed, currently, many don't!), a Christian community can boycott a gay business, and Christians, when among rational people, are still free to run their mouths about the evils of homosexuality and how evolution is just a theory, yaddayaddayadda.

And in today's world, homosexuals can still do any of the things they want to do, with the one exception of a point of contract law. They can couple, have sex, own property, and anything else a straight can do. It's just that some people don't like them for it. Boo-fucking hoo.

your asshattery is ENTIRELY too large for me to attempt to try to address everything that shits forth from your vile face hole....but, are you aware that a large portion of the christian world is actually makeing everything after your first period illegal?

in A LARGE PORTION of the world, gays can't couple, they can't (legally) have sex, own property, or anything else "a straight" can do?

are you also aware that a large portion of the christian majority in the US are actively trying to make the situation the same here?

are you aware that gay couples CAN'T actually own property the same way that "a straight" can own property? in so much as rights of trasnferrence/inheritence do not exist between gay couples?

or that in most places, gays can't adopt children?

you're a fucking horrible human being, you have the worst beliefs/policies about absolutely everything, and you're the only person i have ever wished would lose the ability to communicate with the outside world.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:02 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:So, if a vote comes up to give them the same rights we have? Sure I'll vote for it. Only fair, and I'd want them to do the same for me, right? Big hubbub over chicken sammiches? I'm going to ignore it entirely, and eat 'em whenever I feel like it, same as before.


The thing with the CFA hubbub is the fact that the organizations CFA is giving money to are using that money (they got from you) to introduce/support legislation to KILL PEOPLE for being gay.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:10 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, if a vote comes up to give them the same rights we have? Sure I'll vote for it. Only fair, and I'd want them to do the same for me, right? Big hubbub over chicken sammiches? I'm going to ignore it entirely, and eat 'em whenever I feel like it, same as before.


The thing with the CFA hubbub is the fact that the organizations CFA is giving money to are using that money (they got from you) to introduce/support legislation to KILL PEOPLE for being gay.


That looks suspiciously like "make words about the law" not actually legislating to kill people. The number of statements decrying that law will be mostly irrelevant to it. I mean, sure, if you want to decry Uganda's law...it's a horrible law, absolutely. But eating at Chick'fila didn't create that law or increase the body count.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby sam_i_am » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:28 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, if a vote comes up to give them the same rights we have? Sure I'll vote for it. Only fair, and I'd want them to do the same for me, right? Big hubbub over chicken sammiches? I'm going to ignore it entirely, and eat 'em whenever I feel like it, same as before.


The thing with the CFA hubbub is the fact that the organizations CFA is giving money to are using that money (they got from you) to introduce/support legislation to KILL PEOPLE for being gay.



U mean this law?

3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or
thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have
unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction
to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a
medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby DSenette » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:37 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, if a vote comes up to give them the same rights we have? Sure I'll vote for it. Only fair, and I'd want them to do the same for me, right? Big hubbub over chicken sammiches? I'm going to ignore it entirely, and eat 'em whenever I feel like it, same as before.


The thing with the CFA hubbub is the fact that the organizations CFA is giving money to are using that money (they got from you) to introduce/support legislation to KILL PEOPLE for being gay.



U mean this law?

3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or
thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have
unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction
to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a
medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.

i think you missed soem parts of the law

in ugandan law, being a homosexual is always illegal. participating in homosexual sex is REALLY illegal.

but the law in question would have separated homosexuality into two types of illegal, regular homosexuality and aggrevated homosexuality (which you just listed). take note of item f in your list...being gay "repeatedly" is enough to be charged with agrevated homosexuality, and thus, put to death.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:41 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, if a vote comes up to give them the same rights we have? Sure I'll vote for it. Only fair, and I'd want them to do the same for me, right? Big hubbub over chicken sammiches? I'm going to ignore it entirely, and eat 'em whenever I feel like it, same as before.


The thing with the CFA hubbub is the fact that the organizations CFA is giving money to are using that money (they got from you) to introduce/support legislation to KILL PEOPLE for being gay.


That looks suspiciously like "make words about the law" not actually legislating to kill people. The number of statements decrying that law will be mostly irrelevant to it. I mean, sure, if you want to decry Uganda's law...it's a horrible law, absolutely. But eating at Chick'fila didn't create that law or increase the body count.


Fair enough, I exaggerated. mea culpa.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Garm » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:43 pm UTC

Looking at point F, nothing else really matters. All the other stuff is just window dressing.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby DSenette » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:49 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Looking at point F, nothing else really matters. All the other stuff is just window dressing.

looking at the point where "living the way you were born" is a crime, nothing else really matters. if the only reprecussion to homosexuality being illegal were that you got a stern talking to and a $1 fine, it's still wrong as fuck.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:06 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
Garm wrote:Looking at point F, nothing else really matters. All the other stuff is just window dressing.

looking at the point where "living the way you were born" is a crime, nothing else really matters. if the only reprecussion to homosexuality being illegal were that you got a stern talking to and a $1 fine, it's still wrong as fuck.


I don't honestly care if homosexuality is a result of birth or a choice, tbh. I'm not even sure why such a big deal is made of that.

It's not like either one makes it ok to criminalize a lifestyle that isn't hurting anyone.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby DSenette » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:13 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
DSenette wrote:
Garm wrote:Looking at point F, nothing else really matters. All the other stuff is just window dressing.

looking at the point where "living the way you were born" is a crime, nothing else really matters. if the only reprecussion to homosexuality being illegal were that you got a stern talking to and a $1 fine, it's still wrong as fuck.


I don't honestly care if homosexuality is a result of birth or a choice, tbh. I'm not even sure why such a big deal is made of that.

It's not like either one makes it ok to criminalize a lifestyle that isn't hurting anyone.

a big deal is made about it because a large percentage of those that support the criminilization of homosexuality believe that it is a choice, and are thus, much more ok with making it illegal.

that YOU personally don't care about the distinction isn't really of concern.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:17 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:a big deal is made about it because a large percentage of those that support the criminilization of homosexuality believe that it is a choice, and are thus, much more ok with making it illegal.

that YOU personally don't care about the distinction isn't really of concern.


So this way, they get to frame it as a "disease" or condition or the like. Whatever. People out to demonize you can always find a way to justify it, if they really want to.

The fundamental issue has to be not forcing your ideals on others. The exact reasons why people have differing lives is unimportant. If they're doing no harm, have at it.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:U mean this law?

3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or
thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have
unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction
to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a
medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
So, to summarize:

Sexual contact between two minors of the same sex: death penalty
Sexual contact with any member of the same sex, more than once: death penalty
Sexual contact with any member of the same sex: possible death penalty, pursuant a mandatory HIV test.

Under current Ugandan law, a man who rapes his wife has not committed a crime, but two men in a committed sexual relationship will be sentenced to death. Yeah, I think it's pretty fair to summarize this as a death penalty for being gay.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:43 pm UTC

felltir wrote:Steroid. I am going to attempt to follow your logic through.

If you say you will accept things that are the norm, the opinions held by the majority, then your opinions need to change. Not everywhere, but here.

Because here, the majority of people think that non-Christian, non-white, non-cis, non-male, non-straight rights ought to be advanced, privileges of the majority (in society) reduced accordingly.

I am not saying in American society that view is the majority. It likely isn't. And as such your opinions wouldn't need to change (whilst conversing in American society). But here, in this internet-based society, that view IS the majority view. Provably. As such you should not try and change the established order (which, here, is arguing for more rights for minorities) and instead embrace it.


This is the most sense-making post in the thread. (other than mine, of course) You set this up, and now we have to live with it. The logical step for me is to go hang out with folks like the FRC that understand what's right and don't allow you to interfere. But then you'll be sitting around here wondering why groups like this and people like Akin from the other thread exist. Answer: you make them exist because you drive them away.

All I wanted to do was discuss the odious shooting of an innocent person, and the attempt to shoot more innocent people, by a guilty man motivated by an ideology. And to talk about the press reaction. But because people here care more about that ideology than guilt or innocence, we get a big debate that goes nowhere.

I just don't understand why it is the way that felltir describes it. I don't know why homosexuals and liberals, who at one point knew their place, now all of a sudden act as if they're the ones who built the world up. I don't understand why a forum like this is more likely to exclude someone acting according to the norms of the old world than they are to exclude someone acting deviant to those norms. Someone explain this to me, please, because apparently I missed a memo somewhere.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Radical_Initiator » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:46 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:I don't know why homosexuals and liberals, who at one point knew their place, now all of a sudden act as if they're the ones who built the world up.


Emphasized part = trolling.
And you sure as hell didn't build a world all by your lonesome, cupcake. The people who helped create the world you love to lord over them just want the same consideration you get. All of it, not just the rights and benefits you're going to begrudgingly hand over. If you can't accept that, then I have no problem with pushing your kind away. No one needs you.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:59 pm UTC

Awwwww, steroid needs attention. Bad steroid, don't piddle in the kitchen!
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:00 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:I don't understand why a forum like this is more likely to exclude someone acting according to the norms of the old world than they are to exclude someone acting deviant to those norms.

Because, to reiterate a line of argument you've since resumed ignoring, those norms are bullshit. We also don't generally go for homeopathy or SWATing, even though the norms behind those practices are new and hip and deviant.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby sam_i_am » Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:01 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:a big deal is made about it because a large percentage of those that support the criminilization of homosexuality believe that it is a choice, and are thus, much more ok with making it illegal.

that YOU personally don't care about the distinction isn't really of concern.



On that note, is there a thread in the Science forum on this matter? a quick search brought me to http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=62971&hilit=homosexuality, but at first glance, that thread seems to have gone in the direction of evolution philosophy.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests