RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


dcnovice -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 7:06:42 AM)

quote:

So you immediately presume the facts as presented are incorrect merely because of the venue its presented in, and the name of the author.

Can you show any material fact is in error? Or is it just that you don't like it and therefore put your hands on your ears and go "la la la - I can't hear you?"

[image]http://laurennicolesart.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/4/9/13497475/1096605_orig.jpg[/image]

Thanks for the kind contribution to my Thanksgiving decor! April seems a little early for it, but I appreciate the thought.




bounty44 -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 7:43:25 AM)

snark doesn't really erase the intellectual integrity argument of that you really still need to address the content.




Lucylastic -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 8:01:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

snark doesn't really erase the intellectual integrity argument of that you really still need to address the content.

APart from the fact that this has been in the news since 2013, and is tied to the Koch Brothers dark money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/us/politics/group-linked-to-kochs-admits-to-campaign-finance-violations.html?_r=0


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-brothers-dark-money_us_57212f1ae4b0f309baefac35

Nnow while you abhor snark posted at you, I bet you dont read either article. Or anything else that departs from the newsmax article..because it comes from a lefty sites.
You have never actually discussed other content than yours,
You certainly have zero
quote:

intellectual integrity




vincentML -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 1:38:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

What constitutes bigotry in a religious value may be a misinterpretation of the value. But, as long as a person's free exercise of his/her chosen religion isn't infringing on the rights of another, the Federal Government should have no authority to infringe on a religion's "bigotry."

And that is the crux of the matter, innit?

Absolutely. Your rights don't trump mine. They are equal. So, as long as my freely made choices don't have any impact on your ability to freely choose, I should be free to choose to do whatever I want (as it pertains to any interactions between you and I).

When someone refuses to serve another in a public accommodation or business because of their religious values there is an impact on others.


Only if there are no alternatives.


I am fairly certain that the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act does not allow for alternatives.




vincentML -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 1:49:38 PM)

quote:

Now that this has become a story, more people will know. Now, people will be able to choose to do business with that trailer park owner, or not, and can base those decisions, at least in part, on his racism.

Nothing in the Civil Rights Act defers to "alternatives." You guys are making shit up. It is not the purpose of the Civil Rights Act to act merely to advertise discrimination but to prevent it.

(a) Equal access

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) Operations affecting commerce; criteria; “commerce” defined

The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this subchapter if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this section; (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this section, it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers of a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of this section, it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of this section, it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Support by State action

Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this subchapter if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) Private establishments

The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 3:24:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
quote:

They didn't get evicted because the park owner's religious beliefs. They got evicted because of the park owner's racism.

And that makes a difference? How is racial bigotry any different from religious bigotry? Is not bigotry bigotry?


Bigotry is bigotry. Of course. But, that's a pretty broad category. That's like saying a car is a car when looking at a Corvette and Chevette. Hell, both of them are "'Vettes" and Chevy's, even.

If you can't differentiate between types of bigotry, then, well, I pity you.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 3:42:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

Now that this has become a story, more people will know. Now, people will be able to choose to do business with that trailer park owner, or not, and can base those decisions, at least in part, on his racism.

Nothing in the Civil Rights Act defers to "alternatives." You guys are making shit up. It is not the purpose of the Civil Rights Act to act merely to advertise discrimination but to prevent it.
...
blah blah blah
...


I'm not making shit up. Where did I say anything about the CRA's purpose being to advertise discrimination?

The problem is that with the CRA, racism won't change. It will likely get worse at this point in time. You're using the cudgel of government to force people to act opposite of their beliefs. Wouldn't that foster resentment, increasing the amount of ire towards those of other races?

And that's what I was saying. I'd rather find a way to change hearts and minds, because you're never going to get rid of racism or many other forms of discrimination until you change hearts and minds.

And, based on that, I think it's wrong to force people to act against their beliefs, no matter how ignorant and pigheaded they may be.

Doesn't a business owner have any say in the clientele he/she accepts?

Shouldn't a business owner have the right to run his business in the way he sees best?

Isn't it discriminatory for the Government to require a percent of a contractor's workforce be Unionized? Or to reward suppliers who follow supplier diversity (SBA, minority-owned, women-owned, etc.) guidelines?

Isn't it discriminatory to the poor to have "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules, as they are the ones most likely to not be able to afford shirts/shoes? You trying to bark that one down?

Of course, you don't really give a fuck about any of those.




dcnovice -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 4:35:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

snark doesn't really erase the intellectual integrity argument of that you really still need to address the content.

Bless your heart.

I made substantive points in post 173, and the response was a strawman attempt at mind-reading. Not wasting any more time/energy on that.

As for not living up to the "intellectual integrity" of Newsmax and its fans, well, that's a cross I'll just have to bear.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 4:56:11 PM)

quote:

If you can't differentiate between types of bigotry, then, well, I pity you.

And if you can see a difference, well then I don't pity you, I pity all those that have to interact with you. Bigotry and prejudice is bigotry and prejudice, and I am so very sorry for you that you cannot see that. It truly does suck to be you, evenm if you don't see why




Phydeaux -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 7:23:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

So you say. My experience differs.

Well that tells me two things.
1) You really don't know anything about me, which is understandable because you are trying to fit me into your preconceived molds
2) You really don't know what a liberal is, which is also understandable because you are an American, and Americans rarely have any understanding of political terminology.



You're responding like a liberal.

1a. I don't have to know anything about you except how you have posted here to say that you are a liberal. I don't have to say, "in my opinion" since clearly it is my opinion and therefore redundant to say so.
1b. Remember when I said you're responding like a liberal? Aka, make an assumption, and an attack. Well actually you made 4 assumptions.

A. That I'm American.
B. That I don't know what a liberal is.
C. That there is some consistent definition of liberal.
D. That failing that whatever definition you abscribe to is correct.
E. You also made the value statement that americans rarely have any understanding of political terminology. Why how elitist of you. And to think americans managed to get on for nigh on 400 years without any understanding of political terminology.
Truly an amazing feat.

We've already seen that your previous definition of liberal (not supporting social hierarchies) was incorrect. Perhaps you'd like a second bite at the apple?




Phydeaux -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 7:26:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

snark doesn't really erase the intellectual integrity argument of that you really still need to address the content.

Bless your heart.

I made substantive points in post 173, and the response was a strawman attempt at mind-reading. Not wasting any more time/energy on that.

As for not living up to the "intellectual integrity" of Newsmax and its fans, well, that's a cross I'll just have to bear.



Certainly. But you made no substantive response to post 174.




dcnovice -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 7:31:59 PM)

quote:

Certainly. But you made no substantive response to post 174.

Nope. As I told bounty, I don't waste time on strawmen.




Lucylastic -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/28/2016 7:34:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Certainly. But you made no substantive response to post 174.
[/quote

Post 174 reads

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

Great analysis. Great insight. And to think it came from vox.
I'd have titled it. . Misunderestimating the right...



Phydeaux, I can't believe this thread has gone on this long!

I haven't posted to this thread because I don't grant your initial premise. Having the 10-12 literate liberals there are in this country read this would do little good.



Michael


why would anyone give a substantive answer to that particular post.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/29/2016 12:12:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
quote:

If you can't differentiate between types of bigotry, then, well, I pity you.

And if you can see a difference, well then I don't pity you, I pity all those that have to interact with you. Bigotry and prejudice is bigotry and prejudice, and I am so very sorry for you that you cannot see that. It truly does suck to be you, evenm if you don't see why


Thank God I'm me, and you're not. It truly does not suck to be me, and most people that "have to interact with" me would likely agree that your pity isn't needed, warranted, or wanted.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/29/2016 11:54:50 AM)

quote:

A. That I'm American.

Well, you claim to be from the US, so it is an obvious conclusion.
quote:

B. That I don't know what a liberal is.

That is quite obvious from your misuse of the term.
quote:

C. That there is some consistent definition of liberal.

Actually there is
quote:

D. That failing that whatever definition you abscribe to is correct.

Sorry this one I can't address because it makes no sense. Care to try again?
quote:

E. You also made the value statement that americans rarely have any understanding of political terminology.

An observation is not an assumption
quote:

your previous definition of liberal (not supporting social hierarchies) was incorrect.

Actually that was not a definition of "liberal", but rather it was a definition of "left" in a political context, and the fact that you have conflated the two is further proof of assumption B. And what's more it has not been established that it was incorrect, all you did was reject it without providing any rationale for that rejection.




Phydeaux -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/29/2016 1:51:28 PM)

Nonsense. I demonstrated that at various times the left have supported social hierarchies including capitalism.

The original left supported mercantilism and capitalism against the monarchy.

As I said previously other lefts have supported socialism and communism.

Your definition of the left that the driving purpose of the left is opposition to social hierarchies is incorrect the left stands for something else mainly it stands for opposition to the current order.




mnottertail -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/29/2016 1:58:12 PM)

what has the right supported then? Because the nutsuckers have gobbled up that free-market communism like they hadnt been to the minneapolis airport bathroom in years.

The right on the other hand has traditionally been for an American Protected Economy.

The left stands in opposition to the current order? So Lincoln and the republican party at its founding was a leftist organization?




Phydeaux -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/29/2016 2:17:25 PM)

Logic 101 motter all cows eat grass not all things that eat grass are cows




mnottertail -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/29/2016 2:23:50 PM)

exactly. So, we have nutsuckers, no republicans, no conservatives, and then what for the right in general? Nazis? Military-Industrial Complex catamites, destroying Americas wealth?

Logic 101.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Suggested reading for all liberals (4/29/2016 2:47:26 PM)

Nope, sorry.




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625