"i can't answer why equality is valuable if i don't think it is, now can i?"
yes, its possible; however, i guess that lvl of reasoning skills is beyond you.
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
"i can't answer why equality is valuable if i don't think it is, now can i?"
yes, its possible; however, i guess that lvl of reasoning skills is beyond you.
> Listos wrote:
you could say negro...
depends on the mod; you see how the mod reacted; not open to reasoning.
"The Marriage Amendment would be a way to keep gays from being married. "
marriage was already defined as between a man and woman. they are just preserving their culture from the attack of wackos who think ther are outdated and their culture needs to be destroyed.
"Mentioning grandfathers is a specific reference to race? "
using grandfathers was a way to avoid people of certain races to vote. marriage isnt between a man and woman inorder to keep gays from being married.
"But neither of them specifically mentioned race. They created the exact same rules for everyone. How can that possibly fit? "
they mention grandfathers and taxes, they are using those to distinguish between the black/poor and the wealthy.
"Why can't the definition of words change? Words are simply a representation of a society's outlook of concepts. "
im not saying they cant. the only reason you're using that word is because of the negative connotation associated with it and not an attempt to use the most common definitions of words.
"3: How would your definition deal with the Grandfather Clause? Or poll taxes?"
those discriminated against the poor and the black, of coarse they fit my definition.
1) your argument is the one of semantics; trying to distort the meaning of the word, to fit your socialist ideals.
2) the government is no treating gays different from straights; they make no distinction between gays and straights; if with this equal treatment gays are worse off then straights, then homosexuality is a mental disease and should be prevented and treated.
"There is a difference. Not a difference in the law's treatment of the individual, but a difference in the impacts of the system on those people."
the definition you quoted said it must be a difference in treatment or favor; the fact that theres a differance to how equal treatment effects the individual, does not make it discrimination, because it is not a difference in treatment or favor.
if by "works" you mean "completely fails" then i'll agree with you.
wow, blonde, boiling economic growth down to the exchange rate of two currencies, thats stupid even for a european.
1 a: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b: distinguish, differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>2: to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences ; especially : to distinguish from another like objectintransitive verb1 a: to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> b: to use good judgment2: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate
your 2nd definition of discriminate doesnt fit with the actual definition of discriminate. also my comparison to fat people on airplanes is more accurate then any of the examples you provided.
> [TI] Mrblonde wrote:
> "we have tens of thousands of people smuggling drugs, guns, and people through our borders; making guns illegal, would make guns no more sparse then weed. with our massive borders, and large amounts of money to buy anything we want, the consumer and the supplier will never let the government intervene."
supply and demand... retards need their toys? that's the main problem with the US, it's inhabitants.
the main "problem" with the US is that we focus on the individual, we produce and grow while europe stagnates and dies.
"I feel that the American Prison System is a system based on beating fear and pain into people so that they are so afraid they don't want to come back. Whereas I believe it should be a system of respect and attempting to help people out. Killers, yeah, they're screwed up, but minor drug offenders, come on people, you're gonna screw them over for life if you toss em in jail. There's no way they might be able to get a respectable job beyond working at wal-mart at 7.65 an hour icon39"
Americans recognize the government is a leech; the only thing that keeps us from following laws is fear of the repercussions if we dont. if prison isnt a horrible place, we will have no fear to break the laws, there will be anarchy.
"It does distinguish, because it only allows for one of those groups to marry"
thats no correct. it allows both groups to get married; the regulations for marriage makes it less desirable for one of these groups; but the government does not seperate the two groups and doesnt make laws for one that doesnt pertain to the other.
"By using a
'man and woman' definition. That's just like 'only whites can marry'."
it is completely different. gays can marry; there is no law saying gays cannot marry; thats saying everything but whites cant marry. completely different. its like saying, "people that cant fit in a single airplane seat, have to pay for two, inorder to fly in the airplane" yes, fat people have to pay for two and skinny people have to pay for 1; yes, both in the case of obesity and homosexuality theres a debate how much it has to do with genetics and how much it has to do with enviroment; it is abnormal people that demand we change the way we do things in order to accommodate them; make extremely large seats in airplanes/ change the definition of marriage.
"You don't have to take someones rights away in order to discriminate..."
correct; but for a government to discriminate, it has distinguish between them and other people, thats what the very word, discriminate, means. but the government does not discriminate because it doesnt distinguish between gays and straights.
"Like what you said with the gangs. Well, that's your own silly problem. We, being a slightly older nation, though it would be wise to just say no to weapons. Which means no production of weapons in our country and therefore only the bigger criminals have guns."
we have tens of thousands of people smuggling drugs, guns, and people through our borders; making guns illegal, would make guns no more sparse then weed. with our massive borders, and large amounts of money to buy anything we want, the consumer and the supplier will never let the government intervene.
> Deci wrote:
> let me get this straight, in usa people throw a hissy fit if you discriminate against blacks, but it's completely ok to discriminate against normal people if they're gay?
there is no discrimination against gays; they have the same rights as everyone else.
countries and cultures are drastically different, to infer there are universal solutions to each problem is to take the position of a retard. for example, the video said very few policemen carry guns; that would never work in the gang inhabited cities of the US; a ban on guns wouldnt work with massive borders with mexico and canada, and the massive amount of guns already in civilian hands.
quite simply you make a post; the mods read the post. the post is either interpreted negatively, neutrally, or positively; the frequency and the volume of positive interpretations made by a mod on your posts; is reflected by your tag pts. your posts dont need to be any more helpful, thought out, intelligent, then most people's posts, the mod just needs a positive image of you and have one of your posts strike em right. doing sexual favors for a mod would be one way to accomplish this. the existence of zero tag points is a good thing, because it means you provide views that arent commonly supported; instead of repeating the same tired bullshit that the mods support; the lack of tag points reflects one that adds something unique to the forum.
simon wrote "I assume you're resolutely sure that genes have nothing to do with sexuality. Can you enlighten me on why you think so?"
no, i am not absolutely sure that genetics has nothing to do with it. genetics have something to do with everything we are; it is likely that is has some effect on our sexuality. it is clear though, through the line of reasoning i provided, that the dominant factor is the environment.
fyi, its obligatory; obligatoric isnt word.
i dont know... i mean, yes, theres something the government taxes some people for that they say is going towards it, but theres no way that tax is gonna be exactly how much it cost, sometimes the money from teh tax will fund something else, and sometimes they'll take money from other taxes to help pay it. saying a tax is gonna pay for blank is just propaganda; because no one is going to object to some things being paid for by the government, so it justifies the tax. "what? we want more money? well lets add a tax and say its for blank, so no one can object"
"in germany we have a special payment which u only pay when u have a real job and an income above X"
a special payment being a tax? or is it voluntary for people over an income?
morbo thinks equality is "the problem" morbo's inability to accurately describe the problem, makes finding a solution impossible.
"
Stop bitching about my english. You are arguing politics on a Swedish internet gaming site. If
you want proper English, piss off and argue elsewhere. I'm sure you can find someone to
argue with face-to-face that loves English as much as you do."
im sorry, but when you definition of equality changes every time you use it, its impossible for you to make a point, it looks like you dont know the language well enough to carry out an argument on an English board.
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.