|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time Says the person who clearly has not ever seen Milo speak on youtube. Stop embarrassing yourself :laugh: Tried watching some of his speeches just then on YouTube ... not sure why people are so impressed with him?? He's rhetoric is used by hundreds across the net ... is it delivery that people enjoy?? Do they find him genuine?? Not sure, I really don't understand the allure of him. What are his credentials?? You don't need credentials to state facts? I am amused by how savage he is and how articulate he is towards people who try and challenge his data. You can't say that he doesn't do his homework. The problem is he only does his homework on certain facts ... understanding what those facts mean and interpreting / analysing those facts is something I haven't seem him demonstrate. I bet in any discussion where someone brings up a fact he doesn't know about or doesn't want to acknowledge, he'll take the argument off a tangent so it gets back to a statistic he can state. It is all about driving the subject to areas that they can quote on because they A. lack real knowledge / life experiences of what they are arguing; B. don't actually understand / or have the ability to analyse the statistics; C. look for relationships that aren't there (because again don't actually understand the facts they present); D. have no real knowledge in the area they are arguing (other than rhetoric and throwing in some stats that they read somewhere). That is why I asked for his credentials ... it is easy to quote stats, much harder to actually analyse and understand them. Look I've seen people like him across multiple fields. They love arguing academics because most academics are not debaters. The academics know their field of expertise (so people like Milo purposefully steer the discussion away from this, and academics will fall silent because they don't want to comment on a field that isn't their speciality). Academics will try to keep emotion out of it, and struggle when people can't see their logic (or when the other person continually looks for relationships that aren't there). Not often will the academic be given the time to fully help someone understand the stats they are presented (they'll either be interrupted by the debater ... or the debater has absolutely no interest in understanding it). These sort of people like Milo may not even believe in half what they say. He is like a shock jock. Do minimal research, get emotion into the argument and ensure you have enough tangents in your arsenal to change the direction of the argument if it goes into an area you don't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
JoffaTossa
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 248,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time Says the person who clearly has not ever seen Milo speak on youtube. Stop embarrassing yourself :laugh: Tried watching some of his speeches just then on YouTube ... not sure why people are so impressed with him?? He's rhetoric is used by hundreds across the net ... is it delivery that people enjoy?? Do they find him genuine?? Not sure, I really don't understand the allure of him. What are his credentials?? You don't need credentials to state facts? I am amused by how savage he is and how articulate he is towards people who try and challenge his data. You can't say that he doesn't do his homework. And any half wit can use emotive language on the uncritical masses.
The strength of conservatism is the repression of knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time Says the person who clearly has not ever seen Milo speak on youtube. Stop embarrassing yourself :laugh: Simpletons are more easily swayed Paraphrasing is for people who think they're a lot smarter than they actually are....
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time Agree ... as a troll (your words) their MO is simple. Skew the argument in your favour, and simply ignore anything that doesn't agree with your point of view. Or they pick out one particular aspect of a counter-argument and focus on that ... it's always about trying to stop the people from seeing the forest from the trees. Wow you guys are insufferable. :laugh:
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time Says the person who clearly has not ever seen Milo speak on youtube. Stop embarrassing yourself :laugh: Tried watching some of his speeches just then on YouTube ... not sure why people are so impressed with him?? He's rhetoric is used by hundreds across the net ... is it delivery that people enjoy?? Do they find him genuine?? Not sure, I really don't understand the allure of him. What are his credentials?? Oh cmon now you're just trying to downplay him. :D
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time Says the person who clearly has not ever seen Milo speak on youtube. Stop embarrassing yourself :laugh: Tried watching some of his speeches just then on YouTube ... not sure why people are so impressed with him?? He's rhetoric is used by hundreds across the net ... is it delivery that people enjoy?? Do they find him genuine?? Not sure, I really don't understand the allure of him. What are his credentials?? You don't need credentials to state facts? I am amused by how savage he is and how articulate he is towards people who try and challenge his data. You can't say that he doesn't do his homework.
|
|
|
|
JoffaTossa
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 248,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time Says the person who clearly has not ever seen Milo speak on youtube. Stop embarrassing yourself :laugh: Tried watching some of his speeches just then on YouTube ... not sure why people are so impressed with him?? He's rhetoric is used by hundreds across the net ... is it delivery that people enjoy?? Do they find him genuine?? Not sure, I really don't understand the allure of him. What are his credentials?? Style over substance
The strength of conservatism is the repression of knowledge
|
|
|
|
JoffaTossa
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 248,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time Says the person who clearly has not ever seen Milo speak on youtube. Stop embarrassing yourself :laugh: Simpletons are more easily swayed
The strength of conservatism is the repression of knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time Says the person who clearly has not ever seen Milo speak on youtube. Stop embarrassing yourself :laugh: Tried watching some of his speeches just then on YouTube ... not sure why people are so impressed with him?? He's rhetoric is used by hundreds across the net ... is it delivery that people enjoy?? Do they find him genuine?? Not sure, I really don't understand the allure of him. What are his credentials??
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time Agree ... as a troll (your words) their MO is simple. Skew the argument in your favour, and simply ignore anything that doesn't agree with your point of view. Or they pick out one particular aspect of a counter-argument and focus on that ... it's always about trying to stop the people from seeing the forest from the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time Says the person who clearly has not ever seen Milo speak on youtube. Stop embarrassing yourself :laugh:
|
|
|
|
JoffaTossa
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 248,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on. But right wingers aren't interested in facts. So its a waste of time
The strength of conservatism is the repression of knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ... They should challenge Milo with statistics. Play him at his own game. Except they can't because he's far too smart for them. Instead they try and stop him having an opinion. Then they become violent and stop him speaking because they're the scum of society who hit women and unconscious men. They hopefully have enough footage to imprison every violent protestor, that sort of shit isn't on.
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent. I think it is great. People shouldn't be apathetic, they shouldn't sit back and let these trolls get a free pass ...
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image. Seems like masked trouble makers turn up to only right wing or 'alternative viewpoint' riots in the western world. Saw the same thing when ANTIFA stopped Reclaim from protesting across the country. The radical left (like the radical right) are allergic to free speech because they might have to hear opinions they don't like.... This protest is a f*cking joke. Milo is a troll but he uses a lot of statistics that people cannot refute and then simply become either emotional or violent.
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB A bigger nuisance than the kent state shootings in the peace movement. I actually wrote an essay about the peace movement (last semester) some say that kent state incident signalled the beginning of the end for the peace movement, but there was something i overlooked The murder of sharon tate by 'the family' of Charles Manson Up to the point where the murders happened, Charles Manson was seen to be another singer songwriter, ie sided with the hippies of the 'peace love and all that stuff'* But an act of violence turned everything against the hippie movement, and manson was made a patsy * manson was a singer songwriter just like devendra banhart** the joke being that nobody trusts any singer/ songwriter as a result ** Devendra Banhart (that dirty hippie) got to go out with Natalie portman, so fair play to him
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xlol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB I think as with many protests you get the mass just there for a peaceful protest, but then you get those that go along just to stir trouble (they don't really care the cause, they are purely trouble makers ... hence wear masks etc.) Chances are you would even get people with completely different ideals to the protesters rocking up simply to give the protest a bad image.
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHow bout these emergency law changes in Romania that's got people protesting? Making it ok for people to not go to jail if the corruption is less than 48k lol Why the fark did they think that was a good idea? -PB Also read their proposal to release many prisoners to ease the countries bulging prison population would similarly mainly benefit officials who have recently been locked up for bribery charges.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xNot sure if this is really going anywhere, but - if a business is willing to offer a particular service to straight (or white, or Christian) people, but not to gay (or black, or Muslim) people, that should be illegal.Why is that such a problem for you?You still haven't explained your principled objection to that, just drawn all sorts of irrelevant analogies to marijuana/penis-drawing etc. I have no idea what you are saying in this post. Not a clue. I don't think you understand any of what I write because you are interpreting things that you think I am thinking. But most likely, you are a troll. This is the only way that I can make sense of your utter incomprehension of what I post. A troll derails a conversation and distorts the arguments being made for the purpose of causing an argument amongst the people in a topic. This describes you to a T. Have fun buddy. Farking hell you've been comprehensively schooled from pillar to post and have thrown up nothing but obfuscation in response. Maybe next time you'll be a bit more circumspect before you go off half cocked.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
lol UC Berkeley riots, seems like a fairly normal response to someone's opinion you don't like. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNot sure if this is really going anywhere, but - if a business is willing to offer a particular service to straight (or white, or Christian) people, but not to gay (or black, or Muslim) people, that should be illegal.Why is that such a problem for you?You still haven't explained your principled objection to that, just drawn all sorts of irrelevant analogies to marijuana/penis-drawing etc. I have no idea what you are saying in this post. Not a clue. I don't think you understand any of what I write because you are interpreting things that you think I am thinking. But most likely, you are a troll. This is the only way that I can make sense of your utter incomprehension of what I post. A troll derails a conversation and distorts the arguments being made for the purpose of causing an argument amongst the people in a topic. This describes you to a T. Have fun buddy.
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES Refusing to provide a service because of sexuality is also illegal (In Australia, at least. It varies between states in the US, but in any case it *should* be illegal). Moreover, the fact it's intentionally provocative is irrelevant. Intentional provocation was a crucial method used by Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists during the 60s to help bring about change and end discrimination. They didn't bus hundreds of African-Americans down to small towns in Mississippi for the hell of it, they did it to prove a point and force local businesses there to change their discriminatory practices. TLDR - Why are you opposed to businesses refusing service based on racism, but happy to support them if they refuse service based on homophobia? I am opposed to businesses refusing a service based on homophobia. I am not opposed to businesses choosing how they will provide those services. The government does not have the right to dictate the way people behave in their business. Some people are arseholes. To you, smoking weed might be a recreational activity. To other people, it might be different. My question to you wasn't about weed, it was about where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Do businesses not have a choice in the way that they do their business? I'm amazed that I have to explain this but - Other people might have completely different perspectives on life to that of your own. Other people live their lives in different ways and what seems normal to you, might be looked at as completely foreign to another community. If a practice is discriminatory, then it is unacceptable. People's particular views on drug use aren't relevant because condemning someone who smokes pot is not discriminatory. The analogies I made to race are much more comparable here because they involve actual discrimination. Running a business (like a wedding cake shop) and refusing to provide your services (like a wedding cake) because you're opposed to the sexuality (or the race or religion) of the customer is blatant homophobia and discrimination. What else do you think motivates a Christian baker to refuse service to gay couples alone? You are the master of the obvious. What if I want a gay wedding cake with a penis on it? Am I being discriminated against if they refuse? If they were happy to bake a straight couple a wedding cake with a penis on it, but not the same kind of cake for a gay couple, then that's discrimination. If the objection is that the cake would have a penis on it (not that the couple making the request were gay) then that's obviously fine. I think you and I are on the same page here. This is the point being made by the cake shop. You have turned it into something completely different.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappuccino
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 683,
Visits: 0
|
Not sure if this is really going anywhere, but - if a business is willing to offer a particular service to straight (or white, or Christian) people, but not to gay (or black, or Muslim) people, that should be illegal.
Why is that such a problem for you?
You still haven't explained your principled objection to that, just drawn all sorts of irrelevant analogies to marijuana/penis-drawing etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappuccino
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 683,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES Refusing to provide a service because of sexuality is also illegal (In Australia, at least. It varies between states in the US, but in any case it *should* be illegal). Moreover, the fact it's intentionally provocative is irrelevant. Intentional provocation was a crucial method used by Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists during the 60s to help bring about change and end discrimination. They didn't bus hundreds of African-Americans down to small towns in Mississippi for the hell of it, they did it to prove a point and force local businesses there to change their discriminatory practices. TLDR - Why are you opposed to businesses refusing service based on racism, but happy to support them if they refuse service based on homophobia? I am opposed to businesses refusing a service based on homophobia. I am not opposed to businesses choosing how they will provide those services. The government does not have the right to dictate the way people behave in their business. Some people are arseholes. To you, smoking weed might be a recreational activity. To other people, it might be different. My question to you wasn't about weed, it was about where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Do businesses not have a choice in the way that they do their business? I'm amazed that I have to explain this but - Other people might have completely different perspectives on life to that of your own. Other people live their lives in different ways and what seems normal to you, might be looked at as completely foreign to another community. If a practice is discriminatory, then it is unacceptable. People's particular views on drug use aren't relevant because condemning someone who smokes pot is not discriminatory. The analogies I made to race are much more comparable here because they involve actual discrimination. Running a business (like a wedding cake shop) and refusing to provide your services (like a wedding cake) because you're opposed to the sexuality (or the race or religion) of the customer is blatant homophobia and discrimination. What else do you think motivates a Christian baker to refuse service to gay couples alone? You are the master of the obvious. What if I want a gay wedding cake with a penis on it? Am I being discriminated against if they refuse? If they were happy to bake a straight couple a wedding cake with a penis on it, but not the same kind of cake for a gay couple, then that's discrimination. If the objection is that the cake would have a penis on it (not that the couple making the request were gay) then that's obviously fine.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
How bout these emergency law changes in Romania that's got people protesting? Making it ok for people to not go to jail if the corruption is less than 48k lol Why the fark did they think that was a good idea? -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES Refusing to provide a service because of sexuality is also illegal (In Australia, at least. It varies between states in the US, but in any case it *should* be illegal). Moreover, the fact it's intentionally provocative is irrelevant. Intentional provocation was a crucial method used by Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists during the 60s to help bring about change and end discrimination. They didn't bus hundreds of African-Americans down to small towns in Mississippi for the hell of it, they did it to prove a point and force local businesses there to change their discriminatory practices. TLDR - Why are you opposed to businesses refusing service based on racism, but happy to support them if they refuse service based on homophobia? I am opposed to businesses refusing a service based on homophobia. I am not opposed to businesses choosing how they will provide those services. The government does not have the right to dictate the way people behave in their business. Some people are arseholes. To you, smoking weed might be a recreational activity. To other people, it might be different. My question to you wasn't about weed, it was about where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Do businesses not have a choice in the way that they do their business? I'm amazed that I have to explain this but - Other people might have completely different perspectives on life to that of your own. Other people live their lives in different ways and what seems normal to you, might be looked at as completely foreign to another community. If a practice is discriminatory, then it is unacceptable. People's particular views on drug use aren't relevant because condemning someone who smokes pot is not discriminatory. The analogies I made to race are much more comparable here because they involve actual discrimination. Running a business (like a wedding cake shop) and refusing to provide your services (like a wedding cake) because you're opposed to the sexuality (or the race or religion) of the customer is blatant homophobia and discrimination. What else do you think motivates a Christian baker to refuse service to gay couples alone? You are the master of the obvious. What if I want a gay wedding cake with a penis on it? Am I being discriminated against if they refuse?
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhat this conversation is about? What did Donald Trump ban for gays? Please post links. thanks guys A Christian Bakery refused to decorate a cake in a specific way requested by a gay couple for their wedding as they deemed it offensive and people here (and around the world) compare it to the holocaust.
|
|
|
|
|
salmonfc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K,
Visits: 0
|
.
For the first time, but certainly not the last, I began to believe that Arsenals moods and fortunes somehow reflected my own. - Hornby
|
|
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
I don't even know where to begin here, but it's pretty clear they have no idea who Douglass is or that he's been dead for 120+ years  It's somehow even worse in video form
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhy should someone be forced to make a cake for an event of which they strongly disagree with on religious grounds and do not want to be apart of? For the same reason that white cinema/cafe/swimming pool owners in the American south back in the 1960s were rightly forced to serve black customers whom they despised on racial grounds and who might discourage racist white customers from patronising said cinema/cafe/swimming pool. If religion somehow makes it different (and I don't think it does), would you be ok with a Muslim baker refusing to sell his goods to a Jewish customer? The incident you are referring to wasn't a case of a Christian bakery refusing to serve a gay couple because they were gay. It was a Christian bakery refusing to make a particular cake which contain a script in which the bakers felt was offensive. It's their business and they can conduct their business in the way which they feel is acceptable. They didn't refuse to make the cake, they refused to add the wording on the cake. I don't agree with their point of view or their business practice but I agree with their right to conduct the operation of their business how they see fit. It really does go without saying that there business should be run in accordance with the law but I think you might need me to spell that out for you. Ok, let's take a more specific example. Do you think a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, because his views/religion are against miscegenation? (It also does come down to denial of service - the gay couple aren't there to buy a chocolate eclair, they're there to buy a wedding cake, and that service is being refused to them because it would involve the baker writing stuff that triggers their religious sensibilities) Refusing to provide a service along racial lines is illegal. Can I put it to you in a different way that might clarify what actually happened and where I stand on the issue? If someone came into the bakery and asked for a cake with decorations reading the words "smoke weed everyday", would you support the right of the owners of the bakery to refuse such a request based on the grounds it promotes an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe you might think the bakers are being uptight but, should they be forced to run their business a particular way because the majority feel it's appropriate? Where would you draw the line? Would brothels be allowed to publish advertisements in children magazines? Would vegan newspapers have to run advertisements for the lamb industry on Australia Day? At which point would you say "I think the business owner has the right to run their business the way that they see fit." I look at it from the point of view that the particular business in question was not the only cake shop in the area and the people who ordered the cake did so to create the controversy which occurred. If the people really just wanted a cake, they could have gone to the many other cake shops in the area and the bigoted business would be worse off because of it. tl:dr - SHould the business be allowed to refuse service for gay couples = NO
- Should the business be allowed to refuse a request that is intentionally provocative = YES Refusing to provide a service because of sexuality is also illegal (In Australia, at least. It varies between states in the US, but in any case it *should* be illegal). Moreover, the fact it's intentionally provocative is irrelevant. Intentional provocation was a crucial method used by Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists during the 60s to help bring about change and end discrimination. They didn't bus hundreds of African-Americans down to small towns in Mississippi for the hell of it, they did it to prove a point and force local businesses there to change their discriminatory practices. TLDR - Why are you opposed to businesses refusing service based on racism, but happy to support them if they refuse service based on homophobia? I am opposed to businesses refusing a service based on homophobia. I am not opposed to businesses choosing how they will provide those services. The government does not have the right to dictate the way people behave in their business. Some people are arseholes. To you, smoking weed might be a recreational activity. To other people, it might be different. My question to you wasn't about weed, it was about where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Do businesses not have a choice in the way that they do their business? I'm amazed that I have to explain this but - Other people might have completely different perspectives on life to that of your own. Other people live their lives in different ways and what seems normal to you, might be looked at as completely foreign to another community. If a practice is discriminatory, then it is unacceptable. People's particular views on drug use aren't relevant because condemning someone who smokes pot is not discriminatory. The analogies I made to race are much more comparable here because they involve actual discrimination. Running a business (like a wedding cake shop) and refusing to provide your services (like a wedding cake) because you're opposed to the sexuality (or the race or religion) of the customer is blatant homophobia and discrimination. What else do you think motivates a Christian baker to refuse service to gay couples alone? Very well said.
|
|
|
|