Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,472
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 6, 2015 0:08:22 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 0:11:34 GMT -5
Charity should be for good causes. Period. Discrimination and bigotry are not good causes. It's just that simple. If someone wants to donate to a cause of evil... fine. I would never argue against anyone's right to spend their money as they see fit... but don't call it "charity". Shame on you for not knowing that. The greatest bigots are these so-called warriors for tolerance, demanding that everyone accept as moral and right the very same things they do. More to the point: unless you think hacked websites, trashed business ratings, threats, and being forced to close are an appropriate response to a store owner's "bigotry", it seems to me there's no dispute in this thread that Memories Pizza is being persecuted for their beliefs. One doesn't have to share those beliefs to want to help remedy that wrong. I revile homosexuality, but even I wouldn't be cold-hearted enough to chide the public as "stupid" for donating to a bullied homosexual teen. And I would certainly acknowledge it as charity. that is because the homosexual teen is an obvious victim of a real crime. i am not seeing the pizza store owner in the same light. if you do, then fine- defend away. however, please don't think that we are unsympathetic hypocrites for NOT seeing that argument. sometimes we just don't see things the same way. you, of all people should understand that. i don't appreciate being called a bigot for that failing, Virgil. it is totally unfair and uncalled for. if the pizza store owner is an actual victim of REAL BULLYING on the part of individuals in her community, she has my sympathies- though not $842,000 worth. nobody should be bullied. my problem is that i don't think that most of that (or perhaps ANY) money came from people who actually feel that same sympathy. and THAT is why i "liked" that post. for the record, i would never have used the word stupid. it is just not a word i use (as a way to describe people).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 0:18:12 GMT -5
The greatest bigots are these so-called warriors for tolerance, demanding that everyone accept as moral and right the very same things they do.More to the point: unless you think hacked websites, trashed business ratings, threats, and being forced to close are an appropriate response to a store owner's "bigotry", it seems to me there's no dispute in this thread that Memories Pizza is being persecuted for their beliefs. One doesn't have to share those beliefs to want to help remedy that wrong. I revile homosexuality, but even I wouldn't be cold-hearted enough to chide the public as "stupid" for donating to a bullied homosexual teen. And I would certainly acknowledge it as charity. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't care at all what behavior anyone considers moral. I do care about equal treatment under the law, and will argue in favor of that every time.
I think Memories Pizza was stupid to answer the question, but there is also no doubt that the opposition to them should have been more honest and reasonable. There is an argument to be made that the donations could be to support a business that did not deserve all of the response they got, rather than that the donors in fact support bigotry and discrimination. Without knowing either way what the donors actually think, the best decision for me is to let it go.
this might be a good time to note that it was not us that brought the crowdfunding into the picture. i don't think it has anything to do with the argument, and would rather avoid it- but apparently at least one poster thinks it is fun to rub our faces in stuff like that. such things are hard to NOT respond to, but perhaps this is a good lesson for all of us. ignore such things, or feed the monkey.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 0:22:47 GMT -5
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't care at all what behavior anyone considers moral. I do care about equal treatment under the law, and will argue in favor of that every time.
I think Memories Pizza was stupid to answer the question, but there is also no doubt that the opposition to them should have been more honest and reasonable. There is an argument to be made that the donations could be to support a business that did not deserve all of the response they got, rather than that the donors in fact support bigotry and discrimination. Without knowing either way what the donors actually think, the best decision for me is to let it go.
I can't speak for you personally. Nationally, it's far deeper than "equal treatment under the law". You, I, and everyone here knows that this would be a non-event if the circumstances were, e.g., a storeowner claiming she wouldn't sell knives to a religious cult that practiced the sacrifice of animals, even if this cult had protected status under the law. The story has teeth because, in a grand bit of irony, the "tolerant" side of the argument desperately wants to punish an individual for not tolerating that which they vehemently believe should be tolerated. Why do you think the words "bigot", "hate", "idiot", etc. are strewn far and wide throughout these threads? This is a moral issue. "Equal treatment under the law" is a surface issue. You are correct in your assertion that we don't know what the donors are thinking, and that's just as much reason not to condemn them as "idiots". if you are assuming we think that violence and property damage should be tolerated, you are gravely mistaken. if you are assuming we think that bigotry should not be tolerated, you are precisely correct.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 0:23:26 GMT -5
Get a job dealing directly with the public, there are plenty of stupid people out there. Average IQ is on a bell curve so for every really smart person in the right side there's one stupid person on the left. just not a word i use to describe people other than maybe myself. you are not going to convince me to use it by arguing that people are stupid. i am aware of that argument.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 0:24:51 GMT -5
The story has teeth because the left needs a story.
Press coverage has also often falsely implied that religious-freedom legislation gives religious businesses a broad right to discriminate against gays and lesbians, when in fact no such right has ever been recognized under the similar legislation that already exists at the federal level and in many states. As The Washington Examiner points out......
i am not interested in what the WE points out. i am sure you will find my bigotry very revealing.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 0:34:39 GMT -5
The greatest bigots are these so-called warriors for tolerance, demanding that everyone accept as moral and right the very same things they do. More to the point: unless you think hacked websites, trashed business ratings, threats, and being forced to close are an appropriate response to a store owner's "bigotry", it seems to me there's no dispute in this thread that Memories Pizza is being persecuted for their beliefs. One doesn't have to share those beliefs to want to help remedy that wrong. I revile homosexuality, but even I wouldn't be cold-hearted enough to chide the public as "stupid" for donating to a bullied homosexual teen. And I would certainly acknowledge it as charity. Yet you chide people here for being against donating to bigotry. As to the unbolded rest of the post... No one is demanding that "everyone accept as moral and right"... anything. They are demanding equal treatment under the law. People are free to BELIEVE whatever they want. They can freely believe that sex is only moral if it's done for procreation, on Sundays, with the lights out, in a specific position, by married people of opposite gender... if that's what floats their boat. What they can't do is discriminate against others because others have a different belief. And no, I don't think that threats or other lawlesness (the hacking you mentioned, for example), are a legitimate, reasonable or justifiable response. Never have I ever said otherwise. You can claim it's about equal treatment until you're blue in the face. Based on the content of the many threads we've seen, it obviously isn't true for the majority of posters. This just happens to be the most convenient justification for the underlying desire to punish "bigotry". If a discrimination issue not related to race or LGBT comes up at some point in the future and the raging left goes after the perpetrator(s) like sharks on a sea lion, I'll rethink my position, but I'm not holding my breath. You've already tripped over yourselves with "frosting a cake is different from baking a cake", "'NO GAYS' on a cake is hate speech", and other absurd rationalizations when the door swings the other way. All I need to do to prove my thesis is wait for a controversial discrimination case where you aren't sympathetic to the discriminatee, put my feet up, and watch you trip over yourselves (again) in your haste to explain why "equal treatment under the law" really doesn't apply.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Apr 6, 2015 0:41:28 GMT -5
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't care at all what behavior anyone considers moral. I do care about equal treatment under the law, and will argue in favor of that every time.
I think Memories Pizza was stupid to answer the question, but there is also no doubt that the opposition to them should have been more honest and reasonable. There is an argument to be made that the donations could be to support a business that did not deserve all of the response they got, rather than that the donors in fact support bigotry and discrimination. Without knowing either way what the donors actually think, the best decision for me is to let it go.
this might be a good time to note that it was not us that brought the crowdfunding into the picture. i don't think it has anything to do with the argument, and would rather avoid it- but apparently at least one poster thinks it is fun to rub our faces in stuff like that. such things are hard to NOT respond to, but perhaps this is a good lesson for all of us. ignore such things, or feed the monkey. www.funnypica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Funny-Monkeys-Funny-Monkey-Picture-078-FunnyPica.com_.jpg
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 6, 2015 0:45:55 GMT -5
The attacks on Sandra Fluke comes to mind. But... But... But... those weren't attacks. The were just people defending Christian values. *for the record, they were wrong then too. Lol! I guess demanding to see a video of Sandra Fluke having sex was also part of their Christian values.
Amid a chorus of criticism, Limbaugh doubles down: "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is: We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 6, 2015 0:59:52 GMT -5
Yet you chide people here for being against donating to bigotry. As to the unbolded rest of the post... No one is demanding that "everyone accept as moral and right"... anything. They are demanding equal treatment under the law. People are free to BELIEVE whatever they want. They can freely believe that sex is only moral if it's done for procreation, on Sundays, with the lights out, in a specific position, by married people of opposite gender... if that's what floats their boat. What they can't do is discriminate against others because others have a different belief. And no, I don't think that threats or other lawlesness (the hacking you mentioned, for example), are a legitimate, reasonable or justifiable response. Never have I ever said otherwise. You can claim it's about equal treatment until you're blue in the face. Based on the content of the many threads we've seen, it obviously isn't true for the majority of posters. This just happens to be the most convenient justification for the underlying desire to punish "bigotry". If a discrimination issue not related to race or LGBT comes up at some point in the future and the raging left goes after the perpetrator(s) like sharks on a sea lion, I'll rethink my position, but I'm not holding my breath. You've already tripped over yourselves with "frosting a cake is different from baking a cake", "'NO GAYS' on a cake is hate speech", and other absurd rationalizations when the door swings the other way. All I need to do to prove my thesis is wait for a controversial discrimination case where you aren't sympathetic to the discriminatee, put my feet up, and watch you trip over yourselves (again) in your haste to explain why "equal treatment under the law" really doesn't apply. Stretching it quite a bit there, aren't you? The customer wanted things written on the cake that the baker didn't want to do. Did the baker refuse service? No. They offered "reasonable accommodation," in that they offered to not only bake the cake but provide extra icing for the customer to write whatever he wanted on it. It may not have looked quite as pretty but they would have had their cake. If a customer wants hate speech written on a cake, the baker has every right to refuse it. Hate speech is illegal, and one cannot be compelled by law to engage in behavior contrary to law. Are you arguing otherwise?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 6, 2015 1:00:52 GMT -5
I beg to differ. At least for me, "Equal treatment under the law" is the ONLY issue. You do not think for me. I think for me. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 14:16:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 1:12:46 GMT -5
Yet you chide people here for being against donating to bigotry. As to the unbolded rest of the post... No one is demanding that "everyone accept as moral and right"... anything. They are demanding equal treatment under the law. People are free to BELIEVE whatever they want. They can freely believe that sex is only moral if it's done for procreation, on Sundays, with the lights out, in a specific position, by married people of opposite gender... if that's what floats their boat. What they can't do is discriminate against others because others have a different belief. And no, I don't think that threats or other lawlesness (the hacking you mentioned, for example), are a legitimate, reasonable or justifiable response. Never have I ever said otherwise. You can claim it's about equal treatment until you're blue in the face. Based on the content of the many threads we've seen, it obviously isn't true for the majority of posters. This just happens to be the most convenient justification for the underlying desire to punish "bigotry". If a discrimination issue not related to race or LGBT comes up at some point in the future and the raging left goes after the perpetrator(s) like sharks on a sea lion, I'll rethink my position, but I'm not holding my breath. You've already tripped over yourselves with "frosting a cake is different from baking a cake", "'NO GAYS' on a cake is hate speech", and other absurd rationalizations when the door swings the other way. All I need to do to prove my thesis is wait for a controversial discrimination case where you aren't sympathetic to the discriminatee, put my feet up, and watch you trip over yourselves (again) in your haste to explain why "equal treatment under the law" really doesn't apply. I'd be interested in seeing your basis for " Based on the content of the many threads we've seen, it obviously isn't true for the majority of posters." And, for the record, "equal treatment under the law" should ALWAYS apply. Does it currently always apply? No. Not every bigotry or discrimination issue in existence has been codified into law, yet... so some do slip through the cracks... for now. And maybe, hopefully they won't ALL need to be codified into law, because maybe, hopefully, one day it will be the case that people treat each other the way people should treat each other... with kindness, respect, and tolerance for beliefs (or skin or gender or whatever) that differ from their own without being forced to do so. Until that day we are stuck with law.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 1:15:58 GMT -5
The greatest bigots are these so-called warriors for tolerance, demanding that everyone accept as moral and right the very same things they do. More to the point: unless you think hacked websites, trashed business ratings, threats, and being forced to close are an appropriate response to a store owner's "bigotry", it seems to me there's no dispute in this thread that Memories Pizza is being persecuted for their beliefs. One doesn't have to share those beliefs to want to help remedy that wrong. I revile homosexuality, but even I wouldn't be cold-hearted enough to chide the public as "stupid" for donating to a bullied homosexual teen. And I would certainly acknowledge it as charity. that is because the homosexual teen is an obvious victim of a real crime. i am not seeing the pizza store owner in the same light. if you do, then fine- defend away. however, please don't think that we are unsympathetic hypocrites for NOT seeing that argument. sometimes we just don't see things the same way. you, of all people should understand that. i don't appreciate being called a bigot for that failing, Virgil. it is totally unfair and uncalled for. if the pizza store owner is an actual victim of REAL BULLYING on the part of individuals in her community, she has my sympathies- though not $842,000 worth. nobody should be bullied. my problem is that i don't think that most of that (or perhaps ANY) money came from people who actually feel that same sympathy. and THAT is why i "liked" that post. for the record, i would never have used the word stupid. it is just not a word i use. What can I say? If we accept your stated premises that the store owner isn't really a victim, the donors are opening their wallets for sake of bigotry rather than sympathy or solidarity, and people are stupid for thinking otherwise, then the conclusion seems pretty airtight. Incidentally (and you'll have to forgive this 'gotcha'), run a search for the word "stupid" in your comment history. Eliminate the posts where the word appears only in a comment you're responding to, and you're left with at least fifty posts that don't even take us as far back as the beginning of the year. I can respect that you wouldn't use the word "stupid" in this particular situation, but you do use it quite liberally. It's a noble goal to want to use it less. P.S. I won't mention this to Richard as new evidence in the ongoing "DJ sometimes pulls things out of his hat" trial.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 1:38:34 GMT -5
I beg to differ. At least for me, "Equal treatment under the law" is the ONLY issue. You do not think for me. I think for me. Thank you. It applies to you to whatever extent you haven't been spamming the threads with (and/or liking comments whose principal content is): - "poor, persecuted gays" anecdotes
- "poor, persecuted gays" moralizing
- "homosexuality is A-OK" moralizing
- "these store owners are bigots" moralizing
- "people who support these store owners are rewarding bigotry" moralizing
To determine your own personalized score on the this-is-a-moral-issue-for-me-o-meter, compute
DM = (PE + LE/4)/(PT + LT/4)
where PE is the number of your posts in the past two weeks containing any of the above elements, PT is your total number of posts in the past two weeks, LE is the number of posts containing any of the above elements you've liked in the past two weeks, and LT is the total number of posts you've liked in the past two weeks, respectively.
Then score yourself on this handy table:
Score | Importance as a Moral Issue
| < 0.1
| This genuinely is an "equality under the law" issue for me.
| 0.1 - 0.199
| Morality is a factor for me.
| 0.2 - 0.399
| Morality is the principal factor for me.
| 0.4 - 0.6
| Morality is really the only factor for me, but "equality under the law" just sounds a lot better.
| > 0.6
| Morality is obviously the only factor for me, but maybe a few people will be too dense to notice.
|
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 6, 2015 2:06:22 GMT -5
I beg to differ. At least for me, "Equal treatment under the law" is the ONLY issue. You do not think for me. I think for me. Thank you. It applies to you to whatever extent you haven't been spamming the threads with (and/or liking comments whose principal content is): - "poor, persecuted gays" anecdotes
- "poor, persecuted gays" moralizing
- "homosexuality is A-OK" moralizing
- "these store owners are bigots" moralizing
- "people who support these store owners are rewarding bigotry" moralizing
To determine your own personalized score on the this-is-a-moral-issue-for-me-o-meter, compute
DM = (PE + LE/4)/(PT + LT/4)
where PE is the number of your posts in the past two weeks containing any of the above elements, PT is your total number of posts in the past two weeks, LE is the number of posts containing any of the above elements you've liked in the past two weeks, and LT is the total number of posts you've liked in the past two weeks, respectively.
Then score yourself on this handy table:
Score | Importance as a Moral Issue
| < 0.1
| This genuinely is an "equality under the law" issue for me.
| 0.1 - 0.199
| Morality is a factor for me.
| 0.2 - 0.399
| Morality is the principal factor for me.
| 0.4 - 0.6
| Morality is really the only factor for me, but "equality under the law" just sounds a lot better.
| > 0.6
| Morality is obviously the only factor for me, but maybe a few people will be too dense to notice.
|
Virgil, I don't find it necessary to play your silly games in order to determine what I think. I can do that without you, strangely enough. I've been doing it for longer than you've been alive. You think you know one whale of a lot more than you actually know - about almost everything, but definitely about me.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 6, 2015 2:24:31 GMT -5
Especially when his formula doesn't even make sense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 14:16:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 6:21:03 GMT -5
Especially when his formula doesn't even make sense. The "score comparator" makes even less sense than the formula.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 6, 2015 8:32:11 GMT -5
Yes Virgil is discriminating against the rest of us, Just because Virgil is so much smarter than me I don't think that it is fair. Yes, we need laws to protect us from Virgil. Yea, that's the ticket.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 6, 2015 9:20:17 GMT -5
Yes Virgil is discriminating against the rest of us, Just because Virgil is so much smarter than me I don't think that it is fair. Yes, we need laws to protect us from Virgil. Yea, that's the ticket. Well, as long as you are only speaking for yourself there....
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 6, 2015 9:32:45 GMT -5
I was just be kind.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 9:50:40 GMT -5
Virgil, I don't find it necessary to play your silly games in order to determine what I think. I can do that without you, strangely enough. I've been doing it for longer than you've been alive. You think you know one whale of a lot more than you actually know - about almost everything, but definitely about me. The score doesn't necessarily reflect what you think. It can also be a measure of how disconnected what you think is from what you say. For example, mmhmm (saying): "My mother was well into her 80s when one of my dearest friends visited with his partner. They stopped through on vacation from England. Mother absolutely adored both of them. We went the US version of pub-crawling with them and mother thoroughly enjoyed the evening." mmhmm (thinking): One must target only the greatest of social injustices when imposing on the business owner unwelcome social responsibilities. mmhmm (saying): "Yes, [moral activism] certainly is stupid. I can't for the life of me figure out why someone who isn't a part of whatever "horrible thing" is being howled about feels the need to howl about it. If it doesn't have any impact on your life, why is it a problem for you? I have yet to find anyone who can give me a logical answer to that question. People can like, or dislike whoever, or whatever they please. Nobody's saying otherwise. However, to open a public business and deny service or product (or, both) to a member of the public because you don't happen to like the equivalent of the color of their eyes is ... it's loathsome!" mmhmm (thinking): To be wise arbiters of freedom, we must discount our moral center and seek to answer but one question: where is the fulcrum of even weight between the individual and the collective? Weltz (saying): "Yep. Even my parents got over it when they were in their 70s. They realized that a lot of people breaking bread with them during the holidays were gay, and surprisingly, didn't have horns! My mom even went to a gay wedding." mmhmm (saying): LIKE! mmhmm (thinking): Anecdotes about the goodness and normality of homosexuals really have no place in a discussion about equal treatment under the law. Weltz (saying): "My sister and I always had a lot of gay friends. They were always welcomed at our table. After my mom made the faux-pas of asking Pierre of Serge and Pierre when he's going to find himself a nice girl and settle down, we took her aside and said "Mom! You do know they're gay, right? They're not living together to save money." She was stunned. "But...but...they're so nice! They're just like regular people! Who else?" "Most of them, Mom." mmhmm (saying): LIKE! mmhmm (thinking): Really, I'm going to have to step in if posters continue to make this into an issue about the morality and normalcy of homosexuality. These arguments are irrelevant to equal treatment under the law. Iggy (saying): "I don't judge people based on color, race, religion, sexuality, gender, ability or size. I base it on whether or not they're an asshole." mmhmm (saying): LIKE! mmhmm (thinking): Another appeal to emotion. Another proclamation of the normalcy of homosexuality. I really should stop liking these posts. Why can't I stop liking these posts? What is wrong with me? We observe in these examples that for some posters the principal disconnect occurs between what is being thought and what is being said, rather than what is being said and what is being reported as being said (i.e. "'Equal treatment under the law' is the ONLY issue.") Behavioural psychologists have yet to assign a name to this unusual phenomenon, although some have suggested "Mental-Vocal Disconnectedness Syndrome (MVDS)" for the next edition of the DSM.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 6, 2015 10:14:14 GMT -5
Not only is that a bit out there, Virgil Showlion, but who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I'm thinking? I've had just about enough of that rot. You keep your little fingertips to yourself as far as I'm concerned. Keep my name off of them. Enough!
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,705
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 6, 2015 10:22:11 GMT -5
I beg to differ. At least for me, "Equal treatment under the law" is the ONLY issue. You do not think for me. I think for me. Thank you. It applies to you to whatever extent you haven't been spamming the threads with (and/or liking comments whose principal content is): - "poor, persecuted gays" anecdotes
- "poor, persecuted gays" moralizing
- "homosexuality is A-OK" moralizing
- "these store owners are bigots" moralizing
- "people who support these store owners are rewarding bigotry" moralizing
To determine your own personalized score on the this-is-a-moral-issue-for-me-o-meter, compute
DM = (PE + LE/4)/(PT + LT/4)
where PE is the number of your posts in the past two weeks containing any of the above elements, PT is your total number of posts in the past two weeks, LE is the number of posts containing any of the above elements you've liked in the past two weeks, and LT is the total number of posts you've liked in the past two weeks, respectively.
Then score yourself on this handy table:
Score | Importance as a Moral Issue
| < 0.1
| This genuinely is an "equality under the law" issue for me.
| 0.1 - 0.199
| Morality is a factor for me.
| 0.2 - 0.399
| Morality is the principal factor for me.
| 0.4 - 0.6
| Morality is really the only factor for me, but "equality under the law" just sounds a lot better.
| > 0.6
| Morality is obviously the only factor for me, but maybe a few people will be too dense to notice.
|
Virgil I'm not sure if I should be impressed or worried for you that you are trying to formalize your bias on how you perceive other people are thinking. Coming up with formulas and scores based on what you believe, not what the target population believes just is an attempt to herd them into a framework you believe is true.
It does not make any of your suppositions true, the formula, the scale any of it. The best way to understand people you don't understand is to ask and listen. If they think to differently from you, you probably won't be able to fully understand. But that's OK. You get closer to understanding.
Until we read minds or no one's thoughts can be hidden from anyone, fully understanding other people generally is unlikely. Plus we are all influenced by our beliefs and biases. Two people hear the same sentence from the same person and walk away with two totally different views on what that person meant.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,705
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 6, 2015 10:40:22 GMT -5
I'm going to use this again because it wonderfully illustrates how what you perceive often has more to do with you than the other person you are attempting to understand. I note Virgil has decided equality under the law being the primary issue for posters he disagrees with is so unlikely that it is only mentioned once in his 5 scoring categories.
Recently in a group of people a guy said to a woman I admire you are a healthy eater. He meant it as a compliment. Her reply was "What?! You think I'm fat?!!!" He did mean it as a compliment. The words are not all of the message. That healthy eater statement sometimes is used to tell people they are fat or are eating too much. It is about what the speaker intends the message to be, what they are thinking. It rarely has to do with how much they are talking about that particular statement or discussing other stuff.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 11:03:32 GMT -5
Not only is that a bit out there, Virgil Showlion, but who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I'm thinking? I've had just about enough of that rot. You keep your little fingertips to yourself as far as I'm concerned. Keep my name off of them. Enough! I can only assess what you say. If your claims about what you think are true, then what you think is not the slightest bit consistent with what you say on this particular issue. We can plainly make this determination by comparing the two. That was the point of the examples. Virgil I'm not sure if I should be impressed or worried for you that you are trying to formalize your bias on how you perceive other people are thinking. Coming up with formulas and scores based on what you believe, not what the target population believes just is an attempt to herd them into a framework you believe is true. The formula is bit of satire for a particular audience. Rest assured that I don't actually expect anyone to compute their "moral issue" index. As for what I believe and "what the target population believes", I refer you to my comments to mmhmm. What we can readily observe is what people have said and liked, and determine whether what they actually say and like matches up with what they claim to believe. In this case, mmhmm has claimed re her thoughts: "'Equal treatment under the law' is the ONLY issue." What's she's said and liked is excerpted above. We see fawning anecdotes, moralizing, condemnation of discrimination as "loathsome", numerous attempts to establish the goodness and normalcy of homosexuality, etc. that are plainly moralistic in nature and have no relevance to equal treatment of the law. Ergo we must conclude that a disconnect occurs somewhere--either between what is thought and what is said/liked, or between what is thought/said/liked and what is claimed (i.e. "'Equal treatment under the law' is the ONLY issue.").
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 11:09:59 GMT -5
I'm going to use this again because it wonderfully illustrates how what you perceive often has more to do with you than the other person you are attempting to understand. I note Virgil has decided equality under the law being the primary issue for posters he disagrees with is so unlikely that it is only mentioned once in his 5 scoring categories. You do realize that if the formula wasn't a joke, the number of categories has nothing to do with the likelihood of posters scoring in each category, right?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,705
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 6, 2015 11:19:42 GMT -5
Virgil, its rare someone beliefs just one thing about any topic. And likes are an individual thing. Often they are not for agreeing with the entire post, but liking a particular aspect. Unless you ask those who like the posts, you may not understand their reasoning.
I fixed the above. Virgil your understanding of human nature could be better. You misunderstand those with different political and religious beliefs fairly often. If one believes equal treatment under the law is the heart of the matter yet the person one is discussing it with feels it is religion, gay marriage, gays are icky, etc. You should not be surprised that the first person is also going to discuss those other arguments because that's what that person may or may not be convinced on.
When you discuss religion with posters you often expand out of the argument it is biblical, etc. because you know that argument will not sway those posters. Does that change your views that being biblical is the biggest thing? (I don't think so.)
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,705
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 6, 2015 11:25:13 GMT -5
I'm going to use this again because it wonderfully illustrates how what you perceive often has more to do with you than the other person you are attempting to understand. I note Virgil has decided equality under the law being the primary issue for posters he disagrees with is so unlikely that it is only mentioned once in his 5 scoring categories. You do realize that if the formula wasn't a joke, the number of categories has nothing to do with the likelihood of posters scoring in each category, right? If it is satire, which should be funny BTW, we and you are still selling our point of view. As you earlier pointed out it wasn't about the formula, it wasn't about posters actually scoring themselves so it had to be about your satire high points. Which 4 out of 5 were saying you silly folks agree with me its a moral issue.
My opinion. YMMV. Might not work in Canada as designed. Keep out of the sun, etc.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 6, 2015 11:33:22 GMT -5
Optimist: I'm mainly disputing the "ONLY" part of the claim. It's evident that "equal treatment under the law" is at least part of the argument, I agree. I'm going to have to drop out of this thread for sake of keeping the peace. Thank you for the discussion. Be good.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,705
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 6, 2015 11:33:27 GMT -5
Virgil, do you realize that what you think Mmhmm is saying and thinking is not what I or other posters see? That perhaps we get Mmhmm and you just don't?
It happens. There are some posters I don't really read as they are intending and I just keep that in mind when I read or reply to their posts.
|
|