Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 14:36:08 GMT -5
That one candy bar might not threaten his livelihood and his ability to support his family, but 1000 thefts of that candy bar might - even if each one only costs him $1.00 each. In any event, the kid is STILL guilty of theft. Which is still wrong. red herring. you didn't say 1000 candy bar thefts. you said one. you are moving the goalposts, which is also wrong. 
Nope. Goal posts are still in the end zone. Wrong is wrong!!! 
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 15:38:17 GMT -5
red herring. you didn't say 1000 candy bar thefts. you said one. you are moving the goalposts, which is also wrong.
Nope. Goal posts are still in the end zone. Wrong is wrong!!!
ok, you are just cheating then, by making it harder for me to play!  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 15:43:59 GMT -5
Agreed there wouldn't probably be any restitution in a court of law for name-calling. That still doesn't make it ok. We are at an impasse.
no, we are not. because i never said it was "OK". ever. why are you inventing conflict? do you like to cuddle after fights?
I keep saying "wrong" is "wrong" (and have said from the beginning there are certain degrees of "wrong") and you keep arguing that isn't so.
really? i'll tell you what. you find where i said that bigotry in any form was not WRONG, and i will give you a $100 gift certificate to your favourite restaurant. have at it.
I don't think we are going to reach any kind of agreement!
that is because we have no fundamental disagreement.
I'm taking from your post that you base your opinion on whether "harm" occurred/did not occur based on whether or not a judge would order some sort of restitution if the incident was brought before the court?
Please say "yes".
yes. i am not making a case for bigots, GEL. i loathe them. i am saying that speech is protected- even when uttered by bigots. |
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 15:44:10 GMT -5
LOL!!! Cheating is wrong.....just wrong!
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 15:54:39 GMT -5
Agreed there wouldn't probably be any restitution in a court of law for name-calling. That still doesn't make it ok. We are at an impasse.
no, we are not. because i never said it was "OK". ever. why are you inventing conflict? do you like to cuddle after fights?
I keep saying "wrong" is "wrong" (and have said from the beginning there are certain degrees of "wrong") and you keep arguing that isn't so.
really? i'll tell you what. you find where i said that bigotry in any form was not WRONG, and i will give you a $100 gift certificate to your favourite restaurant. have at it.
I don't think we are going to reach any kind of agreement!
that is because we have no fundamental disagreement.
I'm taking from your post that you base your opinion on whether "harm" occurred/did not occur based on whether or not a judge would order some sort of restitution if the incident was brought before the court?
Please say "yes".
yes. i am not making a case for bigots, GEL. i loathe them. i am saying that speech is protected- even when uttered by bigots. I agree. I never argued that speech isn't protected. Even hurtful speech is protected. I'm just saying that doesn't make it less hurtful. I'm simply saying that harm is caused by people who resort to name-calling. It's wrong. I'm especially intrigued by those who feel free to be as hateful as they want, while proclaiming out of the other side of the mouth that everyone should respect them and their choices. While it's certainly my hope that we do love and respect one another, I find it difficult to take them seriously. It's hypocrisy at it's best and I just can't help but comment on it when I see it.
That's a lack of self-control....and that's wrong!
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jul 7, 2015 15:56:15 GMT -5
yes. i am not making a case for bigots, GEL. i loathe them. i am saying that speech is protected- even when uttered by bigots. I agree. I never argued that speech isn't protected. Even hurtful speech is protected. I'm just saying that doesn't make it less hurtful. I'm simply saying that harm is caused by people who resort to name-calling. It's wrong. I'm especially intrigued by those who feel free to be as hateful as they want, while proclaiming out of the other side of the mouth that everyone should respect them and their choices. While it's certainly my hope that we do love and respect one another, I find it difficult to take them seriously. It's hypocrisy at it's best and I just can't help but comment on it when I see it.
That's a lack of self-control....and that's wrong!
With so many things wrong, is anything right? |
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 16:00:22 GMT -5
Lovin' you?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 7, 2015 16:03:43 GMT -5
I agree. I never argued that speech isn't protected. Even hurtful speech is protected. I'm just saying that doesn't make it less hurtful. I'm simply saying that harm is caused by people who resort to name-calling. It's wrong. I'm especially intrigued by those who feel free to be as hateful as they want, while proclaiming out of the other side of the mouth that everyone should respect them and their choices. While it's certainly my hope that we do love and respect one another, I find it difficult to take them seriously. It's hypocrisy at it's best and I just can't help but comment on it when I see it.
That's a lack of self-control....and that's wrong!
With so many things wrong, is anything right? Guess you could sing  There's battle lines being drawn  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 16:07:49 GMT -5
yes. i am not making a case for bigots, GEL. i loathe them. i am saying that speech is protected- even when uttered by bigots. I agree. I never argued that speech isn't protected. Even hurtful speech is protected. I'm just saying that doesn't make it less hurtful. I'm simply saying that harm is caused by people who resort to name-calling. It's wrong. I'm especially intrigued by those who feel free to be as hateful as they want, while proclaiming out of the other side of the mouth that everyone should respect them and their choices. While it's certainly my hope that we do love and respect one another, I find it difficult to take them seriously. It's hypocrisy at it's best and I just can't help but comment on it when I see it.
That's a lack of self-control....and that's wrong!
again, i never claimed it wasn't wrong, nor did i claim that it was not hurtful. so, we good?  |
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 16:10:01 GMT -5
We are always good, IMO. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:50:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 18:36:47 GMT -5
Interesting note... here's the oath that County Clerks swear to in Tennessee: Note the bolded. This is the oath the clerks that are quitting took, back when they took office. ETA: You would not believe how long it took to find that! What's your point? They did not violate their oath. They did the right thing and they resigned. It is unfortunate that their state did not stand up to the ruling instead of ceding their sovereign rights and upholding the Constitution against abuse by the SCOTUS-- which is every state's and every citizen's duty. However, if they don't- then the option is to resign, and that's what they did. My point was they agreed to do a job without bias or prejudice. If they couldn't do that maybe they shouldn't have taken the job and sworn the oath in the first place. For the record, I agree with them quitting. It WAS the right thing to do. SCOTUS didn't abuse it's power here (not saying they never do... but this was a "cut and dried" case). The 14th amendment is crystal clear that ALL citizens are equal under the law... even the gay ones. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:50:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 18:39:46 GMT -5
I find it so funny that on the cake thread, people stated over and over and over again that if the bakers did not want to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, they should not be in the baking business. If the florist did not want to sell flowers to same-sex couples, she should not sell flowers. All of that makes sense.
But when someone does decide to get out of the business due to their beliefs, they are assholes. So what exactly does everyone want here? People to just capitulate to the way they want them to believe - no questions asked? I don't know about anybody else, but to me that has some damn scary implications.
These people did what they thought was right. They aren't hurting anyone. They took the option everyone was RAVING about on the other issues - the cakes and flowers - and they STILL are assholes. Face it. Nothing but one mindset for all will satisfy people. That's scary and you know what? It's doing more harm for the cause than good. I see it where I live. People who didn't care one way or the other how someone else lived are starting to care - and not in a good way. For the record... I think they did the right thing since they weren't grown up enough to realize that working for the government meant they had voluntarily agreed to hang their religion at the door on the way in every morning, and then pick it back up on the way out that night. |
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jul 7, 2015 21:31:27 GMT -5
I find it so funny that on the cake thread, people stated over and over and over again that if the bakers did not want to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, they should not be in the baking business. If the florist did not want to sell flowers to same-sex couples, she should not sell flowers. All of that makes sense.
But when someone does decide to get out of the business due to their beliefs, they are assholes. So what exactly does everyone want here? People to just capitulate to the way they want them to believe - no questions asked? I don't know about anybody else, but to me that has some damn scary implications.
These people did what they thought was right. They aren't hurting anyone. They took the option everyone was RAVING about on the other issues - the cakes and flowers - and they STILL are assholes. Face it. Nothing but one mindset for all will satisfy people. That's scary and you know what? It's doing more harm for the cause than good. I see it where I live. People who didn't care one way or the other how someone else lived are starting to care - and not in a good way. For the record... I think they did the right thing since they weren't grown up enough to realize that working for the government meant they had voluntarily agreed to hang their religion at the door on the way in every morning, and then pick it back up on the way out that night. It seems that people feel that way about any business and that's not necessarily a good thing either. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:50:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 21:43:01 GMT -5
For the record... I think they did the right thing since they weren't grown up enough to realize that working for the government meant they had voluntarily agreed to hang their religion at the door on the way in every morning, and then pick it back up on the way out that night. It seems that people feel that way about any business and that's not necessarily a good thing either. It's actually a very good thing. If it happens, it means less discrimination. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 21:44:21 GMT -5
It seems that people feel that way about any business and that's not necessarily a good thing either. It's actually a very good thing. If it happens, it means less discrimination. which, coincidentally, is better for business....which is.....theoretically.....what they are supposed to be doing...... |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:50:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 22:01:22 GMT -5
It's actually a very good thing. If it happens, it means less discrimination. which, coincidentally, is better for business....which is.....theoretically.....what they are supposed to be doing...... That too... one of them would be a side-effect... I won't assume to know which one though. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 8, 2015 12:52:54 GMT -5
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP, you are notSCOTUS decided by a 5-4 majority vote that the states have no legal right to discriminate against any particular group of people. No, that is not what they did. What they did was create a new right- the right to get married, which is not found anywhere in the Constitution- out of whole cloth, and ordered states to recognize it. ymam.proboards.com/thread/45972/new-totalitarians |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 8, 2015 12:54:57 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2015 13:07:03 GMT -5
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP, you are notSCOTUS decided by a 5-4 majority vote that the states have no legal right to discriminate against any particular group of people. No, that is not what they did. What they did was create a new right- the right to get married false. they removed the obstructions which denied the ability of adults to enter into consensual agreements. no state has the RIGHT to deny this privilege to a citizen of the US. THAT is what the SCOTUS decided. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2015 13:08:30 GMT -5
equal opportunity and equal protection under law are totalitarianism. Orwell has nothing on The Federalist. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2015 13:17:26 GMT -5
Paul Et Al:
the way i view this ruling is that the government is now OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS.
if anyone sees it differently, let me know. and, of course, LET ME KNOW WHY YOU SEE IT DIFFERENTLY.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 18:50:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2015 13:40:03 GMT -5
Now if only those government officials in sanctuary cities would quit their jobs since they obviously refuse to follow laws... not familiar with that term. what do you mean by "sanctuary cities"? Funny you should ask at this time. I was watching NBC evening news yesterday and San Diego (?) was referenced as a "Sanctuary city" by the announcer because it has an ordinance prohibiting the cities' police force from handing illegal immigrants over to ICE. The story was something about an illegal Mexican who was deported 5 times and was convicted of several felonies over the preceding years. He was just arrested again. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2015 13:43:03 GMT -5
not familiar with that term. what do you mean by "sanctuary cities"? Funny you should ask at this time. I was watching NBC evening news yesterday and San Diego (?) was referenced as a "Sanctuary city" by the announcer because it has an ordinance prohibiting the cities' police force from handing illegal immigrants over to ICE. The story was something about an illegal Mexican who was deported 5 times and was convicted of several felonies over the preceding years. He was just arrested again. i heard about that story. it is burning up the news wires. but as you know, i don't have TV. |
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jul 8, 2015 13:54:13 GMT -5
Paul Et Al: the way i view this ruling is that the government is now OUT OF regulating THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS. if anyone sees it differently, let me know. and, of course, LET ME KNOW WHY YOU SEE IT DIFFERENTLY. added 1 word |
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 8, 2015 14:12:21 GMT -5
Funny you should ask at this time. I was watching NBC evening news yesterday and San Diego (?) was referenced as a "Sanctuary city" by the announcer because it has an ordinance prohibiting the cities' police force from handing illegal immigrants over to ICE. The story was something about an illegal Mexican who was deported 5 times and was convicted of several felonies over the preceding years. He was just arrested again. i heard about that story. it is burning up the news wires. but as you know, i don't have TV. Dear Lord! You are missing Dancing With The Stars! |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2015 14:19:39 GMT -5
i heard about that story. it is burning up the news wires. but as you know, i don't have TV. Dear Lord! You are missing Dancing With The Stars! yep. and that American Idol thing. thank GOD! |
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 8, 2015 14:22:53 GMT -5
American Idol sucks. You aren't missing anything there. But DWTS?? So sad.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2015 14:23:40 GMT -5
American Idol sucks. You aren't missing anything there. But DWTS?? So sad. i really need to learn to Salsa. |
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 8, 2015 14:27:06 GMT -5
I think all you do is wiggle. Oh....and do the pouty lip thing. |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 8, 2015 14:27:38 GMT -5
Dancing With The "Stars"? Really? I have a TV and refuse to watch that chit. |
|
