This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Flee
Pages: 1 ... 278279280 281282 ... 520
8371
« on: March 30, 2015, 04:25:37 PM »
Septy, be nice to our guests. Welcome to Sep7agon, I used to browse your site quite a bit back in the day. Can't say I'm still very interested in Halo, but there's plenty of people here to discuss it with.
8372
« on: March 30, 2015, 03:04:40 PM »
Although Flee's post leads me to consider the idea that I might just be underestimating the amount of bigotry that exists in America at the moment From what I have heard and experienced myself, the bigotry in the US is very real. It really isn't a stretch to say that in some aspects, the country is years, if not decades, behind on the rest of the Western world. Here's a quick anecdote that illustrates how racial segregation is still very real in parts of the US. One of my best friends' father is a doctor and surgeon. Not just any doctor, but a world renowned specialist in a certain field where not even a handful of people can do what he does. Two years ago, he was invited over to the US to speak at a conference. I can't remember what state it was, but he arrived there a few days before he had to give his speech. During those days, he decided that he could do with a haircut. So, he used to google to find a barber nearby. As he walked in to the store, he got a few funny looks but didn't think of much it. He sat down and had his hair cut by a black man. They started talking about why he was there and when he revealed that he was Belgian and there for a conference, the barber laughed and said that this explained a lot. So, my friend's dad asked him why that was. The guy said that he had been a barber for over 40 years and that in all this time, there hadn't been a single white person to walk into his store to get his hair cut. He said that blacks stuck exclusively to their community, and whites to theirs, unless they absolutely had to do something that forced them to venture out of this community. This is just to say that even though segregation imposed by the state has come to an end decades ago, people's mentality and habits don't change so easily. A very large part of our population are ignorant and hostile bigots. Will people eventually change and abandon these discriminatory ways? Sure, in all likelihood they will. But that might take years or even decades for this change to happen, all while the obvious discrimination is happening right now. It's the year 2015 and people in the Western world are still relying on "but muh bible" to display blatant intolerance and discriminate against large groups of people based entirely on their sexual orientation. People need a bit of a push. An incentive. Something that shows them that their religious freedom is not an excuse to infringe on the rights of others and discriminate against them. If there is one thing that I have learned from the thousands of pages human rights case law and scholarly writings I have had to study, it's that there needs to exist a balance between conflicting rights and interests. That few rights are absolute and that sometimes, in the name of progress and the fundamental values in a society of law, that means limiting what some people can do, all to protect and guarantee the effective enjoyment of other rights. To me, this is one of those cases.
8373
« on: March 30, 2015, 12:11:44 PM »
I'd do something a little more creative, like a short "the good, the bad and the ugly" or something on the game. Reviewing a game like this would take ages to get into everything the game has to offer, and there's already a lot of guides / advice out there by people who have put literally thousands of hours into the Souls games and understand the games inside and out.
8374
« on: March 30, 2015, 10:48:21 AM »
This reminds me that I lost interest in this show somewhere during season 2.
8375
« on: March 30, 2015, 10:36:56 AM »
I've had this happen to me as well, but I never noticed it happening with the same person.
8376
« on: March 30, 2015, 10:24:11 AM »
Just gonna say that I do agree with Challenger here. While a person's right to conduct a business the way he or she wants definitely exists and rightfully so, it is not an absolute right. Laws like this can provide a legal basis for widespread discrimination and intolerance of others, based solely on things like their sexual orientation. While it's true that your rights don't end where someone else's feelings begin, they do end where someone else's rights begin. While putting faith in the consumer to do the right thing and drive these people out of business is commendable, I do have my doubts about this. As several others have pointed out, simply going to the competitor isn't always practically feasible, taking into accounts things like distance and costs. Furthermore, this could also very easily underestimate the resolve of these businesses. From what I can tell, the anti-gay movement is this still a very real and massive thing in the US, especially in certain states. Hoping that people will just stop relying on these businesses could easily turn out to have adverse affects, for example when the less than reasonable christian or anti-gay growd chooses to support these businesses simply because they share their ideas.  Above is a picture of one of the "Chik-a-fil-a Appreciation Days". When the whole controversy surrounding the company's donations to anti-LGBT foundations took place, people sharing those views rallied together to express their support for the company and its alledged anti-gay stance. It is then when the company earned 30% more than normal, while their general earnings increased by 12% that year.While a lot of this obviously has to do with increased publicity ("there is no such thing as bad publicity!"), the point still stands. Even though there's going to be people boycotting these businesses, there is no telling what the support they'll receive might be. Especially in certain very religious areas where anti-gay sentiments are still very prevalent, I can definitely see such businesses surviving and even thriving of the publicity and people sharing their views. Like Meta said, it's going to be interesting to see what happens here and how this evolves, as we're all pretty ignorant on this. But even though our society is getting more progressive in this aspect, it still might take years or even decades for this kind of discrimination endorsed by these businesses to disappear on its own. And because of that, I do believe that there should not be laws like this that open up the opportunity to real discrimination and intolerance of people based on things such as their sexual orientation alone.
8377
« on: March 30, 2015, 09:42:11 AM »
Praise Satan.
8378
« on: March 30, 2015, 06:38:57 AM »
this is a topic I don't really........discuss >.>
Because just privacy reasons or because masturbation is a sin?
8379
« on: March 30, 2015, 01:26:33 AM »
Merged a few threads so that there's no 3 different ones on the exact same topic.
8380
« on: March 29, 2015, 04:14:28 PM »
8381
« on: March 29, 2015, 01:50:57 PM »
It's not intolerant for Muslim-owned restaurants to not serve pork, so in this ever-present example of a bakery not making wedding cakes for gay couples, I don't see why they have an obligation to provide a service they don't want to provide.
That's a really poor analogy though. A better one would be for the Muslim-owned restaurant choosing not to serve anything to Christians and deny them service for the sole reason that the Christians follow a different religion.
It's not about refusing service because they're gay (or Christian), it's about refusing to perform services which directly conflict with personal beliefs. In this case, they don't support gay marriage, so they refuse to make a cake for one. If a gay couple walked in and asked for a birthday cake, it wouldn't be an issue. In the Muslim example, it would be like refusing to cater a Catholic Confirmation or something like that.
This kind of highlights the problem. Conservatives defend it because they recognize that it's not about discriminating against gay people, it's about not being compelled to participate in actions that conflict with their convictions. On the other side, Liberals can't recognize this and assume it's all about hating gays.
I'm not arguing with the point you're trying to make, I just think it is a lacking analogy. The Muslims are not treating anyone differently, they're treating everyone the same, regardless of that person's belief and actions. The Christian bakery is treating others differently because of how they view that person's beliefs and actions. The Muslim restaurant will not serve pork to anyone irregardless of their religion, race, sexual orientation, actions or beliefs. The Christian bakery will make wedding cakes, but decide to make a clear distinction based solely on the sexual orientation of the customers. They do so not because they have an absolute personal belief that making wedding cakes (or serving pork) is wrong, but only that making wedding cakes for a specific type of marriage based on the orientation of the customer is wrong. Like I said, just not such a good analogy, imo. Nothing negative about the rest of your post and its purpose.
8382
« on: March 29, 2015, 01:33:30 PM »
It's not intolerant for Muslim-owned restaurants to not serve pork, so in this ever-present example of a bakery not making wedding cakes for gay couples, I don't see why they have an obligation to provide a service they don't want to provide.
That's a really poor analogy though. A better one would be for the Muslim-owned restaurant choosing not to serve anything to Christians and deny them service for the sole reason that the Christians follow a different religion.
8383
« on: March 29, 2015, 01:01:02 PM »
Just an idea is all. An argument starts. Mods contain it, separate it, and only said two users can comment in the thread. Sort of like how mods can still talk after the lock. Eventually somebody's going to burn out. Somebody's going to realize that they have a day to go to beyond the computer screen.
They might pick it up again afterwards. But eventually, one side will give out. When that happens, at that point, there's nothing left to be said. Anyway. Just a muse, is all.
Like Cheat said, that's what PM's are for. If we would do it any other the way, the fact that they'd have their argument in public will incite both people to take it further and more serious because others will be watching, not unlike a cage fight of some sorts. Heated discussions rarely stay just a discussion. They quickly turn into an actual argument. A fight. Not an actual topic being discussed anymore, but insults and shit being flung all over the place. Personal attacks and posts breaking the rules. Not only does this go against the entire principle of having rules in the first place, but it will also never end up being resolved. They might eventually tire for a while, but the animosity will persist. And even if that one thread dies out, the fight will continue later in other threads. Jabs, slights, insults, snide comments and so forth. Endless hostility over something that got out of hand and could (should?) have been prevented. So that's what we do. We try to calm things down and difuse the situation before it turns into a shitstorm and more unnecessary drama.
8384
« on: March 29, 2015, 10:46:19 AM »
For those wondering, OP is claiming to be a Camnator alt evading his ban and then went on a rant calling out several members and generally insulting this forum and its community. He received a permaban for this.
8385
« on: March 29, 2015, 10:31:09 AM »
I must say that ignorant does a carry a pretty negative and insulting connotation though. Looking up the definition, the first result include things like "lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated."
My English isn't that amazing, but I'd wager that "being ignorant about something" is what you mean in the OP, while being ignorant in general is a lot more negative and insulting.
8386
« on: March 29, 2015, 10:25:59 AM »
"ignant" is cultural appropriation.
Check your privilege, white scum.
Was taught this by a Black man.
"I stole and appropriatd this knowledge from a black man", you mean.
8387
« on: March 29, 2015, 10:12:53 AM »
Ah shit, I should've been reminded of this. I made an account and everything when you posted the thread and then forgot to actually pick teams.
8388
« on: March 29, 2015, 08:27:01 AM »
I see Flee there on the left in the costume.
>Celestia costume >pleb tier pony What kind of casual scum do you take me for?
8389
« on: March 29, 2015, 07:18:53 AM »
Good point, but consider the possibility that an alien race did this to us during a period of our history where we were far more primitive in order to tone down the real violence. What if we were now enlightened enough to survive in reality, and a conscious effort on our part to convey this desire would help the alien species understand.
Looking at the state this world is in, I strongly doubt the human race in general has evolved past the point of violence, hatred and ignorance, and has reached that point of enlightenment yet. By the way, if you press the "quote" button under someone's post, you can respond to them directly. It'll also give them a direct notification of your response.
8391
« on: March 29, 2015, 07:11:36 AM »
I've given it some thought before, yeah. Came to the conclusion that there's no real way to find out whether or not it's true, so I might as well live "this" life as best as possible. Plus, it seems the most logical to me that this is, in fact, our actual reality.
8392
« on: March 29, 2015, 06:05:44 AM »
Damn, sounds like you got lucky.
8393
« on: March 29, 2015, 06:03:20 AM »
But hey, great fries, beer, and chocolate!
You better know it, friend.
And weeb is also (sorta) legal here, for own use.
Weebs are legal? That sounds horrible.
God dammit. The English word prediction on my phone is so influenced by what I do on this website (since it's pretty much the only English place I browse on mobile) that it's pulling this stuff on me now. Didn't even notice it predicted weeb instead of weed. Fucking weebs man. Two bombs definitely not enough.
8394
« on: March 29, 2015, 05:04:50 AM »
Not particularly, no. The last few movies were a tad more interesting, but I wouldn't watch any a second time.
8395
« on: March 29, 2015, 04:59:09 AM »
You need to show ID to vote here.
8396
« on: March 29, 2015, 04:57:36 AM »
But hey, great fries, beer, and chocolate!
You better know it, friend. And weed is also (sorta) legal here, for own use.
8397
« on: March 28, 2015, 05:06:30 PM »
I meant that the [sic] obviously means they're refering to something, if they even know what it means. Is there some article or piece of writing by the "old white men" they're talking about in which they made that spelling mistake?
They're quoting the measure they passed to ban appropriation. '[Sic]' means the spelling error isn't a mistake on their part, and it's quoted correctly from the source.
Nvm, Sparkles got it.
Yeah, I know. I understand what sic means. I didn't actually open the link and thought that what Meta was quoting was the direct feminist post without realizing it was actually a newspaper article covering said feminist policy. My bad.
8398
« on: March 28, 2015, 04:59:01 PM »
Just pointing out that he's wrong in the fact that mandatory voting would necessarily be a violation of the freedom of speech. In Europe, at least, it's pretty generally accepted that as long as you have the option to issue a blank vote or pick no party to vote for, it's in no violation of your rights.
That is, in fact, a violation.
By choosing not to participate, I am expressing my disapproval of either the government or the democratic system. Just filling out a blank space is not the same.
Casting an erronous or spoiled vote does the same thing, in my opinion. Besides, you can always ignore the law. Few countries with compulsory voting actually enforce the rule.
If the law can be easily ignored, then there is no point in implementing it, is there?
Not much, no. But it's pretty clear, at least here, that most people still abide by it, even when they can get away with it easily.
8399
« on: March 28, 2015, 04:57:12 PM »
I meant that the [sic] obviously means they're refering to something, if they even know what it means. Is there some article or piece of writing by the "old white men" they're talking about in which they made that spelling mistake?
The [sic] was added to a quote from the NUS by the author of the piece I've quoted, to draw attention to the NUS's spelling error.
Well, shit. Probably should've read the article itself rather than just your post, it gave me the wrong idea. My bad.
8400
« on: March 28, 2015, 04:38:16 PM »
Just pointing out that he's wrong in the fact that mandatory voting would necessarily be a violation of the freedom of speech. In Europe, at least, it's pretty generally accepted that as long as you have the option to issue a blank vote or pick no party to vote for, it's in no violation of your rights.
That is, in fact, a violation.
By choosing not to participate, I am expressing my disapproval of either the government or the democratic system. Just filling out a blank space is not the same.
Casting an erronous or spoiled vote does the same thing, in my opinion. Besides, you can always ignore the law. Few countries with compulsory voting actually enforce the rule.
Pages: 1 ... 278279280 281282 ... 520
|
Show Posts