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 - Tsirist
31
« on: April 04, 2016, 09:26:08 PM »
I feel like SJWs are increasingly the embodiment of what it is to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Because they continue to misunderstand and end up doing the wrong things, like this.
Well, I guess they won't be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons for much longer if they end up just doing the wrong things.
32
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:51:38 PM »
Surely that makes the playing field even more unequal.
You're essentially giving the government the power to shut down businesses for doing something the majority don't like. That seems like it would be a lot more harmful than a business turning away gay customers.
I'm not sure, but it seems to be how we approach many regulatory things whether you like it or not. In any case, that always leaves room for competitors to step up maybe! However, I think at the end of the day it's just more practical for leadership positions in businesses to be swapped out where individuals refuse to bend to anti-discrimination laws, or some solution like that. It'd be harder with small businesses . . . perhaps they could be acquired by competitors if they were really that obstinate, but that assumes that local competition is in position to do so which is part of the problem in the first place (i.e. they might not be). idk cost of discrimination > cost of lost business/adaptation or something
33
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:37:50 PM »
Besides, you literally just said it yourself: one part of the public (the business owners) can discriminate against other parts of the public (other individuals) but apparently the inverse should not be true?
I have no idea where you're pulling that notion from.
Other individuals can discriminate against business owners (by not purchasing their goods) much more easily than business owners can discriminate against potential customers. You can choose to not shop at a particular store for literally whatever reason.
It's pretty easy to discriminate against potential customers when those customers are in a minority. But I get what you're saying. I just think that if a business has a right to discriminate downwards against individuals for some particular reason, then the people should be able to leverage the government to discriminate downwards against a business for that exact same reason.
34
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:32:27 PM »
because a country isn't a business, they are two completely different things. trying to compare them is idiotic. but there are solutions to your problem, you CAN run them out of business by boycotting them. and if they arent out of business when you're done boycotting, then clearly you're a minority of the area and people that matter to the business owner still want that person's business there. Don't like it? then go to the competitor, and buy your goods there, If there isnt a competitor there, then either stay where you are and use amazon or something,move to accomedate for your needs, or if you're feeling ambitious, go to the sources of the business, and begin to compete with the business. Don't lie those options? tough shit. If you move into a desert and then complain that there's no water, it's your own damn fault isn't it?
Saying a country isn't a business is completely arbitrary and neglects their common features. There are differences, yes, but surely you understand that both are essentially types of orders/control systems on human behavior and the allocation/usage of resources (including people). The assertion about moving to the desert demonstrates all sorts of ignorance regarding socioeconomic circumstances. In this case it's likely, yes, that you can find a competitor nearby. That may not apply in the case of businesses that aren't bakeries. People might be born into situations in which they find themselves discriminated against, and if part of that discrimination or some aspect of those circumstances limits their ability to better themselves then it's not entirely their fault if they have few options. I don't disagree that boycotts work. I'm just saying that one method of boycotting that might be more to-the-point and equitable is to just make a generic case out of this instance and apply it nationwide. The usage of the government is just faster and more effective sometimes.
35
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:25:39 PM »
You're literally talking about deporting people who disagree with the majority. The entire point of having rights is to protect any individual group from coercive populist spasms like what you're suggesting.
Public bodies have no right to discriminate against Christian business owners because they are part of the fucking public.
Sorry, that was meant figuratively. Just call it a restriction on services. If you are going to arbitrarily restrict the services you are able to render to a subset of people, then the country might simply decide to restrict that subset further (i.e. to none). When services can be rendered to multiple groups or people it ought to be rendered in fairness as far as I have been told. It is not a right that one person may discriminate in conducting business between two other parties based on things such as race, religion, sexuality, etc. At least not to my knowledge. I'd welcome a citation, but honestly if you were able to provide one I'd probably argue that it needs to change unless you can convince me yourself. Again, saying "Private > Public" does not convince me. Besides, you literally just said it yourself: one part of the public (the business owners) can discriminate against other parts of the public (other individuals) but apparently the inverse should not be true?
36
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:08:16 PM »
imo if businesses have a right to discriminate against a person's sexuality in providing services to that person then we as a society (including our government) have the right to discriminate against a business' religion in providing services to that business
You have the right to not buy any of their products/services as the free market dictates. Hell, boycott them until the cows come home. It'll probably affect how they conduct their business more than any stupid law will. Money talks, after all.
I don't get what's so difficult about this concept. Nobody is coercing LGBT customers to purchase anything from these stores. Grow a pair and shop somewhere else.
As others have pointed out in this thread, there are issues with this principle in locations where there is little availability for certain services. It can force cultural divides to form and if mobility for the discriminated parties is poor then we're getting into a bad situation. Saying "everyone should do what they want and respond appropriately to what others will or will not do for them" sounds like a great way to create LGBT-friendly and -unfriendly locations throughout the country.
37
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:05:17 PM »
so if we the people don't like a business why can't we kick them out of our establishment, i.e. the country?
I have no idea why you think that would follow from what he said.
The country is not private property.
There are functional/practical differences between public and private yes, however when discussing matters of principle like this there is little difference. Both demonstrate hierarchies of ownership, both exist to achieve certain purposes and provide services, etc. Unless you can show me why your point is relevant I'm going to assume it isn't meant to be a serious response.
38
« on: April 02, 2016, 03:57:19 PM »
Any business owner has the right to deny ANY business they please for any reason they want, no shirt, no Bicycles, no left knees, whatever they want. It's their PRIVATE company and assets, you or some guy down the street don't have any right to demand ANYTHING out of them. Its a shitty business practice, and that's why most don't do such, but it's completely their choice how they run their business and who is allowed in their establishment, and who is allowed to use their services. Doesnt matter who you are, or what you fuck, if the owner doesn't like you, get the hell out of the owner's establishment.
so if we the people don't like a business why can't we kick them out of our establishment, i.e. the country?
39
« on: April 02, 2016, 03:55:30 PM »
seems to me that if businesses have a right to discriminate against a person's sexuality in providing services to that person then we as a society (including our government) have the right to discriminate against a business' religion in providing services to that business
40
« on: March 31, 2016, 12:00:40 PM »
Pretty much what PSU and Luci have said. It's not that remarkable to me that it's present in higher education. These days everyone wants a bachelor's degree. None of the more studious people, none of the professors, and none of the graduate students I've spoken with in the CS department have the more extreme leftist/SJW views, and that doesn't surprise me at all.
That's all anecdotal though so eh. It's just my perception that extremism on the left is in many ways just a fad or something like that, which is admittedly terrifying.
41
« on: March 30, 2016, 07:52:18 PM »
~3.3k MMR. I rarely do ranked and always climb when I do though.
OK, um, maybe you're under the wrong impression about your elo, but just so you know, na.op.gg estimates the MMR of the highest ranked player in NA to be 3,005. So, forgive me for doing a double take when I see that you think you're playing at 3.3k MMR
It is admittedly quite difficult to push the skill ceiling in League, but once you graduate to DotA 2 3.3k MMR is actually quite average.
cool? dota and league dont share the same MMR system. youre not playing at 3.3k MMR in league. if you were youd be a pro. give me the name of your account and the server you play on so i can try to parse this out.
I know you're not going to appreciate this now but my original post was merely meant as a subtle plug for DotA in case anyone recognized MMR instead of ELO. I actually wasn't aware MMR was a term used much in the League community as opposed to ELO (or just league/rank/whatever it's called). It should be obvious they do not use the same rating system; different developers, different systems. https://yasp.co/distributionsAccording to this I'm in the top ~45% of DotA players. http://na.op.gg/statistics/tier/According to this, the top ~45% of League players begins around Silver III. I dunno if that's a sufficient attempt at a mapping for your purposes. 
42
« on: March 30, 2016, 06:14:19 PM »
~3.3k MMR. I rarely do ranked and always climb when I do though.
OK, um, maybe you're under the wrong impression about your elo, but just so you know, na.op.gg estimates the MMR of the highest ranked player in NA to be 3,005. So, forgive me for doing a double take when I see that you think you're playing at 3.3k MMR
It is admittedly quite difficult to push the skill ceiling in League, but once you graduate to DotA 2 3.3k MMR is actually quite average.
43
« on: March 30, 2016, 11:09:49 AM »
~3.3k MMR. I rarely do ranked and always climb when I do though.
There's someone who mains Vel'Koz at diamond on this forum, I wonder if they'll show up to help you. . . .
44
« on: March 27, 2016, 01:57:18 AM »
I just like to be alive. There really aren't that many things I intrinsically dislike doing. Any displeasure stems from "I'd rather be doing this," but realizing that usually helps when it becomes a problem.
I don't need a lot to keep living this way either, so I don't feel like I have a lot to worry about in the future. Just want to enjoy my time with the SO, spend some time every day chilling out, and working on things that are a bit hard.
45
« on: March 22, 2016, 11:53:11 PM »
String theory is just mathematical theology. It's very little more than a hypothesis.
Care to elaborate? I'm not an expert so I'm interested.
46
« on: March 21, 2016, 02:10:52 AM »
normally i'd pick six so i picked seven instead because six should've been present and zero should replace ten obviously
47
« on: March 19, 2016, 05:31:33 PM »
 easy
48
« on: March 18, 2016, 11:03:17 PM »
aight i've got a couple transgender people here that i know who i believe will put your fears to rest and acknowledge that gender dypshoria is a mental illness (even if transgenderism isn't). maybe we can see about getting their input. any other trans individuals want to comment? would be neat
49
« on: March 18, 2016, 10:49:20 PM »
That's just socially . . . stupid, in my opinion. You wouldn't go up to a schizophrenic person, a bipolar person, or a depressed person and say "you have a mental disease!" and point at them or something. Why would you call a trans person out?
50
« on: March 18, 2016, 10:41:12 PM »
Except they don't
You will be skinned alive if you dare to say that transgender people aren't normal
If you're getting skinned alive it's because you're saying something else retarded. No shit, most people aren't transgender. It's not normal to be gender dysphoric or to have to undergo transgenderism (transgenderism is normal for gender dysphoric people but you get the point). What's important is that in social contexts they should be TREATED like normal people.
51
« on: March 18, 2016, 12:32:22 PM »
Does anyone have any evidence of there being a suppression of research into dysphoria-nullifying drugs? i.e. something that would "make the feelings go away" in contrast with transgenderism. i still don't understand why people say "we should be researching this and clearly something would be found" if they're not experts in the research area and if they haven't already checked to see what has been done
ironically, i remember reading about a schizophrenic and gender dysphoric patient whose dysphoria was dispelled by his schizophrenia drugs but i can't find the research article anymore. . . .
52
« on: March 18, 2016, 12:15:31 PM »
I don't want to have to vote for Clinton but it's hard for me to justify voting for someone who seems to incite violence among Americans right here.
Politics are simply a socially accepted form of violence. Personally, I don't see why the notion of inciting violence is seen as so immoral. Every single policy enforced is violent. Does pretending otherwise make it okay?
Of course, there are stupid ways and reasons to openly incite violence. But there are also very smart ways to do it.
Don't disagree with the first part at all. I think Trump's approach is stupid though. Yes because he told Bernie supporters and BLM to come to his rallies and protest illegally....
Should every crime be responded to with physical violence in your opinion?
53
« on: March 18, 2016, 11:21:29 AM »
I just could never bring myself to vote for a criminal who got our soldiers straight up murdered like Hillary. Even if I was a huge liberal, I would have a hard time voting for her.
I don't want to have to vote for Clinton but it's hard for me to justify voting for someone who seems to incite violence among Americans right here.
54
« on: March 17, 2016, 10:53:17 PM »
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Transgenderism is a treatment. Not that hard to distinguish the two. If you have a problem with transgenderism, at least call it malpractice or something that would make sense.
Ok sure
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness that we are normalizing
What do you mean by normalizing?
I mean that people now see it as normal and not a fucking mental disease
Uh pretty sure everyone sees gender dysphoria as a mental illness. What's the issue?
55
« on: March 17, 2016, 05:49:55 PM »
wouldn't it be easier to just correct the chemical imbalance that makes them feel like they're a different gender? surely you would be more comfortable with your gender if you had the sexual organs to go with it right?
surely it would
do you know how to do that?
i dunno maybe start funding research into it
any evidence that it's not already being researched? i would be very much surprised if it weren't, but perhaps the science has suggested that it simply is not a viable route (i don't know if any conclusions like that have been made)
56
« on: March 17, 2016, 05:39:39 PM »
wouldn't it be easier to just correct the chemical imbalance that makes them feel like they're a different gender? surely you would be more comfortable with your gender if you had the sexual organs to go with it right?
surely it would do you know how to do that?
57
« on: March 17, 2016, 05:35:18 PM »
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Transgenderism is a treatment. Not that hard to distinguish the two. If you have a problem with transgenderism, at least call it malpractice or something that would make sense.
Ok sure
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness that we are normalizing
What do you mean by normalizing?
58
« on: March 17, 2016, 01:51:14 PM »
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Transgenderism is a treatment. Not that hard to distinguish the two. If you have a problem with transgenderism, at least call it malpractice or something that would make sense.
59
« on: March 16, 2016, 03:49:38 PM »
Robot legs already exist and work much better than robot arms and hands.
Until artificial fingers and such are much better, this. Legs. Although with that one weird tentacle-arm prosthetic and advances in prosthesis in general you might could make a wager that the tech will be here soon, and that the possibilities with different types of arms would be of greater use. Who wouldn't want to rock a tentacle sometimes?
60
« on: March 14, 2016, 01:39:48 PM »
All children should be lobotomized at birth.
|
Show Posts