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 - eggsalad
Pages: 1 ... 121314 1516 ... 84
391
« on: April 04, 2016, 06:58:48 PM »
Why precisely does the second amendment exist? It was created to keep leverage against the government wasn't it?
Aren't small arms only one aspect of an effective resistance, as evidenced by every armed rebellion since 1776? A successful campaign against da spooky fed would surely require explosives or heavier munitions wouldn't it? Why then aren't we given constitutional rights to explosives and mortars?
Is it because at some point we DO create a compromise between national security and the amendment?
I'm not saying that current or proposed gun legislation is actually effective protection from mass killers or terrorists or whatever, I just despise the "muh regulated militia" bullshit.
Don't get me started on how oxymoronic the "militia" concept is.
392
« on: April 04, 2016, 04:26:16 PM »
PC: League of Legends, Dota2, Dark Souls (all), Hearthstone
IGNs respectively:
Clusterluck
eggsalad (steam)
eggsalad#1218
393
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:54:03 PM »
I'm curious what trans rights complaints he has.
394
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:16:26 AM »
Provided enough women could meet the male standards, how do you feel about the idea of all-female combat units? This would avoid the issues inherent in mixed units.
That could raise concerns that enemies would target them heavily for morale reasons.
395
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:55:07 PM »
Depends how it effects their functioning. It would weed out ones vulnerable to the substance, but if the benefits of being more resistant are marginal, you're just going to get a bunch of adequately resistant frogs.
396
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:21:00 PM »
Military culture's pretty fucking good at self-perpetuation until you just tell them to deal with it.
Excellent point. Though I think the difference between white men and black men is a bit smaller than the difference between women and men.
Jarheads have a lot in common by virtue of the field I'd imagine.
397
« on: April 03, 2016, 10:57:55 PM »
muh "unit cohesion"
That makes some sense to me. I haven't seen the data, so I can't say for sure, but I can definitely see that being a factor.
At some point in time race could compromise unit cohesion. Military culture's pretty fucking good at self-perpetuation until you just tell them to deal with it. I'm not saying lower standards, but if someone can lift their packs and kick in doors they fit the bill for the job.
398
« on: April 03, 2016, 02:26:04 PM »
>non-vegans will never realize how utterly sick in the head they are
that chicken was trying to produce new life dude doing those chickens a favor eating their young
399
« on: April 02, 2016, 07:44:21 PM »
Yeah y'know what would also be effective?
Nuclear warheads.
400
« on: April 02, 2016, 05:03:31 PM »
Yes, but so what?
First and foremost, the fact that the government does this for race has literally no bearing on a utilitarian case for doing it with sexuality. Nor does the fact that we have prior regulations serve as a justification for any future regulation. I didn't intend to jump into utilitarianism because it lends itself to majority and I kept referencing small communities anyways. I'd also add that refusing to serve people on the basis of their sexuality should--in my opinion--be illegal just as it is for refusing to serve people on the basis of race. As I said, I'm talking about businesses providing a service for a specific and known event. This may not seem like an important distinction to you, but it's a line which can be drawn on precisely the utilitarian grounds you're using to try and justify the reverse. Some level of two-way tolerance is required, and that seems as reasonable a point as any to draw the line.
I can't really disagree because I'm unsure where I even draw the line, let alone am I prepared to argue for it.
401
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:57:58 PM »
EDIT: I don't have a good answer to your last question, and it's something I've been thinking over during the course of this discussion.
I'll admit that to me "catering" seems independent of whether the two people at the front table are wearing two suits or two dresses. So to me it's more comparable to selling a product than marriage counseling or something where working with sexual identity seems relevant. Which is my blind-spot.
402
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:51:55 PM »
If you want to make this an issue of utilitarianism, I'm game. But so far you're yet to demonstrate just how the government having this specific power would be a net positive. Does the government not already exercise it in the context of race?
403
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:45:45 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?
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?
Literally the same as Islamic no-go zones fucking lmao.
welcome to the real world tumblrina, would you like me to take your pacifier on the way out?
seriously, if my raging dike of a sister can figure this shit out and move to the next town over, when the one she was in was a clearly hyper christian one that wouldn't take kindly to her faggotry, surely you can.
>mudslimes are bad! >let my christians be free! fucking neocons lmao
404
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:41:05 PM »
You're yet to justify why the government should be able to decide who owns a business on the basis of their beliefs. You're essentially advocating for the government to force the private sector to conform to whatever line it chooses to take. Just because there's no nationalism involved, it doesn't make it any less authoritarian. So I take it you don't agree with the myriad of laws and regulations businesses already face? All of them? Or are you going to admit that there are areas in which businesses need to adhere to standards, for the betterment of society? I noticed you omitted where I asked about that last time. This argument does not hold when it comes to business owners deciding whether or not to perform a particular service. Business owners are not employed by the public. I think that's a matter of perspective. The "public" becomes really mired here. Because if the "public" didn't support a business by buying their goods, the owner wouldn't be employed. Why is this pursuit of sexual equality any more important than both freedom of conscience and freedom of association? Two fundamental freedoms which have underpinned liberal societies for quite a while.
No one is thought policing. You can continue practicing your religion. There arises a problem when your religion leads to unlawful practices. No one is violating your ability to operate a business anymore than if you tried running a business without following any safety standards or yknow, laws in general. We're discussing businesses being forced to partake in a particular ceremony or event. Not somebody just trying to buy groceries.
I don't quite understand the difference between "partaking in" and supporting a sinful lifestyle. How is an owner's objection to supporting a sinful person in the form of goods different from an owner's objection to supporting a sinful person in the form of services? Because from what I can gather the only difference is determined by the owner's beliefs.
405
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:23:13 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?
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?
Literally the same as Islamic no-go zones fucking lmao.
406
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:16:32 PM »
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. Lends itself to requiring an active LGBT friendly community, which can't always be the case. You're not going to get enough boycotters in a small town at the only deli there. 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.
Except if they live in a small community and there's only a handful of places to get the service from.
407
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:11:22 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.
Do you honestly think the world would be a better place without minimum wages of any form, or regulations on child labor, or safety standards or regulations, or liability?
408
« on: April 02, 2016, 04:08:30 PM »
Why do we have to allow someone to run a business in such an arbitrarily discriminatory fashion just because they it's according to their backwards moral code? If a business can't conduct itself to operate with equity, why do they deserve to have that business?
Because coercing people to act against their beliefs is not preferable to coercing them in the name of sexual equality (probably because it won't work). Religious people who are seriously against gay marriage need to get over themselves, but they shouldn't be forced to partake in anything they don't personally agree with. I know it seems obvious to us that they are morally backwards, but going down the route of the State enforcing morality to that degree is probably not healthy.
And why do they deserve that business? Uh, why don't they? Since when was it your role or the government's to decide whether or not somebody should be able to own a business based on their personal beliefs. That's high-level authoritarianism.
Well first off I'd like to say that no one is being forced to cater to gay weddings. They're being forced to cater to gay weddings if they wish to continue running a business. If you want to work at a butchery, have fun getting fired when you refuse to touch pork. When you choose to enter an industry, you either fulfill expectations or you're out. We already have this contract in establishing a business. You're expected to provide services to customers who pay you to do so. This isn't about forcing a business to operate in ways that harm its profit, or to forcing them to draw graphic depictions of dicks and vaginas on their cakes, this is asking them to operate on common moral principles. This already exists in various forms, from minimum wage to child labor laws to taxes to safety code and ordinances. These things are all for the most part considered unanimously good because they ensure that businesses behave themselves, since naturally there are areas where personal interest is detrimental to a healthy community. Not everywhere is a big city, thinking you can just sit on your ass and wait for social standards to change is part of what's caused the current phenomenon we've seen where LGBT and blacks flee to urban areas where the model of "let capitalism fix it" works faster, because it's too damn slow in small communities which don't have significant enough people being excluded from things to fuel some messiah business. If you remove businesses that discriminate, you've got better chances at establishing equitable businesses because someone will have more interest in filling that niche than if you just let the first business continue making bank off of their heterosexual majority.
409
« on: April 02, 2016, 03:47:00 PM »
I refuse to believe you're so retarded that you think providing your business's service at a wedding you don't agree with means your religious beliefs are somehow violated.
Good, because I've never said that.
Other people feel that way. That's my point. I'm not even religious. And, let's be honest, if they do believe that gay marriage is a sin. . . Then asking them to partake in what they believe to literally be a sinful ceremony is not going to sit well with them.
This really isn't difficult. I don't know why you can't just put your hands up and saying "Yes, I'm disregarding the beliefs of the religious, but I believe its worth it." Instead you're just pussyfooting around with mental gymnastics that would make even Camnator blush.
Why do we have to allow someone to run a business in such an arbitrarily discriminatory fashion just because they it's according to their backwards moral code? If a business can't conduct itself to operate with equity, why do they deserve to have that business?
410
« on: April 02, 2016, 11:54:57 AM »
I can agree.
411
« on: April 01, 2016, 05:32:41 PM »
If you allow business owners to have the freedom to arbitrarily (lolfuckingfundies) deny service to people based on things customers can't control, you open up the opportunity for small communities to largely exclude small demographics from what few services the town has.
Trying to apply high-school level economics to this situation it might seem as simple as "hurr durr just go to different vendor", when really the number of people being excluded in small communities isn't large enough to warrant some magical save the day entrepreneur to start their own business and reap all them amazing cake deals from the whopping handful of gays in the county.
At some point it just forces small demographics to move from those areas to different areas. And a country where demographics have to consider "well we can't move there because our people are hated in that area" is not in a healthy situation. No one should have their freedom of movement limited like that.
"You're discriminating against my ability to discriminate!". Good. Fuck your ability to discriminate.
412
« on: April 01, 2016, 01:12:51 AM »
Maybe people should actually be respectful and listen to cops. You don't get shot when you do as they say
well except for that one black guy getting his ID
413
« on: April 01, 2016, 01:08:28 AM »
One reinforces preexisting oppressive ideas about women that are real and damaging to women in their everyday lives, the other does not reinforce anything. Now this is one thing I really just outright disagreed with rather than just nitpicked at. I feel as though this is an open and shut case in her regard and I entirely oppose this. I hate to bring it up again, but Emma Watson said at her UN speech (or wherever she was), that both sexes, male and female, are horribly oppressed by such stereotypes.
Women for what was covered in this review, but males as well for almost the same examples she brought up, but failed to talk about. Males are supposed to be strong! Tough! Do everything and take care of the woman, don't show emotions, don't cry! It's because of those pictures she showed of buff men who are shirtless, that I felt she missed that point entirely.
I think Anita's failure to address these things really illustrates a core problem to both her and many people have, they think that the male gender role is the ideal. A character should always take charge and have strong agency etc. etc., because having a character be vulnerable is succumbing to misogynistic influence. I mean why would anyone ever need to talk about the problem with men being forced into a gender role if the male gender role is thought to be so liberating and fulfilling? When you approach the topic with that mindset it's easy to just look at female characters and say "they should be more like these male characters you've made!", when really male characters suffer from tropes and pitfalls themselves, they're just considered good tropes because...uh... Also this is a low blow but to be honest I think Anita's reading level isn't high enough to be an authority on narrative and character quality. I say this because she's always had the most juvenile of writing styles for someone so acclaimed as an author and her research seems to stretch about as far as big title releases.
414
« on: March 31, 2016, 03:42:07 PM »
While I agree that just trying to sexualize men isn't a good solution to encouraging character depth (I suppose it can be used as a tool to make people think about the subject though), I can't agree with the unsupported differentiation between strong-unrealistic bodied men and hot-unrealistically bodied women. It's skirting around the fact that big muscular and strong IS an attractive trait on men. Characters are pretty often made to be liked, and your character being attractive helps them to be liked, thinking that just because the market and producers are heterosexual men means that no male designs are made with the idea of making them attractive in mind is just choosing to fit your rhetoric.
415
« on: March 31, 2016, 03:28:03 PM »
There are a literal handful of good female video game characters
In triple A maybe.
416
« on: March 31, 2016, 12:50:49 AM »
The lunacy cops and their attorneys go to to justify their actions with fear of their life is less concerning than people's ability to just agree with it.
417
« on: March 30, 2016, 02:04:54 PM »
THE TEST IS IN AN HOUR!
418
« on: March 29, 2016, 10:40:06 PM »
I think it's more an issue of aggressive liberals being given platform still while aggressive conservatives have been relegated to your grandpa's facebook posts. Aggressiveness is inevitable when things are so polarized. The eventual push-back on left-aggression is growing, evidenced by Trump's base.
419
« on: March 29, 2016, 11:44:05 AM »
they still doing gore threads?
the lack of them for a while is why i stopped
420
« on: March 28, 2016, 04:10:47 PM »
that's enough for a C
especially if this is just some general english shit
Pages: 1 ... 121314 1516 ... 84
|
Show Posts