Bond slashed to 175 million while Trump appeals

[Dill]

(04-07-2024, 02:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Are they or are they not a Designated Protected Class already?

What about the last part i mentioned? Do you agree that this law will force schools to let them use the bathrooms that they gender identify as?
I think that is the primary underlying motivation for this law in the first place. It's not truly needed.

I'm glad i don't have a daughter and have to deal with this.

I suppose citizens are a protected class. 

That may not stop employers from discriminating, without some extra legal guidance.

I don't if this law will enforce human rights in the way you suggest. 

Which part of the law poses the greatest danger, in your view, which lines? 

I have a daughter and I'm not upset; you don't and you are? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-07-2024, 05:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Why did you change my words from "Israelis" to "Jews" and  then claim I was "doubling down" on THAT message?  
Hardly a gesture of good faith argument. So you're creating ad hoc a malicious "consistency" which is inconsistent with grounding in human rights law?

Probably because you have routinely referred to Israel as an "ethnic state".  Is that ethnicity not Jewish?  I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear otherwise.  Thanks for playing, as always.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-07-2024, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote: I have a daughter and I'm not upset; you don't and you are? 

I wonder if you have such qualifiers for other issues?  Having to have skin in the game to care about its outcome is a rather pathetic position.  I'm not gay, but I care how gay people are treated.  I'm not black or Hispanic, but I care how they are treated.  You're not Jewish, and you damned sure care a lot about what they do.  Seems a rather inconsistent position on your part.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-07-2024, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote: I suppose citizens are a protected class. 

That may not stop employers from discriminating, without some extra legal guidance.

I don't if this law will enforce human rights in the way you suggest. 

Which part of the law poses the greatest danger, in your view, which lines? 

I have a daughter and I'm not upset; you don't and you are? 

If they are a protected class, then there is already laws that protect them from being discriminated against. So why all of the extra laws? 
I thought everyone just wants to be treated as an equal rather than special. 

To the second part, that's a very Liberal way of trying to negate my 1A rights just because i don't agree with yours. That would be akin to me telling you that since you aren't running for POTUS or related to one that is, you know skin in the game?? that your opinion doesn't matter. We have different views, but i don't run around calling you mentally challenged (I hope that's the proper pronoun these days, if not i guess i'll get a ticket for it?), i listen to your side and ask questions to try to see why you think the way you do and in order to refute it. 

Anyways, this is exactly what i am talking about, where special rights comes into play, one protected group's rights are now more important than another protected groups rights, how can this be done in a way that's fair to all and respectful? 
In my eyes, this causes division and extra animosity between these groups and those that side with one or the other. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2024, 06:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably because you have routinely referred to Israel as an "ethnic state".  Is that ethnicity not Jewish?  I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear otherwise.  Thanks for playing, as always.

Come on, now. This is the same thing as trying to say that criticisms of the Israeli government are inherently anti-Semitic. That's a fallacious argument.

(04-07-2024, 07:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If they are a protected class, then there is already laws that protect them from being discriminated against. So why all of the extra laws? 
I thought everyone just wants to be treated as an equal rather than special. 

Those extra laws get created because people need the explicit reminders that they are protected from discrimination. If people wouldn't discriminate, then they wouldn't be needed. The 14th Amendment should have everyone covered, but we have had to pass numerous laws protecting people from discrimination based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and other things. It's amazing, but people keep finding excuses to treat other people like shit despite the law.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-07-2024, 08:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Those extra laws get created because people need the explicit reminders that they are protected from discrimination. If people wouldn't discriminate, then they wouldn't be needed. The 14th Amendment should have everyone covered, but we have had to pass numerous laws protecting people from discrimination based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and other things. It's amazing, but people keep finding excuses to treat other people like shit despite the law.

Everyone is mistreated, no matter the class etc. 

But I don't see special laws for everyone. 

Hell didn't NY Just lose a case where the Muslim women sued based on Religion/Culture because they were forced to take their hajibs and various jewelry off for a Mug Shot??  

Anyways, they are protected classes and you ignored the question.
Which protected class laws trump the other protected classes laws? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-07-2024, 08:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Come on, now. This is the same thing as trying to say that criticisms of the Israeli government are inherently anti-Semitic. That's a fallacious argument.

On this we completely agree, and I have repeatedly said as much.  But, is there not a point, a line that once crossed that deserves to be acknowledged?  Is castigating the state of Israel as an ethnic colonizer state that uses rape and murder to displace people, Dill's words not mine, but at the same time claiming no criticism of the exact ethnicity of said "ethic state" is being made a fair claim to make?  I believe that line was crossed some time ago.  You may believe differently.  I've made sure the points have been highlighted, so I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder.

I am very comfortable with my conclusion.

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2024, 09:27 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Everyone is mistreated, no matter the class etc. 

But I don't see special laws for everyone. 

Hell didn't NY Just lose a case where the Muslim women sued based on Religion/Culture because they were forced to take their hajibs and various jewelry off for a Mug Shot??  

Anyways, they are protected classes and you ignored the question.
Which protected class laws trump the other protected classes laws? 

I ignored the question because I reject the premise. Protected classes are race, religion, veteran status, sexual orientation, etc. There is no "trumping" of these. The protection extends in that you cannot be discriminated against based on these categories. Everyone is covered by every one of these classes. I am white, and I am protected under the race class because discrimination based on race is illegal for me the same as it is for a person of color. I am a Lutheran; the religion protection extends to me the same as it does to a Muslim or a Jain. There is no "trumping" because the laws are that you cannot infringe on the rights of another based on these. You are protected as a cisgender individual under laws making discrimination based on gender identity illegal the same as someone who is trans.

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2024, 10:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On this we completely agree, and I have repeatedly said as much.  But, is there not a point, a line that once crossed that deserves to be acknowledged?  Is castigating the state of Israel as an ethnic colonizer state that uses rape and murder to displace people, Dill's words not mine, but at the same time claiming no criticism of the exact ethnicity of said "ethic state" is being made a fair claim to make?  I believe that line was crossed some time ago.  You may believe differently.  I've made sure the points have been highlighted, so I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder.

I am very comfortable with my conclusion.

I would agree that there is a line that can be crossed, but I don't see those statements you are using as evidence to be as much. Rape and murder have been used by Israelis in their settlement building efforts to displace Palestinians. There is evidence of this that has been brought to the international community several times over the years. The Israeli government engages in a degree of ethnonationalism. But there are members of that ethnicity that do not engage in these actions, including people in Israel. In fact, one of the most tragic things to me was that many of the victims of October 7th were Israelis that were more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight as those are typically the ones who live closest to the border.

So while I agree with you that there is a line that can be crossed, I don't see it as having been crossed at this point.

[*pally*]

(04-08-2024, 07:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would agree that there is a line that can be crossed, but I don't see those statements you are using as evidence to be as much. Rape and murder have been used by Israelis in their settlement building efforts to displace Palestinians. There is evidence of this that has been brought to the international community several times over the years. The Israeli government engages in a degree of ethnonationalism. But there are members of that ethnicity that do not engage in these actions, including people in Israel. In fact, one of the most tragic things to me was that many of the victims of October 7th were Israelis that were more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight as those are typically the ones who live closest to the border.

So while I agree with you that there is a line that can be crossed, I don't see it as having been crossed at this point.

Exactly….just as one can argue on behalf of the Palestinians
People without being anti-Semitic. And also seek to understand what drives people to Hamas and their cause without agreeing with their actions.

[Dill]

(04-07-2024, 06:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably because you have routinely referred to Israel as an "ethnic state".  Is that ethnicity not Jewish?  I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear otherwise.  Thanks for playing, as always.

That's some bad and very motivated reasoning. It's been addressed by others, but I'd like to spell out why it is bad.

Israel refers to itself as an ethnic state, a "Jewish state," and in 2007 even required the PA recognize it as a Jewish state. So I do too.

But there are 7 million self-identified Jews in the world who are not Israeli citizens and whom I do not hold responsible for what Israel does.  

So I've made clear criticism of Israel =/= criticism of "the Jews" as you sometimes call them, even if Israel is a Jewish ethnic state. 

Changing my words to conflate criticism of Israel with criticism of all Jewish people, then intimating some dark and sinister dislike of "the Jews" must  be behind it all, is just one more bad faith misconstruction of my position in a long series of such.

You take it yet a step further when you free-associate critique of Palestinian dispossession to White Nationalist Replacement Theory, however unclearly. 

(04-07-2024, 06:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wonder if you have such qualifiers for other issues?  Having to have skin in the game to care about its outcome is a rather pathetic position.  I'm not gay, but I care how gay people are treated.  I'm not black or Hispanic, but I care how they are treated.  You're not Jewish, and you damned sure care a lot about what they do.  Seems a rather inconsistent position on your part.

Er, OtherMike is the one who brought up the daughter issue. I wasn't arguing that I cared only because I had a daughter. 

So there was no "pathetic position" articulated there, such that one has to have skin in the game to care. 

                                          So really no occasion to channel your inner "Progressive." 

This is like changing my criticisms of Israel to criticism of "the Jews"--imputing to me a position I have not taken, then finding it "inconsistent." 

Changing my statements on Israel was deliberate misconstruction. This time I think you sincerely misunderstood d the argument, who said what and why. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-08-2024, 07:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would agree that there is a line that can be crossed, but I don't see those statements you are using as evidence to be as much. Rape and murder have been used by Israelis in their settlement building efforts to displace Palestinians. There is evidence of this that has been brought to the international community several times over the years. The Israeli government engages in a degree of ethnonationalism. But there are members of that ethnicity that do not engage in these actions, including people in Israel. In fact, one of the most tragic things to me was that many of the victims of October 7th were Israelis that were more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight as those are typically the ones who live closest to the border.

So while I agree with you that there is a line that can be crossed, I don't see it as having been crossed at this point.

If it was that statement in a vacuum I'd agree.  It's not.  You don't see an odd contradiction in someone who argues in favor of comparing people to Nazis, but refuses to use the word terrorist or thinks calling ISIS "animals" is a bridge too far?  In any event, you disagree with my conclusion, that's fine.  For me, I have seen more than enough evidence over the years to make me very comfortable with my position.  And I'll leave it at that.

[Dill]

(04-07-2024, 10:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On this we completely agree, and I have repeatedly said as much.  But, is there not a point, a line that once crossed that deserves to be acknowledged?  Is castigating the state of Israel as an ethnic colonizer state that uses rape and murder to displace people, Dill's words not mine, but at the same time claiming no criticism of the exact ethnicity of said "ethic state" is being made a fair claim to make?  I believe that line was crossed some time ago.  You may believe differently.  I've made sure the points have been highlighted, so I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder.
I am very comfortable with my conclusion.

The "line" here is apparently reference to a historical record agreed on by both leftist and right-wing Zionist Israel historians. 

And yes, I crossed your line some time ago, as have said Israeli historians and most of the rest of the world. 

Setting up your "line" this way makes any recognition of historical fact regarding Israel's violation of human rights

some kind of anti-semitic critique of all Jews.  Such dismissal of fact is not simply "in the eye of the beholder."

(04-08-2024, 10:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If it was that statement in a vacuum I'd agree.  It's not.  You don't see an odd contradiction in someone who argues in favor of comparing people to Nazis, but refuses to use the word terrorist or thinks calling ISIS "animals" is a bridge too far?  In any event, you disagree with my conclusion, that's fine.  For me, I have seen more than enough evidence over the years to make me very comfortable with my position.  And I'll leave it at that.

I haven't argued "in favor of comparing people to Nazis."  To get there you'd have to change some words.  Again.

I am not the only one in the forum who thinks calling ISIS "animals" is a de-humanizing bridge to far.  That's Trump country and I want no part of it. 

Converting a refusal to de-humanize into evidence of antisemitism involves the same misconstruction as "criticism of Israel = criticism of all Jews."

It's part of a series of misconstructions of my pro-human rights position, which make up all the "evidence" you have seen "over the years."

--that and my recourse to historical fact.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-08-2024, 07:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I ignored the question because I reject the premise. Protected classes are race, religion, veteran status, sexual orientation, etc. There is no "trumping" of these. The protection extends in that you cannot be discriminated against based on these categories. Everyone is covered by every one of these classes. I am white, and I am protected under the race class because discrimination based on race is illegal for me the same as it is for a person of color. I am a Lutheran; the religion protection extends to me the same as it does to a Muslim or a Jain. There is no "trumping" because the laws are that you cannot infringe on the rights of another based on these. You are protected as a cisgender individual under laws making discrimination based on gender identity illegal the same as someone who is trans.

That's an ideal situation but we are already at a point where one group is in conflict with another. 
Women vs Tran-Women in public bathrooms. I know it's not a fav topic and has been beat to death. 
But it's a prime example of one groups right trumping another, no matter which way it goes.

[Belsnickel]

(04-08-2024, 12:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That's an ideal situation but we are already at a point where one group is in conflict with another. 
Women vs Tran-Women in public bathrooms. I know it's not a fav topic and has been beat to death. 
But it's a prime example of one groups right trumping another, no matter which way it goes.

It isn't a prime example because there are no rights being denied by allowing individuals to use the bathroom for the gender with which they identify.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-08-2024, 02:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It isn't a prime example because there are no rights being denied by allowing individuals to use the bathroom for the gender with which they identify.

If no rights are being violated, why aren't women going into the Men's room? 
I'm sure it happens but we rarely ever hear about that and they don't seem to be fighting about it. 

For adults, i don't care, they are adults and will deal with it as they see fit. Leave if it makes you uncomfortable, but for Minors, i have an issue with that.

[Belsnickel]

(04-08-2024, 03:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If no rights are being violated, why aren't women going into the Men's room? 

I'm sure it happens but we rarely ever hear about that and they don't seem to be fighting about it. 

In sincerely don't know the logic of your argument, here. The only way I can make sense of this is if you are insisting on calling trans women, men. If this is the case then yes, I know quite a few trans men that use the facilities for men because, you know, they are men. Still not a rights violation if trans individuals are allowed to use the facilities of their gender.

(04-08-2024, 03:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: For adults, i don't care, they are adults and will deal with it as they see fit. Leave if it makes you uncomfortable, but for Minors, i have an issue with that.

This is entirely rooted in the inflammatory idea that members of the LGBTQ community are inherently predatory. It's fallacious and, quite frankly, insulting to the community.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-08-2024, 05:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In sincerely don't know the logic of your argument, here. The only way I can make sense of this is if you are insisting on calling trans women, men. If this is the case then yes, I know quite a few trans men that use the facilities for men because, you know, they are men. Still not a rights thing.


This is entirely rooted in the inflammatory idea that members of the LGBTQ community are inherently predatory. It's fallacious and, quite frankly, insulting to the community.

To the second? no it's not, many young girls are being forced to share bathrooms with young boys. 
Some are uncomfortable and some are not. There is quite a few Teenagers that ARE speaking out against it. Not just Parents

[Belsnickel]

(04-08-2024, 05:43 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: To the second? no it's not, many young girls are being forced to share bathrooms with young boys. 
Some are uncomfortable and some are not. There is quite a few Teenagers that ARE speaking out against it. Not just Parents

So, you're going with the "trans girls aren't actually girls" position, then?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-08-2024, 05:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, you're going with the "trans girls aren't actually girls" position, then?

Define Woman.