Bruce/Caitlin afraid of going to men's jail

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-10-2015, 09:30 PM)Bengalholic Wrote:  Let's get a bit more specific then. What if a person 'chooses' to be tattooed, have short hair, long hair, wear too much makeup, wear nice clothes, wear shabby clothes, have piercings, etc, etc. Should the business owner, serving the general public,  be able to refuse service based on his/her personal objection to any of those things? 

None of those fall into the protected classes.  

[SunsetBengal]

(09-10-2015, 08:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I thought the point of this thread was that you didn't actually watch the interview and wanted to just make up shit.

Your big issue was that the "first thought" of the interview was that Jenner was afraid of going to a men's jail. However, if you watched the interview, it was neither the first thought of the interview nor the first thought of the accident. 

You literally just made up something and walked away after you were called out on it.

No Pat, I just threw that stuff out there, so that I wouldn't just be posting a link with no "insight".  And, as read from the text of the article, that is the first thing mentioned.  I really didn't give a damn to watch the interview...

[Bengalholic]

(09-10-2015, 09:50 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: None of those fall into the protected classes.  

There's a reason I asked him about discrimination in a couple of different ways. It's interesting to me where some draw the line, and others don't seem to have much of a line at all. 

Some seem to say we should only discriminate against certain people and certain characteristics, and others pretty much think their should be a 'right' to discriminate against anyone that's not "protected".

For the life of me, I can't get my head around why anyone would try to defend any type of discrimination. How does any type of prejudice, discrimination or unequal treatment make us better people? 

Ugh, I need to stop participating in this thread...it's killing my buzz!

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-10-2015, 10:20 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Some seem to say we should only discriminate against certain people and certain characteristics, and others pretty much think their should be a 'right' to discriminate against anyone that's not "protected".

For the life of me, I can't get my head around why anyone would try to defend any type of discrimination. How does any type of prejudice, discrimination or unequal treatment make us better people? 

I agree with this. 

I don't really understand the logic behind the protected classes.  If discrimination is bad, why is it only bad enough when it's against a certain class of people? 

Don't you think some fat or ugly people have been passed over for promotions for someone more healthy looking and more attractive?  Is that not discrimination also, provided that they are otherwise equally qualified for the position?

[Bengalholic]

(09-10-2015, 10:28 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Don't you think some fat or ugly people have been passed over for promotions

Why bring my ex-wife into this?   

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-10-2015, 10:40 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Why bring my ex-wife into this?   

LOL!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2015, 07:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again you try to bring conscious thought into the matter when I keep telling you it happens outside of your consciousness

The paragraph you quoted describes nerve conduction.  It has nothing to do with thought or decision making.  That describes how one nerve cell transmits information to another.  

When it comes to your own thought processes understanding the scientific information you have posted you are 0-2.

Quote:Through the sub or unconsciousness. You and Sigmund Freud definitely disagree on this matter

That's a compliment.  If Sigmund Freud and I agreed then I would need to consider my position.  If we disagree, odds are I'm correct.

Does the subconscious exist?  Yes.  Does it influence the conscious mind?  Yes.  Does the subconscious work how Freud hypothesized?  No.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2015, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do realize that was a response to his question introducing morality don't you?

You do realize you just admitted morality had already been introduced, don't you?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2015, 08:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: My, oh my!  How this thread has grown into another polarizing debate.  Anyone that knows me, would surely know that my intent of posting this thread was merely to point out the irony of the situation.  Here we have a faded glory Olympic champion who decided to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on making himself into the appearance of a woman.  All the while, there has been this legal case lingering in the background...

Perhaps it never even occurred to anyone that maybe he/she should have spent more of that cash on better legal defense, in light of the direness of the situation?  Did he/she think that by putting themselves back into the media spotlight would gain favor with a judge and jury?  I don't think that is a good way to prepare for homicide defense.  So, now that the other shoe has hit the floor, so to speak, he/she is now crying about the thought of going to men's jail, after spending most of his/her life on this earth as a man..

You don't find humor in the irony?  Sucks for you to lack a sense of humor...

The fact I'm laughing at you indicates I do have a sense of humor.

(09-10-2015, 08:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I thought the point of this thread was that you didn't actually watch the interview and wanted to just make up shit.

Your big issue was that the "first thought" of the interview was that Jenner was afraid of going to a men's jail. However, if you watched the interview, it was neither the first thought of the interview nor the first thought of the accident. 

You literally just made up something and walked away after you were called out on it.

 
Yep.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2015, 08:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Thanks for unknowingly admitting that it isn't a choice. 

I'm sure his unconscious understands, but it is playing a cruel joke on him by not letting him in on the joke.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2015, 09:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure where you got that, but you're welcome.

Let's see if I can go 2 for 2:
 
Do you think humans can make decisions outside of their consciousness?

How many decisions do you make you're completely unaware of making because you weren't involved in the decision making process?

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2015, 01:15 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The paragraph you quoted describes nerve conduction.  It has nothing to do with thought or decision making.  That describes how one nerve cell transmits information to another.  

When it comes to your own thought processes understanding the scientific information you have posted you are 0-2.


That's a compliment.  If Sigmund Freud and I agreed then I would need to consider my position.  If we disagree, odds are I'm correct.

Does the subconscious exist?  Yes.  Does it influence the conscious mind?  Yes.  Does the subconscious work how Freud hypothesized?  No.

You've already told me you do not think the human is capable of making decisions outside of their consciousness; to me that speaks volumes to your understanding of the processes of the human mind.  

I think I'll roll with Freud on this one.
 

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2015, 01:15 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The paragraph you quoted describes nerve conduction.  It has nothing to do with thought or decision making.  That describes how one nerve cell transmits information to another.  

When it comes to your own thought processes understanding the scientific information you have posted you are 0-2.


That's a compliment.  If Sigmund Freud and I agreed then I would need to consider my position.  If we disagree, odds are I'm correct.

Does the subconscious exist?  Yes.  Does it influence the conscious mind?  Yes.  Does the subconscious work how Freud hypothesized?  No.

You've already told me you do not think the human is capable of making decisions outside of their consciousness; to me that speaks volumes to your understanding of the processes of the human mind.  

I think I'll roll with Freud on this one.
 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2015, 09:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps I argued that being gay is not a conscious choice, but I cannot see where I have argued what you suggest.

We all derive pleasure from different activities; sometimes outside of our consciousness.

But the Matador has grown tired of dancing with the blind shoemaker. The game is on

Well, Matador, you've argued a reflex is a decision and peripheral nerve conduction is thought.  

The last time I remember someone so delusional was this . . .

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2015, 10:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: No Pat, I just threw that stuff out there, so that I wouldn't just be posting a link with no "insight".  And, as read from the text of the article, that is the first thing mentioned.  I really didn't give a damn to watch the interview...

Just for future reference, you're not providing any insight when you make shit up.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-11-2015, 01:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You've already told me you do not think the human is capable of making decisions outside of their consciousness; to me that speaks volumes to your understanding of the processes of the human mind.  

I think I'll roll with Freud on this one.
 

Please list the things you're consciously aware the unconscious mind performs and to what degree.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-11-2015, 01:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You've already told me you do not think the human is capable of making decisions outside of their consciousness; to me that speaks volumes to your understanding of the processes of the human mind.  

I think I'll roll with Freud on this one.
 

(09-11-2015, 01:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You've already told me you do not think the human is capable of making decisions outside of their consciousness; to me that speaks volumes to your understanding of the processes of the human mind.  

I think I'll roll with Freud on this one.
 

Did you unconsciously decide to post the same shit twice three minutes apart?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-10-2015, 06:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: There is no conclusive evidence one way or the other at this time.  You should at least know this.


That is complete bullshit.  Homosexuality could very well be a multifactorial genetic disorder.  You just don't understand the "genetic" portion of multifactorial genetic disorder.



Addictive sexual behavior?  Heterosexuality would also qualify as an addictive sexual behavior.  So you're abandoning your multifactorial genetic disorder hypothesis so quickly?  Figures, since you didn't understand what you were talking about anyway.



Except for the fact homosexuality doesn't meet any of the criteria for a mental disorder the same as heterosexuality doesn't and for the same reasons.

*sighs

Waste of time again.

Yes I'm very well aware there is no evidence that supports your side.

I understand how MF genetics work. I said that if homosexuality was genetic, then it would most likely fall under the MF category because it doesn't really fit into any of the other genetic mutations and it mimics other MF disorders. You're the one denied it as a possibility.

Or are you denying that you said this?

(09-02-2015, 11:42 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Multifactorial disorders are only one of many types of genetic disorders.  You have zero evidence homosexuality is a multifactorial disorder instead of any of the other genetics disorders.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  Zero.  

You're line about heterosexuals has no point. I already stated many different types of sexual gratification that people get from various types of sex and that included both Heterosexuals and Homosexuals. So you really have no point there other than you are trying to say that heterosexuals have problems too, as a means to quantify homosexuality. Strawman argument sprinkled in with your favorite the argumentum ad hominem.

I didn't abandon that route, you made it very clear to me that it's not a possibility so I decided that there was no need to pursue that angle anymore. You brought up that it's possible for it to happen in the womb, I won't completely disagree with that, but it's not a true statement. 

Last but not least, which groups criteria do you wish to use to figure out if it is a disorder or not?

[BmorePat87]

(09-10-2015, 09:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks don't choose to be fat or bald. 

Not everyone, but some can choose to be bald and fat, and that' all that matters.

Quote:As to religion (we circle back to the morality), no; it is a protected class

They are a protected class. So in the past we have created protected classes based on a person's choice. So even if being gay was a choice, the fact that it is a choice would be irrelevant.

Quote: and addressed in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution

The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with private business owners denying service. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-10-2015, 10:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: No Pat, I just threw that stuff out there, so that I wouldn't just be posting a link with no "insight".  And, as read from the text of the article, that is the first thing mentioned.  I really didn't give a damn to watch the interview...

So... you made shit up?