Salon.com once again promoting pedos.

[BmorePat87]

(05-27-2016, 12:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So if the white guy has reason to believe he is black then he could reasonably charge discrimination due to race?

Kindly list reasons a white person may have to have reason to believe they are black?

Are you intentionally being an ass or are you stupid? It's too late to play games. You got your answer to the question. If you have reason to believe that someone refused to hire you because of your race, then, yes, you can make a reasonable claim that you were not hired because of your race. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2016, 12:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Are you intentionally being an ass or are you stupid? It's too late to play games. You got your answer to the question. If you have reason to believe that someone refused to hire you because of your race, then, yes, you can make a reasonable claim that you were not hired because of your race. 

So no examples of what reasons a white guy could suggest he was discriminated against for identifying as black?

Most likely just best  to call someone an ass or stupid, 

[BmorePat87]

(05-27-2016, 01:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So no examples of what reasons a white guy could suggest he was discriminated against for identifying as black?

Most likely just best  to call someone an ass or stupid, 

And you called others immature...

[BmorePat87]

Inb4 he accuses me of not answering a question regarding a point I never made nor never defended...

This is what I get for trying to give a simple neutral answer to the least ideologically charged portion of his post...

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-26-2016, 05:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Difference between intelligence and education.

Yet, you used other's implied lack of education to insult their intelligence less than 12 hours after you complained about the low intellectual level insults coming from others.  This is a direct quote . . .

(05-26-2016, 01:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Here's the deal: EVERYBODY in this forum steps over the lines. Many say things about how "low the intellectual level" is of those that disagree with their OPINION. I've said it before: 99% of the people that frequent this forum are intelligent and I can tell you I've learned plenty. No one in this forum is treated unfairly by the mods because of their views. Its just when some are warned they comply and there are others that cannot let it go. No one is forcing anyone to post in this forum.   

I direct your attention to the bold in which you claimed you "learned plenty."  What is learning?  Accumulating knowledge.  What is the process of accumulating "plenty" of knowledge?  Education.  Now what is that word which I underlined?  Intelligent.  Which deals with what?  Intelligence.  In summary, you touched on two topics; intelligence and education.  So why are you telling me there is a difference between intelligence and education when I'm just commenting on the two topics you touched upon? 

Quote:Also no one was singled out. But thanks for keeping track.

Well, thankfully you meant to insult a group instead of just a single person.  That makes it so much better.

Before I start, I would first like to say the following isn't a comment about the moderation or the moderators enforcing the rules, but the logic behind the rule.

This idea it is okay to insult 1 million people instead of 1 person specifically is completely illogical.

An analogy would be it is better to kill 1 million people with an atomic bomb than 1 person specifically with a handgun because the one million dead wasn't a personal attack while the 1 guy you specifically meant to shoot was personal.

Call me crazy, but I think killing 1 million people impersonally is worse than killing one person personally.  Same with insults.  If I insult one person specifically for a specific reason, I have insulted 999,999 less people than another person who insults 1 million people he doesn't know.  Much less collateral damage.

If you insult 1 million Christians for no other reason than they are Christian that doesn't make it any less insulting to them personally when they are aware of the insult than if you went door to door to insult them one at a time.  

[GMDino]

Police in LA now protected under hate crime laws:

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-blue-lives-matter-bill-louisiana-becomes-first-state-make-it-hate-crime-assault-2374836

Quote:Louisiana Becomes First State To Make It A Hate Crime To Assault Public Safety Workers


Louisiana became Thursday the first U.S. state to declare assaulting public safety workers a hate crime when recently elected Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, signed a bill that passed with broad bipartisan support in the Legislature.


The law is known as the “Blue Lives Matter” bill, referring to the color of police uniforms and the “Black Lives Matter” movement, which highlights numerous incidents of police shootings of unarmed black boys and men in recent years. “Blue Lives Matter” has emerged as a tagline response among people who defend police actions.

Bills similar to Louisiana’s have been proposed in other states and at the federal level.

The law adds enhanced penalties for crimes against police officers, firefighters or emergency care responders (or people perceived to be employed as public safety workers) that currently covers victims targeted for their gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, nationality or ancestry.


...


Critics argue that there are other ways to boost protections for public safety workers, who already enjoy considerable public support and sympathy from juries. Adding professions into hate crime laws goes against the spirit by which they were created, they argue.


Crimes against public safety workers are already being "investigated and prosecuted vigorously under current Louisiana law," Allison Padilla-Goodman, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, told ABC News earlier this week.

But lawmakers in Louisiana, a state already known for tough sentencing laws, were inspired by a series of recent widely reported attacks on officers, including the ambush-style killing of Deputy Sheriff Darren Goforth in Cypress, Texas, in August 2015.

Last year, 124 U.S. law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty, according to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund.

I'll wait for people to say we don't need this because there are already laws about attacking people.  

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2016, 08:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: Police in LA now protected under hate crime laws:

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-blue-lives-matter-bill-louisiana-becomes-first-state-make-it-hate-crime-assault-2374836

I'll wait for people to say we don't need this because there are already laws about attacking people.  

And stricter laws regarding assaulting police are also in place already.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2016, 08:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: Police in LA now protected under hate crime laws:

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-blue-lives-matter-bill-louisiana-becomes-first-state-make-it-hate-crime-assault-2374836





I'll wait for people to say we don't need this because there are already laws about attacking people.  

Did that article actually use the term "black boys"?

[GMDino]

(05-27-2016, 11:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Did that article actually use the term "black boys"?

Yes.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-27-2016, 08:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: Police in LA now protected under hate crime laws:

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-blue-lives-matter-bill-louisiana-becomes-first-state-make-it-hate-crime-assault-2374836





I'll wait for people to say we don't need this because there are already laws about attacking people.  

Hey, I'll say it: we don't need this law because there are already laws about attacking people (including police officers).

I personally can't stand the "hate crime" designation AT ALL. If I beat up someone because I want their shoes, that's not as bad as beating up someone because they're gay or a different ethnicity?   IT'S THE SAME EFFING CRIME!

[Benton]

(05-27-2016, 11:59 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Hey, I'll say it: we don't need this law because there are already laws about attacking people (including police officers).

I personally can't stand the "hate crime" designation AT ALL. If I beat up someone because I want their shoes, that's not as bad as beating up someone because they're gay or a different ethnicity?   IT'S THE SAME EFFING CRIME!

The crime is the same, but the motivation is different. You can take off your shoes, but you can't take off your race*. And motivation or intent applies to several crimes. I don't like the term "hate crime" but I think having it effect the degree of a crime is realistic.

Take murder. Having a few drinks and driving a car that kills someone will get you jail time (5-10 years in most states). Hiring a hitman to kill your wife will get you the death penalty in several. Different shades.



* The late Michael Jackson excluded.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2016, 12:36 PM)Benton Wrote: The crime is the same, but the motivation is different. You can take off your shoes, but you can't take off your race*. And motivation or intent applies to several crimes. I don't like the term "hate crime" but I think having it effect the degree of a crime is realistic.

Take murder. Having a few drinks and driving a car that kills someone will get you jail time (5-10 years in most states). Hiring a hitman to kill your wife will get you the death penalty in several. Different shades.



* The late Michael Jackson excluded.

I see what both of you and Phil are saying you both are missing a factor. As you pointed out Phil omitted motivation, but what he included and you omitted was intent.

If I intend to beat you up or kill you over shoes or skin color I'm not sure there should be any difference in the punishment; as you are doing both out of malice.

Conversely if my intent was to scare you and you had a heartattack when I yelled "boo!".....

[*rfaulk34*]

(05-24-2016, 10:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, the legal justification has been that anti trans laws discriminate on the basis on sex, as in it's saying that a trans woman is being discriminated against because their sex is male. 

A 12 year old is not being discriminated against when they are denied adult status for a variety of legally established reasons, some of which were explained. 

The "logic of liberals" is a nice touch. That and "enough about me" seem to be your go-to's when someone calls out your horseshit talking in circles. 

But he does have a point/question that i haven't seen you address--at least to my eyes. 

I understand both of yours and his position but i'm still wondering. Maybe you have answered and i missed it, or maybe your answer is further in this thread and i'm too lazy to read it all and come back here. 

Laws for minors are in place for their protection. I feel pretty safe in assuming that we all agree on this, given the examples of drinking, relationships, etc etc. My question is, are we protecting minors by allowing them to 'be who they feel they are' at such a young age? The landscape is littered with men and women who experimented at a young age, only to realize that's not who they are once they reached a more mature emotional level/age. Now, before we get into the sexuality/gender debate--since i don't have any solid data on those that felt a different gender when they were younger only to revert when they were older--let's table it for the sake of this...hypothetical. 

Wouldn't it be more beneficial for someone at such a young age to wait a bit longer before making decisions that could effect them in such a drastic way; bullying/murder, suicide, being ostracized by family and friends? We can say, 'you can't drink or have a relationship with someone 3 times your age because it's in your best, long-term interest'...but we can't say, 'you should wait till (x years) before you make this (gender) decision because it's in your best, long-term interest'?

I get the equality argument and i'm on board in most instances. But stretching the equality argument to minors in regard to gender but saying you can't make other decisions, seems hypocritical to me. 

Is asking them to wait a bit really going to effect them in such a negative way? If they've had time to mature and grow emotionally, haven't they made a better decision, regardless of whether it's the way they felt originally felt or not?

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2016, 03:03 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: But he does have a point/question that i haven't seen you address--at least to my eyes. 

I understand both of yours and his position but i'm still wondering. Maybe you have answered and i missed it, or maybe your answer is further in this thread and i'm too lazy to read it all and come back here. 

Laws for minors are in place for their protection. I feel pretty safe in assuming that we all agree on this, given the examples of drinking, relationships, etc etc. My question is, are we protecting minors by allowing them to 'be who they feel they are' at such a young age? The landscape is littered with men and women who experimented at a young age, only to realize that's not who they are once they reached a more mature emotional level/age. Now, before we get into the sexuality/gender debate--since i don't have any solid data on those that felt a different gender when they were younger only to revert when they were older--let's table it for the sake of this...hypothetical. 

Wouldn't it be more beneficial for someone at such a young age to wait a bit longer before making decisions that could effect them in such a drastic way; bullying/murder, suicide, being ostracized by family and friends? We can say, 'you can't drink or have a relationship with someone 3 times your age because it's in your best, long-term interest'...but we can't say, 'you should wait till (x years) before you make this (gender) decision because it's in your best, long-term interest'?

I get the equality argument and i'm on board in most instances. But stretching the equality argument to minors in regard to gender but saying you can't make other decisions, seems hypocritical to me. 

Is asking them to wait a bit really going to effect them in such a negative way? If they've had time to mature and grow emotionally, haven't they made a better decision, regardless of whether it's the way they felt originally felt or not?

This is the point I was bringing up before Pat came with the "life is unfair to trans" approach. 

We should pass laws that allows a minor child to associate and conduct physical activities with a gender is opposite his or her sex.

We cannot allow a juvenile to engage in a consensual relationship with an adult because of laws. 

[fredtoast]

(05-27-2016, 11:59 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I personally can't stand the "hate crime" designation AT ALL. If I beat up someone because I want their shoes, that's not as bad as beating up someone because they're gay or a different ethnicity?   IT'S THE SAME EFFING CRIME!

When a black person is attacked just because of the color of skin then that puts EVERY person with that color of skin in fear.

Hate crimes are something like terrorism because there are more vistims effected.  Therefore the punishment should be more severe.

[BmorePat87]

(05-28-2016, 03:03 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: . My question is, are we protecting minors by allowing them to 'be who they feel they are' at such a young age? The landscape is littered with men and women who experimented at a young age, only to realize that's not who they are once they reached a more mature emotional level/age. Now, before we get into the sexuality/gender debate--since i don't have any solid data on those that felt a different gender when they were younger only to revert when they were older--let's table it for the sake of this...hypothetical. 

Wouldn't it be more beneficial for someone at such a young age to wait a bit longer before making decisions that could effect them in such a drastic way; bullying/murder, suicide, being ostracized by family and friends? We can say, 'you can't drink or have a relationship with someone 3 times your age because it's in your best, long-term interest'...but we can't say, 'you should wait till (x years) before you make this (gender) decision because it's in your best, long-term interest'?

I get the equality argument and i'm on board in most instances. But stretching the equality argument to minors in regard to gender but saying you can't make other decisions, seems hypocritical to me. 

Is asking them to wait a bit really going to effect them in such a negative way? If they've had time to mature and grow emotionally, haven't they made a better decision, regardless of whether it's the way they felt originally felt or not?

I first need to point out that all he said was "give them the right to choose their sexuality". I corrected him and told him that no one gives you that right, your sexuality is inherent. Your sexuality is not your gender identity. He then brought that into the discussion, presumably because he doesn't know the difference between sexuality and gender identity.

If you would like to discuss whether or not minors should be allowed to identify as trans, then that's a discussion we can have. 

It comes down to a few things. The first two are ideological in my part. It has to do with self ownership.

1. Only one person has control over your gender identity: yourself
2. The government should not be able to mandate medical or social decisions over yourself when there is no inherent harm

The other point addresses your concerns over bullying/suicide/etc

3. Is there more psychological harm in identifying as trans and facing discrimination than there is in being forced to hide it and feel wrong about yourself?

I know people will be shitty to trans people. We see it here. I see it in real life. I see it in the news. I see it in politics. I also know that trans people who are not able to "come out" face so much pain and end up resorting to things like drugs and alcohol to dull those pains.

So, is the minor better off facing potential discrimination or are they better off facing potential internal issues?
If you think you know the answer, then that answers your question. 

side note: I don't advocate for any hormonal treatments for minors. Any choice to receive therapy is also up to the parents. 
 

[*bfine32*]

(05-30-2016, 11:49 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you would like to discuss whether or not minors should be allowed to identify as trans, then that's a discussion we can have. 
 
 

Hell, I brought it up and someone wanted to focus of the wording used instead of the point. Felt "correcting' someone was more important.

[BmorePat87]

(05-30-2016, 11:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, I brought it up and someone wanted to focus of the wording used instead of the point. Felt "correcting' someone was more important.

No, it was never about wording. It was about topic. You responded to my comment that your sexuality is what it is with

Quote:What if they identify as promiscuous and/or an adult? Who are you to object? 

I entertained your off topic questions more than I should have before telling you I was done addressing arguments I never made. The fact that you continue to be dishonest now and suggest it was only ever about "wording" is pathetic. You've shown yourself to be capable of being better than this. Be better than this.

[*bfine32*]

 

(05-30-2016, 12:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, it was never about wording. It was about topic. You responded to my comment that your sexuality is what it is with

BmorePat87 Wrote:Your sexuality is not your gender identity. He then brought that into the discussion, presumably because he doesn't know the difference between sexuality and gender identity.

LULZ. It was because you felt the wrong word was used; similar to another thread where you objected when I used Emotional Sex. It is just petty and par for the course; unless you truly didn't understand the intent of the message(s). 

[GMDino]

(05-30-2016, 01:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  



LULZ. It was because you felt the wrong word was used; similar to another thread where you objected when I used Emotional Sex. It is just petty and par for the course; unless you truly didn't understand the intent of the message(s). 

If the wrong wording is used and an argument is made can the Op not just come back and say, oh I don't know something like:

"I didn't say that" or "That is not what I meant"?

Correcting / clarifying the question is important in a discussion to avoid going of on tangents.

Sorry.  I forgot who I was posting to.  My bad.

Carry on.