Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
Are you seriously comparing gay people to a bunch of racists? They are not threatening you, unless you are so insecure about your own sexuality and feel that they really are undermining heterosexual relationships (they're really not).
Sometimes I wonder if that study that said most homophobes are actually in the closet is true, and it must repulse you that you could be gay. But it's okay if you're gay. Just because you were raised in an environment that said being gay is wrong doesn't mean it's true. And what Paul said in the Bible? Screw him. He used to be known as Saul and persecuted Christians. I think Jesus's message of love is far greater. It's important to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but it's possible that you hate yourself for possibly being gay.
I think the moral of the Bible is that if you can accept God for what a terrible being he is, you can accept anyone else, but many Christians seem to hate other people for being different from them.
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's not about comparing two groups of people, it's about legal rights. You unethical/stupid/hypocritical to say "Oh, well, this group of people should have these rights but other people shouldn't be able to have them."
But you ARE comparing them. Some restaurants don't allow gay people and you came up with an example "But should a Jewish restaurant serve neo-Nazis?". You can't conflate the two. No one's saying that a certain group should have no rights at all, but discrimination against and/or actively harming a group is illegal. Should gay people be allowed to go any restaurant? Yes. Is killing Jews a right? No. No one has the right to kill anyone.
1. Sorry, I was not actually calling you stupid. I was working on a paper for one of my classes while responding to you and must've forgotten a couple words in that sentence.
2. Nope. You're missing the point yet again. When did I say anyone has a right to kill Jews? I'm saying the law shouldn't be able to pick favorites. It is immoral and hypocritical for the law to say "Gays should have these rights, but skinheads? Nobody likes them, so it should be okay to discriminate against nazis." This is not a value judgment in any way, in fact it is the lack of a value judgment. When the government begins making value judgments on which classes should get particular rights you have have an unjust government.
But I find it very hard to believe that such a transaction would occur without incident, given the extremely hateful ideologies of Neo-Nazis.
Actually, I'm friends with a serious metalhead who hangs out with some Neo-Nazis. I try to avoid them at all cost on principle, but I have observed that they are quite placid if they are put into a situation (like say, being served by a black waiter) that requires them to hide their "unpopular" views. In short, it would be wrong to not give skinheads the same rights as anyone else just because you think they will cause trouble. This applies to Communists and Socialists as well.
Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
Are you seriously comparing gay people to a bunch of racists? They are not threatening you, unless you are so insecure about your own sexuality and feel that they really are undermining heterosexual relationships (they're really not).
Sometimes I wonder if that study that said most homophobes are actually in the closet is true, and it must repulse you that you could be gay. But it's okay if you're gay. Just because you were raised in an environment that said being gay is wrong doesn't mean it's true. And what Paul said in the Bible? Screw him. He used to be known as Saul and persecuted Christians. I think Jesus's message of love is far greater. It's important to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but it's possible that you hate yourself for possibly being gay.
I think the moral of the Bible is that if you can accept God for what a terrible being he is, you can accept anyone else, but many Christians seem to hate other people for being different from them.
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's not about comparing two groups of people, it's about legal rights. You unethical/stupid/hypocritical to say "Oh, well, this group of people should have these rights but other people shouldn't be able to have them."
Pretty disappointed with khans, the overal power level is to low compared to theros. Only the fetches worth it...
I'm sorry you feel that way but of course, nobody is forcing you to buy this set. If you deem it not worth the money then of course, feel free to save it.
I'll never understand why people feel the need to say this. This is a forum for discussing the quality/playability of magic cards and products. We are all well aware that nobody is forcing us to buy anything.
Because it's nicer than telling someone to quit whining over the cards. If you don't like the set and aren't willing to look at the puzzles it presents, or don't think it's worth your time and aren't willing to even try in the abstract then that's fine, vote with your wallet. I'm just tired of people complaining because they didn't get everything they wanted exactly how they wanted it.
If someone says that they think it's a bad set then tell then why you think they are wrong. Telling them that no one is forcing them to buy cards adds nothing to the discussion.
I remember LOLing when this card was spoiled. Though Become Immense and Cruel Sadist are both pretty stupid names too. The names seem to be a little bit derpy lately..
Pretty disappointed with khans, the overal power level is to low compared to theros. Only the fetches worth it...
I'm sorry you feel that way but of course, nobody is forcing you to buy this set. If you deem it not worth the money then of course, feel free to save it.
I'll never understand why people feel the need to say this. This is a forum for discussing the quality/playability of magic cards and products. We are all well aware that nobody is forcing us to buy anything.
Churches are not being forced to perform gay marriages, and never will be.
Can you read the future? The way things are going, I would say they will be forced to perform them and perhaps in the matter of a few decades. There is open hostility even perpetuated by official governments against religious organizations and their beliefs on controversial issues.
But if you're going to run a business, you can't discriminate between your patrons. Everyone has the same right to be served by a business as everyone else.
How is this a right? You literally have a right to force someone into a private transaction with you?
I should also note that I get a bit heated on this topic, because while you may not think the race is relevant, it's still an issue. Less than 50 years ago there were still places in this country where I couldn't have married my wife because I'm white and she's not.
You've managed to conflate two very different scenarios. Just because you have the right to marry, that does not mean you have the right to force someone else to participate in your marriage. Likewise, if someone disagrees with your marriage, that does not mean they have the right to prevent you from being married. You are basically committing the same error as the racists, declaring that the law should reflect personal morality. Except that different people having different concepts of morality, always have and always will.
Sure, when you're talking in the very, very general issues. The most you could say about a 'gay agenda' is that they want to be treated like people. The specifics vary considerably, even down to belief in the right to marriage.
Agenda (noun): A set of goals of an ideological group.
I am speaking of the politically active members of the group, obviously. Just because not everyone who happens to belong, demographically-speaking, to a particular group agrees with everything that is popularly called for by said group, that does not mean there is an ideological agenda that the political leaders of that group push for.
And now you're telling me you weren't making a conclusion about those statistics or the reasons for hiding them? These statistics are frequently used as an indictment of the gay community and are heavily misrepresented. I've established why those statistics are misleading, and I think you're being a little disingenuous here by backing off here with the equivalent of a shrug and a "Hey, I was just sayin'.".
I explicitly stated that it is well-documented, in the context of how gay activists have acted towards this data and members of their community that have suffered form these problems, nothing more. You're misunderstanding the point I was trying to make. However, you still have the situation of STDs and AIDS among homosexuals being well-documented at abnormally high levels. This is an issue that is both shunned by gay activists and regarded as a myth by the left, even though it is scientifically documented.
Something I noticed from earlier has me interested:
Overprotective? Like they take baseball bats to the people they find out are homophobic, overprotective? Or they're just mean with words? Because there is a certain amount of leeway here when you say 'overprotective'. It assumes that there is too much protectiveness. Parents putting three jackets on their kids in 60 degree weather are overprotective. People who are still physically abused for being who they are not being overprotected when someone calls out a homophobe on the internet.
So here you deny that society could ever be overprotective of gays.
Hmm, on paper looks like good design. Decent power level. Not sure how much Standard play it will see.
The designer in me wants to suggest something that would really take advantage of this guy. Let's see.
Raider of Blah - 2RR
Creature - Elemental (R)
Whenever Raider of Blah attacks, you may put a creature card with converted mana cost 2 or less from your hand onto the graveyard tapped and attacking.
First strike
3/1
Or something.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for him.
And yet, that's why I really like the art. She's managed to *utterly* NO SELL his attack, while barely even moving a muscle. That lady is BAD-ASS.
Eh...I've seen a few people comment that they didn't even notice what was going with other dude's hand at first. I kinda wish someone like Raymond Swanland would've done the art for this, that would've been great.
I hate this card... because now I have to get two: one to put in my snakes deck and one to put in my hyrda deck. It also seems like it could very well be standard playable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. Sorry, I was not actually calling you stupid. I was working on a paper for one of my classes while responding to you and must've forgotten a couple words in that sentence.
2. Nope. You're missing the point yet again. When did I say anyone has a right to kill Jews? I'm saying the law shouldn't be able to pick favorites. It is immoral and hypocritical for the law to say "Gays should have these rights, but skinheads? Nobody likes them, so it should be okay to discriminate against nazis." This is not a value judgment in any way, in fact it is the lack of a value judgment. When the government begins making value judgments on which classes should get particular rights you have have an unjust government.
Actually, I'm friends with a serious metalhead who hangs out with some Neo-Nazis. I try to avoid them at all cost on principle, but I have observed that they are quite placid if they are put into a situation (like say, being served by a black waiter) that requires them to hide their "unpopular" views. In short, it would be wrong to not give skinheads the same rights as anyone else just because you think they will cause trouble. This applies to Communists and Socialists as well.
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's not about comparing two groups of people, it's about legal rights. You unethical/stupid/hypocritical to say "Oh, well, this group of people should have these rights but other people shouldn't be able to have them."
Warning for flaming. - Blinking Spirit
If someone says that they think it's a bad set then tell then why you think they are wrong. Telling them that no one is forcing them to buy cards adds nothing to the discussion.
I remember LOLing when this card was spoiled. Though Become Immense and Cruel Sadist are both pretty stupid names too. The names seem to be a little bit derpy lately..
I'll never understand why people feel the need to say this. This is a forum for discussing the quality/playability of magic cards and products. We are all well aware that nobody is forcing us to buy anything.
Lol....
Violating someone's basic human right is "a bit unfair"?
Can you read the future? The way things are going, I would say they will be forced to perform them and perhaps in the matter of a few decades. There is open hostility even perpetuated by official governments against religious organizations and their beliefs on controversial issues.
How is this a right? You literally have a right to force someone into a private transaction with you?
You've managed to conflate two very different scenarios. Just because you have the right to marry, that does not mean you have the right to force someone else to participate in your marriage. Likewise, if someone disagrees with your marriage, that does not mean they have the right to prevent you from being married. You are basically committing the same error as the racists, declaring that the law should reflect personal morality. Except that different people having different concepts of morality, always have and always will.
Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
Agenda (noun): A set of goals of an ideological group.
I am speaking of the politically active members of the group, obviously. Just because not everyone who happens to belong, demographically-speaking, to a particular group agrees with everything that is popularly called for by said group, that does not mean there is an ideological agenda that the political leaders of that group push for.
I explicitly stated that it is well-documented, in the context of how gay activists have acted towards this data and members of their community that have suffered form these problems, nothing more. You're misunderstanding the point I was trying to make. However, you still have the situation of STDs and AIDS among homosexuals being well-documented at abnormally high levels. This is an issue that is both shunned by gay activists and regarded as a myth by the left, even though it is scientifically documented.
Something I noticed from earlier has me interested:
So here you deny that society could ever be overprotective of gays.
But here you strongly imply that it's happening. So which is it? Are you confused on this issue?
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for him.
No, that's a politician.
Eh...I've seen a few people comment that they didn't even notice what was going with other dude's hand at first. I kinda wish someone like Raymond Swanland would've done the art for this, that would've been great.