MTG Salvation

Quote from Jenrik »

Which would be dishonest behavior. I consider what Clinton has done to be treason against America. And those are actions.

No, treason and dishonest behaviors are different things.

Clinton claiming that her e-mails contained no classified information (I think that's what she said at one point) would be dishonest behavior.

Trump saying that he hopes Russia gets its hands on a bunch of classified information is treasonous behavior.

Quote from Magicman657 »

1, He asked them to turn it over if they already have it, not to actively pursue it. Please try to avoid misrepresenting what was said, even though it was almost certainly phrased that way as a "gotcha!" for the media outlets to unintentionally misquote him so he can start another controversy where he isn't technically in the wrong. It feeds directly into what he is after, and believe it or not, I'd still rather Trump not get the attention he craves.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

That seems like treasonous behavior to me.

Quote from Tiax »

I don't understand why that makes it unfair to say that they're proud of being bigots.

True.

Well, to be strict, they're not anymore a bigot than you are is how I feel about it. I mean, you yourself wrote that you so greatly disagree with these people that you don't even care what they think about your statements anymore. Is that also not bigotry?

Quote from Highroller »

No, it's tolerance.

Those committed to advancing tolerance towards their fellow man are those who will not tolerate intolerance towards their fellow man.

No, it is intolerance.

And it is a perfectly VALID reason to be intolerant.

Intolerance is not a bad word. There is no such thing as a bad word.

Edit-

To briefly add to this-

Words have meaning in not only their actual definition, but the intent, tone, and context, in which they're said.

My greatest beef with SJW people really is this.

Intolerance of bigots and racists is intolerance, but I think it's a fine reason to be intolerant.

It is not a fine reason to be intolerant of Muslims because a couple of them bombed the World Trade Center.

Saying ****** to a bunch of black people with the obvious intent to degrade them is not good.

Saying ****** in the context of a classroom wherein you're explaining that you don't fully understand that the power the word carries to many people is fine.

...

Domination of language is the first thing people do when they want to control the narrative and form people's minds. Why do you think 1984 focused so much on words?

Anyways, getting a bit off topic so I'll stop now.

Quote from Highroller »

Quote from magickware99 »

Challenge for what purpose?

When people promote ideals that are immoral and wrong and harmful to society, these ideas should be challenged, that they not be allowed to dominate the public discourse, that they not be allowed to plot the course of social policy, and that unjust ideals may not see fruit in unjust laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
They should change their minds based on the correctness of the arguments and the untenable rationale behind theirs.

If they remain obstinate and refuse to change, what can be done? But it was not through want of correctness.

All of this would make sense if you also wrote that you want to change their minds.

Alas...

Quote from Highroller »

Quote from »

I think Tiax's response earlier is about the only thing that matters here- "I don't care how the bigots respond"

I would echo this sentiment.

As such, I really don't know why you're arguing beyond being just a verbal version of the anti-Trump protesters last week.

Are you trying to do what Dox wrote? Change the minds of the fence-sitters and not the people who are directly arguing with you?

Quote from magickware99 »

Do you understand what's at stake here? Are you aware of where you are? When you are? What we're talking about?

In November, an election is going to happen in the most powerful and influential nation that has ever existed in the history of human civilization. At the end of that election, someone will be placed into the highest seat of public office in this country, which will also make that person the most powerful human being in the world. This person will have the power to sign laws into effect, or to veto them. This person will be the commander of our military. This person will be the leader of our nation. The next four years of this country, and the political order of the world, will be defined by who we put into that seat.

And you're going to ask me why this matters? What the point of discussing it is?

Your tone of condescension is pleasant, as always.

I have to ask. Do you volunteer or work at any Presidential campaign that is in opposition of Trump at the moment?

Quote from Tiax »

If you want to play the "BUT YOU'RE INTOLERANT OF INTOLERANCE!!" game, I'm going to have to decline to go down that road with you.

Fine. Be that way.

Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance.

And...

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that =D

I think this little tidbit gets lost too darned much these days.

Quote from Highroller »

Relevant how?

I think I can change the issue at hand to any one of the normal conservative Christian positions and think that your post came from a pastor on his pulpit.

And that's exactly why I have quite a bit of things I want to talk about your post, but this is probably not the right place for it.

Quote from Tiax »

I don't understand what you believe these people's reaction to Trump would be had they not experienced hostile reactions to their bigotry. "Oh, this candidate is giving voice to all the things I believe about Mexicans and Muslims, but no one ever says anything to me about them, so I'll just vote for someone who doesn't agree with me instead!" Doesn't really make sense, does it?

You can argue against a person's position without being hostile to and/or dismissive of their positions.

Quote from bouncingbrick »

As I and others in this thread have pointed out, read All Star Superman. You could also read The Dark Knight Returns for an interesting take on Superman. There's plenty of stories about Superman that are shallow (him just punching stuff), but there's also plenty of interesting things to mine from the character and things that have been explored. Unfortunately, the interesting things that could be explored about Superman are brought up in one scene in Batman V Superman and then completely forgotten later in the film (for example, the idea of him being worshipped as a God or his two scenes of him struggling with the idea of even being Superman, both of which are abandoned without a satisfying conclusion because Zack Snyder and David Goyer have the story telling skills of four-year-olds).

This is what seriously pissed me off about this film.

Snyder effectively spends a lot of time philosophizing about what Superman means to the entire world and what being Superman means to Clark Kent and the people he knows. I liked where this was going. I really liked where he seemed to be going with with Superman saving Lois Lane and then inadvertently causing a bunch of civilians to be killed. Yes, Luthor was the instigator of that whole mess, but the question of who Superman is and what he should be doing was an interesting one.

And then the film pretty much devolves into a JLA set-up and people hitting each other for no purpose whatsoever.

Quote from DJK3654 »

Strong nationalists
Give promises of grand reform
Rise rapidly on public support
Not experienced politicians
Targeting specific demographics as threatening the country's interests
Promise to deal with wartime enemies
Strong on territory enforcement

You know Sanders hits quite a couple of those too, ya?

Comment Hidden

Quote from Lithl »

I don't want to pack up all my stuff and move to the White House for four to eight years before moving again.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the White House comes fully furnished. (Unless you're moving in after a Clinton presidency.)

Quote from Grant »

The Democrats have never done the same thing. Look at the record of Supreme Court nominations/confirmations. Like so many Republican actions in recent times, the word is 'unprecedented'.

And once a precedent has been set, both sides will happily do it. Look at how the GOP seized on Biden's words to justify their action. Next time the Democrats need to block a Supreme Court appointment, they'll cite this as precedent. And the cycle goes around and around, cycling ever downwards. That's a major reason these antics are such a huge problem.

Quote from Highroller »

That's not emotional manipulation.

Yes it is, and that's my point.
You praise them when they do something you want, and castigate them when they don't. That's how they learn.

---

Reading this thread really makes my head spin. I can only assume many of you have never taught children anything, or -if you have- you've never really thought about what you're doing: You make them feel bad when they do something you think is bad and make them feel good when they do something you think is good. It doesn't matter if that "something good" is critical thinking or praising God.

When my students ask an insightful question, finish a hard problem, or come in for extra help when they don't get something, I make sure they feel good. I smile, say "good job," and write positive comments on their report card. I tell them they're going places.

When they act disruptive in class, don't turn in assignments, or copy off of other students, I make sure they feel bad. I scowl, say "I'm so disappointed," and email their parents. I tell them they're hurting their future, and I'm only making them feel awful for their own good.

I want them to do well; I want them to be critical thinkers and question life logically and rationally; I want them to understand physics. But, they're kids. Humans are wired for instant gratification and superstition. We have to be broken of those habits. And, I use the word "broken" purposefully.

Now, I'm sure someone on this thread is going to tell me how they're naturally not like that. How they've been inquisitive, smart, and driven from a young age. That they've never needed someone to emotionally manipulate them to be that way. Well, I have two things to say to you. First: Gratz, but most people aren't naturally like that, and I've got to teach most people, not you. Second: Just because you naturally internalized the emotional manipulation doesn't make it less. If you really are all you claim, I know you beat yourself up on the inside. You get mad at yourself when you fail. You feel awful when you don't live up to your potential. Or, maybe you just feel great when you do. Maybe no one taught to you that -and that's great for you- but you're still doing it to yourself.

Humans need discomfort or joy in order to be motivated. We're wired to want pleasure and to avoid pain. That's just how it is.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120731.gif

Quote from imabusinessman »

It'll take a Dem winning and then gerrymandering away the Repuplican safe zones.

That's not how gerrymandering works. The process creates safe districts for both parties: you can't make voters disappear, so in order to make a district safer for you, you have to put the other side's supporters somewhere else. That's why neither party ever seriously tries to un-gerrymander things.

Even were this not the case in general, a Democrat would be ill-advised to un-gerrymander right now, because ending the GOP civil war is the last thing the Democrats want.

Quote from AzureShadow »

Bigotry and hate are far worse than censorship, and this barely even qualifies.

Except it's not a lesser-of-two-evils choice, because censorship doesn't get rid of bigotry. It just sweeps it under the rug where you can't see it. So then you've still got the bigotry, but you've also got the civil rights violation on top of that, which hands the bigots the ammunition of a legitimate grievance. That is far worse than having bigotry out in the open where you can keep an eye on it, and fighting it in the open with free speech of your own.

Quote from AzureShadow »

I'm aware of how horribly mangled the American interpretation of free speech and free expression is.

You're the one in favor of silencing speech based on ideological content with which you disagree. If you think that counts as "free speech", it's your interpretation that's horribly mangled. When you're against the principle of free speech, just come out and say you're against the principle of free speech. Don't try this Orwellian war-is-peace nonsense.

I'd just like to point out that in the approximately one week since this became a thing, all of the following have actually happened in an at least notionally free society:

• Major retailers including Walmart and Amazon instutite commercial embargoes against the Confederate flag. People point out that you can still get Nazi flags and jihadi flags from these places, adding more grease to the slippery slope.


• Apple blanket-bans from the App Store most apps that display the Confederate flag. Developer of a historical Civil War battle simulation responds very cogently, finding the nicest way to say "f*** off, censorious idiots" that I've ever heard. Apple retracts the ban in limited cases, the limit apparently having to do with you begging their board of censors for a special pass.


• Viacom bans Dukes of Hazzard from its television networks. They also cancel the "General Lee" Hot Wheels car, which I played with when I was a kid, and is still in my son's toy box today. Ebay time, I guess. (In an ironic twist, apparently you can still get Dukes of Hazzard on... wait for it... Amazon, and it's become the #1 selling thing in whatever subcategory it's in because people are afraid it's going to get axed by the censors.)


• An SJW lunatic actually argues for the banning of Gone with the Wind. (mind you, that's the New York Post, not some nutjob's Tumblr -- though at this rate it won't be long until we cease making that distinction.)

It seems that to the SJWs that now evidently hold a very significant degree of power and influence in commerce and media, the slippery slope isn't so much of a fallacy as it is a fun amusement park ride which will be ridden gleefully all the way to the bottom each and every time. Once you license SJW ideology as legitimate, even in a single reasonable compromise case like this one, you can't stop the foolish notion from propagating itself all over society. In this case, the notion of banning or otherwise reducing the visibility or availability of potentially offensive material has put us on the path that Milton and Mill and Hitchens warned us about.

The Confederate flag has the exact same causal relationship to the Charleston shootings as Marilyn Manson's music had with the Columbine shootings. This is an insane overreaction, just like every other overreaction that predictably follows every other such incident. It's ironic that even when we humans can reliably predict in advance the failure modes of our own thinking, we still get swept away in them.

Indeed, despite knowing that, when this first started, I wasn't going to post a dissenting argument here. I was sympathetic to the position of removing the flag from state houses, for many of the reasons stated by other posters above. But the concomitant wave of censorship has reminded me that freedom is divided from unfreedom by the very finest of lines, and one misstep is all it takes to cross over. I want to be unambiguously on the right side of that division. So I no longer support the removal of the Confederate flag or any other symbol from any public space, except when the people should will it so by way of the democratic process, and hopefully only after due consideration rather than as a response to emotional trauma.

Quote from Callahan09 »

The problem with this argument is that a marriage between a man and a woman is the exact same institution as the marriage between a man and a man, with the only difference being the sex of one of the members of the party.

Conversely, there is a massive difference in the institution when we talk about polygamous marriage. The legal benefits and standing that "being married" conveys do not apply to groups larger than 2. You would have to redefine those laws and remap the benefits to accommodate a new arrangement which is inherently different from the arrangement that exists between exactly two people. The laws are simple for a couple of two, not so or a couple of 3+. How do you reconcile who has precedence when there are 3 people involved in the contract? You're turning marriage into a board of directors, or something, I don't even know. But like I already said, there is no inherent difference in the dynamic of the relationship between two men and the relationship between a man and a woman, so their relationships should be represented equally by the law.

I agree with your analysis that polygamy has a different dynamic than monogamy, but I don't think that overcomes bitterroot's objection that the difference presents a mere logistical problem and does not pass the test of "compelling state interest".

Quote from Jay13x »

And, honestly, if an incestuous couple wants to fight their way to the supreme court on this subject, let them. There are plenty of countries where it isn't specifically illegal, and if you can satisfy the abuse issues, I logically don't have a problem with it. Unless there is another issue I'm missing.

You know, I hadn't thought about it before, but there are a lot of parallels between incestuous relationships and gay relationships. In both cases, society's fundamental objection seems to be "ew, squick", but because that doesn't actually count as an argument, we've made up ad hoc justifications for opposition on the grounds of procreation issues, abusive dynamics, and public health. All of which are either totally made up, or not intrinsically a problem with the relationship.

So thanks, BurningPaladin, for your thought-provoking and eye-opening comment. You've convinced me: incestuous marriage should be legal.

I'm yanking your chain a bit here, but I am serious. The idea of a brother and sister banging strikes me as gross as hell, but just because I find it gross as hell doesn't mean it should be illegal. I find a lot of stuff gross as hell - two dudes banging, old people banging, people banging in fursuits, people eating at Taco Bell - but we're supposed to be living in a free country, right? I'd be more skeptical of parent-child incest because power dynamic issues seem more inherent to the situation - even stipulating that the child is an adult, of course, because if they aren't that's a whole different issue. So I'm with Jay here. Unless there's a stronger objection than "ew, squick" that we're not seeing, your logic is compelling, and we should get the law out of the way of healthy, stable incestuous relationships.

(Protip: reductio ad absurdum arguments risk backfiring like this unless you're very careful to establish beforehand why the supposed absurdity is absurd. Don't assume people will automatically think it's absurd just because you do.)

I was going to post about voluntary transactions being a fundamental concept in a market system, but I think BS hit the nail on the head already.

Quote from Jay13x »

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

Now, you can analyze the difference between buyers and sellers. If Anne runs the local grocery store, you can perhaps argue that by the nature of her business she is extending to the public a standing offer to sell them food, an implicit contract or something of that nature, and she can't unilaterally withdraw the offer for specific people.

While I agree, these are three separate issues at place here. The first one, the public standing offer is the one at issue. It's an issue of how we regulate fair business practices. I don't think anyone wants to argue that private individuals can't choose who they work for or how they conduct private transactions. Bringing them into the mix is sidetracking the issue. We don't require private homes to be ADA compliant, either, for instance. Everyone knows and accepts they're separate issues.

The question is, where do you draw a principled line between "private transaction" and "public standing offer?" Is merely opening a storefront sufficient to broadcast a standing offer of service to all comers? Is it possible to operate a business that doesn't broadcast a public standing offer? In many ways, this presents similar questions to the Hobby Lobby birth control issue; when does a business take on a life of its own apart from the views and preferences of the owner?

And let's say we decide a small mom and pop bakery is projecting a "public standing offer" of service to all the world. What does that actually entail? If someone calls a bakery that prides itself on being gay-friendly and asks to order a cake that says "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" is the bakery obligated to fill the order?

Quote from Jay13x »

It's my personal feeling that unless someone is disruptive to a place of business, they should be allowed to patronize any business they choose.

I agree. Things do get a little tricky when you try to put that feeling into law, though. After all, it's pretty fundamental to the definition of an economic transaction that it be voluntary. And if for whatever reason Anne doesn't want to sell her goods or services to Bob, but the law says she has to, that's not voluntary. Flip it around - imagine Bob doesn't want to buy from Anne. It'd be ridiculous for the law to say "You have to buy from Anne, you can't boycott her", right?

Now, you can analyze the difference between buyers and sellers. If Anne runs the local grocery store, you can perhaps argue that by the nature of her business she is extending to the public a standing offer to sell them food, an implicit contract or something of that nature, and she can't unilaterally withdraw the offer for specific people. Whereas Bob the buyer is not extending a standing offer to every business to buy from them - he's just spending his money as he chooses. That analysis seems to work for some situations, but not all. What if Anne is selling her car in a private transaction? Imagine she's not advertising the sale publicly, just deciding which of the people she knows she wants to sell it to. Or what if she's a chef, selling her services to a restauranteur? We generally accept that employees should be allowed to choose whom they work for.

Of course, I'm not trying to argue that discrimination against minorities based on bigotry is okay. Society has a legitimate interest in discouraging that behavior. But economic rights do present a real conflict to some forms of this discouragement, which means the law has to perform a delicate balancing act. The solution to the problem of discrimination is not easy, clear-cut, and free of trade-offs. The point I'm trying to make is that all the people who see Indiana lawmakers as card-carrying villains are not comprehending the whole picture. It's a bad law, but not completely without underlying merit.

A friend of mine brought up another issue, which is that of the First Amendment. Even if a business is legally prohibited from refusing service to gay people, they are still within their rights just to hang "God Hates ****" signs in their windows, which would probably accomplish much the same effect as the gay community voluntarily chooses to boycott them.