Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: pellius on September 30, 2019, 10:55:18 PM
-
But you just have to say "illegal immigrant" in a mean or derogatory way.
How do the people of the Left live with themselves knowing they are trying to destroy this country.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/say-illegal-alien-in-new-york-city-and-now-youll-pay-a-250k-fine
-
Wow. I heard NYC has some insane transgender language laws/fines in place too.
Exactly how is "derogatory" defined? If I posit a correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime, is that "derogatory", as opposed to making a factual observation?
-
Honk Honk!
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Flaparadadigital.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F09%2FJoker-1024x576.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
-
But you just have to say "illegal immigrant" in a mean or derogatory way.
How do the people of the Left live with themselves knowing they are trying to destroy this country.
Can U call someone mr.safety fat in NY ;D
-
What if they immigrated illegally? ???
-
I call New Yorkers "fags."
Why would they consider calling someone an illegal immigrant detrimental since they worship them anyway
-
Illegal immigrant is acceptable, its illegal alien thats not.
-
Another libtard embarrassment....
-
Hannity is going to owe a lot of money.
-
Illegal immigrant is acceptable, its illegal alien thats not.
Well - you don’t know what it’s like man. Being an alien is fckn tough - so you don’t get an opinion. We are fckn sick of you humans calling us illegal!! It’s a free solar system g’dammit!!
-
These Progressive pukes will never stop pushing.
From 2 years ago here in CA:
SB 219, which passed the State Assembly on September 12 and has already passed
the Senate, proposes to fine or jail employees of long-term or intermediate care
facilities who repeatedly and willfully refuse to use a preferred gender pronoun:
https://thefederalist.com/2017/09/15/california-legislature-passes-bill-punish-elder-care-workers-dont-use-trans-pronouns/
-
But you just have to say "illegal immigrant" in a mean or derogatory way.
How do the people of the Left live with themselves knowing they are trying to destroy this country.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/say-illegal-alien-in-new-york-city-and-now-youll-pay-a-250k-fine
What is your ethnic heritage? Are you, Hawaiian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Samoan, East Indian, etc? Clearly from your photos you are not even 50% Anglo Saxon/caucasian. Do you discriminate against Haoles? Are you a racist? Are you a hipocryte?
-
The left won’t be satisfied until any and every semblance of freedom has vanished, lives of relative safety and peace is extinguished, economic independence is history, and our very lands have been reduced to nightmarish (globalized) regions of chaos, bloodshed and misery.
-
What is your ethnic heritage? Are you, Hawaiian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Samoan, East Indian, etc? Clearly from your photos you are not even 50% Anglo Saxon/caucasian. Do you discriminate against Haoles? Are you a racist? Are you a hipocryte?
What on earth does my ethnicity have to do with anything? Why is that important to you? Are you a racist? Do you believe the government should pass laws controlling what you can say in your private life? And why are you using the word "haole" when you have nothing to do with the Hawaiian culture? Cut the pretense and talk how you normally do.
-
What is your ethnic heritage? Are you, Hawaiian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Samoan, East Indian, etc? Clearly from your photos you are not even 50% Anglo Saxon/caucasian. Do you discriminate against Haoles? Are you a racist? Are you a hipocryte?
You can be non white and still a legal citizen of the United States Prime.
-
Do you believe the government should pass laws controlling what you can say in your private life?
This law isn't about what people say in their private life. It's about how businesses and service providers interact with clients. Saying "illegal immigrant" has to be combined with an unjustified denial of service for this law to apply.
-
This law isn't about what people say in their private life. It's about how businesses and service providers interact with clients. Saying "illegal immigrant" has to be combined with an unjustified denial of service for this law to apply.
its about saying "alien" not "immigrant"
-
its about saying "alien" not "immigrant"
typo, but the point still stands. It's a law aimed at service providers/ businesses who deny service illegally.
-
typo, but the point still stands. It's a law aimed at service providers/ businesses who deny service illegally.
shouldnt business and service providers be able to pick and choose who they provide a service to?
-
You can be non white and still a legal citizen of the United States Prime.
The way Prime has been acting, i'm thinking Pellius is more american than him.
-
What on earth does my ethnicity have to do with anything? Why is that important to you? Are you a racist? Do you believe the government should pass laws controlling what you can say in your private life? And why are you using the word "haole" when you have nothing to do with the Hawaiian culture? Cut the pretense and talk how you normally do.
Some people discriminate against others because of their ethnicity. I am not one of them. During WWII American citizens some of whom lived in Hawaii and who happened to also be Japanese or even part Japanese were interned.
I know the meaning of the discriminatory term haole because my daughter, son-in-law and grandson lived in Hawaii for five years. Being white, they were haole.
How can the average person know who is or isn't an illegal immigrant? The answer is they can't know. They assume this because person looks different and/or speaks a different language. Currently, the focus is on people who illegally enter this country when they cross the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Most of them appear to be Latino. Not all South American people living in U.S. are here illegally.
Yes, I believe there should continue to be laws against slander and defamation of character. Laws are proposed and enacted by legislators (the government).
How do I normally talk in your opinion?
-
shouldnt business and service providers be able to pick and choose who they provide a service to?
In certain instances, they can. Should they have free reign to discriminate based on race, age, religion, etc? IMO, no, currently they legally can't and that's not what the topic of this thread is about. Thread title makes false claim that it's a fineable offense to call someone an illegal immigrant/alien in NYC. That's not the case.
-
typo, but the point still stands. It's a law aimed at service providers/ businesses who deny service illegally.
If I'm a business owner and refuse to hire someone because they are an illegal alien, do I get fined? Am I discriminating and should be fined?
If I'm a bank and I don't give a credit card to an illegal alien, Am I discriminating and should be fined?
-
The way Prime has been acting, i'm thinking Pellius is more american than him.
And how's that? Explain.
-
In certain instances, they can. Should they have free reign to discriminate based on race, age, religion, etc? IMO, no, currently they legally can't and that's not what the topic of this thread is about. Thread title makes false claim that it's a fineable offense to call someone an illegal immigrant/alien in NYC. That's not the case.
it being illegal doesnt stop it happening, thing is, even if it were legal to do, companies would never admit to doing it because they would go out of busines very soon
Its a nonsense law
-
The new guidance claims that “use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law.”
This is the key which has a very different meaning than either the tread or or the Washington Examiner article titles. This is another example of how the media manipulates the truth to satisfy their target audience. It been expressed that many people read only the headlines. This is too bad because the truth of a matter is very often buried in the article.
-
If I'm a business owner and refuse to hire someone because they are an illegal alien, do I get fined? Am I discriminating and should be fined?
If I'm a bank and I don't give a credit card to an illegal alien, Am I discriminating and should be fined?
No, but if you're a business owner and you hire someone but threaten to withhold their wages because they are undocumented, you should be fined. Which is what the law is addressing.
If you're a bank and you give a credit card to an undocumented immigrant and then charge them an exorbitant interest rate or threaten to report them unless they pay, that is a fineable offense.
it being illegal doesnt stop it happening, thing is, even if it were legal to do, companies would never admit to doing it because they would go out of busines very soon
Which is precisely why the law factors in discriminatory behavior with clear examples of discriminatory speech.
-
No, but if you're a business owner and you hire someone but threaten to withhold their wages because they are undocumented, you should be fined. Which is what the law is addressing.
If you're a bank and you give a credit card to an undocumented immigrant and then charge them an exorbitant interest rate or threaten to report them unless they pay, that is a fineable offense.
Which is precisely why the law factors in discriminatory behavior with clear examples of discriminatory speech.
In reality companies are now forced with the threat of prosecution to employ people less qualified for a role because the fit some ethnic or gender criteria, diversity will be the death of success and production, diversity is not about intergration and a more diverse workforce its about dividing and disempowering the staff you already have.
They keep making the staement that diverse compnies perform better, really, try and find some credible evidence that this is true
Would an engineering and technology company that had a 50/50 spilt of male/female employes of every colour and rcae outperform a company made up of all Chinese or Japanese men?
-
In reality companies are now forced with the threat of prosecution to employ people less qualified for a role because the fit some ethnic or gender criteria, diversity will be the death of success and production, diversity is not about intergration and a more diverse workforce its about dividing and disempowering the staff you already have.
They keep making the staement that diverse compnies perform better, really, try and find some credible evidence that this is true
Would an engineering and technology company that had a 50/50 spilt of male/female employes of every colour and rcae outperform a company made up of all Chinese or Japanese men?
Companies that document applicant's qualifications are not forced to hire anyone less qualified regardless of whether those applying for a position have minority status. This may not stop those folks who feel they have been illegally discriminated against from filing a lawsuit, but it will keep them from winning it.
-
Companies that document applicant's qualifications are not forced to hire anyone less qualified regardless of whether those applying for a position have minority status. This may not stop those folks who feel they have been illegally discriminated against from filing a lawsuit, but it will keep them from winning it.
positions can now be allocated on "best interview" qualifications can be safely ignored.
-
Why not ban racial, ethnic, or gay slurs "when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person?"
-
Why not ban racial, ethnic, or gay slurs "when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person?"
the only thing that should be banned is banning things.
-
positions can now be allocated on "best interview" qualifications can be safely ignored.
I'm not going to take the time to look for it, but just a week or so ago there was a news article about someone who sued a perspective employer because they believed they had been discriminated against. The company doing the hiring was able to show that the plaintif was less qualified than the person hired into the position. The suit was dismissed.
This may not always be the way these situations end up, but employers should not hire less qualified people for fear of being litigated against. If they do this, they are a part of the problem. You're right though, whether or not someone interviews better can be subjective. The lines definining discrimination are not absolute.
-
No, but if you're a business owner and you hire someone but threaten to withhold their wages because they are undocumented, you should be fined. Which is what the law is addressing.
If you're a bank and you give a credit card to an undocumented immigrant and then charge them an exorbitant interest rate or threaten to report them unless they pay, that is a fineable offense.
Which is precisely why the law factors in discriminatory behavior with clear examples of discriminatory speech.
There are already laws addressing this, it is illegal to hire illegal aliens. Easy solution, enforce current laws, deport the illegal alien, fine the business for hiring them.
The democrats are doing everything possible to cater to illegals instead of following current laws and deporting them.
-
The new guidance claims that “use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law.”
This is the key which has a very different meaning than either the tread or or the Washington Examiner article titles. This is another example of how the media manipulates the truth to satisfy their target audience. It been expressed that many people read only the headlines. This is too bad because the truth of a matter is very often buried in the article.
It’s actually pretty cut and dry, there’s no manipulative headline involved here. These invaders (yes, call them what they are) get more protection than any legal or natural born citizen. The way I see it it is a deliberate attempt to change the demographics in this country. The media already shows its hatred on a daily basis for the white people that built this country from scratch. We are not a nation of immigrants but a nation created by very intelligent Anglo Saxon colonizers.
-
There are already laws addressing this, it is illegal to hire illegal aliens. Easy solution, enforce current laws, deport the illegal alien, fine the business for hiring them.
The democrats are doing everything possible to cater to illegals instead of following current laws and deporting them.
::) You do realize that these guidelines don't just cover variations of the two examples you incorrectly used? They protect people who are here legally who are illegally denied services.
Even when it does protect those here illegally, I'm all for it. Undocumented workers are an important part of the American economy and especially the NY economy. Their resident status shouldn't make it easier for employers, landlords and businesses to take advantage of them.
-
Some people discriminate against others because of their ethnicity. I am not one of them. During WWII American citizens some of whom lived in Hawaii and who happened to also be Japanese or even part Japanese were interned.
I know the meaning of the discriminatory term haole because my daughter, son-in-law and grandson lived in Hawaii for five years. Being white, they were haole.
How can the average person know who is or isn't an illegal immigrant? The answer is they can't know. They assume this because person looks different and/or speaks a different language. Currently, the focus is on people who illegally enter this country when they cross the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Most of them appear to be Latino. Not all South American people living in U.S. are here illegally.
Yes, I believe there should continue to be laws against slander and defamation of character. Laws are proposed and enacted by legislators (the government).
How do I normally talk in your opinion?
You don't use the word "haole" in everyday speech. You used with me because I'm from Hawaii. Like you have to talk down in "my language". Brah, I understand White. Just like when a White person tries to talk "Black" with a Black. You feel me, G? Werd.
And its not an inherently negative discriminating
term. It just means you're white. In my case, I was referred to as hapa-haole, meaning I'm half White as my father is Irish and English, something you also got wrong because of your bias.
-
Some people discriminate against others because of their ethnicity. I am not one of them. During WWII American citizens some of whom lived in Hawaii and who happened to also be Japanese or even part Japanese were interned.
I know the meaning of the discriminatory term haole because my daughter, son-in-law and grandson lived in Hawaii for five years. Being white, they were haole.
How can the average person know who is or isn't an illegal immigrant? The answer is they can't know. They assume this because person looks different and/or speaks a different language. Currently, the focus is on people who illegally enter this country when they cross the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Most of them appear to be Latino. Not all South American people living in U.S. are here illegally.
Yes, I believe there should continue to be laws against slander and defamation of character. Laws are proposed and enacted by legislators (the government).
How do I normally talk in your opinion?
There are already laws against libel, published false statements. You can, or should be able to say anything you want in your private life. I can call you a niggah, a traitor, and even a illegal alien if I want.
But we get it, despite what you claim, you are a Leftist and want government to control more of our lives. In this case, free speech.
-
This law isn't about what people say in their private life. It's about how businesses and service providers interact with clients. Saying "illegal immigrant" has to be combined with an unjustified denial of service for this law to apply.
You're wrong about that. If I am a resident in an apartment building and I believe some new tenants are illegal aliens it is now illegal for me to report it.
And as far as service providers interacting with citizens, so what? If I decide not to hire someone because I think he is an illegal alien because he is unable to prove it. Maybe I don't want to rent to someone because he can't prove he is a citizen.
There are already laws on the books, strict laws, against racial and sexual discrimination.
The kicker here is that now it's not just what you say but what others feel you meant. Now the government are mind readers and have the power to determine your motivations.
-
shouldnt business and service providers be able to pick and choose who they provide a service to?
Yes, as long as it isn't based on sexual or racial discrimination.
-
If I'm a business owner and refuse to hire someone because they are an illegal alien, do I get fined? Am I discriminating and should be fined?
If I'm a bank and I don't give a credit card to an illegal alien, Am I discriminating and should be fined?
Discrimination has gotten a negative connotation across the board. That's wrong. Discrimination is a good thing as it shows you have standards. Everybody discriminates constantly every day of their lives: Who they associate with? What they buy? Where they go? Even their race, age sexual preference, or gender. Like maybe I am to date a woman and never a man. It is illegal for a business, employer, or service provider to discriminate against race or sex.
It is legal to discriminate against criminals such as illegal alien/immigrants.
-
Yes, as long as it isn't based on sexual or racial discrimination.
and as such racism and homophobia flourishes.
If you are allowed to say you didnt give a job to a gay man then the public would decide how long that business stays open.
If you are not allowed to say it then the homophobic company carries on trading..
-
The new guidance claims that “use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law.”
This is the key which has a very different meaning than either the tread or or the Washington Examiner article titles. This is another example of how the media manipulates the truth to satisfy their target audience. It been expressed that many people read only the headlines. This is too bad because the truth of a matter is very often buried in the article.
Spoken like a true Leftist.
It's OK to use the tem"illegal alien" as long as you say it in a nice way.
And you ask "how so?" that you don't represent and defend the principles in which this country was founded on.
-
Yes, as long as it isn't based on sexual or racial discrimination.
then
Discrimination has gotten a negative connotation across the board. That's wrong. Discrimination is a good thing as it shows you have standards. Everybody discriminates constantly every day of their lives: Who they associate with? What they buy? Where they go? Even their race, age sexual preference, or gender. Like maybe I am to date a woman and never a man. It is illegal for a business, employer, or service provider to discriminate against race or sex.
It is legal to discriminate against criminals such as illegal alien/immigrants.
so you can discriminate but a company cant?
-
No, but if you're a business owner and you hire someone but threaten to withhold their wages because they are undocumented, you should be fined. Which is what the law is addressing.
If you're a bank and you give a credit card to an undocumented immigrant and then charge them an exorbitant interest rate or threaten to report them unless they pay, that is a fineable offense.
Which is precisely why the law factors in discriminatory behavior with clear examples of discriminatory speech.
That's already illegal and not what this law is addressing. It's about speech and how you say something
-
Why not ban racial, ethnic, or gay slurs "when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person?"
Because we are a free country. We never wanted the government to control what we say in our private lives like they do in Communist countries. Free speech laws were not designed to protect nice speech. There would be no point in that. It is to protect speech that many consider offensive. We have a right to call you names.
You want to arrest me if I call you phag?
-
Because we are a free country. We never wanted the government to control what we say in our private lives like they do in Communist countries. Free speech laws were not designed to protect nice speech. There would be no point in that. It is to protect speech that many consider offensive. We have a right to call you names.
You want to arrest me if I call you phag?
you keep contradicting yourself, you say you are in a free country and can say what you like yet you claim companies cant discriminte of they choose to and are all in favour of that?????
-
You're wrong about that. If I am a resident in an apartment building and I believe some new tenants are illegal aliens it is now illegal for me to report it.
And as far as service providers interacting with citizens, so what? If I decide not to hire someone because I think he is an illegal alien because he is unable to prove it. Maybe I don't want to rent to someone because he can't prove he is a citizen.
There are already laws on the books, strict laws, against racial and sexual discrimination.
The kicker here is that now it's not just what you say but what others feel you meant. Now the government are mind readers and have the power to determine your motivations.
No, i'm not wrong and your whole post is off the mark.
First of all, the entire guideline document is here:
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/immigration-guidance.pdf
The portion about "illegals" is on page 14- excerpted:
The use of the terms “illegal alien” and “illegals,” with the intent to demean, humiliate, or
offend a person or persons in the workplace, amounts to unlawful discrimination under
the NYCHRL.
In the workplace. In the workplace. In the workplace. Taken directly from the document.
Nothing about neighbors not being able to report you anywhere in the document because that's not what HRL covers. People call the police over bullshit all day long, so if you actually just applied even a small amount of common sense, you'd realize how wrong you were.
Furthermore, as to your other point about not hiring an undocumented worker, that's also right in the document. It is perfectly legal not to hire someone if they are undocumented, but if you do hire them, you cannot harass them, take advantage of them or abuse them.
-
and as such racism and homophobia flourishes.
If you are allowed to say you didnt give a job to a gay man then the public would decide how long that business stays open.
If you are not allowed to say it then the homophobic company carries on trading..
It's not that easy to prove. My father was the director of the State Labor Department of Hawaii and an unrepentant liberal and his instinct was always to side with the little guy. He cut a lot of sack and always err on the side of the complainant. But even he admitted how hard it is to make a case against sexual or racial discrimination. You have to have clear evidence. Think how hard that is to get. It's not like in a job interview you're going to be told "get the fuk out of here niggah!" or "Hey phag, go somewhere to look for dicks to suck." And interviewer has a host of candidates to choose from and he is free to pick and choose privately whomever he wants.
There was a case where someone tried to sue because he could prove that he had more and better qualifications than another applicant who got the job. And it was true. But the employer argued that because the job involved a lot of customer and client interaction he chose the one he felt was more personable and charming.
-
It's not that easy to prove. My father was the director of the State Labor Department of Hawaii and an unrepentant liberal and his instinct was always to side with the little guy. He cut a lot of sack and always err on the side of the complainant. But even he admitted how hard it is to make a case against sexual or racial discrimination. You have to have clear evidence. Think how hard that is to get. It's not like in a job interview you're going to be told "get the fuk out of here niggah!" or "Hey phag, go somewhere to look for dicks to suck." And interviewer has a host of candidates to choose from and he is free to pick and choose privately whomever he wants.
There was a case where someone tried to sue because he could prove that he had more and better qualifications than another applicant who got the job. And it was true. But the employer argued that because the job involved a lot of customer and client interaction he chose the one he felt was more personable and charming.
you missed the point of my post, it was about free speech not discrimination perse...
The only people in todays society who dont have a claim for discrimination are straight white males, everyone else has a legitimate claim..
-
you keep contradicting yourself, you say you are in a free country and can say what you like yet you claim companies cant discriminte of they choose to and are all in favour of that?????
That's because you lack education and don't understand very basic concepts of our freedoms and rights. If you are not from America then I retract this and apologize. If you are an American you should be ashamed and start reading more and educating yourself.
There is a difference between a person's private lives and those that are government entities, employers and service providers.
For instance, I can forbid any fat or short people from coming into my house. In fact, I can forbid anyone from coming into my house for any reason or no reason. That is PRIVATE property. Now a Library does not have that freedom because they are not a private business. They are funded by the people and therefore the people, all people, are free to enter it. Even stinking houseless trash.
-
No, i'm not wrong and your whole post is off the mark.
First of all, the entire guideline document is here:
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/immigration-guidance.pdf
The portion about "illegals" is on page 14- excerpted:
In the workplace. In the workplace. In the workplace. Taken directly from the document.
Nothing about neighbors not being able to report you anywhere in the document because that's not what HRL covers. People call the police over bullshit all day long, so if you actually just applied even a small amount of common sense, you'd realize how wrong you were.
Furthermore, as to your other point about not hiring an undocumented worker, that's also right in the document. It is perfectly legal not to hire someone if they are undocumented, but if you do hire them, you cannot harass them, take advantage of them or abuse them.
I will read the PDF later when I have time. I will try to be objective and if you're right, you're right. News reports are always biased to some degree or another.
-
That's because you lack education and don't understand very basic concepts of our freedoms and rights. If you are not from America then I retract this and apologize. If you are an American you should be ashamed and start reading more and educating yourself.
There is a difference between a person's private lives and those that are government entities, employers and service providers.
For instance, I can forbid any fat or short people from coming into my house. In fact, I can forbid anyone from coming into my house for any reason or no reason. That is PRIVATE property. Now a Library does not have that freedom because they are not a private business. They are funded by the people and therefore the people, all people, are free to enter it. Even stinking houseless trash.
Im talking morals here not laws
You want to be able to say what you like yet police other people so they cant.
If you can have free speech why cant everyone including PRIVATE companies?
-
you missed the point of my post, it was about free speech not discrimination perse...
The only people in todays society who dont have a claim for discrimination are straight white males, everyone else has a legitimate claim..
If your point is that White, straight, Christain males are on the bottom of the bottom of the pecking order then I have no argument with you. I would even go as far to say that not only are they last in line but they are the very ones most discriminated against.
-
If your point is that White, straight, Christain males are on the bottom of the bottom of the pecking order then I have no argument with you. I would even go as far to say that not only are they last in line but they are the very ones most discriminated against.
with you all the way their brother
Affiritive action by its very nature is discrimination...
-
Im talking morals here not laws
You want to be able to say what you like yet police other people so they cant.
If you can have free speech why cant everyone including PRIVATE companies?
Morality and legality are two different issues entirely and you should not conflate the two.
It is illegal to speed but not immoral. It is immoral to commit adultery but not illegal.
It should be understood that when you take a job you do not have the same rights as you do in your private life. Why is this not obvious? You have to come in at a certain time, dress a certain way, and, yes, conduct yourself in a way proscribed by the company. If you don't agree with these restrictions you are free to go elsewhere.
-
NY is a socialist Shithole.
-
Morality and legality are two different issues entirely and you should not conflate the two.
It is illegal to speed but not immoral. It is immoral to commit adultery but not illegal.
It should be understood that when you take a job you do not have the same rights as you do in your private life. Why is this not obvious? You have to come in at a certain time, dress a certain way, and, yes, conduct yourself in a way proscribed by the company. If you don't agree with these restrictions you are free to go elsewhere.
No, they aren't. In fact, this issue is a large part of what divides positivist and natural law philosophy (see, e.g. the Hart-Fuller debate). Your first example is one you've likely taken from Milton Friedman about a different point, but nonetheless it's still a bad one. I'm sure you could make a moral argument against speeding very easily if you wanted to: endangering the lives of others on the road, speeding through a residential area/school and so on. Your second example also fails because it is still illegal in places to commit adultery, and in many instances the justification for its illegality is made on moral grounds.
-
I will read the PDF later when I have time. I will try to be objective and if you're right, you're right. News reports are always biased to some degree or another.
No need to do it on my account. You knew you were wrong about the topic when you started the thread. The goal was to get to the point where you were commiserating with other posters about how haoles are society's biggest victims. Congratulations! Y'all did it!
-
The new guidance claims that “use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law.”
This is the key which has a very different meaning than either the tread or or the Washington Examiner article titles. This is another example of how the media manipulates the truth to satisfy their target audience. It been expressed that many people read only the headlines. This is too bad because the truth of a matter is very often buried in the article.
Making a law that prohibits speech that may “humiliate or demean” another person is absolutely disgusting. Has America become so pussified that we have to protect peoples mthrfckn FEELINGS???
Stunt - if you read this please tell me just how your life was permanently damaged by being humiliated and demeaned in Boot Camp?? ;D. It wasn’t - your life was IMPROVED by it. It helped harden us and make us better men.
For fcks sake - when are the people of America going to stand up and say enough is enough. We are letting the weak rule us now. The laws are made to glorify being poor - weak - weird etc..
I am not saying it’s nice to be a jerk but society has ways of dealing with those people and they typically fail. If a business discriminates - they probably won’t do well..
we should have absolute freedom to say ANY fckn thing we want (other than the laws prohibiting DIRECT calls to violence)
What’s going to happen is people are going to revolt. In my businesses I have to treat people with respect. While I personally would do it anyway - it’s also just wise business practice. If I am speaking to a group - I would be a moron if I was offensive. If I excluded certain clients it would come back to bite me. If I refused to hire a QUALIFIED candidate based on prejudice - my competition would scoop them up.
I’ll be gdamned if I will ever be LEGALLY COMPELLED to use dumbass pronouns though. I openly admit that I am greedy and trying to EARN (No one has given me shit) as much as possible so that I hopefully have ”fck you money” one day and no longer have to deal with this nonsense.
The government has no business icon earning itself with our FEELINGS.
-
Even when it does protect those here illegally, I'm all for it. Undocumented workers are an important part of the American economy and especially the NY economy. Their resident status shouldn't make it easier for employers, landlords and businesses to take advantage of them.
You spelled illegal alien incorrectly.
-
No they aren't. In fact, this issue is a large part of what divides positivist and natural law philosophy (see, e.g. the Hart-Fuller debate). Your first example is one you've likely taken from Milton Friedman about a different point, but nonetheless it's still a bad one. I'm sure you could make a moral argument against speeding very easily if you wanted to: endangering the lives of others on the road, speeding through a residential area/school and so on. Your second example also fails because it is still illegal in places to commit adultery, and in many instances the justification for its illegality is made on moral grounds.
Lying under oath is perjury and therefore illegal. Lying to an employer claiming to be sick is legal. Both can be considered immoral. You want to put people in prison or fined for telling a personal lie in a private capacity? You want to fine or put people in prison for adultery? I'm sure there are many archaic laws on the books but try to enforce them.
What is your "PhD" in ? Don't you think it's a bit odd and pretentious to tell everyone you have a PhD on a locker room type bbing board? You are obviously not a lawyer because a case is never made on the morality of the act but rather the legality. Morality implies a religious reference point. The separation clause prohibits that.
-
No need to do it on my account. You knew you were wrong about the topic when you started the thread. The goal was to get to the point where you were commiserating with other posters about how haoles are society's biggest victims. Congratulations! Y'all did it!
"Commiserating with other posters about how haoles are society's biggest victims."
How on earth did you come up with that? The word "haole" was only brought up with one person who only used it because I'm from Hawaii.
And the thread was started having nothing to do with White victimhood. It has to do with what exactly you are doing here. Attributing motives to me that you could not possibly know. Just like the government will now have the power to determine not just what you said but what you meant. I would never make an argument that I knew was wrong and you are not a mind reader.
Once again you are simply being disingenuous just making things up about a poster that you could not possibly know or prove.
-
Making a law that prohibits speech that may “humiliate or demean” another person is absolutely disgusting. Has America become so pussified that we have to protect peoples mthrfckn FEELINGS???
Stunt - if you read this please tell me just how your life was permanently damaged by being humiliated and demeaned in Boot Camp?? ;D. It wasn’t - your life was IMPROVED by it. It helped harden us and make us better men.
For fcks sake - when are the people of America going to stand up and say enough is enough. We are letting the weak rule us now. The laws are made to glorify being poor - weak - weird etc..
I am not saying it’s nice to be a jerk but society has ways of dealing with those people and they typically fail. If a business discriminates - they probably won’t do well..
we should have absolute freedom to say ANY fckn thing we want (other than the laws prohibiting DIRECT calls to violence)
What’s going to happen is people are going to revolt. In my businesses I have to treat people with respect. While I personally would do it anyway - it’s also just wise business practice. If I am speaking to a group - I would be a moron if I was offensive. If I excluded certain clients it would come back to bite me. If I refused to hire a QUALIFIED candidate based on prejudice - my competition would scoop them up.
I’ll be gdamned if I will ever be LEGALLY COMPELLED to use dumbass pronouns though. I openly admit that I am greedy and trying to EARN (No one has given me shit) as much as possible so that I hopefully have ”fck you money” one day and no longer have to deal with this nonsense.
The government has no business icon earning itself with our FEELINGS.
Sad but true. The pussification of America and Western European countries have been documented time and time again. There's a reason why the average testosterone level of American males has been steadily declining.
-
Morality and legality are two different issues entirely and you should not conflate the two.
It is illegal to speed but not immoral. It is immoral to commit adultery but not illegal.
It should be understood that when you take a job you do not have the same rights as you do in your private life. Why is this not obvious? You have to come in at a certain time, dress a certain way, and, yes, conduct yourself in a way proscribed by the company. If you don't agree with these restrictions you are free to go elsewhere.
now you are deliberatly missing the point, you are not dumb...
-
Lying under oath is perjury and therefore illegal. Lying to an employer claiming to be sick is legal. Both can be considered immoral. You want to put people in prison or fined for telling a personal lie in a private capacity? You want to fine or put people in prison for adultery? I'm sure there are many archaic laws on the books but try to enforce them.
What is your "PhD" in ? Don't you think it's a bit odd and pretentious to tell everyone you have a PhD on a locker room type bbing board? You are obviously not a lawyer because a case is never made on the morality of the act but rather the legality. Morality implies a religious reference point. The separation clause prohibits that.
Yes, it's incredibly pretentious and that was the point. It's obvious satire mocking the average individual on here with their professed genius-level IQ, IFBB Pro-like stats and other exaggerated claims of accomplishment. Nobody in their right mind would seriously give themselves my screen name, but it fits with the 'locker room' aspect of this place. Happy to have a discussion about how one's words on here might be a reflection of their true nature (I happen to believe that to be the case in many instances), but for now let's just keep things specific, without the irrelevant tangents, illogical rhetorical questions or meaningless pejoratives ('you're a leftist', etc).
I addressed a very specific claim that you made, namely 'morality and legality are two different issues entirely and you should not conflate the two'. I argued that actually, that very issue has been at the heart of a massive body of literature concerning positivist and natural law philosophy. I gave you the name of a famous debate between two of the most important figures in the field, and then addressed your two examples to demonstrate why they failed. You have stated that you would 'never make an argument that [you] knew was wrong', so after having at least a cursory read over the examples I gave, would you still stand by your claim regarding morality and the law? If so, then please defend the two initial examples you gave against my criticism. We do not yet have to go to the additional examples you gave, which only further demonstrate your confusion.
'You are obviously not a lawyer because a case is never made on the morality of the act but rather the legality'. See Dworkin's 'Hard Cases' and the generation of judicial decisions through principle and policy. Here is a small segment to illustrate the complexity of this: 'Lawyers believe that when judges make new law their decisions are constrained by legal traditions but are nevertheless personal and original. Novel decisions, it is said, reflect a judge's own political morality, but also reflect the morality that is embedded in the traditions of the common law, which might well be different' (1977, p.81).
Furthermore, you state that 'morality implies a religious reference point'. No, it doesn't. Not necessarily. And I believe you might be referring to the Establishment Clause, which is not related to what we are discussing. Once again, you've touched on an entire field of study that you're clearly not too familiar with. For example, the idea of natural law and natural rights are often argued to be fundamental to the Declaration of Independence. What, then, are rights? Let's just define them simply as moral guarantees for a minimum standard of treatment. What is that morality then grounded in? Well, natural rights theorists themselves are divided between secular and theistic interpretations. Secular conceptions based on the idea of human dignity have, however, been enunciated by various Enlightenment figures and continue to rest on a solid naturalistic foundation today.
It might be possible to make a sound argument to defend your initial statement, but you haven't done so and most of what you've written in this thread is simply incoherent. Someone like Kahn would be much better qualified to fully explore this subject, but I'd suggest at least reading up on legal positivism, the separability thesis, and arguments for and against this - your opinions might then change. I'd rather hear your conclusions after reading the PDF and Al Doggity's criticism of your interpretation, though.
-
It’s actually pretty cut and dry, there’s no manipulative headline involved here. These invaders (yes, call them what they are) get more protection than any legal or natural born citizen. The way I see it it is a deliberate attempt to change the demographics in this country. The media already shows its hatred on a daily basis for the white people that built this country from scratch. We are not a nation of immigrants but a nation created by very intelligent Anglo Saxon colonizers.
Really? Perhaps "the way you see it" is flawed.
The Mayflower had 102 passengers and approximately 30 crew. The population of the Thirteen Colonies in 1776 was 2.5 million. About 600,000 slaves were transported to America, or 5% of the 12 million slaves taken from Africa. About 310,000 of these persons were imported into the Thirteen Colonies before 1776. Between 1900 and 1920 the nation admitted over 14.5 million immigrants. From 1941 to 1950, 1,035,000 people immigrated to the U.S., including 226,000 from Germany, 139,000 from the UK, 171,000 from Canada, 60,000 from Mexico and 57,000 from Italy. With the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 it was expected that immigrants would come from "traditional" societies such as Italy, Greece, and Portugal. After 1970, immigrants from places like Korea, China, India, the Philippines, and Pakistan, as well as countries in Africa became more common.
Hmm, looks more like we are a nation of immigrants.
If anyone has a right to gripe about immigration, It is me and other American citizens who have a family history like mine. If I choose to join, I could be a member of the SAR (Sons of the American Revolution), because I am a direct decendent of my forefathers who immigrated from England, Ireland and Scotland and who were among those 'very intelligent' Anglo Saxon colonizers. My ancestors who founded this country also fought for and won its independence from English rule.
-
You don't use the word "haole" in everyday speech. You used with me because I'm from Hawaii. Like you have to talk down in "my language". Brah, I understand White. Just like when a White person tries to talk "Black" with a Black. You feel me, G? Werd.
And its not an inherently negative discriminating
term. It just means you're white. In my case, I was referred to as hapa-haole, meaning I'm half White as my father is Irish and English, something you also got wrong because of your bias.
My, my, you read a lot of meaning into my posts that isn't there. I was not talking down to you; at least not intentionally. But you are right, I don't, nor do I have reason to use the word haole in my everyday speech. Thanks for the introducing me to the term hapa-haole. It is always good to learn something new. Hope you won't mind if I continue to address you as Pellius. I would not want to insult you by using a slang term which might be taken the wrong way.
-
now you are deliberatly missing the point, you are not dumb...
Do not attribute motives to me that you have no possible way of knowing unless you can read minds over the net. If you think I missed the point that is one thing but to say I DELIBERATELY missed the point is quite another.
You asked why employees, such as a police officers, and private companies, don't have the same rights to free speech that a private citizen has. I explained why. I don't know what it's not clear that when you take a job with an employer you don't have the same rights, while in the capacity of doing your job, as a free citizen. Same with Private companies.
You can simply disagree and say that an employee can say anything they want to customers, clients and their employers -- which is fine. I would like to see you run a business with these kinds of policies.
What point is missed?
-
Do not attribute motives to me that you have no possible way of knowing unless you can read minds over the net. If you think I missed the point that is one thing but to say I DELIBERATELY missed the point is quite another.
You asked why employees, such as a police officers, and private companies, don't have the same rights to free speech that a private citizen has. I explained why. I don't know what it's not clear that when you take a job with an employer you don't have the same rights, while in the capacity of doing your job, as a free citizen. Same with Private companies.
You can simply disagree and say that an employee can say anything they want to customers, clients and their employers -- which is fine. I would like to see you run a business with these kinds of policies.
What point is missed?
jeez thats three times now
Look, you want to say that you can personally discriminate but a company can't...
Im not talking about legally , I thought we had cleared that up.
The point is why MORALLY should you be able to descriminate but a company cant?
I know they are not allowed to, you dont need to write it out again.
The simple point is you are saying "I can, but they cant", my point is what gives you the right to descriminate if they dont have that right.
And please dont bang on about the law again when pretending to miss the point AGAIN.
-
I don't think it would ever hold up in court. Get fined $250k for telling the truth...lol
-
I don't think it would ever hold up in court. Get fined $250k for telling the truth...lol
I'm with you on this. However, a lot of crazy shit goes on in the name of law.
-
I don't think it would ever hold up in court. Get fined $250k for telling the truth...lol
in the UK a doctor lost hsi job foir refusing to acknowledge a trans man was a woman...
-
Here in Sweden we are fined and lose jobs on the regular these days for telling the truth, and they don't care if those who say it are 75+ old elderly women.
Writing things like that the current immigration is too costly for Sweden and mentioning anything regarding muslims on Facebook gets you in trouble.
-
Here in Sweden we are fined and lose jobs on the regular these days for telling the truth, and they don't care if those who say it are 75+ old elderly women.
Writing things like that the current immigration is too costly for Sweden and mentioning anything regarding muslims on Facebook gets you in trouble.
What would happen if someone publicly mention, SS Division 'Viking' as the last defenders of Reichstag ................ :D
-
My, my, you read a lot of meaning into my posts that isn't there. I was not talking down to you; at least not intentionally. But you are right, I don't, nor do I have reason to use the word haole in my everyday speech. Thanks for the introducing me to the term hapa-haole. It is always good to learn something new. Hope you won't mind if I continue to address you as Pellius. I would not want to insult you by using a slang term which might be taken the wrong way.
Oh, it's there my friend, you just don't see it. That's the point. Just like the balding fatso admiring himself in the mirror doesn't see what others see. You can't be objective about yourself.
And it's not about taking things the wrong way. It's condescending and pretentious. Just like when Hillary Clinton suddenly takes on a Southern accent when she was addressing people from the South or when someone tries to talk ebonics when talking to an inner-city Black. Just talk normally. You don't have to try to relate to a Hawaiian when it's a culture you have zero experience with. And having relatives that lived there doesn't count.
And your sarcastic "pellius" comment, which to you I assume you think is funny, it's not. It's just more talking down to people. Like I said, self-awareness is not your strong suit which I have no doubt in my mind you will deny. You consider yourself a very pensive, thoughtful, reflectful person. And that's the point.
-
jeez thats three times now
Look, you want to say that you can personally discriminate but a company can't...
Im not talking about legally , I thought we had cleared that up.
The point is why MORALLY should you be able to descriminate but a company cant?
I know they are not allowed to, you dont need to write it out again.
The simple point is you are saying "I can, but they cant", my point is what gives you the right to descriminate if they dont have that right.
And please dont bang on about the law again when pretending to miss the point AGAIN.
Because we want to live in a civil society. So that the little guy, the employee, is not abused and belittled. In a job, the balance of power is not equal. If you don't like it you can be fired. Do you want to work at a job where someone has the right to insult and belittle you constantly? It's not necessarily a moral issue. It is not a sin to be rude or obnoxious. We pass these laws to equate the balance of power and to preserve some sort of civility and decency in how people interact with each other in these types of situations. Of course, in private life, you can, or should be able to say anything you want.
Case in point, Robert Dinero is looking at a big lawsuit because of a tape they have of him belittling and employee
-
Yes, it's incredibly pretentious and that was the point. It's obvious satire mocking the average individual on here with their professed genius-level IQ, IFBB Pro-like stats and other exaggerated claims of accomplishment. Nobody in their right mind would seriously give themselves my screen name, but it fits with the 'locker room' aspect of this place. Happy to have a discussion about how one's words on here might be a reflection of their true nature (I happen to believe that to be the case in many instances), but for now let's just keep things specific, without the irrelevant tangents, illogical rhetorical questions or meaningless pejoratives ('you're a leftist', etc).
I addressed a very specific claim that you made, namely 'morality and legality are two different issues entirely and you should not conflate the two'. I argued that actually, that very issue has been at the heart of a massive body of literature concerning positivist and natural law philosophy. I gave you the name of a famous debate between two of the most important figures in the field, and then addressed your two examples to demonstrate why they failed. You have stated that you would 'never make an argument that [you] knew was wrong', so after having at least a cursory read over the examples I gave, would you still stand by your claim regarding morality and the law? If so, then please defend the two initial examples you gave against my criticism. We do not yet have to go to the additional examples you gave, which only further demonstrate your confusion.
'You are obviously not a lawyer because a case is never made on the morality of the act but rather the legality'. See Dworkin's 'Hard Cases' and the generation of judicial decisions through principle and policy. Here is a small segment to illustrate the complexity of this: 'Lawyers believe that when judges make new law their decisions are constrained by legal traditions but are nevertheless personal and original. Novel decisions, it is said, reflect a judge's own political morality, but also reflect the morality that is embedded in the traditions of the common law, which might well be different' (1977, p.81).
Furthermore, you state that 'morality implies a religious reference point'. No, it doesn't. Not necessarily. And I believe you might be referring to the Establishment Clause, which is not related to what we are discussing. Once again, you've touched on an entire field of study that you're clearly not too familiar with. For example, the idea of natural law and natural rights are often argued to be fundamental to the Declaration of Independence. What, then, are rights? Let's just define them simply as moral guarantees for a minimum standard of treatment. What is that morality then grounded in? Well, natural rights theorists themselves are divided between secular and theistic interpretations. Secular conceptions based on the idea of human dignity have, however, been enunciated by various Enlightenment figures and continue to rest on a solid naturalistic foundation today.
It might be possible to make a sound argument to defend your initial statement, but you haven't done so and most of what you've written in this thread is simply incoherent. Someone like Kahn would be much better qualified to fully explore this subject, but I'd suggest at least reading up on legal positivism, the separability thesis, and arguments for and against this - your opinions might then change. I'd rather hear your conclusions after reading the PDF and Al Doggity's criticism of your interpretation, though.
Yes, you did address the very specific examples I had given but you in no way presented and argument to refute it. The first one you said was something taken out of Milton Friedman, which it wasn't, but even if it did does not refute the point. The second example you dismissed because you said that I could easily make a moral argument against speeding which I can't. Again not presenting an argument but speculating what I would or can do. And yes, there are still archaic sodomy laws still on the books that nobody got around or bothered to include in a congressional session as it has become so trivial no one bothers. Tell me a case where someone was jailed for cheating on his wife?
Saying that there is a massive body of literature and making reference to an obscure
debate over 60 years ago is again not an argument. Just like saying there are "massive" numbers of debates both pro and con for the existence of God is not an argument. And just to be clear Fuller claimed that morality is a source or an inspiration for many laws (an act can be both immoral and illegal, i.e. murder). So though there is often a connection between morality and laws, morals control both the internal and external behavior (conscious and action) whereas laws can only control the external (what you actually are caught doing). Therefore, often related but not the same. It is not a sin to park illegally or to take steroids.
But that is neither here or there as again it depends on one's perspective as to who you think "won" that debate. What is pertinent here is that making reference to it is not arguing your point.
So I still stand by my claim that I would never knowingly argue for something that I knew was wrong. I am sincerely concerned only with the truth and have no problem being proved wrong. You gave no concrete arguments against my examples so it still stands as is. Your condescending and superior tone that giving examples to prove a point only shows my confusion is so patently preposterous and absurd. Giving concrete real-world examples is what clarifies often obscure topics. And I can prove it right now. Do you want to jail a person who commits adultery? Let us see how you would act in a real-world situation?
And of course, in an ideal world Judges would base their decisions on the law and the Constitution independent of their own personal opinion and beliefs. But nobody believes this is the case 100% of the time. As human beings, we have our own personal bias and beliefs and it is quite a feat to detach one's self completely from this. Some do it better than others. How else can we have such strong disagreements with, say, something like the 2nd amendment? For each side, it is crystal clear even though they reach opposite conclusions. But just because a principle isn't followed strictly 100% of the time doesn't mean we should get rid of it as the ideal to strive for.
And it should be noted that just because someone doesn't understand or grasp a concept or idea does not in and of itself make the concept or idea incoherent. There are many concepts and ideas that simply go "over one's head" and have taxed the upper limits of one's comprehension and understanding. A lot, if not a majority of people, do not understand where the concept of morality comes from. And even if they did, their own personal bias would not accept it.
Morality, objective morality independent of a person's inherent bias, and therefore must exist outside of one's self. Other than that it is simply an opinion. Not so much what is right or wrong but what I like and dislike. Morality does not exist physically. If I ask you how you know, say, murder, is wrong what would you say? In the physical world, you show physical concrete examples. If I say I weigh 200 lbs or that piece of lumber is a 2x4 we can measure that. Not so with morality. It exists apart from the physical world. It is above nature. It is supernatural. So the very existence of objective morality outside and above human opinion proves the existence of something beyond nature and beyond man. And that's what we call God. And without God morality is just personal opinion which varies widely from person to person and known as moral relativism.
-
Because we want to live in a civil society. So that the little guy, the employee, is not abused and belittled. In a job, the balance of power is not equal. If you don't like it you can be fired. Do you want to work at a job where someone has the right to insult and belittle you constantly? It's not necessarily a moral issue. It is not a sin to be rude or obnoxious. We pass these laws to equate the balance of power and to preserve some sort of civility and decency in how people interact with each other in these types of situations. Of course, in private life, you can, or should be able to say anything you want.
Case in point, Robert Dinero is looking at a big lawsuit because of a tape they have of him belittling and employee
you just have to be doing this deliberately, no one could be so way off the mark when it comes to comprehension.
-
you just have to be doing this deliberately, no one could be so way off the mark when it comes to comprehension.
Again you are wrong. You can think you know what my motivation is or that you can read my mind. But thinking that you know is not the same as knowing that you know. The only person that knows what I am thinking and what my motivation is, is me.
-
Again you are wrong. You can think you know what my motivation is or that you can read my mind. But thinking that you know is not the same as knowing that you know. The only person that knows what I am thinking and what my motivation is, is me.
said Humpty Dumpty....
-
said Humpty Dumpty....
Moronic, childish, and nonsense comeback.
Game, set, match.
-
Moronic and immature comeback.
Game, set, match.
no, you missed the point again, from "Alice through the looking glass"
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
now do you get it?
-
no, you missed the point again, from "Alice through the looking glass"
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
now do you get it?
“Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.”
-
“Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.”
exactly
now, want to try the question again and leave the law out of it?
What makes you think its OK for you to discriminate and also tell others that they can't?
oh, and for the record, companies cant discriminate, only human beings can discriminate, a company is a fictional entity.
-
Yes, you did address the very specific examples I had given but you in no way presented and argument to refute it. The first one you said was something taken out of Milton Friedman, which it wasn't, but even if it did does not refute the point. The second example you dismissed because you said that I could easily make a moral argument against speeding which I can't. Again not presenting an argument but speculating what I would or can do. And yes, there are still archaic sodomy laws still on the books that nobody got around or bothered to include in a congressional session as it has become so trivial no one bothers. Tell me a case where someone was jailed for cheating on his wife?
Saying that there is a massive body of literature and making reference to an obscure
debate over 60 years ago is again not an argument. Just like saying there are "massive" numbers of debates both pro and con for the existence of God is not an argument. And just to be clear Fuller claimed that morality is a source or an inspiration for many laws (an act can be both immoral and illegal, i.e. murder). So though there is often a connection between morality and laws, morals control both the internal and external behavior (conscious and action) whereas laws can only control the external (what you actually are caught doing). Therefore, often related but not the same. It is not a sin to park illegally or to take steroids.
But that is neither here or there as again it depends on one's perspective as to who you think "won" that debate. What is pertinent here is that making reference to it is not arguing your point.
So I still stand by my claim that I would never knowingly argue for something that I knew was wrong. I am sincerely concerned only with the truth and have no problem being proved wrong. You gave no concrete arguments against my examples so it still stands as is. Your condescending and superior tone that giving examples to prove a point only shows my confusion is so patently preposterous and absurd. Giving concrete real-world examples is what clarifies often obscure topics. And I can prove it right now. Do you want to jail a person who commits adultery? Let us see how you would act in a real-world situation?
And of course, in an ideal world Judges would base their decisions on the law and the Constitution independent of their own personal opinion and beliefs. But nobody believes this is the case 100% of the time. As human beings, we have our own personal bias and beliefs and it is quite a feat to detach one's self completely from this. Some do it better than others. How else can we have such strong disagreements with, say, something like the 2nd amendment? For each side, it is crystal clear even though they reach opposite conclusions. But just because a principle isn't followed strictly 100% of the time doesn't mean we should get rid of it as the ideal to strive for.
And it should be noted that just because someone doesn't understand or grasp a concept or idea does not in and of itself make the concept or idea incoherent. There are many concepts and ideas that simply go "over one's head" and have taxed the upper limits of one's comprehension and understanding. A lot, if not a majority of people, do not understand where the concept of morality comes from. And even if they did, their own personal bias would not accept it.
Morality, objective morality independent of a person's inherent bias, and therefore must exist outside of one's self. Other than that it is simply an opinion. Not so much what is right or wrong but what I like and dislike. Morality does not exist physically. If I ask you how you know, say, murder, is wrong what would you say? In the physical world, you show physical concrete examples. If I say I weigh 200 lbs or that piece of lumber is a 2x4 we can measure that. Not so with morality. It exists apart from the physical world. It is above nature. It is supernatural. So the very existence of objective morality outside and above human opinion proves the existence of something beyond nature and beyond man. And that's what we call God. And without God morality is just personal opinion which varies widely from person to person and known as moral relativism.
‘There are many concepts and ideas that simply go "over one's head" and have taxed the upper limits of one's comprehension and understanding.’
That’s probably the first accurate thing you’ve said, and the rest of your post serves as a clear example of something going over one’s head. You are literally all over the place and it is incoherent. The reason for this is that what you are replying with has no logical connection to what I presented. As for my ‘condescending and superior tone’ that was allegedly present last time: it wasn’t. Stating that you are unfamiliar with something, and then demonstrating why, is how reasonable people debate. I deliberately withheld any acerbity in order to give you the benefit of the doubt and argue fairly about a specific point. Allow me to therefore inject some condescension into my tone and see if your stupid fucking brain can spot the difference (this is humour, but I'd never turn down a free flight to Hawaii if it's offered). In addition, allow me to remind you about what it is we are discussing:
You have stated, quite forcefully, that ‘morality and legality are two different issues entirely and you should not conflate the two’. This is what I have challenged. Asking me irrelevant questions about my own personal views, e.g. do I want to jail a person who commits adultery? (No, I don’t) does nothing to make your point. In addition, your entire last paragraph here is completely redundant. It is also embarrassingly confused. There is absolutely no reason at all to trail off onto some tangent about ‘objective morality independent of a person's inherent bias’ and how it ‘exists apart from the physical world, is above nature and is supernatural’. Clearly, this is simply your opinion presented without argument. Given that I have already stated that natural rights can be grounded in both theistic and secular conceptions of morality, it is a needless elaboration. Stating your own Christian morality does nothing to strengthen your initial statement; it merely strengthens mine and I’ll demonstrate why:
For somebody arguing your position they face a number of problems. For the sake of brevity I’ll simply mention one: is something a moral act because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral? If it is the former, then the commands are arbitrary. If it is the latter, then we have no need for God as we can ground a concept such as rights in the same source of external morality as the religious texts do. Tautological answers to this dilemma will not suffice. I happen to find the naturalistic grounding of morality, without the need for some deeper transcendental meaning, very appealing and currently spend far too much time wrestling with it (it’s not objective but the logical conclusions of it currently trouble me at times). But I will again put this aside and instead highlight the fact that Jeremy Bentham famously dismissed the notion of natural and inalienable rights as ‘nonsense upon stilts’ (1792). His point, however, was that this notion of rights exists only as a mental construct of the human mind, without any unambiguous referent in the external world. He sought to establish a rational foundation of ethics and legal rights based on utilitarian principles and you may have heard of this seminal work. It’s called An Introduction to the Principles of MORALS and Legislation (1789). Morals and legislation? Pellius cries! Nonsense upon stilts! The two are entirely separate!
I’ll try and bring this to a close as it’s getting far too lengthy. ‘Tell me a case where someone was jailed for cheating on his wife?’ I could give innumerable cases from all over the world. Why is this? Possibly some sort of vague connection between conceptions of morality and law?
‘The second [first] example you dismissed because you said that I could easily make a moral argument against speeding which I can't.’
When I said that you could easily make an argument as to why speeding should be considered both immoral and illegal and I then followed this up with an example. I did it for you. I take it that you still reject the idea that speeding past a school would be immoral? Seeing as you are intent to stand by your statement, tell me why doing this is not immoral, or why speeding when you have, say, a baby in the back of your car wouldn’t be considered immoral? Clearly I think it is both immoral and illegal, given that the individual speeding is recklessly endangering the lives of other, very vulnerable people. It is YOU who has no argument here. As to your claim that ‘there are still archaic sodomy laws still on the books’ which nobody has yet bothered to change. Ask yourself, how did they get on the books in the first place? Clearly you think that morality and law are entirely separate and should not be conflated, yet there are ‘archaic’ laws in existence which should now be removed. Why remove them? Let me help you out with this by reminding you of what you’ve now claimed in your rebuttal: ‘there is often a connection between morality and laws’. Quite different from your initial statement, isn’t it? And with that statement, allow me to borrow your own words: Game, set, match.
-
‘There are many concepts and ideas that simply go "over one's head" and have taxed the upper limits of one's comprehension and understanding.’
That’s probably the first accurate thing you’ve said, and the rest of your post serves as a clear example of something going over one’s head. You are literally all over the place and it is incoherent. The reason for this is that what you are replying with has no logical connection to what I presented. As for my ‘condescending and superior tone’ that was allegedly present last time: it wasn’t. Stating that you are unfamiliar with something, and then demonstrating why, is how reasonable people debate. I deliberately withheld any acerbity in order to give you the benefit of the doubt and argue fairly about a specific point. Allow me to therefore inject some condescension into my tone and see if your stupid fucking brain can spot the difference (this is humour, but I'd never turn down a free flight to Hawaii if it's offered). In addition, allow me to remind you about what it is we are discussing:
You have stated, quite forcefully, that ‘morality and legality are two different issues entirely and you should not conflate the two’. This is what I have challenged. Asking me irrelevant questions about my own personal views, e.g. do I want to jail a person who commits adultery? (No, I don’t) does nothing to make your point. In addition, your entire last paragraph here is completely redundant. It is also embarrassingly confused. There is absolutely no reason at all to trail off onto some tangent about ‘objective morality independent of a person's inherent bias’ and how it ‘exists apart from the physical world, is above nature and is supernatural’. Clearly, this is simply your opinion presented without argument. Given that I have already stated that natural rights can be grounded in both theistic and secular conceptions of morality, it is a needless elaboration. Stating your own Christian morality does nothing to strengthen your initial statement; it merely strengthens mine and I’ll demonstrate why:
For somebody arguing your position they face a number of problems. For the sake of brevity I’ll simply mention one: is something a moral act because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral? If it is the former, then the commands are arbitrary. If it is the latter, then we have no need for God as we can ground a concept such as rights in the same source of external morality as the religious texts do. Tautological answers to this dilemma will not suffice. I happen to find the naturalistic grounding of morality, without the need for some deeper transcendental meaning, very appealing and currently spend far too much time wrestling with it (it’s not objective but the logical conclusions of it currently trouble me at times). But I will again put this aside and instead highlight the fact that Jeremy Bentham famously dismissed the notion of natural and inalienable rights as ‘nonsense upon stilts’ (1792). His point, however, was that this notion of rights exists only as a mental construct of the human mind, without any unambiguous referent in the external world. He sought to establish a rational foundation of ethics and legal rights based on utilitarian principles and you may have heard of this seminal work. It’s called An Introduction to the Principles and MORALS of Legislation (1789). Morals and legislation? Pellius cries! Nonsense upon stilts! The two are entirely separate!
I’ll try and bring this to a close as it’s getting far too lengthy. ‘Tell me a case where someone was jailed for cheating on his wife?’ I could give innumerable cases from all over the world. Why is this? Possibly some sort of vague connection between conceptions of morality and law?
‘The second [first] example you dismissed because you said that I could easily make a moral argument against speeding which I can't.’
When I said that you could easily make an argument as to why speeding should be considered both immoral and illegal I then followed this up with an example. I did it for you. I take it that you still reject the idea that speeding past a school would be immoral? Seeing as you are intent to stand by your statement, tell me why doing this is not immoral, or why speeding when you have, say, a baby in the back of your car wouldn’t be considered immoral? Clearly I think it is both immoral and illegal, given that the individual speeding is recklessly endangering the lives of other, very vulnerable people. It is YOU who has no argument here. As to your claim that ‘there are still archaic sodomy laws still on the books’ which nobody has yet bothered to change. Ask yourself, how did they get on the books in the first place? Clearly you think that morality and law are entirely separate and should not be conflated, yet there are ‘archaic’ laws in existence which should now be removed. Why remove them? Let me help you out with this by reminding you of what you’ve now claimed in your rebuttal: ‘there is often a connection between morality and laws’. Quite different from your initial statement, isn’t it? And with that statement, allow me to borrow your own words: Game, set, match.
Theres no need to go to so much trouble to highlight the flaws in his argument, he still cant answer my one simple question..
-
Theres no need to go to so much trouble to highlight the flaws in his argument, he still cant answer my one simple question..
Haha, I know. Didn't actually take much time at least. I'd rather he answers you and Al Doggity on your respective points.
-
Theres no need to go to so much trouble to highlight the flaws in his argument, he still cant answer my one simple question..
I've answered your question specifically, comprehensively, and repeatedly. The notion that you are unable to grasp the concept of private and public behavior is indicative of the type, or lack of, critical thinking in our culture. Perhaps you shouldn't limit your reading activities to, "Alice in Wonderland" and, "Through the Looking Glass". The words I use have been previously defined independent of my preference and I can't get them to mean what I decide it should mean.
Do you support a person deciding what sex or race he/she wants to or decides to be?
-
Haha, I know. Didn't actually take much time at least. I'd rather he answers you and Al Doggity on your respective points.
I'm not finished. Just taking care of the low hanging fruit like joswift and Prime first.
You're a bit more labor extensive.
Still need to get back to Aldiggity, but judging by public sentiments, then everybody but him is reading the law wrong.
-
I've answered your question specifically, comprehensively, and repeatedly. The notion that you are unable to grasp the concept of private and public behavior is indicative of the type, or lack of, critical thinking in our culture. Perhaps you shouldn't limit your reading activities to, "Alice in Wonderland" and, "Through the Looking Glass". The words I use have been previously defined independent of my preference and I can't get them to mean what I decide it should mean.
Do you support a person deciding what sex or race he/she wants to or decides to be?
you cant ask questions until you answered that last one, its called deflection.
would you like to try again?
Morally, what gives you the right to discriminate but not a man who owns a company?
Its either we can all discriminate or we cant
-
I'm not finished. Just taking care of the low hanging fruit like joswift and Prime first.
You're a bit more labor extensive.
Still need to get back to Aldiggity, but judging by public sentiments, then everybody but him is reading the law wrong.
Primemuscle certainly is an incorrigible fruit - I'll grant you that haha.
-
you cant ask questions until you answered that last one, its called deflection.
would you like to try again?
Morally, what gives you the right to discriminate but not a man who owns a company?
Its either we can all discriminate or we cant
I know this is a very belated response but sometimes life gets in the way of the urgency of GetBig debates and there are several good ones here.
First off, I can answer or not answer any question I want. Where do you get this "you can't ask unless you..." bull shit?
Secondly, I gave a very comprehensive answer regarding discrimination.
Discrimination has gotten a negative connotation across the board. That's wrong. Discrimination is a good thing as it shows you have standards. Everybody discriminates constantly every day of their lives: Who they associate with? What they buy? Where they go? Even their race, age sexual preference, or gender. Like maybe I am to date a woman and never a man. It is illegal for a business, employer, or service provider to discriminate against race or sex.
It is legal to discriminate against criminals such as illegal alien/immigrants.
But, reading over the thread to familiarize myself again with the argument at hand I believe we are talking about two different things. This why I always say that in a debate I much prefer clarity over victory. Often people are arguing about two different things and I always want to be clear of what we are talking about.
Seems to me that I am making a distinction between private and public discrimination. How you conduct yourself in private life as oppose when you "are in uniform" so to speak. You seem to be arguing for a person's right to discriminate against anybody and it doesn't matter if it's in your own home, place of business, of service to the public.
Now that is a touchy situation, not to me, but to most. For me, it's not a question of legality or morality but personal freedom. Everyone understands that in your personal life you can discriminate against anybody for any reason you want. You don't like the way they look, their race, their weight, their gender, their height, their wealth... People may not like that and think you're a horrible person but it's your choice and you should be free to do so.
But say you own a Sports Bars, or a fitness center, retail store... should you be allowed to hire anybody you want as well as not hire anybody you don't want? Should you be allowed to forbid certain kinds of people from entering your place of business? Say you don't want Blacks or Mexicans, phags or transgendered people, coming into your establishment that you own. I mean, it's ok for a restaurant to say "No shirt, no service" here in Hawaii because you just don't want people dressed like that in your restaurant. You can say you don't want babies or pets or smoking. Why can't you say you don't want fat people, or women, or Blacks, or cops in your place of business?
I say you have that right. It's your business, you own it, you can decide who you want and don't want to serve. That sign, "We have the right to refuse service" should mean just that. And I leave it to the market place, the freedom of the consumers and patrons to decide if they want to support your business. Here in Hawaii, you have to be part Hawaiian to be able to go to Kamehameha School. Haoles need not apply. Blatant racial discrimination but it's allowed. Some have tried to sue but they always lose. That is systemic racism.
Now, this does not apply to any organization that receives taxpayer money. Libraries, government jobs, public universities... all do not have the same freedoms of discrimination because they can't discriminate the very people who financially support them. They work for you.
-
But say you own a Sports Bars, or a fitness center, retail store... should you be allowed to hire anybody you want as well as not hire anybody you don't want? Should you be allowed to forbid certain kinds of people from entering your place of business? Say you don't want Blacks or Mexicans, phags or transgendered people, coming into your establishment that you own. I mean, it's ok for a restaurant to say "No shirt, no service" here in Hawaii because you just don't want people dressed like that in your restaurant. You can say you don't want babies or pets or smoking. Why can't you say you don't want fat people, or women, or Blacks, or cops in your place of business?
I say you have that right. It's your business, you own it, you can decide who you want and don't want to serve. That sign, "We have the right to refuse service" should mean just that. And I leave it to the market place, the freedom of the consumers and patrons to decide if they want to support your business. Here in Hawaii, you have to be part Hawaiian to be able to go to Kamehameha School. Haoles need not apply. Blatant racial discrimination but it's allowed. Some have tried to sue but they always lose. That is systemic racism.
Now, this does not apply to any organization that receives taxpayer money. Libraries, government jobs, public universities... all do not have the same freedoms of discrimination because they can't discriminate the very people who financially support them. They work for you.
then we have an agreement sir....
-
Liberal mental illness
-
then we have an agreement sir....
Once I understood the question better I had a feeling we were on the same page though the majority, even those who call themselves "Libetarians" disagree. The only difference I can see is that I don't consider it a legal or moral issue but one of personal freedom. The freedom to associate or not associate with whomever you please.