Discrimination

[Nurvingiel]

In the Canadian election thread, Hectorberlioz and I were talking a bit about protesting gay marriage, and whether or not it would be discrimination against gays.

Now I want to know what you guys think. Let's turn the question around for more objectivity (since the following scenario would probably never happen):

Would you consider people protesting against straight people marrying discrimination against heterosexuals?

Sorry to derail your current discussion there.

[inked]

No, Nurv. Marriage is between the sexes. That requires a male and a female. That requirement is not met in same sex unions of any civil sort. It is not marriage and never will be. We have this discussion at length in the MARRIAGE thread.

However, here's some real discrimination...

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/...-thinking.html

Australia, France, ...

or, Hamas controlled areas, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...ves/009926.php

and women, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle341930.ece

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

No, Nurv. Marriage is between the sexes. That requires a male and a female. That requirement is not met in same sex unions of any civil sort. It is not marriage and never will be. We have this discussion at length in the MARRIAGE thread.

We have had that discussion. Anyway, viewpoint noted.

Originally Posted by inked

However, here's some real discrimination...

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/...-thinking.html

A blog again?

Originally Posted by inked

Australia, France, ...

or, Hamas controlled areas, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...ves/009926.php

This guy's post intrigued me:

Why so much sympathy for Islamochristians?

They wanted an end to Israel, they have been helping Islamofascists destroy Israel, they consistently have lied to Westerners about how Palestinians and Israelis treat christians, They removed the Old Testament from their Bibles because it proves the existence of Israel (Since they started the jews are Mongols theory), infact if you go into a chatroom with these "Christians" you will find them lying claiming the christian population of Israel won't exist in a week, and that Israel is commiting genoide you know the standard Muslim Rhetoric.

God simply wanted to punish these "Christians" and so he granted them part of what they wanted, an end to Israeli Occupation, and Palestinian Rule in the cities they live in. You say God has a sense of humour so his punishment for them was give them what they have been campaigning for.

I sincerely do hope I'm wrong about the Palestinian Christians being ultra Dhimmis, unfortunately I do not know of any proof that they aren't.

Anyway if anyone has proof that I'm wrong will you please show me, because I am a Greek Orthadox Christian, and do sincerely hope I'm wrong about my co-religionists.

We have the two extremes, so maybe mathematics (or statistics) tells us the truth lies somewhere in between. I wonder how the Uncertainty Principle could apply to how true something is.

Originally Posted by inked

and women, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle341930.ece

Why did Hamas win?

[inked]

Hamas won because it is a majority, Nurv. At least, that seems to be the reason.

What have you got against blogs as sources of news items all of a sudden, Nurv? Or, are you saying that if the "mainstream media" reports it, 'whatever' must be true, and that observers not of the "mainstream media" are inherently inaccurate.

Sound discriminatory in your usual use of the word to me.

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by inked

Hamas won because it is a majority, Nurv. At least, that seems to be the reason.

What have you got against blogs as sources of news items all of a sudden, Nurv? Or, are you saying that if the "mainstream media" reports it, 'whatever' must be true, and that observers not of the "mainstream media" are inherently inaccurate.

Sound discriminatory in your usual use of the word to me.

The blending of fact and opinion are in many ways becoming more transparent. The internet has News delivery forever changed, errrrr, as long as we all have affordable and easy access that is. Newscasters themselves admit which Blogs they daily read and journalist (consistant contributitors to media -- magaizines, newspapers, etc) site blogs in their articles. It's a strange development, but as long as more than just a 'few' are read and from 'many' perspectives I think it to be a 'good' thing, eh.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by inked

Hamas won because it is a majority, Nurv. At least, that seems to be the reason.

What have you got against blogs as sources of news items all of a sudden, Nurv? Or, are you saying that if the "mainstream media" reports it, 'whatever' must be true, and that observers not of the "mainstream media" are inherently inaccurate.

Sound discriminatory in your usual use of the word to me.

Are you SERious, Inked? You actually think blogs are a sound source of true world news? Damn. Slowly but surely, I get more and more "clues," as it were, as to how come you are the person you seem to be. You believe online bloggers? Wow.

[inked]

Lotesse, your acumen is definitely off today, maybe you need a crystal re-alignment or something?

I said that if a blog reports legitimate data and cites the source (in this case the epidemiologist for the area) it is a legitimate source for the material.

You seem to be confusing that with the blogosphere in general. I realize that it is a distinction but it's not that difficult a one to make, IMHO.

And, I must note, the only reason one can take exception to my having cited the blogosphere is the fact that I so did. I can hear the uproar now if I had merely posted the article without any citation.

Relatively speaking, you should have no complaints.

[Lotesse]

No dear, YOU need a biblical alignment! You obviously need more than that, but I guess I'll try and ease off on baiting your highness. I just can't resist, though. You're hilarious!!

[inked]

shouldn't your sig be "carpe deum" ?

[Lotesse]

Touche, monsignor! Nice comeback!

[rohirrim TR]

why is it that all these message board people are discriminating against blogs? oh whats that...? huh?*reads thread title* ohh discrimination thread ok I get it now.

edit: on a serious note. wasn't it awful to see how bigoted the [U.S] democratic party was about confirming Samuel Alito. Now that was some discrimination, but he won in the end as everyone expected so there was no reason for those democrats to be so nasty about it *sigh* politicians, "can't live with em, can't live without em" Have we ever tried living without them?

[The Gaffer]

I suspect that one would belong in the "Political Mudslinging" thread. Though maybe there are too many of them to choose...

Of course, it's not discrimination to identify high risk groups and risky health behaviours. However, the association of HIV with gays plays into the hands of those who would like to perpetuate discrimination against them and propagate the idea that this is a "diseased lifestyle".

These sorts of assumptions lie at the root of all discrimination and are all to easy to reinforce with disingenuous placement of "data".

The HIV thread is here: http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...highlight=Aids

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

edit: on a serious note. wasn't it awful to see how bigoted the [U.S] democratic party was about confirming Samuel Alito. Now that was some discrimination

So opposing someone who holds the opposite view on just about every single political and social issue is bigoted? To me that sounds like doing your duty and reflecting your constituants. Are you saying every supreme court candidate should be rubber stamped by congress or else they are being bigots?

[Tamuril Sirfalas]

damn conservatives and wanting to take away abortion and gay and lesbian marriages...whats up with that?

[inked]

Originally Posted by Tamuril Sirfalas

damn conservatives and wanting to take away abortion and gay and lesbian marriages...whats up with that?

I can rarely quote IR without opposing him but in this case:

"So opposing someone who holds the opposite view on just about every single political and social issue is bigoted? To me that sounds like doing your duty and reflecting your constituants. Are you saying every supreme court candidate should be rubber stamped by congress or else they are being bigots?"

'Course that swings both ways!

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So opposing someone who holds the opposite view on just about every single political and social issue is bigoted? To me that sounds like doing your duty and reflecting your constituants. Are you saying every supreme court candidate should be rubber stamped by congress or else they are being bigots?

I don't know if you followed the Alito hearings but it was pathetic the way he dems tried to villifie him and failed again and again and again...Kennedy accuses him of being in an exclusive club (read into, racist) that he himself is a part of. the hypocrisy and desperation of Kennedy and Biden and those interviewers were pathetic and the fact that the some of the democrats had decided to vote against before they even held the hearings was pathetic utterly pathetic.

edited: to avoid a generalisation pointed out by IR

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by inked

I can rarely quote IR without opposing him but in this case:

"So opposing someone who holds the opposite view on just about every single political and social issue is bigoted? To me that sounds like doing your duty and reflecting your constituants. Are you saying every supreme court candidate should be rubber stamped by congress or else they are being bigots?"

'Course that swings both ways!

reflecting your constituents is one thing, but in Alito's case most of them were goin to vote against him no matter what BEFORE any hearing was made, it didn't matter how well he handled himself, deciding before hand I think would qualifiy as a bit discriminatory.

[Lotesse]

Yes, I agree rohirrim TR; the Democrats LOVE to do smear campaigns against things and individuals they don't like or don't want in power. Dems are notorious for that. They're being ridiculous about Alito. Alito will make an excellent Supreme Court Judge.

[Insidious Rex]

You guys are such hypocrites. Have you forgotten about poor Ms. Harriet Miers already? You know the nominee that got the REPUBLICANS all in a huff and saying nasty things about her and causing such a fuss that she was forced to actually withdraw? And why? Because the extreme right wing about blew a gasket because they didnt want some dame who might not be adamantly against abortion on the supreme court. And the republicans in congress were reflecting their constituents (and nervously thinking about 2006) JUST as the democrats were with Alito. So it goes BOTH ways. Thats politics. Wake up. Its not a democratic tactic alone. Anyone who thinks so doesnt know their history too well. Whats next? Defending poor Tom DeLay for being so unfairly tarred and feathered by the democrats for these silly corruption charges?

And the fact that Alito may have been a member of a racist group in college is fair game as far as Im concerned and I dont really get how that makes the democrats bigots.

Also, which democrats came out and said they are absolutely voting against Alito BEFORE the hearings? Even Kennedy didnt say that. They are careful to be sure to say they dont like this or that about them but they want to get some answers from them during the hearings before they make a final decision. Furthermore, four democrats actually voted FOR Alito so this "all democrats" talk is wrong from the start. Check the facts. And check what the republicans do when its their turn.

[Lotesse]

Tis true, both major political parties are guilty of slinging mud. Neither party is blameless in that vein. I don't know why I even said anything; the truth is I abhor politics and they can both be ashamed of themselves, collectively speaking, for all the disgusting sleaze-tactics and shadiness they employ, the LOT of them.