Group Think

[Lootifer]

Quick question:

- How is calling the CEO a bigot group think/2+2=5/shutting down free thought?

He's free to say what he likes and we're free to say what we like about him in response no?

[Phatscotty]

I think you can say that, yes

[Phatscotty]

Quick question:

- How is calling the CEO a bigot group think/2+2=5/shutting down free thought?

He's free to say what he likes and we're free to say what we like about him in response no?

the issue was government officials coming out and saying, sending letters, fundraising "we will punish you for your speech/beliefs". Specifically in Boston and Chicago. When the government starts acting that way, then no, we are not free to say what we like....

[Haggis_McMutton]

You could be more clear by stating that interracial marriage was only illegal in a few states. You make it sound like it was a Constitutional amendment. But how is that not solely a reflection of a non-segregated society becoming segregated? You guys always sound like there is some switch the government can just hit, and make things happen overnight. You gotta be real about it. History matters.

I don't deny anyone any rights, I simply deny marriage is a right that comes from the government. There are plenty of churches that will marry gays, and they can always still get a civil union (which I had thought was the agreed upon compromise?), so truly just being able to "get married" is not really the case.....is it? The issue, according to what I have seen, is that gays want their marriage to be recognized by society, and by the government, so they can be plugged into the exoskeleton of privileges and benefits built around marriage, by the government.

Obviously, American society has not recognized gay marriage. Collectively, our society and even our numerous cultures have united on this, and have spoken repeatedly. This isn't bigotry because none of us (that I know) hate on gays for the sake of being gay. For myself, they can be gay as the day is long, and love whoever they want, and make a civil union with whoever they want however many times they want, and I will shrug my shoulders. Nobody really views the issue as "the gays..." they view it as "marriage is......".

I'm quite sure in time there will be a few "gay" states, and that will be fine with me. My main problem with all this, from the very beginning, has been that judges have overruled the votes of some states (California for example) and what we have effectively is an unelected, unaccountable judge overturning the democratic will of the people, who said "No, that is not what marriage is. We aren't going to start doing it differently. We are going to hold to our traditions and our heritage and our culture, as we have the right to." This is what has happened. Marriage was not redefined.

I have always had a sneaking suspicion that many gay's are perfectly fine with the civil union, and what we have here is the extremist part of the movement, and gets major media coverage and sympathy.

I will let another say a few things that I agree with and maybe you can see into the prism from a slightly different slant. This is a great debate and good points are brought up no both sides.

You are saying that the people's right to decide what marriage is overrules gay's people's right to have the exact same "marriage" as straight people.

My question is, do you support the people's right to redefine marriage as anything they want? Yes, it's unlikely, but it's a thought experiment.
If a state voted that all marriage should become illegal unless parental consent is given regardless of age, would that be ok?
If a state voted that marrying your dog should be legal, are you ok with that?

Unchecked democracy leads to many issues as you undoubtedly know.
You have to define exactly where the limits of the democratic power to define marriage lie and why they lie there.

[Phatscotty]

You could be more clear by stating that interracial marriage was only illegal in a few states. You make it sound like it was a Constitutional amendment. But how is that not solely a reflection of a non-segregated society becoming segregated? You guys always sound like there is some switch the government can just hit, and make things happen overnight. You gotta be real about it. History matters.

I don't deny anyone any rights, I simply deny marriage is a right that comes from the government. There are plenty of churches that will marry gays, and they can always still get a civil union (which I had thought was the agreed upon compromise?), so truly just being able to "get married" is not really the case.....is it? The issue, according to what I have seen, is that gays want their marriage to be recognized by society, and by the government, so they can be plugged into the exoskeleton of privileges and benefits built around marriage, by the government.

Obviously, American society has not recognized gay marriage. Collectively, our society and even our numerous cultures have united on this, and have spoken repeatedly. This isn't bigotry because none of us (that I know) hate on gays for the sake of being gay. For myself, they can be gay as the day is long, and love whoever they want, and make a civil union with whoever they want however many times they want, and I will shrug my shoulders. Nobody really views the issue as "the gays..." they view it as "marriage is......".

I'm quite sure in time there will be a few "gay" states, and that will be fine with me. My main problem with all this, from the very beginning, has been that judges have overruled the votes of some states (California for example) and what we have effectively is an unelected, unaccountable judge overturning the democratic will of the people, who said "No, that is not what marriage is. We aren't going to start doing it differently. We are going to hold to our traditions and our heritage and our culture, as we have the right to." This is what has happened. Marriage was not redefined.

I have always had a sneaking suspicion that many gay's are perfectly fine with the civil union, and what we have here is the extremist part of the movement, and gets major media coverage and sympathy.

I will let another say a few things that I agree with and maybe you can see into the prism from a slightly different slant. This is a great debate and good points are brought up no both sides.

You are saying that the people's right to decide what marriage is overrules gay's people's right to have the exact same "marriage" as straight people.

My question is, do you support the people's right to redefine marriage as anything they want? Yes, it's unlikely, but it's a thought experiment.
If a state voted that all marriage should become illegal unless parental consent is given regardless of age, would that be ok?
If a state voted that marrying your dog should be legal, are you ok with that?

Unchecked democracy leads to many issues as you undoubtedly know.
You have to define exactly where the limits of the democratic power to define marriage lie and why they lie there.

exactly, which is why a line has been drawn somewhere (no I dont support anything we want). I only hold that if the majority of a states people vote to change it, then there is little the minority can do to defend traditional marriage. It will probably be changed and that will be that.

[Frigidus]

Quick question:

- How is calling the CEO a bigot group think/2+2=5/shutting down free thought?

He's free to say what he likes and we're free to say what we like about him in response no?

the issue was government officials coming out and saying, sending letters, fundraising "we will punish you for your speech/beliefs". Specifically in Boston and Chicago. When the government starts acting that way, then no, we are not free to say what we like....

Naturally. Those that attempted to punish them are fascists, and should be condemned by their party and voted out of office. Not sure what that has to do with what Beck said though.

[BigBallinStalin]

Quick question:

- How is calling the CEO a bigot group think/2+2=5/shutting down free thought?

He's free to say what he likes and we're free to say what we like about him in response no?

the issue was government officials coming out and saying, sending letters, fundraising "we will punish you for your speech/beliefs". Specifically in Boston and Chicago. When the government starts acting that way, then no, we are not free to say what we like....

Naturally. Those that attempted to punish them are fascists, and should be condemned by their party and voted out of office. Not sure what that has to do with what Beck said though.

I did find it interesting that the reactions of the some government officials were well-received by some in favor of gay marriage (or opposed to Chick-Fil-A CEO's position). Inadvertently, they were praising the limitation on free speech rights, which to me is wrong.

[Phatscotty]

Quick question:

- How is calling the CEO a bigot group think/2+2=5/shutting down free thought?

He's free to say what he likes and we're free to say what we like about him in response no?

the issue was government officials coming out and saying, sending letters, fundraising "we will punish you for your speech/beliefs". Specifically in Boston and Chicago. When the government starts acting that way, then no, we are not free to say what we like....

Naturally. Those that attempted to punish them are fascists, and should be condemned by their party and voted out of office. Not sure what that has to do with what Beck said though.

I did find it interesting that the reactions of the some government officials were well-received by some in favor of gay marriage (or opposed to Chick-Fil-A CEO's position). Inadvertently, they were praising the limitation on free speech rights, which to me is wrong.

Good point, one I made a very long time ago, perhaps even the birthplace of the Nazi and Fascist comments..but that is just Phatism anyways, right?

Now.....GET THE F OUTTA MY THREAD!!!!!! before you ruin this one too with your lack of vision!

[Woodruff]

:lol: I can't believe I watched this BS. He talks about diverse thought then clearly attack the "left." Saying they don't allow for diverse thought. Aren't they allowed their opinions too. As far as Chick-I-Don't-Give-A-f*ck, no being pro-gay marriage is bigotry. People have the right to oppose bigotry. There was a time in the US when black and whites weren't allowed to be married. There was a time when blacks weren't allowed to marry their own. It is a shame that we have sheep who follow shepherds to wolves.

that's what this is all about, their opinions, as well as the opinions of the CEO....

Not if your opinion is bigotry, buddy.

It's not bigotry. You are wrong about that

How is it not bigotry? "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

It's not bigotry because Phatscotty agrees with it. That appears to be the line of demarcation.

[Frigidus]

Quick question:

- How is calling the CEO a bigot group think/2+2=5/shutting down free thought?

He's free to say what he likes and we're free to say what we like about him in response no?

the issue was government officials coming out and saying, sending letters, fundraising "we will punish you for your speech/beliefs". Specifically in Boston and Chicago. When the government starts acting that way, then no, we are not free to say what we like....

Naturally. Those that attempted to punish them are fascists, and should be condemned by their party and voted out of office. Not sure what that has to do with what Beck said though.

I did find it interesting that the reactions of the some government officials were well-received by some in favor of gay marriage (or opposed to Chick-Fil-A CEO's position). Inadvertently, they were praising the limitation on free speech rights, which to me is wrong.

That's because many Americans aren't so much interested in doing the right thing for the country as much as they're interested in seeing Red Team/Blue Team win the next election.

[Lootifer]

I did find it interesting that the reactions of the some government officials were well-received by some in favor of gay marriage (or opposed to Chick-Fil-A CEO's position). Inadvertently, they were praising the limitation on free speech rights, which to me is wrong.

I would support the mayor of boston or whereever it was if i could be confident his actions were not politically motivated. But only in this issue (ie free speech is secondary issue to civic rights imo).

Exceptions to every rule.

[Woodruff]

I did find it interesting that the reactions of the some government officials were well-received by some in favor of gay marriage (or opposed to Chick-Fil-A CEO's position). Inadvertently, they were praising the limitation on free speech rights, which to me is wrong.

I would support the mayor of boston or whereever it was if i could be confident his actions were not politically motivated. But only in this issue (ie free speech is secondary issue to civic rights imo).

Exceptions to every rule.

I wouldn't, because I don't believe it's in the Mayor's positional right to make that determination (even if not politically motivated). That being said while I am obviously fully sympathetic to the opposing side of my stance.

[BigBallinStalin]

I did find it interesting that the reactions of the some government officials were well-received by some in favor of gay marriage (or opposed to Chick-Fil-A CEO's position). Inadvertently, they were praising the limitation on free speech rights, which to me is wrong.

I would support the mayor of boston or whereever it was if i could be confident his actions were not politically motivated. But only in this issue (ie free speech is secondary issue to civic rights imo).

Exceptions to every rule.

Your mom is exceptional.

I mean, I'm more of a "reap the consequences for what you say" kinda guy. Civic rights should be allowed to vary across places, and the denizens should reap the consequences for being all-accepting, somewhat accepting, or total dick heads--depending on the area.

[Lootifer]

Im far too bigoted for that kinda crap.

Equality [of Opportunity] > Religious Freedom.

[BigBallinStalin]

Im far too bigoted for that kinda crap.

Equality [of Opportunity] > Religious Freedom.

How responsible shall the state be for equalizing opportunities? Shall we be forced to give up one kidney to those who lack the opportunities (which they would experience--if only they had that much needed kidney)?

Where do you draw the line?


Hey, if we want equality of opportunity, then why not kill everyone? Zero opportunities would lead to equal opportunities!

[Lootifer]

Im far too bigoted for that kinda crap.

Equality [of Opportunity] > Religious Freedom.

How responsible shall the state be for equalizing opportunities? Shall we be forced to give up one kidney to those who lack the opportunities (which they would experience--if only they had that much needed kidney)?

Where do you draw the line?


Hey, if we want equality of opportunity, then why not kill everyone? Zero opportunities would lead to equal opportunities!

Too easy old man.

Firstly; the point of having policy that addresses equality of opportunity is that there are winners and losers; and the marginal cost of taking something from the winners is far outweighed by the marginal benefit of giving that something to the loser. In the case of renal failure, both the cost and the benefit are huge, and unquantifiable: life (chance) and life (chance).

Secondly: why not kill everyone. Perfectly valid argument. But im not here to debate philsophy in a vacuum; give me one credible potential implementation of that policy and i'll think of a counter or concede.

[patrickaa317]

I support many of the things Mr Beck is against; greater provisioning for the poor, greater rights for the minorities etc etc.

"greater rights for the minorities"? Can you expand on that?

Are you saying that minorities should have things like free speech rights expanded further than non-minorities? Or that they should have rights that are not available to non-minorities?

[Lootifer]

It's like democracys version of market failure. It's also waaaaay off topic so simple answer is no.

[Nola_Lifer]

Im far too bigoted for that kinda crap.

Equality [of Opportunity] > Religious Freedom.

This is fail equality=religious freedom. One isn't greater than the other. You can practice your religion just leave it out of the governmental discussions.

[kentington]

Im far too bigoted for that kinda crap.

Equality [of Opportunity] > Religious Freedom.

This is fail equality=religious freedom FOR EVERYONE. One isn't greater than the other. You can practice your religion just leave it out of the governmental discussions.

I know you meant it that way. For others.
It means letting others have their beliefs. If you believe in free will, then they have the ability to choose how they will live.

[BigBallinStalin]

Im far too bigoted for that kinda crap.

Equality [of Opportunity] > Religious Freedom.

How responsible shall the state be for equalizing opportunities? Shall we be forced to give up one kidney to those who lack the opportunities (which they would experience--if only they had that much needed kidney)?

Where do you draw the line?


Hey, if we want equality of opportunity, then why not kill everyone? Zero opportunities would lead to equal opportunities!

Too easy old man.

Firstly; the point of having policy that addresses equality of opportunity is that there are winners and losers; and the marginal cost of taking something from the winners is far outweighed by the marginal benefit of giving that something to the loser. In the case of renal failure, both the cost and the benefit are huge, and unquantifiable: life (chance) and life (chance).

Secondly: why not kill everyone. Perfectly valid argument. But im not here to debate philsophy in a vacuum; give me one credible potential implementation of that policy and i'll think of a counter or concede.

How do you measure the marginal benefits and costs of any opportunity? How can the opportunities available to one individual be measured likewise? And then how can you apply this analysis across all individuals?

[Lootifer]

Im far too bigoted for that kinda crap.

Equality [of Opportunity] > Religious Freedom.

This is fail equality=religious freedom. One isn't greater than the other. You can practice your religion just leave it out of the governmental discussions.

I meant when religious freedom infringes on others rights such as the Same-sex marriage debate. (So really religious freedom coupled with democracy/democratic outcomes).

[patrickaa317]

It's like democracys version of market failure. It's also waaaaay off topic so simple answer is no.

Perhaps you would care to start a new thread to inform myself and others?

[heavycola]

God i love non-Hasbro-affiliated online turn-based world domination games. I really do.

[Lootifer]

How do you measure the marginal benefits and costs of any opportunity? How can the opportunities available to one individual be measured likewise? And then how can you apply this analysis across all individuals?

Control theory and optimisation. (incoming engineer-speak)

The objective function is just the same as the free market objective function (least cost) but with additional factors to accomadate non-monetary/social value. The "coefficients" are explicitly defined or related to the state of technology and available resources (both directly available and known potential).

For example: here in nation X do we currently have the technology and resources to supply the entire nation X with healthcare up to Y standard without some defined acceptable drop in efficiency Z. X is known, Y is defined explicitly by technology, and Z would be optimised by neutral smart people considering the outcome of some democratic process.

ps: dont get misled into thinking im focussing on equality of results here. The control system gets applied to the government/authority not the policy results.

inb4 BBS gives me some homework which I prob wont do.