|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2015 0:08:28 GMT
as I've said, I'm in favor of a "you won't be leaving prison alive" sentence with the criminal deciding how long he wants that to be. but make them do something useful while they are there.
as far as drunk driving - it's a tough one. I have trouble with the concept of "You must be at your best to drive regardless of how good that is" when some people's best is no better than some people's drunk. but there is no practical way to set an arbitrary "your driving ability must exceed this level" standard. so they set arbitrary rules instead. and really, there is next to no good reason for driving while intoxicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2015 0:09:46 GMT
which brings me back to the judge saying "We have determined that for the safety of the public, you cannot be trusted in society - so keeping in mind you will not be leaving prison alive, how long do you want to be there?" This is certainly one of the better arrangement of words I have read in a while. it certainly sidesteps the argument over whether the death penalty is inhumane or not. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 0:28:07 GMT
For devout Christians, lying is usually considered a big no-no, as Satan is the "Father of Lies". Truth is highly praised both the Old and New Testament. So, even white lies are forbidden according to some. Yes and no... I recall a story about how Jacob deceived Esau for the birthright and blessing from Isaac. I don't see any difference between deception and lying, they are one in the same. This story at least eludes to the idea that there is a time for deception, or a least situations that it will be tolerated. I have told my daughter (nine yrs. old) "untruth's" under certain circumstances, there are questions she asks that she is not mature enough to hear the truth. Of course I can't think of a specific example right off. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 0:38:34 GMT
The big question is, can you refuse to bake a cake for gays(discriminating in my opinion at least). or Refuse a cake that contains a gay message of some kind(perfectly fine as far as i am concerned) A business owner has the right to refuse service to ANYONE they see fit not to serve. This idea that because you provide a service, you MUST provide it for everyone is pure B.S. No business owner should cave in to pressure from these ridiculous demands, if baking a "fabulous" cake does not fit into the proprietors pursuit of happiness, there is no reason anyone should be able to force the proprietor to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2015 0:49:24 GMT
The big question is, can you refuse to bake a cake for gays(discriminating in my opinion at least). or Refuse a cake that contains a gay message of some kind(perfectly fine as far as i am concerned) A business owner has the right to refuse service to ANYONE they see fit not to serve. This idea that because you provide a service, you MUST provide it for everyone is pure B.S. No business owner should cave in to pressure from these ridiculous demands, if baking a "fabulous" cake does not fit into the proprietors pursuit of happiness, there is no reason anyone should be able to force the proprietor to do so. there are two areas of dispute: one is whether you may refuse to provide a service to one person that you provide to another. - and I think no, unless there are significant extenuating reasons. I.E. If I will sell you a Ham sandwich, I must also sell anyone else who requests it a ham sandwich, unless they are doing something that is egregiously wrong, like engaging in a sex act in the middle of my floor, or not wearing a shirt. The other is whether there is a difference in products that I may use as a legitimate reason not to sell one made to order product while being willing to sell another made to order product. I.E. If I am willing to sell a cake that says "2+2=4" must I also be willing to sell a cake that says "2+2=5 for especially large values of 2" and is my refusal to do so on the grounds I don't like math humor legitimate grounds for claiming discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 0:55:55 GMT
I've long maintained that the easiest way to fix the marriage issue is to let the government get out of the marriage business. I'd like to see the government declare all marriages "civil unions", a simple contractual matter. From that day forward, there would be no marriage licenses--just civil union licenses between consenting adults. Existing marriage licenses wouldn't change; they would just be legally equivalent to the civil union with all rights and privileges the same as always. Since most religions see marriage as a religious rite, you are then freed to find the religion you want to marry you, or not. Although I never researched it, a friend who did said that the state considers you married the day you take out and sign the license. At that point, you have to either divorce or annul the marriage to get out of it. The ceremony is just window dressing. To me, this is the only sensible reaction to the current marriage hysteria on both sides. This ends the pressure to impose actions on the religious that they find offensive--if a Catholic priest won't perform your marriage, take it up with the Vatican and the court of public opinion, not the legal authorities. From the Christian side at least, this would be definitely in line with the "Render under Caesar" idea: it elevates marriage above the temporal law, where they think it belongs. From the Constitutional perspective, it elevates the 1st Amendment "freedom of religion" also; it gets the state's nose out of personal beliefs. From an atheistic perspective, it gives "freedom from religion" by disconnecting religious connotations from law. To me, it's pretty much a win-win-win all around. Of course, this does brings up the question of why a civil union could be limited to just two people...but that's another story. I see it the same way. There was never a need to re-define marriage other than attacking religion/spirituality from yet another angle. If I am not mistaken, the ostensible reason gay's wanted the right to marry was so that they could receive the same tax and whatever other legal benefits married couples have. A civil union gives them any advantages being "married" does for others. It is really all about the civil union, without this legal status, nobody would be eligible for legal benefits. Actually I don't believe any court has the right or authority to re-define marriage, any attempt to do so should be considered null and void, in general, utterly ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 0:59:08 GMT
I just find it weird that a church that has several of it's people in positions of national power can still pick what it wants to follow of the basic law... Then again, I find the whole idea of a house of lords with unelected people wacky as all and I find the idea of a hereditary ruling class a bit wacky... the Bushes and the Kennedys notwithstanding. (edit: I will add the Clintons to the list if Hillary does get elected president) Ole Willie probably served his entire presidency with Hitlerie's fist up his backside. She is probably the one who was messing around with Lewd-inski, then made Billie believe that it was him. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2015 1:02:10 GMT
I've long maintained that the easiest way to fix the marriage issue is to let the government get out of the marriage business. I'd like to see the government declare all marriages "civil unions", a simple contractual matter. From that day forward, there would be no marriage licenses--just civil union licenses between consenting adults. Existing marriage licenses wouldn't change; they would just be legally equivalent to the civil union with all rights and privileges the same as always. Since most religions see marriage as a religious rite, you are then freed to find the religion you want to marry you, or not. Although I never researched it, a friend who did said that the state considers you married the day you take out and sign the license. At that point, you have to either divorce or annul the marriage to get out of it. The ceremony is just window dressing. To me, this is the only sensible reaction to the current marriage hysteria on both sides. This ends the pressure to impose actions on the religious that they find offensive--if a Catholic priest won't perform your marriage, take it up with the Vatican and the court of public opinion, not the legal authorities. From the Christian side at least, this would be definitely in line with the "Render under Caesar" idea: it elevates marriage above the temporal law, where they think it belongs. From the Constitutional perspective, it elevates the 1st Amendment "freedom of religion" also; it gets the state's nose out of personal beliefs. From an atheistic perspective, it gives "freedom from religion" by disconnecting religious connotations from law. To me, it's pretty much a win-win-win all around. Of course, this does brings up the question of why a civil union could be limited to just two people...but that's another story. I see it the same way. There was never a need to re-define marriage other than attacking religion/spirituality from yet another angle. If I am not mistaken, the ostensible reason gay's wanted the right to marry was so that they could receive the same tax and whatever other legal benefits married couples have. A civil union gives them any advantages being "married" does for others. It is really all about the civil union, without this legal status, nobody would be eligible for legal benefits. Actually I don't believe any court has the right or authority to re-define marriage, any attempt to do so should be considered null and void, in general, utterly ignored. interestingly, in Oregon's definition-of-marriage saga, it was proposed to create a "civil union" that carried all the legal ramifications of marriage except the name, and was not restricted by sexual activity - and the homosexual community rejected it on "separate but equal" rejection grounds. - which was about the time I thought "okay, make that the ONLY option." if you want the legal benefits, talk to your county courthouse. if you want the religious sanction, talk to your religious leader. do one or the other or both. at that point it ceases to be my problem. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2015 1:04:13 GMT
and I find the idea of a hereditary ruling class a bit wacky... the Bushes and the Kennedys notwithstanding. (edit: I will add the Clintons to the list if Hillary does get elected president) Ole Willie probably served his entire presidency with Hitlerie's fist up his backside. She is probably the one who was messing around with Lewd-inski, then made Billie believe that it was him. you've seen my references to Hillary's first two terms of office?  when the scandal broke, my regional paper ran an interview with the wife of the guy she'd been sleeping with in Oregon, whom she told she was on her way to DC to get her presidential kneepads. - definitely a victim, there... |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 1:09:43 GMT
In the US, just getting married doesn't grant citizenship. At best it gets you a "green card" and you can become a permanent resident (and start working), but that takes a bit of time. Yes, they are then eligible for some benefits. The normal way to become a citizen is by passing the citizenship test after being a permanent resident. A friend of mine was married twice to citizens of different countries. It was a real pain just getting the green card for each. You have that right! My brother has been married to his Philippine wife for over three years now and they still haven't approved her spousal visa. We (us and friends) told him to get a fiancé visa and wait until she is here to get married but he didn't do it that way. Now he's living out a nightmare that should never have been. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 1:17:51 GMT
my town used to have an even called the redhead roundup, which culminated in a beauty pageant. it was ended as being socially inappropriate. now we have a gay pride festival which culminates in a beauty pageant - but that's okay. And there's the same problem with race. If a black man stands up (for whatever reason), puts his fist in the air and proclaims, "I'm black and I'm proud!", he's a civil rights activist at best and a dunce with no situational awareness at worst. If a white man stands up (for whatever reason), puts his fist in the air and proclaims, "I'm white and I'm proud!", he's a common racist at best and a rabid white supremacist at worst. Conclusion: Because white people long ago did terrible things to people of other races, white people these days are not allowed to be proud of who and what we are. We are born wrong and forced to walk on egg shells around people of different color than us. This is called "equality" and if you have something against it, you're a racist. The problem with "white people doing mean things" is that other race's, including blacks have enslaved (their own) people too. Did this come off as racist?  |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 1:26:48 GMT
And there's the same problem with race. If a black man stands up (for whatever reason), puts his fist in the air and proclaims, "I'm black and I'm proud!", he's a civil rights activist at best and a dunce with no situational awareness at worst. If a white man stands up (for whatever reason), puts his fist in the air and proclaims, "I'm white and I'm proud!", he's a common racist at best and a rabid white supremacist at worst. Conclusion: Because white people long ago did terrible things to people of other races, white people these days are not allowed to be proud of who and what we are. We are born wrong and forced to walk on egg shells around people of different color than us. This is called "equality" and if you have something against it, you're a racist. you don't even have to refer to race. in another part of the internet, I said a dead daddy wasn't much worse for an infant than a serial jailbird daddy, and was branded a hateful racist and a blight on society who had no redeeming value. My oldest brother once wrote a assigned story back in High School. The story never once mentioned a name, all the story contained is a description of an undesirable person. After his teacher read it she sent him to the principles office for writing a hateful story about her. My mother was called in, after she read it and found no name mentioned she asked how they know it was about the teacher? The reply was that is described this particular teacher right down to the smallest detail (paraphrasing). My mother then said that he should be praised for writing an accurate story, not sent to the office. After all, he did the assignment as was dictated. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2015 1:27:53 GMT
And there's the same problem with race. If a black man stands up (for whatever reason), puts his fist in the air and proclaims, "I'm black and I'm proud!", he's a civil rights activist at best and a dunce with no situational awareness at worst. If a white man stands up (for whatever reason), puts his fist in the air and proclaims, "I'm white and I'm proud!", he's a common racist at best and a rabid white supremacist at worst. Conclusion: Because white people long ago did terrible things to people of other races, white people these days are not allowed to be proud of who and what we are. We are born wrong and forced to walk on egg shells around people of different color than us. This is called "equality" and if you have something against it, you're a racist. The problem with "white people doing mean things" is that other race's, including blacks have enslaved (their own) people too. Did this come off as racist? where do you think the white slavers bought the black people they sold as slaves? and people think offshoring is something new... but yes, white people are now racist by definition, and we are all where we are because of systematic abuse of black people - even if our ancestors rejected slavery before they rejected King George. we still have "white privilege." |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2015 1:30:50 GMT
you don't even have to refer to race. in another part of the internet, I said a dead daddy wasn't much worse for an infant than a serial jailbird daddy, and was branded a hateful racist and a blight on society who had no redeeming value. My oldest brother once wrote a assigned story back in High School. The story never once mentioned a name, all the story contained is a description of an undesirable person. After his teacher read it she sent him to the principles office for writing a hateful story about her. My mother was called in, after she read it and found no name mentioned she asked how they know it was about the teacher? The reply was that is described this particular teacher right down to the smallest detail (paraphrasing). My mother then said that he should be praised for writing an accurate story, not sent to the office. After all, he did the assignment as was dictated. does that qualify as "if the shoe fits, kill the messenger"? alternate: why is it your brother's fault the teacher fit his description? |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 1:36:57 GMT
Funny thing is, when I point all these things out, most people I talk to will automatically assume it's because I'm against equal rights. Not at all! By all means, let all people of all genders, races, faiths and sexual orientations from all over the world have the same rights! But why does it always have to be at the expense of someone else's? If women suddenly get special treatment over men, homosexuals over heterosexuals, blacks over whites and so on, it has nothing to do with "equality" any more. That's just turning the tables, making the former victims become the new bullies. Am I against "Gay Pride" parades? Not at all. They can be as proud as they want to be, but is it too much to ask that they're proud with their clothes on and without publicly behaving in ways that would get any straight person thrown in jail for lewd behavior? Am I against women in positions of power? Nope. But is it too much to ask that they're actually qualified for the job and not hired over more qualified men, just because they're female and the company needs to fill some silly "equal rights quota"? Am I against black, hispanic, middle eastern or asian people having the same rights as me? Can't say that I am. But is it too much to ask that they don't by default have MORE rights than me, just because they're NOT white? Is it too much to ask that I have the same rights as them to think and speak for myself without automatically being labeled a bigot as soon as I voice my opinion about someone's BEHAVIOR and not their race? Can I respect your right to be homosexual? Sure, if you can respect my right not to be and my right not to have your sexuality thrown in my face at every opportunity you get. Can I respect that women want the same opportunities and pay as men? Sure, if they're willing to do the same work under the same circumstances. Can I respect your race and the fact that you're proud of it? As a matter of fact, I don't CARE about your race and I think it's a silly thing to be proud of. It's not something you've achieved! So, you had slightly more brown parents than me... Big whoop! It's just genetics! You don't see me starting a "Blue Eye Pride Association", do you? GET OVER YOURSELF!!!And once you've done that, maybe you'll be able to hear that it is in fact not your skin color I have a problem with, but your self-righteous sense of entitlement and obviously narcissistic view that anyone who doesn't like you must be a racist, because it's completely out of the question that you might just be behaving like a run-of-the-mill idiot! This is the ranting of a racist!!! Just kidding, I agree totally. The problem is that these "victims" found that they can use it to their advantage, armed with that knowledge, they will push it as far as they can. Of course this MUST be a racist remark since I used the blanket statement" THEY will push it... Never-mind that "THEY" is inclusive of all race's, not an entire race. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 1:41:48 GMT
As an adult white male with no criminal record, I'm not eligible to receive state financial assistance for Obamacare since I'm not already receiving any other form of aid. My policy is $175 / month for medical-only (no vision or dental). Said policy has a $6000 / year deductible. Put it together, and I'd have to shell out $8100 / year before it will actually kick in. I'm only looking to make $10000 - $12000 this year unless I can successfully change careers or get a promotion. "Affordable" Care Act my fanny. Never-mind that you will have to be incredibly unhealthy to have spent the deductible in the first place |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2015 1:44:07 GMT
the conversation reminds me of a time I was navigating the People's Republic of Portland in my old white predator van with the ex GF I like to badmouth. (looked something like this)  the section of town we were trying to go south in was a one way grid with streets alternating northbound, no vehicles, northbound, light rail only, northbound, official vehicles only, etc. I accidentally turned into the official vehicles only block, and when I realized it I said "good thing we're white, we look official" at which point she assumed I was talking about our skin color, not the color of the van. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 2:08:31 GMT
We don't need legislation that ensures rights for a single group of people. We need legislation that ensures the rights of ALL groups of people, including the ones who are being victimized by thoughtless outrage from others. It all seems so easy, since we already have the legislation you speak of. If the loudmouths would shut the ---- up and go home everything would be fine. Personally I think that a big part of this movement to "impose their philosophy" on others as LW puts it, is a vain attempt to fill a hole in their lives by forcing others to accept them. Personally I see homosexuality as a mental disorder, not a lifestyle, excuse me if I don't gleefully accept it. Homosexuals are either feeling guilty about their lives, or lying about not feeling guilty about their lives. Deep inside they know that they are living an unnatural life and this guilt drives them to seek acceptance by force. Anything to justify their choices. Choices? Yes choice! You may not be able to control what you are attracted to, but you can control how you act on those attractions. Some guys are attracted to twelve year old girls, most of those men don't act on that. Some people are attracted to inanimate objects, like buildings, or an automobile, these people should seek counseling, not a license to marry that building or car. Steps down off soapbox, washes hands with said soap, cleaning away all signs of evil speak. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 2:34:04 GMT
If they choose to be stupid or nonsensical in their standards and practices, the customers will let them know and their business won't last very long. Big brother needs to back off and let things develop. I don't think I'd go so far as to call a business owners refusal to go against his/her convictions "stupid" although I do see where one would call it stupid business practice. It shouldn't be! It is only stupid because some people just don't respect another's convictions. A sensible person would understand that the person has convictions and would respect those convictions, and quietly go someplace else. Someone needs to tell homosexuals that they can't have their cake and eat it too. They demand respect but give none. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 2:37:42 GMT
I'm going to open a nightclub. I think I'll name it... The Blackhawk - can't do that, it's inflammatory & prejudicial towards Native Americans Okay, how about... The Whitehawk - can't do that, that's elitist and exclusionary to other races Redhawk? nope, sounds prejudicial to Native Americans Yellowhawk? nope, insulting to Asians Greenhawk? nope, sounds preferential to environmentalists Bluehawk? not recommended, people will say you condone choking other creatures Well, how about The Hawk?? Nope, it will feel exclusionary to other bird species. Okay okay, I guess I'll just call it The Bar... It's interesting that the Government gets all upset that a football team owner calls his team the Redskins yet our government has Apache helicopters, Tomahawk missiles and the operation to kill Osama bin Laden was named Operation Geronimo. Good point! |
|
