logo Sign In

moviefreakedmind

User Group
Members
Join date
22-Jul-2014
Last activity
26-Apr-2023
Posts
8,754

Post History

Post
#1225754
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

flame,

Of course it’s a flame. When people condemn someone for an immutable characteristic, they tend to get flamed. What’s wrong with flaming something that is terrible?

Can’t tell if joking.

No, I’m not. I don’t think that certain opinions are worthy of respect, and those views should be attacked with vitriol.

I think that most people’s religions are repugnant and immoral, but you don’t see me out and about preaching that they’re morally bankrupt and hellbound and bane of the country. You don’t see me out discriminating against people. Why can’t they abstain from that shit too? Whenever someone’s religion starts affecting innocent people, then it’s the religious person that needs to change. Society and everyone in it shouldn’t have to regress in order to wait for all these fundamentalists to catch up with the Civil Rights Act.

Well as I said before, it’s because people disagree. People hold fundamentally different views than you and are equally convinced that they are right.

Of course. I know that, I’m saying that I do not care one little tiny bit about religious people’s “right” to discriminate. The right to discriminate and refuse service to people because of immutable characteristics is not a right that I value.

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

Parents can do whatever they want, but a third-party private adoption service can’t discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics if they have state contracts.

Then those religious organizations may opt to not be involved in adoptions. I don’t know enough about the landscape of the foster system and adoption but I gather it’s not in a great place as it is.

It’s horrible, and keeping kids in that system in order to wait for parents that are less gay to adopt them is repugnant.

Post
#1225744
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

chyron8472 said:

flametitan said:

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2018/7/11/republicans-vote-license-discriminate-against-lgbt-parents

God Dammit America.

I want to actually read the amendment to the referenced bill, because I want to approach this with a balanced opinion, but this article doesn’t cite it. The article doesn’t at all say what bill it was.

Now, because I live in Oklahoma, I clicked on the link in the article that mentioned Oklahoma passing a law that “let welfare agencies discriminate against same-sex couples who want to foster or adopt children.” The linked-to article then immediately starts out with “Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has signed into law a bill allowing faith-based adoption and foster care agencies, even those with state contracts, to turn away prospective parents who pose a conflict with their religious beliefs.”

and… Yes? So? They’re faith-based organizations who hold to certain beliefs, and they want to be selective with regard to parents based on certain principles they hold to.

Well okay then. Moving on.

Then they shouldn’t get state contracts.

Do they? Maybe they shouldn’t.

They do, and they shouldn’t.

flametitan said:

Why should I be denied the right to adopt, the right to be a parent, because of something that doesn’t interfere with them?

You shouldn’t, if it doesn’t, but they think it does.

Honestly, I have really no tolerance for people’s senseless bigotry. I don’t respect anyone’s beliefs that involve condemning the totally innocent lifestyles of others. People that hold those beliefs need to modernize and get with times of the century that they’re living in. If they have a problem with providing a service to people, then they shouldn’t even be in that business. If you’re adopting kids out not because you want those kids to have homes but because you want to put them in homes that you see as compliant with your religious lifestyle then you need to step aside and let someone with a respectable moral compass takeover.

For myself, were I in the position, I would not deny you. But I can see the position of people in these organizations who perceive homosexuality as a harmful lifestyle choice. People often compare it to racism, but I don’t really agree with that comparison. As though all discriminatory activity, or selectivity, is created equal.

This is totally cold comfort. Imagine if I said that I wanted people to be able to discriminate against Christians, and you lived in a shithole that was full of people that didn’t want to serve you because of your religion, and I said, “Well, I personally would never discriminate against you. If I, mfm, were serving you then I wouldn’t discriminate, but I think everyone that wants to should! And you should respect that! You should respect the daycare that doesn’t want to take care of your kid because of your religious differences. You should respect the real-estate agents that won’t sell your property because they are uncomfortable working with you. You should respect the restaurants and bakers that won’t serve you.” What if a Mormon adoption service wouldn’t give kids to black parents or interracial couples back when that Church was super racist? How is that different? It would still have been their shitty religious belief. What if a Muslim agency was refusing to give any orphans or unwanted kids to people that they deemed infidels or apostates? They’re totally allowed to hold those backwards beliefs, but are they allowed to discriminate against people and disrupt their lives because of their shitty beliefs? No! They shouldn’t be anyway.

I do agree that love is love; that people who judge do so out of ignorance of the facts and of the teachings of their own faith; and that even if homosexuality is a sin, it is no more sinful than a myriad of other things people do on a daily basis. And I agree that government support should be called into question.

Called into question? Government support should be revoked immediately. It’s a violation of the separation of church and state for the government to work with discriminatory religious services.

But I don’t believe a baker should be required to bake a wedding cake for someone if he doesn’t want to do it. Doesn’t matter why he doesn’t want to, but if he doesn’t then he shouldn’t have to. If he faces public backlash for it then so be it. He could face backlash for baking bad cake as easily as baking no cake. JEDIT: At the same time, I think respect should also be a thing. The person providing said service should be able to respectfully decline, and the person denied the service should respect their choice. Either party getting pissy about it is juvenile.

I really hate this line of thinking. Why should the person denied service be expected to respect that service’s choice? I don’t believe that anyone should respect the asshole that wants to discriminate against them. Should all those black people have respected the diners that respectfully told them they didn’t want them their? The cook at that diner really didn’t want black people there, and it’s his business! What if, instead of a wedding cake, it was some Christian that didn’t want any same-sex couples staying in his hotel? Where do you draw the line? If someone fucks me or you over because of their bullshit philosophy, then we should get pissy about it! The gay people getting angry over being denied service are not the equivalent of the Christian getting backlash over denying them service. Just like the Civil Rights Movement was not juvenile for fighting back against the racist assholes that were denying black people services.

Mrebo said:

flame,

Of course it’s a flame. When people condemn someone for an immutable characteristic, they tend to get flamed. What’s wrong with flaming something that is terrible? I think that most people’s religions are repugnant and immoral, but you don’t see me out and about preaching that they’re morally bankrupt and hellbound and bane of the country. You don’t see me out discriminating against people. Why can’t they abstain from that shit too? Whenever someone’s religion starts affecting innocent people, then it’s the religious person that needs to change. Society and everyone in it shouldn’t have to regress in order to wait for all these fundamentalists to catch up with the Civil Rights Act.

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

Parents can do whatever they want, but a third-party private adoption service can’t discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics if they have state contracts.

Post
#1225742
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

The religious freedom to discriminate isn’t something I respect at all. If you as an adoption agency have a state contract then you have no right to deny anyone for religious reasons. Honestly, there’s a pretty good argument that anyone who is refusing to allow kids to have a home because they don’t like the parents’ harmless lifestyles shouldn’t even be in the adoption service to begin with.

Post
#1225245
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

DominicCobb said:

snooker said:

I really could come out whenever I want but I don’t want to deal with people being all overly supportive like ‘we’ll support you’ like no shit, Mom, you grew up near the Castro.

Maybe go casual and just start acting as if they already know, like you came out to them months ago and they just forgot.

Yeah, do this. You’re under no obligation to actively inform anyone in your life of your orientation.

Post
#1225244
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I used to do this a lot where I’d take the most obviously insane and dumbass example of a group’s stupidity no matter how obscure and present it as though it’s a representation of the group I’m against. I’m trying not to do it anymore. Even the most oppressive strands of feminism in mainstream discourse are not presenting anything resembling “kill all men.”

Post
#1225069
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Handman said:

I’m taking a few classes over the summer, and one of them is this required communications course. Today, the teacher mentioned how a misogynist disagreed with a feminist’s position to “kill all men”. And yet… I feel like any rational human being would disagree with that.

Needless to say, I find it very difficult to take this teacher seriously.

That teacher sounds like a stupid pile of shit. And yes, rational human beings don’t agree with killing all men.

Post
#1224988
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Mrebo said:

mfm, somehow you’re arguing against what I didn’t post.

Forgive me for not understanding the most incomprehensible person in this thread.

This didn’t start because you criticized Trump. This started with your accusation that Jay supports Trump and/or is unclear for not saying bad things about Trump when discussing a policy choice.

That isn’t why I said that. I said he is obviously pro-Trump to an extent because he deflects criticism of Trump to other people that are often irrelevant to the criticism almost all the time. I gave you many examples of how this is the case but you ignored all of them, which is a trend I’m seeing a lot in this thread.

I emphasized that obviously I’m not saying you shouldn’t criticize Trump. Do it to your heart’s content. But don’t demand others do so or insist they’re pro-Trump if they don’t. That is what we’re talking about.

You’re obviously saying that too much or too harsh of criticism of Trump is somehow objectionable. I had a similar argument with Warbler when he was more concerned about the feelings of Catholics than the protests against Pope John Paul II over his role in the child-rape scandals in the Roman Catholic Church. He felt that too harsh or too mean of a criticism of that man for allowing priests to rape children repeatedly was inappropriate because it would offend Catholics. I didn’t call him a Pope John Paul II supporter but I think I did call him a Pope John Paul II apologist or something. There’s a difference between the two. I didn’t say Jay was a Trump supporter or even that he was pro-Trump. I said he had an obvious pro-Trump bias, and he does. I have an anti-Trump bias, but I don’t pretend otherwise.

The idea that every discussion of current policy boils down to being pro-Trump or anti-Trump is the obsession I’m addressing.

I never said that. The point I was addressing was that redirecting every bad thing Trump does to someone else is a form of Trump apologetics. It really shouldn’t even be controversial. A lot of liberals did it with Obama. Whenever he’d do something totally illiberal there was always an excuse for it from center-right Democrats pretending to be liberals. Now it’s happening with Trump.

Post
#1224844
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

That’s exactly the kind of shit I’m talking about. He’s the fucking President of the United States. Accusing me, or anyone, of being obsessed with him because we comment on news stories regarding him is fucking ridiculous. How about this: “You’re just obsessed with mankind because you’re always talking about people!” See how ridiculous that is? Why the fuck is it an obsession to frequently talk about the President of the United States in the politics thread? How much am I allowed to criticize one of the most important people on earth right now before it’s an “unhealthy obsession”? The rest of your post was total gibberish to my eyes so I can’t respond to it. I have no idea what you’re getting at by claiming my argument is that Jay needs to break down his views on the handling of sexual assault cases. That wasn’t my argument at all. In fact, that summary of my argument is so off-base that I’m not even sure if you read my post. I have no clue what you’re talking about so I can’t give any kind of response to the rest of your post. I would if I knew what you were talking about but, like many of your posts, I simply don’t understand what you’re saying so I can’t address it. Anyway, your accusation of me having a Trump obsession is absurd. I guess from now on in this thread I’ll just discuss more relevant people like the mayor of Oklahoma City or the county judge in Helena, Montana.

Post
#1224797
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s hard to tell given his near universal unwillingness to actually put his opinions forward in this thread. I have to make educated guesses and since he has an obvious pro-Trump bias, I didn’t take that observation as though it was a criticism.

Jay has put his opinions out there front and center. And I see no pro-Trump bias.

I don’t understand how you couldn’t see it. The refusal to acknowledge most of the President’s faults is a pro-Trump bias in my opinion.

As Jay suggested it’s tedious and unnecessary to constantly criticise Trump. I call that preservation of sanity, not bias.

That’s Trump apologia. This man is the powerful person on the planet. Constantly talking about him, whether it’s criticism or not, is totally reasonable. How is it unnecessary to criticize the bad decisions made by the President? It’s not like we’re constantly talking about Alex Jones or Roy Moore or someone comparatively irrelevant.

Jay doesn’t like what the Obama Administration did under Title IX and so he liked the reversal of the policy under Trump. It doesn’t follow that he has a pro-Trump bias or that he doesn’t believe there are better alternative policies.

It’s not just that that makes him have a pro-Trump bias. I came to that conclusion because he has redirected every single criticism of Trump that I and others have brought up either to a previous administration or to something else. For example, the terrible environmental policy of Trump gets redirected to how Obama had a legacy of executive orders so now it’s getting reversed. Trump demanding a safe space in the theatre for Mike Pence gets redirected to some vague and mysterious and irrelevant-to-this-example “hypocrisy” on the left. Trump’s refusal to disavow white supremacists gets redirected to Obama supposedly not disavowing black supremacists. The fascist and inhumane immigration policies of Trump get watered down and dishonestly redirected to Obama and previously existing policy even though it’s been pointed out to him many times that Trump’s family separation policy isn’t a carry-over from previous administrations. The list goes on and on. You not seeing the pro-Trump, pro-rightwing bias is due to your inability to perceive it, not to it being nonexistent.