patrick.net

Dan8267 says

This is a culture war. The side opposing gay marriage does not want homosexuality to exist at all, would criminalize it if they could, and they want homosexuals to be a second-class citizen with inferior rights.

Is that true? I'm not aware of any serious proposal to criminalize homosexual behavior. I'm also not aware of any serious attempt to take away (for example) the right to vote, free speech, etc based on sexual activities.

I could be wrong, can you give examples?

I think much of the opposition to gay marriage comes from fear (rational or not) that government will interfere with "religious freedom" and religious marriages.

They're asking to have their degenerate minority lifestyle to be catered to and excused as being normal at the expense of the majority.

That is asking for special treatment.

edvard2 says

MershedPerturders says

in other words gay people get special treatment.

foxmannumber1 says

It would save everyone a lot of time if they just made a policy that explicitly states preferential treatment for anyone who isn't a straight white male instead of having to name every other person that isn't a straight white male.

Nobody is asking for being treated special here. They are seeking if anything- the same rights that everyone else has. So that is nothing special at all. Its the same rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution. Those whom disagree seem confused by presenting double standards.

That's the tag line. The reality of these laws is indeed special treatment. If a gay Asian guy is rejected for a job at Marie Calendar's, he can sue for possible discrimination. If a poor white kid is rejected for a job at the Won Ton Palace because he can't speak Mandarin, he has no such recourse. That's the very definition of special treatment.

Quigley says

The reality of these laws is indeed special treatment.

Liar.

Sec. 2-550. - Non-Discrimination Policy.

(a) It shall be the general policy of the City of San Antonio to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability, as set forth in the Divisions following, unless exempted by state or federal law or as otherwise indicated.

Disingenuous. It is the implicit policy of all government to hire and fire based on "diversity" and not merit.

10 normal white males show up as the best candidates for 10 jobs. They will not all be hired. There will be less qualified women and browns hired instead to fill a quota that a lawyer says won't get them sued. This directly affects the livelihood of the straight white males. It is an insult to his previous achievements and possibly decades of work reduced to nothing because of his sex and/or race.

10 current employees need to be let go due to downsizing. It would make sense to fire low productivity employees or eliminate redundant positions. This will not be the case. A lawyer will be checking the race/sex/whatever of those being let go before anything happens to make sure they won't get sued. If they must fire a nonwhite, you can believe a white person will be fired as well to keep the quota in balance. A nonwhite with a previous complaint to HR about discrimination, with merit to the claim or not, is far less likely to be let go than a normal white male.

Some of you seem incapable of comprehending what this particular post about. I believe finehoe made is rather crystal, by actually posting the law above, which if any of you read simply states that there is not to be any discrimination and that goes not just for race or sexual orientation, but age, military past experience, and so on. So that is an ALL-INCLUSIVE statement.

Some of you seem hell-bent on trying to make this into an argument that it isn't. This is about overall general rights for all. Duh!

edvard2 says

Some of you seem incapable of comprehending what this particular post about.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

-John Stuart Mill

False.

Anti discrimination laws are about maintaining racial quotas that the powers that be created.

The USA already has equal opportunity, but what they really want is equal outcome regardless of ability. Without forced equal outcome, people would come up with reasons why there are disparities in achievement between the races and sexes.

There is an ugly, factually correct scientific answer to that question that the PC crowd won't even allow to be asked.

foxmannumber1 says

Anti discrimination laws are about maintaining racial quotas that the powers that be created.

Dude, not sure how much easier it is to make it. Read the law above. The law is so blatantly all-encompassing... as in this covers not only all races, but all religions, all age groups, and all former associations with the military.

Your argument that somehow anti discrimination causes problem is a joke. Its written in our US Constitution that all men are created equal, and furthermore we do not formerly recognize any particular religion as the religion of the country, meaning all religion is respected and you can practice as you please but the government has nothing to do with it.

Either way, keep right on trying with your lame straw man argument. Its wrong in any sense of the word anyway.

foxmannumber1 says

There is an ugly, factually correct scientific answer to that question that the PC crowd won't even allow to be asked.

You of course are too dense to see the irony of calling something "PC" in response to an article about people booing someone (a wounded veteran no less) who has a different opinion than they do.

As I've explained above with real life situations, anti discrimination laws are for the detriment of the normal straight white male. It is complete racial and sexual discrimination against straight white males.

The world the constitution was created in was 100% white European. They did not feel they had to define 'men' for something so obvious and ingrained in everyone at the time.

The forefathers could not imagine a world of racial diversity because no racially diverse nation existed at the time. They all fail due to natural tension between 2 or more genetically different groups.

The USA is held together as a semi diverse nation because of fiat money backed by the worlds largest and best military. If the USA becomes less than 50% whites of European decent, the USA will cease to exist.

mell says

What's worse though is that Bradley Manning gets 35 years in prison from your beloved administration (I am sure most Republicans are on board with this as well though)

Yeah, Obama has become the worst president ever, taking the prize from Bush. If Obama had any integrity at all, he would have pardon Manning and awarded him the Medal of Honor.

Luckily most Democrats in office aren't as evil as Obama. Unfortunately, most Republicans are.

Dan8267 says

mell says

What's worse though is that Bradley Manning gets 35 years in prison from your beloved administration (I am sure most Republicans are on board with this as well though)

Yeah, Obama has become the worst president ever, taking the prize from Bush. If Obama had any integrity at all, he would have pardon Manning and awarded him the Medal of Honor.

Luckily most Democrats in office aren't as evil as Obama. Unfortunately, most Republicans are.

The Libertarians and libertarian republicans mostly stand with the whistleblowers and for civil liberties though.

foxmannumber1 says

The world the constitution was created in was 100% white European. They did not feel they had to define 'men' for something so obvious and ingrained in everyone at the time.

The forefathers could not imagine a world of racial diversity because no racially diverse nation existed at the time. They all fail due to natural tension between 2 or more genetically different groups.

Oh, I see, so now you're basically saying that the writers of the Constitution were full of it and that the document isn't legit? How fitting. In that case I would also assume that you feel the same about the second amendment as well, seeing as how back then people actually had to use guns to hunt and obtain food but now we get all of our food from the grocery store. So glad that the constitution is apparently open to loose interpretation to fit whatever political ideology someone has. Brilliant!

foxmannumber1 says

If the USA becomes less than 50% whites of European decent, the USA will cease to exist.

This is the silliest thing I've read. California has the 7th largest economy in the world if it were a foreign country. Over half of the population is of minority origin and a large number of the largest companies here were founded by immigrants.

Stop making this about race because it isn't. Besides, the article above was about a US vet getting booed at. That was the subject of this post and instead of focusing on that, a lot of people here decided to get right down to the whole race thing.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, Obama has become the worst president ever, taking the prize from Bush.

I just read that today is actually opposite day. In that case I concur with your statement.

edvard2 says

Oh, I see, so now you're basically saying that the writers of the Constitution were full of it and that the document isn't legit?

No. I'm saying your definition of 'men' differs from theirs.

CA is a poor example of racial harmony. It is also extreme financial trouble and is being propped up by the government's fiat money. The money is being produced by whites and Asians in CA, not blacks or latinos. Those non Asian minorities are a huge expense to the government because they can't take care of themselves.

Every problem in the USA has a racial component to it. Many problems would cease to exist or be greatly lessened if the USA was still 85% white as it was until the 1960's.

I find your argument to be sad and utterly backwards. Thus I see no reason to continue debating with you. Guess what? Its not 1960 anymore.

If I'm reading the original Huffington Post article correctly, the only evidence of booing was described by Alva(the vet) in a Facebook post. Before getting all worked up over this, I would think people would like to hear evidence of the booing from the many witnesses at the event, other than just from the self perceived victim.

The link goes to a site with pro gay agenda right on the header, who took a story from HuffPost then put a piece forward that they would probably even admit was not very objective

lakermania says

Before getting all worked up over this, I would think people would like to hear evidence of the booing from the many witnesses at the event

Well, there is a precedent:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/debate-crowd-booed-gay-soldier/

edvard2 says

foxmannumber1 says

Anti discrimination laws are about maintaining racial quotas that the powers that be created.

Dude, not sure how much easier it is to make it. Read the law above. The law is so blatantly all-encompassing... as in this covers not only all races, but all religions, all age groups, and all former associations with the military.

Your argument that somehow anti discrimination causes problem is a joke. Its written in our US Constitution that all men are created equal, and furthermore we do not formerly recognize any particular religion as the religion of the country, meaning all religion is respected and you can practice as you please but the government has nothing to do with it.

Either way, keep right on trying with your lame straw man argument. Its wrong in any sense of the word anyway.

It's not written in our Constitution that men are created equal. That's from the Declaration of Independence, and was never either a true or a binding statement. Just flowery egalitarian language for the purpose of aggrandizing a document of secession.
Humans are clearly not equal in virtually any regard. Whether in innate gifts or bequeathed power, they are not equal. Their situations are not equal. Their choices are not equal.
The first rule of life is simply this: "life's not fair."
Get used to it.

Quigley says

It's not written in our Constitution that men are created equal. That's from the Declaration of Independence, and was never either a true or a binding statement. Just flowery egalitarian language for the purpose of aggrandizing a document of secession.

Humans are clearly not equal in virtually any regard. Whether in innate gifts or bequeathed power, they are not equal. Their situations are not equal. Their choices are not equal.

The first rule of life is simply this: "life's not fair."

Get used to it.

I have no clue what you are trying to say other than it also smells generally of the same lameness as some of the other comments have alluded to in an attempt to skirt the issue. Once more, you seem to somehow easily confuse the matter here. Do you or do you not agree that all Americans deserve equal rights? Yes or no. That is the matter here.

The topic of the pro gay website is an anti discrimination law that is not about equal rights. It is about taking natural rights from the straight white male citizens who are descendants of the straight white males who created the USA and those that legally immigrated to the USA.

On that level, I do not support "equal rights" for all Americans because it is disingenuous and false in this case.

Edvard2 says, "I have no clue what you are trying to say"

Should you really advertise your lack of reading comprehension when trying to win a written argument? Seems to me as if that would undermine whatever point you were trying to make. My words were clear, concise, and eloquent. Any well educated person would be able to understand them.

Quigley says

Should you really advertise your lack of reading comprehension when trying to win a written argument? Seems to me as if that would undermine whatever point you were trying to make. My words were clear, concise, and eloquent. Any well educated person would be able to understand them.

Seems to me that you should form an actual response to a response that isn't nonsense before you claim victory. Your words don't mean much when the thoughts they are supposedly representing are rather pointless and wrong to begin with. Lastly- you failed to answer my question. You did so of course because in answering it that would have basically made your entire argument moot. So I'm waiting. Answer the question I stated above.foxmannumber1 says

It is about taking natural rights from the straight white male citizens who are descendants of the straight white males who created the USA and those that legally immigrated to the USA.

I'm sorry, but whatever conspiracy you're trying to make out of this is really bizzare. Go back to watching your FOX news, " foxmannumber1"

It's not bizarre at all. I think it's plain as day.

The government tells you they want to end discrimination of sex/race/whatever by discriminating against straight white males.

It's doublespeak that the average person doesn't question as long as they get theirs.

foxmannumber1 says

The government tells you they want to end discrimination of sex/race/whatever by discriminating against straight white males.

But they're not fucking discriminating against straight white males. Gah!!!!

10 normal white males show up as the best candidates for 10 jobs. They will not all be hired. There will be less qualified women and browns hired instead to fill a quota that a lawyer says won't get them sued. This directly affects the livelihood of the straight white males. It is an insult to his previous achievements and possibly decades of work reduced to nothing because of his sex and/or race.

10 current employees need to be let go due to downsizing. It would make sense to fire low productivity employees or eliminate redundant positions. This will not be the case. A lawyer will be checking the race/sex/whatever of those being let go before anything happens to make sure they won't get sued. If they must fire a nonwhite, you can believe a white person will be fired as well to keep the quota in balance. A nonwhite with a previous complaint to HR about discrimination, with merit to the claim or not, is far less likely to be let go than a normal white male.

Explain how the above is factually false or incorrect.

blah blah blah blah blah.... The same crap I've heard for years from conservatives. Nothing new or nothing factual here to back up this. Moving on...

But anyway, WTF does this have to do with the article above? Do you think it was a good thing that a veteran was booed at a public event?

Going in circles. I'm out.

Edvard2 says, "Seems to me that you should form an actual response to a response that isn't nonsense before you claim victory. Your words don't mean much when the thoughts they are supposedly representing are rather pointless and wrong to begin with. Lastly- you failed to answer my question. You did so of course because in answering it that would have basically made your entire argument moot. So I'm waiting. Answer the question I stated above"

The question was silly, of course I believe that people should be granted equal rights and protections under government. But this does not make them equal! It never has and it never will. You can't legislate equality any more than you can demand that your pet goldfish learn to ride a bicycle! All you can do is give people the same protections, encourage behaviors that enhance this, and wait for culture to catch up. There's a lot of inertia to culture. It doesn't like to change, not quickly, and certainly not just because some pointy-headed politician passes a law.

Quigley says

The question was silly, of course I believe that people should be granted equal rights and protections under government. But this does not make them equal! It never has and it never will. You can't legislate equality any more than you can demand that your pet goldfish learn to ride a bicycle!

You are taking this out of context entirely. You need to understand what the statement " That all men are created equal" was meant in its original statement. That statement was to proclaim that all men are entitled to the same rights as others regardless of their background, race, or religion. As such the statements I made before still stand. Either way, I tire of this silly debate. I've wasted enough time already.

"On second thought, let us NOT go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place."

You use the word minority when referring to race in government policy. A more accurate word to use is 'nonwhite'. They seriously mean 'everyone but Whites' when using the word minority.

It's simply a fact that nonwhites are given 'points' in the hiring process. Any HR person knows they need minorities on the payroll or risk a shakedown. This is a de facto racial quota system. It is another fact that no government agency is all White males anymore, even though White males show the highest aptitude to virtually any job.

If the Forest Service really is all female and nonwhite males as you claim, I think we're on the same page that straight White males are discriminated against in their own country.

10 blacks are barely qualified to tie their own shoes. Speaking, reading and writing proper English is a rare trait for a black even today, much less 1960. There will always be a more qualified and willing straight White male out there for a job that hires any black. Those 10 "qualified" blacks would simply be told to go away in reality.

Your claims of murder or violence by Whites on blacks for applying for a job is ludicrous. Even modern Hollywood, who loves to rewrite history to show blacks are noble and intelligent figures who simply want to be equal to Whites don't go as far as you. Not yet anyway.

Even with the racist policies in place, straight White males still come out on top. The reason boils down to genetic intelligence.
American Whites have an average IQ of 100. American blacks have an average IQ of 85. You simply can't expect someone with an IQ of 85 to do a job that requires an IQ of 100.

The government's only option at that point is to dumb down the job so an 85 IQ person can do it, or hire both an 85 IQ black and a 100 IQ White and make the White person do the work while claiming a team effort. This tactic is very common.

Some jobs simply can't be dumbed down that far and remain White only. Scientific fields are one of them that remain largely White and Asian.

If you want to group average intelligence by race, it should be noted that whites are only middle of the pack. In order: Arabs>Indians>Asians>Jews at the top.
Plenty of "minority" ranks above white people in intelligence. Making this about race isn't the way to go. I suspect our views on this are very very far apart.

I disagree about Arab and Indian intelligence being greater than Whites. So do many others. They are too closely mixed with sub Saharan Africans to have a high IQ.

East Asians have an average IQ of 107. Whites have an average IQ of 100. Mestizo/latino/Hispanics have an average IQ of 90. American blacks, Indians and Arabs have an average IQ of 85. Purebred sub Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70.

It is 100% about race. Whites conquered the world and created modern civilization that is used as the model for prosperity and social order. Some are trying to disrupt what came about naturally by trying to make unequal races equal.

finehoe says

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

-John Stuart Mill

Replace the word stupid with "white racists" and it's even more true (if that's possible).

Although pretty close to all white racists are stupid people.

foxmannumber1 says

East Asians have an average IQ of 107. Whites have an average IQ of 100. Mestizo/latino/Hispanics have an average IQ of 90. American blacks, Indians and Arabs have an average IQ of 85. Purebred sub Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70.

This is such bs. There are too many different types of intelligence and intelligence is too complex to be represented by a single number.

And even if it could be represented by a single number, that would not be a number that you could determine with a some man made timed multiple choice test (or not timed and MC for that matter).

WE call people like John Lennon, or Vincent Vangogh, or Mozart geniuses(because they were). But as far as we know they didn't put their time and efforts in to developing skills and their minds in ways that would help them score well on IQ tests.

Consider Einstein. I'm sure he would have scored well on IQ tests. But not well enough to represent the creative genius involved in figuring out the things he did.

foxmannumber1 says

straight White males are discriminated against in their own country

That's an interesting perspective, and a strong hint that we aren't going to get on the same page on this one (I'm not sure we are reading the same book).

We could talk about the inherent cultural bias in IQ tests, but I suspect you wouldn't be moved. We could consider the historical context, both in this country and more broadly, but you would, I suspect, remain unmoved. Probably the best thing would be for you to go out into the world and interact with people from all backgrounds with an open mind - you might be surprised. I work with people all over the world, and what I have found is that my biases and assumptions are often shown to be wrong -- sometimes it's even a little startling when I am forced to admit that I had a bias I wasn't aware of.

You are probably right about some of the hiring practices that you describe. You are probably right about incompetent people getting or keeping jobs in part because of how they fit into some quota system. You are certainly right that there is unfairness in the world. I challenge you to go out there, open your eyes and allow your assumptions to be challenged. You might be surprised at how may stupid white people you encounter, and how many black people who can run circles around you. Is every race or ethnicity exactly equal? No, certainly not. Does that mean that an individual's ability is defined by their skin color? Certainly you don't believe that, do you?

Cultural bias in IQ test was proven false many decades ago. An IQ test is the best measure of intelligence that the modern world has come up with. If you know of another, better, measure of intelligence then please let us know.
'Historical context' is just another way to blame Whites for black failure. All of your experiences are anecdotal and therefore worthless.

Once you start dealing in anecdotal evidence you ignore what matters on a large scale: the average.

No one is saying that all whites are smarter than all blacks. No one is saying that there are no intelligent blacks. There are simply not many intelligent blacks in the world. The Bell Curve graph is one of the most important pieces of scientific fact from the 20th century.

Opening my eyes and allow your assumptions to be challenged is literally an extreme waste of time and just creates a potential victim. All the life social interaction and life experiences a white person wants can be had from other whites. The quality of such life will be better when dealing with other whites that share common blood, history and life goals.

More often than not, prejudging a person will be correct and statistically those that prejudge will be safer and have a better quality of life.

For instance, I know that Whites are unsafe walking down the street of a black ghetto. I am prejudging everyone in that neighborhood as a violent criminal. It's better for Whites simply to avoid the blacks altogether.

I don't believe that race is simply a difference in skin color. I believe it is much more than skin color. One of the many other genetic, physical differences between the races is intelligence.

Intelligence can change so much in a couple short generations depending on who reproduces with whom and what their priorities are in choosing a mate.

I don't have time to go in to it further here, but this is why you are wrong.

foxmannumber1 says

One of the many other genetic, physical differences between the races is intelligence.

Even if it were true, it's not significant compared to how much you can affect the intelligence of your kids by who you mate with (within same race for the sake of argument) and the type of attention you give the kids.

THese things are affected by the culture a group is allowed to be a part of.

The differences you want to believe are there are a snapshot you take from a flawed frame of reference.