- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Map, you want to find the truth. This is stated with some belligerency, do so, who is stopping you?
Post up when it is found.
There are founders of philosophies, and there are movements. For example: Darwin and evolution, Marx and communism, Mohammed and Islam, Rand and Objectivism. Maybe bad stuff happens as a result of the movement, one view says is will turn out ok, or will later be shown to be correct, or the followers have distorted the words of the founder. With a discrepancy between the words of the founder and actions of the movement it can be asked- who is right? How to form an opinion? Try "By their fruits shall you know them".
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand...
And what about Alan Greenspans's mismanagement of the Federal Reserve, and his dogmatic belief that free markets would always self-correct, despite all evidence to the contrary?
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...
A good example of it being better to judge by experience rather than by claimed capability.
I am not aware that there is an economic theory in which free markets automatically and quickly self-correct. It is clear that government intervention is a cause of collapse and does not assist recovery whatever the cause. Perhaps institutions like the Fed from their very nature cannot be managed well and it would be better not to have them. Economic libertarianism is not convincing to me. What I am convinced of is that implementing the ideas of Marx and Keynes lead to disaster.
Likewise, "rights" are an individual matter. Constantly, especially on the left, the issue of "group rights" keeps coming up. As if one's rights were a matter of what categories one could be pigeon-holed into by others (or even by oneself). The very notion of group-based rights is antithetical to the idea of individuality.
Today, Stacey Dash (sigh) got a nasty twitter message (I guess he deleted it because I can't find it now) basically telling her to stop retweeting certain people because she's black and should act like it. Refusing to accept her as an individual, but only as a member of a pre-conceived "group".
That's what this bs is all about. Not simply lumping people into groups, but people *wanting* to be lumped into groups for the perceived power it gains them.
At the 20th Century factory, hard work and creativity didn't gain you anything; because your pay wasn't based on ability but on need. Likewise, political capital isn't made today based upon merit, but upon victimhood. Everyone at the 20th century had to declare their hardships, because that's what got them the alms. In the real world of American society, victimhood gets people the alms.
By the way, thanks for proving me right.
This is an interesting comment and should not have been voted down.
However, I disagree with it on two grounds:
1. I suggest that the correct word here is not persecution but discrimination. Once this is illegal an Italian restaurant cannot advertise for Italian staff. It leads to absurdity and bullying. Should it be ok or should it be illegal to employ anyone but Italians? The quick answer is that there is already a tax (a fine) on employers who do that- it is the penalty they pay for not employing the best person. The market does that better than government. Now, you will recall some time ago on here there was report of a study on discrimination in employment - it exists, the biggest offenders were government and regulated industry. There, employment criteria give preference to being likeable, fitting in, members of the club, and so on. Actual performance is less important than a pleasant environment with like minded fellows. There is no market mechanism to fine the guilty. Ok, here, short of abolishing government and regulated industry, there should be regulations to ensure the best person gets the job. (The technical term is market failure). Libertarians would disagree with me here. I think you will find there are such already in place, they do not work very well. Often there are quotas to make it seem to be 'fair'. Any quota works in favor of some and against others.
2. Racial etc. persecution does exist, the amount of it today in your and my country I'd guess to be negligible. But what is persecution? Violence is already illegal. Gangs of toughs beat up that group, businesses are confiscated, they are monitored more closely for infringement of laws.
The successful Chinese businessman is 'invited' to play a game of golf with the general or the mayor. They voluntarily agree to bet on the game, big. For 'health' he had better lose. This does not happen here, but in a nation not far away. Ethnic small businesses are targeted to pay protection money -often by gangs of the same ethnicity. All this should be, and already is, illegal.
When there is a group being specifically persecuted in this way, no special law is needed to stop it. Once it was Italians, Jews, Blacks, now gays. The law needed should not be discriminatory- for or against, I agree that there are often enforcement problems, the local police could then be given guidance on how to allocate resources. Attempts to inflict on police recruitment the usual meaningless personality tests favor only the con-artists, selection by quota degrades overall performance.
In summary of my long boring post- bad stuff exists. Big government actions usually make things worse.
Sorry, "gays" doesn't fit.
Once upon a time, sheepherders were persecuted. Today, tobacco smokers are even more persecuted.
I'm sorry, but Maph has burned out my giveashit.
How LGBTs seem to be defending Islamists - the mind boggles!
Which is as illegal to do towards Bob the Individual as it is towards Bob the Christian (or Bob the Black, or Bob the LGBT....)
:)
The CRA just affected our ability to freely associate and it got involved in commerce telling us how we could hire. Now we have commissions making it their business our business, and other Acts which elevate the needs of some over everyone elses 's needs /desires. I don 't hire based on skin color, religion or sexual orientation. But thats what the Equal Opportunity Act wants. It actually incentivises protected groups by giving them special privleges for govt contracts over individuals. Shouldn 't this be the exact opposite? No discrimination. But that 's not the case. If you are in a protected group you get a preferred status for state /city /fed contracts. It 's not red herrings, it 's what the Act has lead to. Making it a valid point to bring up. The CRA and EOA have no place as a stakeholder in my decicion -making. That is not synonomous with being a racist bigot whatever
Therefore, the entire 1964 Civil Rights act is based upon a false premise.
For another example, watch this video from Texas where a religious pastor tries to argue that freedom of religion gives her the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians, transgender people, and Jews in her business:
Houston Pastor Says Religious Freedom Means the Right to Discriminate Against Gays, Jews:
http://tfninsider.org/2014/05/16/houston...
This is what opposition to Civil Rights looks like today. Those who support bigotry and prejudice have learned to cloak themselves in the language of their victims. But the smoke screen is easily penetrated by anyone who actually understands how persecution works, as seen in the above video where the woman accidentally steps out from behind her mental screen and speaks clearly for a moment, before retreating back behind the veil of language.
How are homosexuals not male or female like everyone else?
How are the existing rights for all human beings not applicable to homosexuals?
I repeat as I've said all along... homosexuals can get married, just like heterosexuals can; they have the same onus and restrictions.
If I wish to get married, I have to find a willing (unmarried) member of the opposite sex.
If I have a "right" to marry whomever I love... there are a number of women out there one of whom is going to have to be coerced into marrying me in order for me to act upon my "right".
Answer the questions:
1) What is the function of the reproductive organs?
2) What is the function of romantic feelings?
If you can answer those two questions honestly, it becomes obvious that people suffering from LGBT have an abnormality.
---
Actually, yes it does. The very definition of the word "natural" is something that has its origins in nature. And nothing could be a bigger part of nature than genetics and biology.
Explain how it is biologically normal or essential?
Homosexuality is indefinable not natural despite how much you'd like it to be (Parts don't line up for any conceivable biological purpose, remember?)
Also, NEWSFLASH: Neither society nor I have to like or even approve of anything you or I do. This is the homosexual agenda: to force acceptance of their unnatural deviation. You make that point perfectly clear in your words.
Explain how homosexuality has a biological purpose or is essential to the propagation of the species?
There is a common misconception that "natural" is equivalent with "common." Nothing could be further from the truth, as nature is in control of both common and uncommon characteristics. The fact that a particular trait is uncommon does not in any way make it unnatural.
Sexual orientation is controlled by biology, and therefore must be subject to mutation and deviation, just like every other aspect of biology.
_________________
"I don’t really have a word “artificial” ...I don’t really have a word “unnatural.” I say, “if nature permits it, it is natural if nature doesn’t permit it, you can’t do it.” You may not be familiar with the fact that nature allows that, but the fact of your unfamiliarity doesn’t make it unnatural. If it is unfamiliar to us we tend to say it is artificial or unnatural."
— R. Buckminster Fuller
There is nothing natural or biologically productive about homosexuality. While its origin may be some type of biological imbalance or deficiency it does nothing to propagate the species. Homosexuality is either an imbalance or deficiency OR it is a human choice to deviate form the gene pool.
This is a REALITY that no amount of agenda can spin.
Even so, homosexuals are MEN and WOMEN are entitled to the same rights as every other man and woman. To provide RIGHTS for sexual preference (biological or otherwise) is ridiculous and invites chaos.
Yes, yes and YES! Can we please kill the topic now and lay it to rest?
Unlike the LGBT people you campaign for with the religious fervor of a true acolyte, we religious people ARE a protected class, specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, with our activities listed first in that shopping list of rights and privileges.
As a man interested in science (but not blinded by it's limitations) I know and understand the meaning of the term "cull" and "mule" as expressed in genetics. Perhaps you might want to examine that as a part of your "open minded research" into sexuality.
"we religious people ARE a protected class, specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, with our activities listed first in that shopping list of rights and privileges."
I'm not sure where you get that? But, I'll start another post regarding this...
This is NOT about protecting groups-this is specific to individuals' rights. Please read the first part of the clause....PROHIBITS the making of a law respecting an establishment of religion
Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, private businesses could have legally discriminated against you for your religious beliefs all they wanted. The First Amendment provides no protection against that.
This is true.
"That's why religious belief needed to be specifically mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that *is* directed at the people. "
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is NOT part of the Constitution, it is in violation of the Constitution.
Reread the 1st Amendment.
If I say that someone needs legal protection, pointing out that they don't already have it doesn't refute my argument.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
How are homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, etc not male or female and not protected with the same rights as everyone else as set forth by the Constitution?
Freedom means the right to discriminate against anyone, for any reason whatsoever.
Granted, they both hold the potential to be taken to excessive and harmful extremes, but to do away with either of them completely would be harmful in a different way.
Check your premise.
Where is it written that health, safety and fairness must be ensured? Certainly not in "nature". The Founding Fathers demanded liberty or death, not liberty or health, safety and fairness.
And either there is no freedom to enslave others, or there is freedom to enslave others. You can't make exceptions for what YOU think are noble causes.
I find that interesting. You are in favor of using government coercion to force people to behave in ways in which they do not wish to... the very definition of slavery.
Sometimes it is, but I think the most common substantive meaning is paying for private goods with public monies. A private good is something like housing b/c the use of a house could be denied to those who don't pay for it. A public good is something like policing b/c there's no way to exclude those who'd rather not have the benefit of policing. The problem comes when the gov't pays for something that proponents say benefits everyone (e.g. providing education, propping up the financial system). When critics scream, “but that's socialism!!” what I think they're saying is, “this is not a public good like policing.”
“disturbing trend I've noticed among the Tea Party is that they almost universally oppose Civil Rights, especially equal rights for the LGBT community”
Almost universally? I wonder if there are any surveys. This could be true, but it doesn't ring true. You'd think they'd want the govt to leave LGBT people alone.
"The problem comes when the gov't pays for something that proponents say benefits everyone (e.g. providing education, propping up the financial system). When critics scream, “but that's socialism!!” what I think they're saying is, “this is not a common good, like policing.” "
Maph operates under a false premise; that the "LGBT" community is fundamentally and uniquely different from everyone else. This is like saying that the left-handed are fundamentally and uniquely different from everyone else.
He can only represent this by painting with a broad brush and lumping both appetites and genetic anomalies together, using the latter to mask the former.
But in spite of that, the fact remains that the LGBT community faces disproportionate persecution in society, and because of that there need to be special protections put in place. You can't blame people for trying to use the law to defend themselves when they're under attack.
It's not persecution to refuse to reverse the entire definition of western cultural evolutionary history, to ignore the reality of the nature of homo sapiens, to ignore the most basic and simple logic, in order to make members of the LGBT not-feel different or abnormal.
I DON'T CARE ANYMORE. No, I don't mean I'm indifferent; I mean screw them. To hell with them. There are individuals in this society who EVERY SINGLE FREAKING DAY have to deal with being different, who have to deal with being defectively different, even. They get up in the morning, the deal with it, they go to bed at night. They don't give up, they don't whine to every ear within hearing about how rough they have it, or how it's somebody else's fault because somebody else won't be put out and change his normalness just to make them feel better.
Bang your drum all you like; I'm not listening. Keep banging your drum, and the LGBT "community" will be dealt with the same way any other spoiled child is dealt with when his mother has had enough of his acting up.
---
Yes they do. Sticking your head in the sand and denying reality won't change the facts.
Would this include the inner circle of the Nazi party? Skinheads? Child molesters?
Yes, I know what it says in the DoI, and as I've said, I could kick the Founding Fathers in the nads for sticking that in the DoI; but they could hardly be expected to see 200 years down the line when willfully stupid people would take what they were saying out of context.
In the context of the preamble to the DoI, "equal" is addressing social class differences, not inherent physical or mental differences. The purpose was to justify their rebellion against the King.
---
Yes, it would. When prosecuting Neo-Nazis and child molesters and inducting them into the criminal justice system, they still retain a certain level of basic human rights which cannot be violated, even though they've broken the law. The Constitution specifically forbids cruel and unusual punishment because the Founding Fathers recognized that even criminals have human rights.
Again with the troll-bait, Maph. That's not why the bit about cruel and unusual punishment was put in the Constitution. I've already explained it to you elsewhere, I don't feel like repeating myself to the willfully obtuse.
Then there is the whole science thing where there is no proof of the existence of a gene that is the trigger for homosexuality. Without that proof it is a desire, a lust, a wish, not a physical, identifiable, sex. Odd that there are genes for both male and female and genetic examinations of homosexual individuals render no statistical variation from whichever sex that person is. The genome is mapped and the reason behind each pair is known, at least to the specific area they control. From eye color to number of toes, it's documented and no homosexual genes were found.
The best case to prove your path might be to have reinstated into the PDR as a psychological disorder. Then efforts could then be made once more to cure it - but that's not what you want, is it?
---
No, I just want the same laws that already protect race, religion, and sex. These are already protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so it's not logical to say that the LGBT community wants protection above and beyond what other groups have when we're just asking for the same protection that is spelled out for other groups in the Civil Rights Act. The LGBT community was not included in the Civil Rights Act, and that needs to be corrected.
Also, the human genome is not nearly as well understood as you seem to think. There are still many, many aspects that are totally unknown.
The LGBT community was not included in the Civil Rights Act, for the same reason the Elks and Girl Scouts weren't.
LGBT
is
not
a
sex
or
race.
---
It's not the government that the LGBT community is afraid of. Persecuted minorities typically view the Federal government as a protector, rather than an aggressor. I'll give you three guesses as to who they feel they need to be protected from, and I don't think you'll need the last two... ;)
The LGBT "community" isn't a minority any more than the Homebrew Computer Club was a minority. Or than PETA or the Congressional Cigar Association...
It's a massively diverse... not even "group" or "collection" of people whose only commonality isn't a sex or race, but any appetite that's not heterosexual. Hence the need for the 4-letter-acronym.