"Stop calling groups of voters stupid”

First topic message reminder :

To paraphrase the movie publicists, if you follow only one Twitter account in 2017, make it this one.
Chris Arnade is a former Wall Street bond trader who observed first-hand how the financial industry has screwed ordinary people. He now travels the US chronicling the stories of struggling people in left-behind communities.

 Follow
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade
[ltr]1. Let's hope 17 is year political writers/pundits stop calling groups of voters stupid or idiots. & understand how deeply offensive that is[/ltr]





1:39 PM - 2 Jan 2017

2 Jan
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade





[ltr]5. Disagree on substance & outcomes. On how their views impact country as a whole. Don't disagree based on ugly characterization of a group[/ltr]

 Follow
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade
[ltr]6. One of my biggest disappointments of last year was seeing progressives (my group!) dismiss entire groups of voters as lesser.[/ltr]





2:02 PM - 2 Jan 2017

 Follow
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade
[ltr]7. Denying socio- eco context to entire groups. Imo going against everything progressives are supposed to be about: understanding ALL people[/ltr]





2:06 PM - 2 Jan 2017

Yes. I’ve seen and heard too many nominal progressives doing just this. The first step to winning majorities in coming elections is to stop doing it.

http://hurryupharry.org/2017/01/02/stop-calling-groups-of-voters-stupid/

Thorin wrote:1) No, its apartheid standards based on beliefs

No it isn't.

Thorin wrote: 2) no we did not

Did not what?

Thorin wrote:3) So does Kent and no the language is English for both

English with lots of modifications, as well as different cultures and idioms.

Thorin wrote:4) The point is this. You either have inclusion or exclusion.

It's the culture, not the individual that is paramount.  Rather than speaking of inclusion or exclusion, its more meaningful to speak of assimilation or maladaption.  That is what the individual does when he adjusts to the culture.

California already exists, as does it's culture, language and idiosyncrasies.  Anyone coming into the place will have to adapt.  It's not that the southern racist or Trumpian would be excluded, but he would feel more comfortable elsewhere...put it that way.

Thorin wrote:One path takes you on the methodology of the Far Right or Liberalism

To quote Justin Timberlake in the film Bad Teacher..."I just hate slavery...so, so much!"

To be fair they ARE STUPID

Most Voters are, that is why we can't have Utopian societies
Morons support evil people whether by vote or Military service
has been since forever.


And look at the reasons many voters gave THEY ARE COMPLETE UNEDUCATED MORONS.
We need to stop pretending the Hill shepherd is of Any value, we need to treat White Hill shepherd with the same contempt we do for other backward ass hill shepherds of other races. That is the problem IF Arabs said that shit trump supporters say we'd bomb them they would be terrorists we would call them out on the ridiculous levels of dis-education. But these are white Americans So we pretend they are better, we pretend they are more than a primitive obsolete individuals.

And to blame is the Shit house public education system in the USA, the poverty, the lack of education and the 'literal' treatment of religion, it is literally the exact same set of circumstance that produced the Taliban

Way to generalise Veya

eddie wrote:Way to generalise Veya

But underneath it all, he's right.  Y'all have stupidity in your populations, too.  There are times when I think democracy is wrong, wrong, wrong.  

But then I ask, who is right? There have been a lot of stupid Napoleons, too.

So basically we are pretty much saying that most people are stupid and ignorant.

Yeah I pretty much agree with that then.

eddie wrote:So basically we are pretty much saying that most people are stupid and ignorant.

Yeah I pretty much agree with that then.

Maybe you have been on forums too long Eddie.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:So basically we are pretty much saying that most people are stupid and ignorant.

Yeah I pretty much agree with that then.

Maybe you have been on forums too long Eddie.

Hmmmm. I think it was Facebook that made me realise that most people really don't want to question anything and if they do, it's an empty promise that they're actually going to do something about what they've learned or discovered.

Sheeple is the phrase I've used for years. It's apt and it never fails to amaze me how many sheeple don't want to become people.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:1) No, its apartheid standards based on beliefs

No it isn't.

Thorin wrote: 2) no we did not

Did not what?

Thorin wrote:3) So does Kent and no the language is English for both

English with lots of modifications, as well as different cultures and idioms.

Thorin wrote:4) The point is this. You either have inclusion or exclusion.

It's the culture, not the individual that is paramount.  Rather than speaking of inclusion or exclusion, its more meaningful to speak of assimilation or maladaption.  That is what the individual does when he adjusts to the culture.

California already exists, as does it's culture, language and idiosyncrasies.  Anyone coming into the place will have to adapt.  It's not that the southern racist or Trumpian would be excluded, but he would feel more comfortable elsewhere...put it that way.

Thorin wrote:One path takes you on the methodology of the Far Right or Liberalism

To quote Justin Timberlake in the film Bad Teacher..."I just hate slavery...so, so much!"

1) Yes it is. You want only those with beliefs that are liberal. That is denying a multitude of groups of people.
Through discrimination and prejudice.

2) English, is English and has one culture

3) No its inclusion or exclusion
California is Multicultured, with its Spanish, Mexican, Asian and Eastern United States cultural roots, is a melting pot that joins together cuisines, languages and traditions from every corner of the globe.

Which means you would have to ethnically cleanse many of them based on your requirement that they all must be Liberals. If which because you are discriminating and being prejudice. It ceases automatically in being a liberal state, but illiberal.

Unfortunately... 2 idiots can out vote a genius...

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No it isn't.



Did not what?



English with lots of modifications, as well as different cultures and idioms.



It's the culture, not the individual that is paramount.  Rather than speaking of inclusion or exclusion, its more meaningful to speak of assimilation or maladaption.  That is what the individual does when he adjusts to the culture.

California already exists, as does it's culture, language and idiosyncrasies.  Anyone coming into the place will have to adapt.  It's not that the southern racist or Trumpian would be excluded, but he would feel more comfortable elsewhere...put it that way.



To quote Justin Timberlake in the film Bad Teacher..."I just hate slavery...so, so much!"

1) Yes it is. You want only those with beliefs that are liberal. That is denying a multitude of groups of people.
Through discrimination and prejudice.

If I deny it, then that's the end of the question.  Remember, this isn't reality.  It's just my imaginary creation.

What I desire as an outcome is very different from how I would intend to achieve it.  To say I want a liberal milieu says nothing about how to achieve it.  If I say I want to live in an Italian neighborhood, I'm not at all saying I will exclude all but Italians.  Most likely, that power is not even available...to anyone.

You still haven't learned the difference between a tangible argument and a semantic argument, didge.  Words are symbols for reality...they are not the reality itself.  You are trying to say choosing is exclusion, and relying on a Thesarsus to prove your point.  Language is a human creation, reality is another thing.   We can't raise the relationship between words and say that it is the same thing as relationships between people.

Eg, I choose a wife; am I a sexist who excludes 'most' women because I excluded all others?  Yet choosing implies excluding...     Language is imperfect.  Reality takes precedence over words.

Thorin wrote:2) English, is English and has one culture

The whole world has one culture, it you think about.  Read Daniel J. Boorstin, The Discoverers (1983) for a lucid debate on what constitutes a culture.  It is not necessarily a language.  It is not necessarily a religion.  Indeed, it is not even necessarily an ideology.

Is the language spoken in Wales the same as that in East Anglia....that of Musselburgh the same as that of Kent?  Not only does the accent change, but the idioms change.  The same is true of America.  Where, in Louisiana, you will frequently hear words like them durty niggahs, such language in San Francisco will get you ostracized.  Look at the way Trump used the spoken word to divide the nation.

Thorin wrote:3) No its inclusion or exclusion
California is Multicultured, with its Spanish, Mexican, Asian and Eastern United States cultural roots, is a melting pot that joins together cuisines, languages and traditions from every corner of the globe.

Which means you would have to ethnically cleanse many of them based on your requirement that they all must be Liberals. If which because you are discriminating and being prejudice. It ceases automatically in being a liberal state, but illiberal.

Go back to my analogy of choosing a wife.  Is that exclusion?  Arguably, the word 'exclusion' comes up in that context: I love her to the exclusion of all others.  But you are trying to say that somehow choosing a wife is unfair because it involves excluding.  That's an argument out of words...a semantic argument.  It's not at all unfair...because it's expected.  Again, the word is simply a symbol; you have to go to the underlying reality in order to judge.

To say that I want to live in an Italian neighborhood is not at all to say I want to exclude all Irish or Chinese.  The world would be a pretty dismal place if we all had to treat everyone or everyplace equally...we would all turn into pod people (recall The Invasion of the Body Snatchers)  As professor Harold Laski said: "Equality, therefore, means, first of all the absence of social privilege. In the second place it means that adequate opportunities are laid open to all”.

If I choose to live in a certain neighborhood, I an not excluding anyone.  I am not even singling out anyone.  I am simply gravitating toward the lifestyle I like.  To have equality your way, we would all be mindless zombies walking around, hands in the air, following someone else's agenda.



Cheers...  

1) I have always been able to tear apart your poor reasoning Quill. As I have done do through this debate. You were very clear as to who would be acceptable in your prejudiced Apartheid state.

2) The language of the Wales, is Welsh, and the language of the people of Kent is English, as its part of England
So moot point

3) Gibberish. Choosing who you marry is based on love, so in fact its not even a choice when love is the key factor. So your point is again moot. There is no law based on whether or not you discriminate dating. There is though around people's beliefs on whether they can live somewhere or even work. What next, are you going to deny people work based on if they have Republican beliefs?

This is not about an Italian neighborhood. This is about your view to have only a a nation of Liberal people. Thus excluding people for their beliefs.

This is about you deciding who can live in your illiberal society, which excludes people based on their beliefs. In fact your whole new state conflicts with the Liberalism. Its discrimination and prejudice at the worst levels possible. What are you going to do? Give different coloured stars out to different groups that conflict with Liberal beliefs? You go against everything Liberalism stands for

I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

I suppose you could reopen the Manzanar War Relocation Center, or the Tule Lake War Relocation Center,  California as an internment camp for them?

Thorin wrote:1) I have always been able to tear apart your poor reasoning Quill. As I have done do through this debate. You were very clear as to who would be acceptable in your prejudiced Apartheid state.

Oh yes, you are still that faux god-like creature, didge. In truth, you are more like someone who didn't finish his education. You didn't learn the rest of the story.

Thorin wrote:2) The language of the Wales, is Welsh, and the language of the people of Kent is English, as its part of England
So moot point

Semantic argument. Instead of words, you are shuffling around names of languages. But it's still words. Look at the reality...I must remind you. In Wales and Scotland they speak English...don't tell me they don't, as I've been there many times. There are different idioms and different accents. It extends to different ideologies and different political persuasions.

Thorin wrote:3) Gibberish. Choosing who you marry is based on love, so in fact its not even a choice when love is the key factor. So your point is again moot. There is no law based on whether or not you discriminate dating. There is though around people's beliefs on whether they can live somewhere or even work. What next, are you going to deny people work based on if they have Republican beliefs?

Choosing whom to marry is very much like choosing where you want to live. I choose to marry Becky...I choose to live in California. Same type of decision...same personal taste.

Your legal argument--if it can be so dignified--is rubbish. Discrimination involves the act of classifying arbitrarily, not matters of taste like whom to marry or where to live. I happen to choose many of my friends by what they believe, and there are no laws that prohibit me from doing that. Indeed, in America the First Amendment mandates that I am free to live where I choose and associate with whom I want.

Freedom is not discrimination. Freedom of choice is a constitutional guarantee, and no law may be promulgated to arbitrarily prohibit that. It's the other way around. Unlawful discrimination is that which arbitrarily prohibits one's freedom to choose, without a state purpose.

Now keep in mind the premise of our discussion is my imaginary state of California as an independent nation. So constitutional arguments are not binding, but they are illustrative. After all, an independent nation gets to decide who can enter...or do you subscribe to the EU commitment of freedom of movement within a continent? But we can agree that the decision ought not to be arbitrary. That said, a person's decision to live in California is not discriminatory in the least. The decision is a personal decision about his or her own life, not a policy decision about the exclusion of another.

Thorin wrote:This is not about an Italian neighborhood. This is about your view to have only a a nation of Liberal people. Thus excluding people for their beliefs.

I isolate this passage only to illustrate how you use semantic argument. The above ^ passage is solely about definitions. You reject a real life image of an Italian neighborhood in favor of laying down definitions: "This is about your view to have only a a nation of Liberal people. " You are just substituting a linguistic image. You even instruct us about your equivalencies: "Thus excluding people for their beliefs."

Thorin wrote:This is about you deciding who can live in your illiberal society, which excludes people based on their beliefs. In fact your whole new state conflicts with the Liberalism. Its discrimination and prejudice at the worst levels possible. What are you going to do? Give different coloured stars out to different groups that conflict with Liberal beliefs? You go against everything Liberalism stands for

You continue on with your substitute imagery and your faux equivalency that freedom of choice is discrimination. As I have said before, you exhibit the characteristics of one whose education is limited to the surface, without exploring the subtleties underneath. The surface (particularly on the Internet) gives us words, and lo...what do you give us but semantic arguments. Until you can work with ideas, and not just move around the symbols, I'm afraid you are incorrigible.

Thorin wrote:I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

If they break the criminal laws they are criminals, are they not? After all, assault and battery is against the law.

Thorin wrote:I suppose you could reopen the Manzanar War Relocation Center, or the Tule Lake War Relocation Center,  California as an internment camp for them?

I would imagine those individuals would self-select not to come to my utopian Pacific States of America. If they came and conducted themselves lawfully, there would be no problem. But I agree that we would not tolerate any brown shirt violence. But, violence is not permitted anywhere, is it.

Original Quill wrote:

  Oh yes, you are still that faux god-like creature, didge.  In truth, you are more like someone who didn't finish his education.  You didn't learn the rest of the story.


Semantic argument.  Instead of words, you are shuffling around names of languages.  But it's still words.  Look at the reality...I must remind you.  In Wales and Scotland they speak English...don't tell me they don't, as I've been there many times.  There are different idioms and different accents.  It extends to different ideologies and different political persuasions.

Choosing whom to marry is very much like choosing where you want to live.  I choose to marry Becky...I choose to live in California.  Same type of decision...same personal taste.

Your legal argument--if it can be so dignified--is rubbish.  Discrimination involves the act of classifying arbitrarily, not matters of taste like whom to marry or where to live.  I happen to choose many of my friends by what they believe, and there are no laws that prohibit me from doing that.  Indeed, in America the First Amendment mandates that I am free to live where I choose and associate with whom I want.

Freedom is not discrimination.  Freedom of choice is a constitutional guarantee, and no law may be promulgated to arbitrarily prohibit that.  It's the other way around.  Unlawful discrimination is that which arbitrarily prohibits one's freedom to choose, without a state purpose.

Now keep in mind the premise of our discussion is my imaginary state of California as an independent nation.  So constitutional arguments are not binding, but they are illustrative.  After all, an independent nation gets to decide who can enter...or do you subscribe to the EU commitment of freedom of movement within a continent?  But we can agree that the decision ought not to be arbitrary.  That said, a person's decision to live in California is not discriminatory in the least.  The decision is a personal decision about his or her own life, not a policy decision about the exclusion of another.

1) Your view to laugh and make immature comments proves you have lost the plot and the debate. If you see me as God like, its of no surprise you feel humble

2) No semantics at all. You made a very absurd view around languages on regions.
The people of Wales speak Welsh and English, as Wales is part of the UK, but Welsh is the language of the people of Wales. So your point is so embarrassing its hilarious

3) Nobody is saying who you can and cannot marry or where you choose to live. This is about you stating who else can live in Far Right Paradise. We are not also talking about who you choose as friends. We are talking about who is allowed it your fascist state. As it certainly cannot be Liberal. So this was never about where you could live, which is an important point. Its about you yelling others where they can live and if they can live in your fascist Apartheid state. That is so in conflict with Liberal Values. You have said to deny people based on their beliefs and would also mean ethnically cleansing people for their political beliefs, which inadvertently would mean barring the vast majority of Muslims. As they are against homosexuality.

4) It is not freedom when you are denying others a right to live in your fascist state.The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.  . Which you are wishing to deny to people, just because you do not like their points of views. So you are going against the very aspects of your own laws, to allow discrimination.

5) So just Nazi Germany, the people get to decide and make the country Judenrein. To say the people get to decide to exclude people, is in conflict with Liberalism. Let me remind of tenants of Liberalism. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.

6) I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

I suppose you could reopen the Manzanar War Relocation Center, or the Tule Lake War Relocation Center,  California as an internment camp for them?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

If they break the criminal laws they are criminals, are they not?  After all, assault and battery is against the law.

Thorin wrote:I suppose you could reopen the Manzanar War Relocation Center, or the Tule Lake War Relocation Center,  California as an internment camp for them?

I would imagine those individuals would self-select not to come to my utopian Pacific States of America.  If they came and conducted themselves lawfully, there would be no problem.  But I agree that we would not tolerate any brown shirt violence.  But, violence is not permitted anywhere, is it.

I debunked your absurd claim that a belief is battery or assault.
You claimed that because it may lead to a hate crime, that they should be classed criminal by default. Which by your poor methodology, would class all Muslims as terrorist and would be excluded from your fascist state. So basing the view on people following Trump, does not make them criminal, no matter how much you go against the first ammendments on freedom of beliefs.

I don't think anyone would tolerate your attempt to create a totalitarian fascist state.
I think rightly most would be appalled and even more how you crinimalize people based on beliefs.

You never answered my question

I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If they break the criminal laws they are criminals, are they not?  After all, assault and battery is against the law.



I would imagine those individuals would self-select not to come to my utopian Pacific States of America.  If they came and conducted themselves lawfully, there would be no problem.  But I agree that we would not tolerate any brown shirt violence.  But, violence is not permitted anywhere, is it.

I debunked your absurd claim that a belief is battery or assault.

  Thus spake the 'god-didge'.       You have not even addressed the argument.  Patting yourself on the back is not scoring points in debate.  It's being ridiculous.

Thorin wrote:You claimed that because it may lead to a hate crime, that they should be classed criminal by default.

May lead to a hate crime?  If it's already happened, it's a criminal act.

Thorin wrote:I don't think anyone would tolerate your attempt to create a totalitarian fascist state.
I think rightly most would be appalled and even more how you crinimalize people based on beliefs.

Didge, when someone commits a criminal act, he gets arrested and tried.  Justice is not totalitarian, nor is it fascist.  Contrary to your thinking, people are not appalled when convicted criminals go to prison.  On this website we comment all the time on stories of criminal conduct.  Most posters are not appalled at characterizing the perps as criminals...and they haven't been convicted yet.  

A society that adheres to due process and convicts someone of a crime is not a somehow heinous or unfair.  Criminals are to be treated as criminals.  It's necessary in a civilized society.

Original Quill wrote:

  Thus spake the 'god-didge'.       You have not even addressed the argument.  Patting yourself on the back is not scoring points in debate.  It's being ridiculous.

May lead to a hate crime?  If it's already happened, it's a criminal act.

Didge, when someone commits a criminal act, he gets arrested and tried.  Justice is not totalitarian, nor is it fascist.  Contrary to your thinking, people are not appalled when convicted criminals go to prison.  On this website we comment all the time on stories of criminal conduct.  Most posters are not appalled at characterizing the perps as criminals...and they haven't been convicted yet.  A society that adheres to due process and convicts someone of a crime is not a somehow heinous or unfair.  Criminals are to be treated as criminals.  It's necessary in a civilized society.

But you are claiming to support someone like Trump is a criminal act
Which is just plain gibberish.

No criminal acts have been committed by simple voting for someone, yet you are criminalizing over 4 million Californians. This is no different when people try to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, to poorly justify hating people. They allow themselves to have a clear conscience in hating groups, because they have deligitimized the people as humans and instead as criminals. You are doing exactly the same here with Trump supporters.
What is worse is you are saying people cannot change and they must be sentenced for all time off this one vote.

Its not a criminal offense to have a belief.

You still have not answered my question

I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

  Thus spake the 'god-didge'.       You have not even addressed the argument.  Patting yourself on the back is not scoring points in debate.  It's being ridiculous.

May lead to a hate crime?  If it's already happened, it's a criminal act.

Didge, when someone commits a criminal act, he gets arrested and tried.  Justice is not totalitarian, nor is it fascist.  Contrary to your thinking, people are not appalled when convicted criminals go to prison.  On this website we comment all the time on stories of criminal conduct.  Most posters are not appalled at characterizing the perps as criminals...and they haven't been convicted yet.  A society that adheres to due process and convicts someone of a crime is not a somehow heinous or unfair.  Criminals are to be treated as criminals.  It's necessary in a civilized society.

But you are claiming to support someone like Trump is a criminal act
Which is just plain gibberish.

No criminal acts have been committed by simple voting for someone, yet you are criminalizing over 4 million Californians. This is no different when people try to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, to poorly justify hating people. They allow themselves to have a clear conscience in hating groups, because they have deligitimized the people as humans and instead as criminals. You are doing exactly the same here with Trump supporters.
What is worse is you are saying people cannot change and they must be sentenced for all time off this one vote.

Its not a criminal offense to have a belief.

You still have not answered my question

I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

Your logic is fading...I CAN'T HEAR YOU!  

Now you are equating beliefs with criminal acts.  Beliefs are not criminal, although beliefs can provide motive for criminal acts, as they did for the Trump brown shirts during his rallies.  But the two, though related, are not the same.  Let me add, there are also good beliefs, as well as controversial beliefs, and they too are not criminal.  Criminal acts involve acting on wrongful or outlawed motives, but they are not the motives themselves.  Got it?

By way of your semantic arguments, you are confusing two different concepts.  One is choice, the other is compulsion.  You choose whom to marry, you choose where to live.  Freedom of choice is guaranteed in a free society.  Whom I choose not to marry, or where I choose not to live are also free choices. They are simply the inverse choices.  Those acts are not coercive or compulsion.  It is not coincidental that a person with authoritarian precepts confuses the ideas of choice with the idea of compelling someone or something.

Personal choice, though it may predict trends and patterns in society, is not the same as laws that discriminate.  Curiously, you are not criticizing arbitrary laws that discriminate, but selecting actions of personal choice for your targets of criticism because of the trends or patterns they create.  But that is the type of thought processes in which authoritarians engage.  Personal choice is negligible in a closed society.

But we are not contemplating a closed society.  Rather, we are contemplating a society where discrimination does not infringe on freedom of personal choice, as long as no criminal acts are involved.  If criminal acts are involved, the person will be prosecuted.  If there are no criminal acts involved, a person should or will not be discriminated against...ie, prosecuted.

That is the meaning of open society.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But you are claiming to support someone like Trump is a criminal act
Which is just plain gibberish.

No criminal acts have been committed by simple voting for someone, yet you are criminalizing over 4 million Californians. This is no different when people try to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, to poorly justify hating people. They allow themselves to have a clear conscience in hating groups, because they have deligitimized the people as humans and instead as criminals. You are doing exactly the same here with Trump supporters.
What is worse is you are saying people cannot change and they must be sentenced for all time off this one vote.

Its not a criminal offense to have a belief.

You still have not answered my question

I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

Your logic is fading...I CAN'T HEAR YOU!  

Now you are equating beliefs with criminal acts.  Beliefs are not criminal, although beliefs can provide motive for criminal acts, as they did for the Trump brown shirts during his rallies.  But the two, though related, are not the same.  Let me add, there are also good beliefs, as well as controversial beliefs, and they too are not criminal.  Criminal acts involve acting on wrongful or outlawed motives.  Got it?

By way of your semantic arguments, you are confusing two different concepts.  One is choice, the other is compulsion.  You choose whom to marry, you choose where to live.  Freedom of choice is guaranteed in a free society.  Whom I choose not to marry, or where I choose not to live are also choices.  Those acts are not coercive or compulsion.  It is not coincidental that a person with authoritarian precepts confuses the ideas of choice with the idea of compelling someone or something.

Personal choice, though it may predict trends and patterns in society, is not the same as laws that discriminate.  Curiously, you are not criticizing arbitrary laws that discriminate, but selecting actions of personal choice for your targets of criticism because of the trends or patterns they create.  But that is the type of thought processes in which authoritarians engage.  Personal choice is negligible in a closed society.

But we are not contemplating a closed society.  Rather, we are contemplating a society where discrimination does not infringe on freedom of personal choice, as long as no criminal acts are involved.  If criminal acts are involved, the person will be prosecuted.  If there are no criminal acts involved, a person should or will not be discriminated against...ie, prosecuted.

The above is so much gibberish, I have no way to start to dismantle what is essence rubbish

So I will simple say again, holding a belief is not a criminal offense and is protectd by the first amendment

So easy to debunk rubbish in two sentences

You have already claimed gibberish about how it can lead to crime

It can, but that does not mean people are criminals on thoughts alone

Period

You though have stated to not have people without Liberal views

This means ethnically cleansing millions of Californians


You are again using poor deflective throw offs on choices. Its your belief you can choose who lives in a land you do not own and never have. When you are just one of tens of millions. So no matter how many times you keep up your deflections, I will easily rubbish them.

This is not choice, but you stating the Californian people deciding who can live there, based on beliefs

That is illiberal and totalitarianism

Its also prejudiced and discrimination

Still no answer to my question

I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

I mean your argument is so bad on choices, its like you saying. Its you who will decide who other people can or cannot marry. That is what in essence you are saying? You sound more like you want to make California into a Saudi state, more than anything else. You are trying to decide the choices of others whether they can live in a state, based on beliefs. So you can carry on with the poor deflections on choices, as seen you are denying choice through hate and discrimination.

Thorin wrote:Still no answer to my question

I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

  Still no question.  All assumptions.  Assumptions are not facts.

If you try to govern the patterns that free choice effects, eventually you will infringe on free choice itself.  Thus the law usually requires a rational basis for any law that closes in on free choices.

Trying to restrict where one lives because of adverse consequences, does not involve a rational basis for the restriction itself.  If you are saying that restricting one's choice to live in an Italian neighborhood is justified by a desire to have heterogeneous neighborhoods, there is no rational basis.  There is no certainty that that restriction will lead to heterogeneous neighborhoods.

Restricting ones choice to live in California because it leads to more like-minded Californians leads nowhere.  First, it is impermissible for a government to determine the character of a state or territory.  Second, there is no certainty that it will achieve that result.

All you can do is make it impermissible to have any arbitrary restrictions.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Still no answer to my question

I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

  Still no question.  All assumptions.  Assumptions are not facts.

If you try to govern the patterns that free choice effects, eventually you will infringe on free choice itself.  Thus the law usually requires a rational basis for any law that closes in on free choices.

Trying to restrict where one lives because of adverse consequences, does not involve a rational basis for the restriction itself.  If you are saying that restricting one's choice to live in an Italian neighborhood is justified by a desire to have heterogeneous neighborhoods, there is no rational basis.  There is no certainty that that restriction will lead to heterogeneous neighborhoods.

Restricting ones choice to live in California because it leads to more like-minded Californians leads nowhere.  First, ti is impermissible for a government to determine the character of a state or territory.  Second, there is no certainty that it will achieve that result.

All you can do is make it impermissible to have any arbitrary restrictions.

I mean your argument is so bad on choices, its like you saying. Its you who will decide who other people can or cannot marry. That is what in essence you are saying in regards to living in your fascist state? You sound more like you want to make California into a Saudi state, more than anything else. You are trying to decide the choices of others whether they can live in a state, based on beliefs. So you can carry on with the poor deflections on choices, as seen you are denying choice through hate and discrimination.


One thing is clear, there is nothing to separate you with those on the Far right.
Its the same discrimination, just different people


Still no answer to my question on what you are going to do with these people

Anytime you would like to answer?

I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Maybe you have been on forums too long Eddie.

Hmmmm. I think it was Facebook that made me realise that most people really don't want to question anything and if they do, it's an empty promise that they're actually going to do something about what they've learned or discovered.

Sheeple is the phrase I've used for years. It's apt and it never fails to amaze me how many sheeple don't want to become people.

Sheeple is a good descriptive word, I think maybe the internet has a lot to do with Stepford thinking.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

  Still no question.  All assumptions.  Assumptions are not facts.

If you try to govern the patterns that free choice effects, eventually you will infringe on free choice itself.  Thus the law usually requires a rational basis for any law that closes in on free choices.

Trying to restrict where one lives because of adverse consequences, does not involve a rational basis for the restriction itself.  If you are saying that restricting one's choice to live in an Italian neighborhood is justified by a desire to have heterogeneous neighborhoods, there is no rational basis.  There is no certainty that that restriction will lead to heterogeneous neighborhoods.

Restricting ones choice to live in California because it leads to more like-minded Californians leads nowhere.  First, ti is impermissible for a government to determine the character of a state or territory.  Second, there is no certainty that it will achieve that result.

All you can do is make it impermissible to have any arbitrary restrictions.

I mean your argument is so bad on choices, its like you saying. Its you who will decide who other people can or cannot marry. That is what in essence you are saying in regards to living in your fascist state? You sound more like you want to make California into a Saudi state, more than anything else. You are trying to decide the choices of others whether they can live in a state, based on beliefs. So you can carry on with the poor deflections on choices, as seen you are denying choice through hate and discrimination.


One thing is clear, there is nothing to separate you with those on the Far right.
Its the same discrimination, just different people


Still no answer to my question on what you are going to do with these people

Anytime you would like to answer?

I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

You are getting confused, I can tell.  My advice is for you to try to think in symbols, and put aside words.  Take a sheet of paper and assign a symbol for free choice /FC/ and closed society /CS/ and open society /OS/ and any other variable you wish to include.  Now take it like so and put up your thesis...

/FC/ = /CS/  

You see immediately that doesn't work.  How can free choice result in a closed society?  You see symbolically what you are saying does not compute.  Now add 'adverse effects' /AEf/...

/FC/ > /AEf/ = /CS/

...and you get closer to the formulation: free choice leads to adverse effects, resulting in a closed society.  What you have here is a formula for discrimination in a society that has incumbent discrimination in it.  Add antidiscrimination laws, designated as counter-effect /Cef/...

/FC/ > /AEf/ < /CEf/ = /OS/

Now you have a corrective measure (anti-discrimination laws) righting the wrong.

But where you don't have discrimination, you don't want anti-discrimination laws, else you create the problem.  That's what you are proposing, and why I say you are being authoritarian.

Equal protection analysis requires that you have something creating inequality before you try to change it...and that it be something you want to change.  You don't want to create equality in the individual choice of whom you marry, even though you want equality of opportunity in the race choice you can make.  Again, the situation is usually preceded by an arbitrary law prohibiting whom (racially) you can marry.  Take a look at Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) [law prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional].

What you are complaining about in saying a living choice of California creates discrimination, is just the results of free choice.  Nothing is causing it except self-selection.  There is no exclusionary law involved.  Under such circumstances, it would be dictatorial to require an adjustment.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I mean your argument is so bad on choices, its like you saying. Its you who will decide who other people can or cannot marry. That is what in essence you are saying in regards to living in your fascist state? You sound more like you want to make California into a Saudi state, more than anything else. You are trying to decide the choices of others whether they can live in a state, based on beliefs. So you can carry on with the poor deflections on choices, as seen you are denying choice through hate and discrimination.


One thing is clear, there is nothing to separate you with those on the Far right.
Its the same discrimination, just different people


Still no answer to my question on what you are going to do with these people

Anytime you would like to answer?

I mean, what are you going to do about the  4,483,810 Californians and their families (who you call pussy grabbers) who voted for Trump, Quill? Who you classify as criminals just for backing Trump?

You are getting confused, I can tell.  My advice is for you to try to think in symbols, and put aside words.  Take a sheet of paper and assign a symbol for free choice /FC/ and closed society /CS/ and /OS/ and any other variable you wish to include.  Now take it like so and put up your thesis...

/FC/ = /CS/  

You see immediately that doesn't work.  How can free choice result in a closed society?  You see symbolically what you are saying does not compute.  Now add 'adverse effects' /AEf/...

/FC/ > /AEf/ = /CS/

...and you get closer to the formulation: free choice leads to adverse effects, resulting in a closed society.  What you have here is a formula for discrimination in a society that has incumbent discrimination in it.  Add antidiscrimination laws, designated as counter-effect /Cef/...

/FC/ > /AEf/ < /CEf/ = /CS/

Now you have a corrective measure (anti-discrimination laws) righting the wrong.

But where you don't have discrimination, you don't want anti-discrimination laws, else you create the problem.  That's what you are proposing, and why I say you are being authoritarian.

Equal protection analysis requires that you have something creating inequality before you try to change it...and that it be something you want to change.  You don't want to create equality in the individual choice of whom you marry, even though you want equality of opportunity in the race choice you can make.  Again, the situation is usually preceded by an arbitrary law prohibiting whom (racially) you can marry.  Take a look at Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) [law prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional].

What you are complaining about in saying a living choice of California creates discrimination, is just the results of free choice.  Nothing is causing it except self-selection.  There is no exclusionary law involved.  Under such circumstances, it would be dictatorial to require an adjustment.

And there you have it complete and utter gibberish and no logic to any of that premise.

Again, its very simple
You want to exclude people based on beliefs, which you believe will lead to crime. Whilst even worse ignoring all types of crime and that people who are Liberals also commit crime. This makes the above fall apart in seconds and shows that your thinking is ultimately flawed,

California’s violent crime rate increased by 8.4% in 2015 to 426 per 100,000 residents. From 1960 to 1980, the state’s violent crime rate increased from 236 to 888 violent crimes per 100,000 residents—a staggering 276% rise.

Again you cannot exclude people based off a premise some will commit crime.
This is exactly what racists argue in regards to African Americans on crime.

I am all for equality and believe its the choice of the person who they wish to marry
Your methodological would deny that to people, as its the Californians deciding who can live there and thus who can marry. You are proving inequality

I love the attempt at mathematics, I seriously pissed myself at that gibberish

I am saying you want to decide who can live in California based on Beliefs

You sound more and more like Trump with every minute, where he used the same arguments against Mexicans and Muslims.

I think most Californians would see you as comparable to trump

You both want to exclude people and get rid of people you do not like

I have no need to say anymore on this debate. You clearly are as hateful as the Far Right and Trump would be proud of you.

You are done here, well and truly

I shall now leave you to sulk

Enjoy

Thorin wrote:Again, its very simple
You want to exclude people based on beliefs, which you believe will lead to crime. Whilst even worse ignoring all types of crime and that people who are Liberals also commit crime. This makes the above fall apart in seconds and shows that your thinking is ultimately flawed,

You see how wrong you can be from a simple misstep? I don’t want to exclude, but include. A simple symbolic graph would have taught you that.

Thorin wrote:Again you cannot exclude people based off a premise some will commit crime.
This is exactly what racists argue in regards to African Americans on crime.

But having no motive to exclude, all of your criticisms are irrelevant. Let's move on...

Thorin wrote:I am all for equality and believe its the choice of the person who they wish to marry
Your methodological would deny that to people, as its the Californians deciding who can live there and thus who can marry. You are proving inequality

With no restrictions, there can be no inequality.

Thorin wrote:I love the attempt at mathematics, I seriously pissed myself at that gibberish

Oh my, it’s not mathematics, it is symbolic logic. Take a look at a book by Suzanne K. Langer, Symbolic Logic (1937); also by the same author, Philosophy in a New Key (1941) and Mind: an Essay on Human Feeling (2 vols.). You shouldn’t have quit school, didge.

Thorin wrote:I am saying you want to decide who can live in California based on Beliefs

But you are wrong. You are simply saying that without substantiation. You must have a basis for all that you say, else you are not saying anything. Arguing with tommy should have taught you that by now.

Your further comments are gratuitous and aimed at insult. They require no response.

Cheers...

lol so now Quill is back tracking on his previous claims

Like I said, you are done and have been exposed as being no better than Tommy, in regards to discrimination against peoples beliefs.

You did state to exclude people based on the premise of them leading to criminality based on a belief.

Now you commit a u-turn and I am bored now of your poor circular arguments, trying to get out of the hole you dug.

Thanks for the debate, as ever, it was far too easy for me.

Thorin wrote:lol so now Quill is back tracking on his previous claims

Nope.  You just didn't listen.  Why do you think I went to the extent of posting in symbolic logic.  You weren't listening.

Thorin wrote:Like I said, you are done and have been exposed as being no better than Tommy, in regards to discrimination against peoples beliefs.

You did state to exclude people based on the premise of them leading to criminality based on a belief.

But you can't substantiate that, can you?  You refer back to your misunderstanding of what I was saying.  Why do you think I resorted to symbolic logic for you.  I knew you weren't getting the message or the concepts.

Thorin wrote:Now you commit a u-turn and I am bored now of your poor circular arguments, trying to get out of the hole you dug.

Thanks for the debate, as ever, it was far too easy for me.

Kids!  What are you going to do?

I got your message, a veiled form of discrimination.

There was no logic to your post, just lots of misdirection

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Maybe you have been on forums too long Eddie.

Hmmmm. I think it was Facebook that made me realise that most people really don't want to question anything and if they do, it's an empty promise that they're actually going to do something about what they've learned or discovered.

Sheeple is the phrase I've used for years. It's apt and it never fails to amaze me how many sheeple don't want to become people.

Sheeple is a good descriptive word, I think maybe the internet has a lot to do with Stepford thinking.

Sheeple.
Syl, it's the "Chicken story right there".

Moved

Tommy Monk wrote:Both story's are bollocks.


An Eagle being brought up as a chicken...?


A farmer who doesn't care whether his horse runs off or if his son breaks his leg...?


Both scenarios and completely detached from reality and both are ambiguous as to their ficticional underlying message too...


Load of bollocks!!!


The twat behind it all is only looking to profit financially from any of if too...

Wrong thread

As to your points, nothing funnier, than someone bitter.

The farmer story is quite old and very prudent

The second about the eagle is also old and very apt

He just used them to inspire.

Thorin wrote:I got your message, a veiled form of discrimination.

There was no logic to your post, just lots of misdirection

Yeah, I get it...it was more than you could understand.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Sheeple is a good descriptive word, I think maybe the internet has a lot to do with Stepford thinking.

Sheeple.
Syl, it's the "Chicken story right there".

No it's not Eddie.....if everyone tried to be Eagles....it's THEY who would be the sheeples.

Our education system is designed to create chickens... and try to turn other chickens into eagles...

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Sheeple is a good descriptive word, I think maybe the internet has a lot to do with Stepford thinking.

Sheeple.
Syl, it's the "Chicken story right there".

No it's not Eddie.....if everyone tried to be Eagles....it's THEY who would be the sheeples.

There's no plural of "sheeple", sheeple is the plural, Syl.

And you have missed my point but I will make you see it one day.

I haven't missed your point....I just don't agree with it.

Right, so Sheeple are similar to Salmon, Bison and Buffalo...(for eg) as in you cant add an S on the end to make more that one....now that I do understand.

Syl wrote:I haven't missed your point....I just don't agree with it.

Right, so Sheeple are similar to Salmon, Bison and Buffalo...(for eg) as in you cant add an S on the end to make more that one....now that I do understand.

Sheeple is the plural of sheep. And it rhymes with people. And it seems to be used a lot nowadays but I feel sure I made the word up years and years ago...when I was about 15 and all cocky and teen-angst, because I'd never heard it before but I thought of it while I was stoned one night and it màde me laugh for about twenty minutes and everyone I told thought it was a great word

Hahahah chuckling now over the memory

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:I haven't missed your point....I just don't agree with it.

Right, so Sheeple are similar to Salmon, Bison and Buffalo...(for eg) as in you cant add an S on the end to make more that one....now that I do understand.

Sheeple is the plural of sheep. And it rhymes with people. And it seems to be used a lot nowadays but I feel sure I made the word up years and years ago...when I was about 15 and all cocky and teen-angst, because I'd never heard it before but I thought of it while I was stoned one night and it màde me laugh for about twenty minutes and everyone I told thought it was a great word  

Hahahah chuckling now over the memory

It's a good word....very descriptive. I don't know many sheeple personally but I come across a lot on forums.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:I haven't missed your point....I just don't agree with it.

Right, so Sheeple are similar to Salmon, Bison and Buffalo...(for eg) as in you cant add an S on the end to make more that one....now that I do understand.

Sheeple is the plural of sheep. And it rhymes with people. And it seems to be used a lot nowadays but I feel sure I made the word up years and years ago...when I was about 15 and all cocky and teen-angst, because I'd never heard it before but I thought of it while I was stoned one night and it màde me laugh for about twenty minutes and everyone I told thought it was a great word  

Hahahah chuckling now over the memory

It's a good word....very descriptive. I don't know many sheeple personally but I come across a lot on forums.

You're in an antsy mood today syllabus.

Antsy....another good word.
Yes, I am in restless mode, I think people feel like that when they have been ill and are feeling a lot better.
Either that or I just feel like a row....

Syl wrote:Antsy....another good word.
Yes, I am in restless mode, I think people feel like that when they have been ill and are feeling a lot better.
Either that or I just feel like a row....

I feel a bit antsy myself actually, might be a good idea to avoid each other

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:Antsy....another good word.
Yes, I am in restless mode, I think people feel like that when they have been ill and are feeling a lot better.
Either that or I just feel like a row....

I feel a bit antsy myself actually, might be a good idea to avoid each other

Nah....you can be as antsy as you like.....it wont bother me.
Anyway I am off to cook some sausages, and I'm trying to forget the photo of that bed dustmite.....it's made me feel quite sick.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:I haven't missed your point....I just don't agree with it.

Right, so Sheeple are similar to Salmon, Bison and Buffalo...(for eg) as in you cant add an S on the end to make more that one....now that I do understand.

Sheeple is the plural of sheep. And it rhymes with people. And it seems to be used a lot nowadays but I feel sure I made the word up years and years ago...when I was about 15 and all cocky and teen-angst, because I'd never heard it before but I thought of it while I was stoned one night and it màde me laugh for about twenty minutes and everyone I told thought it was a great word  

Hahahah chuckling now over the memory

Sheep is the plural of sheep.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Sheeple is the plural of sheep. And it rhymes with people. And it seems to be used a lot nowadays but I feel sure I made the word up years and years ago...when I was about 15 and all cocky and teen-angst, because I'd never heard it before but I thought of it while I was stoned one night and it màde me laugh for about twenty minutes and everyone I told thought it was a great word  

Hahahah chuckling now over the memory

Sheep is the plural of sheep.

Ahhh....but a sheeple is apparently a cross between a sheep and a person, see, Eddie has taught me well.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Sheep is the plural of sheep.

Ahhh....but a sheeple is apparently a cross between a sheep and a person, see, Eddie has taught me well.  

Wouldn't that be a 'sheepson'? 'Sheeple' would be the plural.

What is the plural of Mongoose?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Ahhh....but a sheeple is apparently a cross between a sheep and a person, see, Eddie has taught me well.  

Wouldn't that be a 'sheepson'?  'Sheeple' would be the plural.

No, that sounds sexist.
Sometimes over analysing words causes too much confusion.