mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The last 'un.
Is this even a surprise anymore? Anti-Gay Representative Caught with A Male Hooker
- Thread starter Hex
- Start date
[quote name='mykevermin']You do, and should, have the right to hire whomever you want based upon qualifications for the job. If I show up to your architecture firm with a GED and 3 years at Burger King, you have the right to give me an insincere smile and a "don't call us, we'll call you." And you bloody well should, given those criteria.
You're conflating (perhaps on purpose) two issues: what criteria you can use for hiring purposes, and what criteria you can not (and, what criteria you can not fire for). You make it sound like I'm in favor of tying your hands such that you must represent the United Colors of Benetton in your business, which is absurd and untrue. What I am in favor of is tying your hands so that you can't tell a perfectly capable and qualified employee to pack their shit because of their race, religion, gender, or whom they happen to be in love with.
Color me a
in' facist for that, won't ya? 
[/QUOTE]
I'm not conflating anything. If anything, I am separating the two issues of government control and private property. It's you who want them to be one and the same, eliminating the notion that anyone should be allowed to control the destiny of one's own creation.
It's not the government's business to dictate any criteria for MY hiring practices. A job I create is MY property. But then we've previously established that you don't believe in private property either. So, I guess the point is moot.
And it's hard to deny that your goal is to have all business be a "united rainbow" of color representation. The entire argument for such equal rights legislation is based on the fact that certain aspects of society are so disproportionally represented.
You're conflating (perhaps on purpose) two issues: what criteria you can use for hiring purposes, and what criteria you can not (and, what criteria you can not fire for). You make it sound like I'm in favor of tying your hands such that you must represent the United Colors of Benetton in your business, which is absurd and untrue. What I am in favor of is tying your hands so that you can't tell a perfectly capable and qualified employee to pack their shit because of their race, religion, gender, or whom they happen to be in love with.
Color me a
in' facist for that, won't ya? [/QUOTE]I'm not conflating anything. If anything, I am separating the two issues of government control and private property. It's you who want them to be one and the same, eliminating the notion that anyone should be allowed to control the destiny of one's own creation.
It's not the government's business to dictate any criteria for MY hiring practices. A job I create is MY property. But then we've previously established that you don't believe in private property either. So, I guess the point is moot.
And it's hard to deny that your goal is to have all business be a "united rainbow" of color representation. The entire argument for such equal rights legislation is based on the fact that certain aspects of society are so disproportionally represented.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm not conflating anything. If anything, I am separating the two issues of government control and private property. It's you who want them to be one and the same, eliminating the notion that anyone should be allowed to control the destiny of one's own creation.[/quote]
Which is complete bollocks, if you genuinely think, or dare argue, that your "destiny" is going to be dramatically altered by virtue of whom your employee goes home to have dinner with. It is going to be dramatically altered based upon the qualifications relevant to the job, which is why you are allowed and encouraged to hire the best person for the job based upon relevant criteria. You want to permit it to extend to irrelevant criteria.
Nope. Fraid not. Unless you want to be in the United States of bmulligan, then, no, it isn't. Your business and your success are contingent upon existing and participating in broader society. The people you hire, the people you fire, the people you serve, and the people who spend money in your store: they aren't you. They are society. They are also necessary for your success. We've been over this before: all components are necessary for a business to succeed, yet you want to believe in this overly simplistic overlord-like idea of a man succeeding financially in a vacuum (thus, they should be able to hire/fire at will, pay as much/little as they want (inc. benefits, surely), and not pay taxes at all if they desire.
Which is an absurdly naive way of recognizing the ol' "no man is an island" mantra. There are, simply put, costs associated with living in our society. Unless you have the resources to fix and repair roads as you move down them at will, or the resources to make your own dinner from kill to plate (every day, every meal), or manufacture your own system of drawing water for drinking/bathing/cleaning...you necessarily require the larger society to help provide all these things you take for granted every day.
In order to earn these benefits, compromises must be made, no? Murder may be legal in the US of bmug, but it's not legal in the United States of America. You must make those concessions, as that's what we've agreed upon. So, if your individual rights mean that you can no longer fire a black person for being a black person, like our grandparents had the opportunity to do, well...tough shit. That's the cost of living in our society. If you don't like it, you can always get out of the country.
Also, spare me your "freedom" nonsense, because it's an absurd argument you use in the abstract sense, failing to realize that freedom involves compromise. You may think freedom should involve the ability to or kill your doggies, or the ability to fire that money-grubbing gay Jew at your business, all in the name of "personal property", but you'd be wrong. Likewise, I'd be wrong to think I have the freedom to take a shit on your face; I don't have that freedom. So, stuff your "personal property" nonsense, because it only displays your willingness to provide even greater freedoms to established wealth and power in the US - at which point we are not very different from other forms of government that have existed in the past, no?
Yes, yes. I meant in the sense that racial populations are not equally distributed, so I'd expect to find more muslims of middle-eastern descent if you were located in Dearborn than, say, Des Moines, Iowa. The makeup of some jobs, then, would reflect those inter-city differences then, no?
Which is complete bollocks, if you genuinely think, or dare argue, that your "destiny" is going to be dramatically altered by virtue of whom your employee goes home to have dinner with. It is going to be dramatically altered based upon the qualifications relevant to the job, which is why you are allowed and encouraged to hire the best person for the job based upon relevant criteria. You want to permit it to extend to irrelevant criteria.
Nope. Fraid not. Unless you want to be in the United States of bmulligan, then, no, it isn't. Your business and your success are contingent upon existing and participating in broader society. The people you hire, the people you fire, the people you serve, and the people who spend money in your store: they aren't you. They are society. They are also necessary for your success. We've been over this before: all components are necessary for a business to succeed, yet you want to believe in this overly simplistic overlord-like idea of a man succeeding financially in a vacuum (thus, they should be able to hire/fire at will, pay as much/little as they want (inc. benefits, surely), and not pay taxes at all if they desire.
Which is an absurdly naive way of recognizing the ol' "no man is an island" mantra. There are, simply put, costs associated with living in our society. Unless you have the resources to fix and repair roads as you move down them at will, or the resources to make your own dinner from kill to plate (every day, every meal), or manufacture your own system of drawing water for drinking/bathing/cleaning...you necessarily require the larger society to help provide all these things you take for granted every day.
In order to earn these benefits, compromises must be made, no? Murder may be legal in the US of bmug, but it's not legal in the United States of America. You must make those concessions, as that's what we've agreed upon. So, if your individual rights mean that you can no longer fire a black person for being a black person, like our grandparents had the opportunity to do, well...tough shit. That's the cost of living in our society. If you don't like it, you can always get out of the country.
Also, spare me your "freedom" nonsense, because it's an absurd argument you use in the abstract sense, failing to realize that freedom involves compromise. You may think freedom should involve the ability to
or kill your doggies, or the ability to fire that money-grubbing gay Jew at your business, all in the name of "personal property", but you'd be wrong. Likewise, I'd be wrong to think I have the freedom to take a shit on your face; I don't have that freedom. So, stuff your "personal property" nonsense, because it only displays your willingness to provide even greater freedoms to established wealth and power in the US - at which point we are not very different from other forms of government that have existed in the past, no?Yes, yes. I meant in the sense that racial populations are not equally distributed, so I'd expect to find more muslims of middle-eastern descent if you were located in Dearborn than, say, Des Moines, Iowa. The makeup of some jobs, then, would reflect those inter-city differences then, no?
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmulligan']
It's not the government's business to dictate any criteria for MY hiring practices. A job I create is MY property. But then we've previously established that you don't believe in private property either. So, I guess the point is moot.
[/quote]
It is the government's business to protect fundamental civil rights, up to and including the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, national origin, religion....and....(probably not) coming soon to a statute near you....SEXUAL ORIENTATION!!!!
A couple notes from the legal standpoint of these issues:
(1) In some arguments it came out that there are unique situations where it may harm a business to have to hire a member of a protected class. These are called bona fide (latin for "good faith") occupational qualifications (hereinafter "BFOQs"). BFOQs have been upheld in a lawsuit by a male against Hooters (self explanatory); and even in other contexts like a chinese laundry mat where the owners could not find/work with people outside of their tightnit community. One case even held that it was legal for an employer to fire somebody for refusing to refrain from "preaching" to the customers b/c it was making them feel uncomfortable and they were losing business. Technically they were fired b/c of their religion but it is acceptabel so long as it is a BFOQ. So BMull, there are exceptions and protections for employers in the hypothetical situations where there is a genuine BFOQ.
(2) Nobody is forcing any private employer to hire anybody. The only thing these statutes do is prevent an employer from taking an "adverse employment action" motivated, in whole or in part, by one of the protected categories. This is a negative duty (refrain from doing this) as opposed to a positive duty (hire a lesbian). Aff. axn is a diff. issue which does not apply b/c you're talking about private employers.
(3) As a practical matter, it should be noted that winning an Emp. Disc. claim is one of the hardest types of cases to win in any area of law. The difficulty comes from the fact that you have to prove someone's intent, and unless they were overly flagrant or put things in writing "You're fired because you're black" the employer can usually make up a pretext that will cover their ass.
As an aside, I know Myke has enough people with thier nose buried in his ass around here but his points about availing yourself of the benefits and protections of the society you live in were probative. A private employer could not make a dime without roads, phones, police, electricity, water, and a shit ton of other amenities that the government provides. You therefore, by availing yourself of these benefits, also avail yourself of the obligations to abide by the civil liberty protections our government (aka our people) chooses to provide.
It's not the government's business to dictate any criteria for MY hiring practices. A job I create is MY property. But then we've previously established that you don't believe in private property either. So, I guess the point is moot.
[/quote]
It is the government's business to protect fundamental civil rights, up to and including the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, national origin, religion....and....(probably not) coming soon to a statute near you....SEXUAL ORIENTATION!!!!
A couple notes from the legal standpoint of these issues:
(1) In some arguments it came out that there are unique situations where it may harm a business to have to hire a member of a protected class. These are called bona fide (latin for "good faith") occupational qualifications (hereinafter "BFOQs"). BFOQs have been upheld in a lawsuit by a male against Hooters (self explanatory); and even in other contexts like a chinese laundry mat where the owners could not find/work with people outside of their tightnit community. One case even held that it was legal for an employer to fire somebody for refusing to refrain from "preaching" to the customers b/c it was making them feel uncomfortable and they were losing business. Technically they were fired b/c of their religion but it is acceptabel so long as it is a BFOQ. So BMull, there are exceptions and protections for employers in the hypothetical situations where there is a genuine BFOQ.
(2) Nobody is forcing any private employer to hire anybody. The only thing these statutes do is prevent an employer from taking an "adverse employment action" motivated, in whole or in part, by one of the protected categories. This is a negative duty (refrain from doing this) as opposed to a positive duty (hire a lesbian). Aff. axn is a diff. issue which does not apply b/c you're talking about private employers.
(3) As a practical matter, it should be noted that winning an Emp. Disc. claim is one of the hardest types of cases to win in any area of law. The difficulty comes from the fact that you have to prove someone's intent, and unless they were overly flagrant or put things in writing "You're fired because you're black" the employer can usually make up a pretext that will cover their ass.
As an aside, I know Myke has enough people with thier nose buried in his ass around here but his points about availing yourself of the benefits and protections of the society you live in were probative. A private employer could not make a dime without roads, phones, police, electricity, water, and a shit ton of other amenities that the government provides. You therefore, by availing yourself of these benefits, also avail yourself of the obligations to abide by the civil liberty protections our government (aka our people) chooses to provide.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
What's my ass got to do with anything? Leave my personal property out of this!
[quote name='mykevermin']Which is complete bollocks, if you genuinely think, or dare argue, that your "destiny" is going to be dramatically altered by virtue of whom your employee goes home to have dinner with. It is going to be dramatically altered based upon the qualifications relevant to the job, which is why you are allowed and encouraged to hire the best person for the job based upon relevant criteria. You want to permit it to extend to irrelevant criteria. [/quote]
No criteria of personal liberty is irrelevant. Why do you always turn this into something personal? I don't personally care who my employees when they go home at night. the point is that some people do and their beliefs deserve protection more than some false premise that we should be free from descrimination by other individuals. From government, yes. From protection in law enforcement, yes. But in dealings with other private institutions and indivduals - no. You do not have the right to tell me I must not be discriminate in my associations. Ever hear of freedom of association or assembly? You have but you can't fathom it means anything other than equal representation.
If I fail to hire the best qualified person for my job, it's my freedom to fail or make a bad choice. It's not the government's job to dictate hiring criteria to me.
Glad you wouldn't dare challenge the proportional representation in my earlier post, btw. I'll consider that a closet victory since you admitted to you contradiction.
Now we get down to brass tacks and business, you marxist dog. There's no question that your goal is the complete elimination of freedom, private property, and most importantly, profit - all for the "common good". The complete socialization of society as a whole is also a form of government that has been tried, no?
Good luck in the bread line, Myke. Although I'm sure you'll use your party affiliation to get a double ration for yourself without even having to demonstrate your need.
No criteria of personal liberty is irrelevant. Why do you always turn this into something personal? I don't personally care who my employees
when they go home at night. the point is that some people do and their beliefs deserve protection more than some false premise that we should be free from descrimination by other individuals. From government, yes. From protection in law enforcement, yes. But in dealings with other private institutions and indivduals - no. You do not have the right to tell me I must not be discriminate in my associations. Ever hear of freedom of association or assembly? You have but you can't fathom it means anything other than equal representation. If I fail to hire the best qualified person for my job, it's my freedom to fail or make a bad choice. It's not the government's job to dictate hiring criteria to me.
Glad you wouldn't dare challenge the proportional representation in my earlier post, btw. I'll consider that a closet victory since you admitted to you contradiction.
Now we get down to brass tacks and business, you marxist dog. There's no question that your goal is the complete elimination of freedom, private property, and most importantly, profit - all for the "common good". The complete socialization of society as a whole is also a form of government that has been tried, no?
Good luck in the bread line, Myke. Although I'm sure you'll use your party affiliation to get a double ration for yourself without even having to demonstrate your need.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='bmulligan']No criteria of personal liberty is irrelevant. Why do you always turn this into something personal?[/quote]
Don't delude yourself, toots.
*
Let's stop right here for a minute, because we're getting down to your revelation in a rather telling way. Even I was taken aback by your brash admission that some people's "freedoms" are more important and higher on the priority list than other people's "freedoms." Which, of course, reduces every aspect of your bullshit laissez-faire ideology down to nothing.
I'm going to make this clear for even you.
[quote name='bmulligan']the point is that some people do and their beliefs deserve protection more than some false premise that we should be free from descrimination by other individuals.[/quote]
Yegods. For all your red-baiting, comrade, you're clearly anti-freedom at this point. Your preference for "personal property" and perpetual siding with monied interests is not only ideologically contrary to this country's legacy, but also against the law.
I have a house. Personal property, no? Suppose my community and I don't want any...oh, you know the type..."colored" folks moving into the neighborhood. We all sign agreements that we won't sell to coloreds. Good idea, right? Shame that it's illegal.
Such a violation of personal property rights, inn't it? I should be able to sell my home to whomever I want, and keep the racial sanctity of whiteyville alive and well, no?
So, let me bait you quite obviously by simply asking you why you hate the freedoms protected and guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act? Why would you rather go back to Jim Crow legislation, or, perhaps, even further than that? How about all that "personal property" that suddenly disappeared with the emancipation proclamation, no? Whose personal freedoms and liberties goted there? I bet your great-great-great-great-great-granpappy bmulligan never even received due compensation for those 4 strapping negro slaves that the government stole from him via their emancipation. Why does the government always want to take from the wealthy and redistribute that wealth? I demand reparations!
You must only know the constitution, you know that? You're like a bible nut who can only quote Genesis. You know we do have laws, right? This naivete of yours is a shell game that needs to be stopped.
Ever hear of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? Prolly not, as it isn't in your pocket Constitution. Nevertheless, it's a real organization with real laws to support it...and let me be clear...they hate your freedom.
The government sure does have a right to tell you that you can not discriminate in your actions, dumbass. There are ample laws to back it up. What can't you grasp about that? If you think they're unconstitutional, go 'n challenge 'em, hombre. What are you debating me for? There's a Civil Rights Acts to get overturned! GIT! GIT!
Make yourself a paper party hat and have a cupcake if you really insist. It's only common sense, after all, so if you think that my specifying something is a victory for your, then one of us is really hard up for something, anything, to legitimize their existence, no?
*sigh* And yet I'm the one that takes things personally? Color me a Marxist for pointing out the laws in the United States, rather than relying on some cloudy fantasy of a world where the only thing is the constitution, and nothing else. Which reminds me: what does the constitution say about doging?
Don't delude yourself, toots.
I don't personally care who my employees
*
Let's stop right here for a minute, because we're getting down to your revelation in a rather telling way. Even I was taken aback by your brash admission that some people's "freedoms" are more important and higher on the priority list than other people's "freedoms." Which, of course, reduces every aspect of your bullshit laissez-faire ideology down to nothing.
I'm going to make this clear for even you.
[quote name='bmulligan']the point is that some people do and their beliefs deserve protection more than some false premise that we should be free from descrimination by other individuals.[/quote]
Yegods. For all your red-baiting, comrade, you're clearly anti-freedom at this point. Your preference for "personal property" and perpetual siding with monied interests is not only ideologically contrary to this country's legacy, but also against the law.
I have a house. Personal property, no? Suppose my community and I don't want any...oh, you know the type..."colored" folks moving into the neighborhood. We all sign agreements that we won't sell to coloreds. Good idea, right? Shame that it's illegal.
Such a violation of personal property rights, inn't it? I should be able to sell my home to whomever I want, and keep the racial sanctity of whiteyville alive and well, no?
So, let me bait you quite obviously by simply asking you why you hate the freedoms protected and guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act? Why would you rather go back to Jim Crow legislation, or, perhaps, even further than that? How about all that "personal property" that suddenly disappeared with the emancipation proclamation, no? Whose personal freedoms and liberties got
ed there? I bet your great-great-great-great-great-granpappy bmulligan never even received due compensation for those 4 strapping negro slaves that the government stole from him via their emancipation. Why does the government always want to take from the wealthy and redistribute that wealth? I demand reparations!You must only know the constitution, you know that? You're like a bible nut who can only quote Genesis. You know we do have laws, right? This naivete of yours is a shell game that needs to be stopped.
Ever hear of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? Prolly not, as it isn't in your pocket Constitution. Nevertheless, it's a real organization with real laws to support it...and let me be clear...they hate your freedom.
The government sure does have a right to tell you that you can not discriminate in your actions, dumbass. There are ample laws to back it up. What can't you grasp about that? If you think they're unconstitutional, go 'n challenge 'em, hombre. What are you debating me for? There's a Civil Rights Acts to get overturned! GIT! GIT!
Make yourself a paper party hat and have a cupcake if you really insist. It's only common sense, after all, so if you think that my specifying something is a victory for your, then one of us is really hard up for something, anything, to legitimize their existence, no?
*sigh* And yet I'm the one that takes things personally? Color me a Marxist for pointing out the laws in the United States, rather than relying on some cloudy fantasy of a world where the only thing is the constitution, and nothing else. Which reminds me: what does the constitution say about dog
ing?
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
He is serious.
What about the freedom to be free from discrimination Bmull?
And you have freedom of association and assembly confused with a negative right as opposed to a positive right. The constitution provides protection for the postive aspect of freedom of assoc. By that I mean they cannot PREVENT you from associating with certain types or assembling with others (subject to certain exceptions of course). No where in the progeny of caselaw espoused under this protection has there ever been a right recognized "to be free from associating with fags, niggers, etc..." In very limited circumstances (private social clubs, churches, are a few) people are allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of a protected class.
And what the does anti-discrimination regulation have to do with socialism? This is not about the best way to spend the governments money or a balancing of social welfare with fiscal individuality, it's about right and wrong, it's about trying to effectuate an ideal where all men are created equal, not in terms of economics but in terms of dignity and rights.
You could really, really use a nice long weekend in Key West. You would just love it sweety.
What about the freedom to be free from discrimination Bmull?
And you have freedom of association and assembly confused with a negative right as opposed to a positive right. The constitution provides protection for the postive aspect of freedom of assoc. By that I mean they cannot PREVENT you from associating with certain types or assembling with others (subject to certain exceptions of course). No where in the progeny of caselaw espoused under this protection has there ever been a right recognized "to be free from associating with fags, niggers, etc..." In very limited circumstances (private social clubs, churches, are a few) people are allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of a protected class.
And what the
does anti-discrimination regulation have to do with socialism? This is not about the best way to spend the governments money or a balancing of social welfare with fiscal individuality, it's about right and wrong, it's about trying to effectuate an ideal where all men are created equal, not in terms of economics but in terms of dignity and rights.You could really, really use a nice long weekend in Key West. You would just love it sweety.
[quote name='pittpizza']He is serious.
What about the freedom to be free from discrimination Bmull?
[/QUOTE]
there is no such freedom - just like there is no freedom not to be offended by someone else's opinion. Trying to get a job is exactly that - you putting yourself up for a review and being subject to someone else's opinion. Only in this case, you want the government to dictate what our opinions as employers should and shouldn't be. You can't blank out the liberty of the one offering the job and equate that with the one seeking the job, one takes precedence over the other in all cases. Just like my choice not to let homeless people into my home supercedes anyones perceived right to free government housing. My right to the food I grow is not superceded by a hungry person who wants to make a claim.
That's the problem with myke and his kind- They all believe that society has a claim on everything you do, everything you make, everything you create, and everything you own. It's usually explained as you once rode a bus to work which is subsidized by the government, so everything you earn is subject to an IOU to society - even if you paid for the bus ride out of your own pocket. The goal is to make people rely on government subsidy in every aspect of life so that their claim can hold truth in all aspects of our economy. Need a house? Get a subsidized loan. Need healthcare? Get federal subsidized insurance. This is Myke's world wet dream - from each his ability, to each his need.
In their world, one does not , and should not"own" anything. To accomplish their goals, one CANNOT own anything, because it does not allow the "people" to have a claim on one's property. Society owns everything, and therefore can dictate all behavior according to what the party says, or what the "people" decide is best for society. What myke is really saying is that I do not own the job I create in my company. it's community property and can only be used for the benefit of society. Read my sig, it's a perfect anti-rationalization for communist thinking as truth.
It's really a shame that people like the pittpizzaman are considered lawyers. Our future interpreters of the law in the hands of a few individuals who couldn't tell the difference between the right to one's own life and slavery. Freedom of association is also my right to choose my associates, or, who I associate with. Ii.e., My right to enter into contracts with whomever I choose, for whatever reason I choose. What you do with equal rights amentments, which are mis-named btw, is disallow my choice, my freedom, to pick my associates by my own criteria. They are therefore, invalid laws. Association does not simply mean who I choose to go to the bar wth or on a friday night. Many specific conotations were intended by the written word of the constitution. Yes, my bible according to myke. A much better sacred document than public opinion or the communist manifesto.
What about the freedom to be free from discrimination Bmull?
[/QUOTE]
there is no such freedom - just like there is no freedom not to be offended by someone else's opinion. Trying to get a job is exactly that - you putting yourself up for a review and being subject to someone else's opinion. Only in this case, you want the government to dictate what our opinions as employers should and shouldn't be. You can't blank out the liberty of the one offering the job and equate that with the one seeking the job, one takes precedence over the other in all cases. Just like my choice not to let homeless people into my home supercedes anyones perceived right to free government housing. My right to the food I grow is not superceded by a hungry person who wants to make a claim.
That's the problem with myke and his kind- They all believe that society has a claim on everything you do, everything you make, everything you create, and everything you own. It's usually explained as you once rode a bus to work which is subsidized by the government, so everything you earn is subject to an IOU to society - even if you paid for the bus ride out of your own pocket. The goal is to make people rely on government subsidy in every aspect of life so that their claim can hold truth in all aspects of our economy. Need a house? Get a subsidized loan. Need healthcare? Get federal subsidized insurance. This is Myke's world wet dream - from each his ability, to each his need.
In their world, one does not , and should not"own" anything. To accomplish their goals, one CANNOT own anything, because it does not allow the "people" to have a claim on one's property. Society owns everything, and therefore can dictate all behavior according to what the party says, or what the "people" decide is best for society. What myke is really saying is that I do not own the job I create in my company. it's community property and can only be used for the benefit of society. Read my sig, it's a perfect anti-rationalization for communist thinking as truth.
It's really a shame that people like the pittpizzaman are considered lawyers. Our future interpreters of the law in the hands of a few individuals who couldn't tell the difference between the right to one's own life and slavery. Freedom of association is also my right to choose my associates, or, who I associate with. Ii.e., My right to enter into contracts with whomever I choose, for whatever reason I choose. What you do with equal rights amentments, which are mis-named btw, is disallow my choice, my freedom, to pick my associates by my own criteria. They are therefore, invalid laws. Association does not simply mean who I choose to go to the bar wth or
on a friday night. Many specific conotations were intended by the written word of the constitution. Yes, my bible according to myke. A much better sacred document than public opinion or the communist manifesto.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmulligan']there is no such freedom - just like there is no freedom not to be offended by someone else's opinion. Trying to get a job is exactly that - you putting yourself up for a review and being subject to someone else's opinion. Only in this case, you want the government to dictate what our opinions as employers should and shouldn't be. You can't blank out the liberty of the one offering the job and equate that with the one seeking the job, one takes precedence over the other in all cases. Just like my choice not to let homeless people into my home supercedes anyones perceived right to free government housing. My right to the food I grow is not superceded by a hungry person who wants to make a claim.
That's the problem with myke and his kind- They all believe that society has a claim on everything you do, everything you make, everything you create, and everything you own. It's usually explained as you once rode a bus to work which is subsidized by the government, so everything you earn is subject to an IOU to society. In their world, one does not "own" anything. Society owns everything, and therefore can dictate all behavior according to what the party says, or what the "people" decide is best for society. Read my sig, it's a perfect anti-rationalization for communist thinking as truth.[/QUOTE]
Well I guess that is where you and I differ. I think that our country should protect ones freedom to be judged on one's merits, to be given equal opportunities regardless of race, color, religion and national origin. These are basic equal rights and I beleive in them.
That's the problem with myke and his kind- They all believe that society has a claim on everything you do, everything you make, everything you create, and everything you own. It's usually explained as you once rode a bus to work which is subsidized by the government, so everything you earn is subject to an IOU to society. In their world, one does not "own" anything. Society owns everything, and therefore can dictate all behavior according to what the party says, or what the "people" decide is best for society. Read my sig, it's a perfect anti-rationalization for communist thinking as truth.[/QUOTE]
Well I guess that is where you and I differ. I think that our country should protect ones freedom to be judged on one's merits, to be given equal opportunities regardless of race, color, religion and national origin. These are basic equal rights and I beleive in them.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
A blathering polemic from a blithering idiot, who fails to address the fact that the laws of the land do prevent forms of discrimination, despite his undying hardon for not the constitution, but his interpretaion of the constitution.
He's like a political Mana Knight - his interpretation is gospel truth and the only one worth considering.
Why don't you address the points I make instead of turning into some pro-wrestling-style screaming AM radio dipshit? You're allegedly a smart person, but have nothing to offer but obfuscation and red baiting. That's so half-a-in'-century ago, man.
He's like a political Mana Knight - his interpretation is gospel truth and the only one worth considering.
Why don't you address the points I make instead of turning into some pro-wrestling-style screaming AM radio dipshit? You're allegedly a smart person, but have nothing to offer but obfuscation and red baiting. That's so half-a-
in'-century ago, man.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
beats me...I think he's intelligent, but gets bloody frustrated when he realizes that he's wrong - and like most folks on the internet, refuses to admit any concession, instead taking his time at futile attempts at obfuscation and name-calling.
The time-frame the internet allows is a luxury, as it permits you to stew over a point of contention...and when you recognize you can't win (particularly when it's something as absurd as a position suggesting freedom for everyone, and specified as freedom for monied interests :lol, then you can take the time to change the subject.
EDIT: I'm not above name-calling, but I stay onin' point at the same time. Also, merci for your update. I'm just curious how y'all Canadians are weathering things. We don't get much Canadian news in the states, of course (but we don't get much US news either, since OJ is back in court).
The time-frame the internet allows is a luxury, as it permits you to stew over a point of contention...and when you recognize you can't win (particularly when it's something as absurd as a position suggesting freedom for everyone, and specified as freedom for monied interests :lol
, then you can take the time to change the subject.EDIT: I'm not above name-calling, but I stay on
in' point at the same time. Also, merci for your update. I'm just curious how y'all Canadians are weathering things. We don't get much Canadian news in the states, of course (but we don't get much US news either, since OJ is back in court).I would like to assert something that occured to me while reading this exchange. I might be right, wrong, an ass, whatever.. but Bmull's got it easy- it's simple, effortless for him to say what he has. I hate to assume, but I'm for the sake of the argument I'm going to assume he's a straight white male. See, when you're a heterosexual, religious white male, in America, you have nothing to worry about. It's easy to marginalise someone else problems when you don't have to deal with them, right?
I'm grateful for Pitt and Myke for in the least empathising with the situation and preferring to care for the interests of society, rather than ca$h and selfishness.
I'm grateful for Pitt and Myke for in the least empathising with the situation and preferring to care for the interests of society, rather than ca$h and selfishness.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Hex']I would like to assert something that occured to me while reading this exchange. Right, wrong, whatever, but Bmull's got it easy- it's simple, effortless for him to say what he has. I hate to assume, but I'm for the sake of the argument I'm going to assume he's a straight white male. See, when you're a heterosexual, religious white male, in America, you have nothing to worry about. It's easy to marginalise someone else problems when you don't have to deal with them, right?[/QUOTE]
At the risk of pulling this completely off topic: This is precisely what anti-Affirmative Action types fail to recognize: they benefit from not being a minority and subject to discrimination, so in the absence of AA legislation, they do benefit, in fact, from affirmative action that offers them the benefits of being a non-marginalized population. That's the kicker: AA is unavoidable, it's just a matter of if you want to allow people to discriminate in favor of straight white males or enforce the law to prevent such flagrant and consistent favortism.
At the risk of pulling this completely off topic: This is precisely what anti-Affirmative Action types fail to recognize: they benefit from not being a minority and subject to discrimination, so in the absence of AA legislation, they do benefit, in fact, from affirmative action that offers them the benefits of being a non-marginalized population. That's the kicker: AA is unavoidable, it's just a matter of if you want to allow people to discriminate in favor of straight white males or enforce the law to prevent such flagrant and consistent favortism.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
Big off topic risk indeed, but this thread is already off topic as it started with another butt-ing GOP remember? So lets just continue to let it flow.
I really (get ready to be shocked) don't have a stong opinion about AA. Yeah I know, it's crazy, pittpizza doesn't have an opinion.
I can clearly acknowledge the benefits, which can all be chalked up to one big idea "Remedying the effects of past discrimination" BUT I am not wholly convinced that the benefits outweigh the detriments.
Some argue that recognizing race at all, sets us back and just makes it the focus of unwarranted attention. They say acknowleding race in any way is racism (the whole "an alien wouldn't identify us into races" point). The name of this theory escapes me.
Others point out that it just pisses non-minorities off, and therefore fuels the racism fire. Still others mention that minorities may be afllicted with a subconscious "I wonder if I just got this job because I'm black" inferiority complex.
ing GOP remember? So lets just continue to let it flow. I really (get ready to be shocked) don't have a stong opinion about AA. Yeah I know, it's crazy, pittpizza doesn't have an opinion.
I can clearly acknowledge the benefits, which can all be chalked up to one big idea "Remedying the effects of past discrimination" BUT I am not wholly convinced that the benefits outweigh the detriments.
Some argue that recognizing race at all, sets us back and just makes it the focus of unwarranted attention. They say acknowleding race in any way is racism (the whole "an alien wouldn't identify us into races" point). The name of this theory escapes me.
Others point out that it just pisses non-minorities off, and therefore fuels the racism fire. Still others mention that minorities may be afllicted with a subconscious "I wonder if I just got this job because I'm black" inferiority complex.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I firmly believe that if you think the "colorblind" ideology is possible, then see if you can live for one day...hell, one hour, being "gender-blind." Try it. See how easy that is.
As for the "I'm the token minority employee" stigma, it's interesting, since very, very few people ever think "I wonder if I/they got the job because I'm/they're white," but it's more often true than the token minority.
As for the "I'm the token minority employee" stigma, it's interesting, since very, very few people ever think "I wonder if I/they got the job because I'm/they're white," but it's more often true than the token minority.
bigdaddy
Banned
I have lost count of how many GOPs who are anti gay and have anal sex, which is gay to religious freaks, this has happened to. The number has to be dozens and dozens by now.
How many Democrats have? Many 2 or 3? I think the NJ governor was a demo.
And in all fairness, the guy is clearly transexual, and not a gay guy. So everything hateful he said about gays is O.K. :lol:
And when a gay whore calls you a "freak" that is a sad day.
How many Democrats have? Many 2 or 3? I think the NJ governor was a demo.
And in all fairness, the guy is clearly transexual, and not a gay guy. So everything hateful he said about gays is O.K. :lol:
And when a gay whore calls you a "freak" that is a sad day.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']I firmly believe that if you think the "colorblind" ideology is possible, then see if you can live for one day...hell, one hour, being "gender-blind." Try it. See how easy that is.
As for the "I'm the token minority employee" stigma, it's interesting, since very, very few people ever think "I wonder if I/they got the job because I'm/they're white," but it's more often true than the token minority.[/quote]
I'm sorry but you're first paragraph really reminds me of an episode of "The Office" where Stever Correll's character (I forget is name) says "Hug it out bitch!" to a woman. It wasin hilarious :lol: :lol: how offended she was and how he thought it was okay. THis example goes to show you how/why it is imposible to be genderblind throughout a day. Gender is different since there are physicological, anatomical, and cultural differences unlike the other protected categories. I would HIGHLY recommend NOT trying what you suggest, unless your job is not important to you.
Addressing your second paragraph, good point, but it does not really address the stigma felt by minorities.
As for the "I'm the token minority employee" stigma, it's interesting, since very, very few people ever think "I wonder if I/they got the job because I'm/they're white," but it's more often true than the token minority.[/quote]
I'm sorry but you're first paragraph really reminds me of an episode of "The Office" where Stever Correll's character (I forget is name) says "Hug it out bitch!" to a woman. It was
in hilarious :lol: :lol: how offended she was and how he thought it was okay. THis example goes to show you how/why it is imposible to be genderblind throughout a day. Gender is different since there are physicological, anatomical, and cultural differences unlike the other protected categories. I would HIGHLY recommend NOT trying what you suggest, unless your job is not important to you. Addressing your second paragraph, good point, but it does not really address the stigma felt by minorities.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The reality of biological differences in gender are moot, since (1) you're conflating "cultural" differences with what is known as the "essentialist" perspective (the idea that women are inherently different in so many ways due to their biological nature, irrespective of how they are raised), and (2) given that public perception affects how we view and interact with the world far more than the real world around us does (see also: religion), the mere perception that there are genuine physiological and cultural differences amongst racial categories creates those differences via the way we assume those same kinds of differences exist.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']The reality of biological differences in gender are moot...[/quote]
Try convincing my fiance of that when its that time of the month.
I'm not conflating anything, my statement was "Gender is different since there are physicological, anatomical, and cultural differences unlike the other protected categories." See how I mentioned both of them: "anatomical" AND "cultural" as in two seperate things.
Surely you're not trying to say that there are no more differences between a man and a women than there are between two men of differing (insert protected class here).
EDIT: Why does my signature appear in some posts but not others? Whats up with that?
Try convincing my fiance of that when its that time of the month.
I'm not conflating anything, my statement was "Gender is different since there are physicological, anatomical, and cultural differences unlike the other protected categories." See how I mentioned both of them: "anatomical" AND "cultural" as in two seperate things.
Surely you're not trying to say that there are no more differences between a man and a women than there are between two men of differing (insert protected class here).
EDIT: Why does my signature appear in some posts but not others? Whats up with that?
[quote name='pittpizza']Big off topic risk indeed, but this thread is already off topic as it started with another butt-ing GOP remember? So lets just continue to let it flow.
I really (get ready to be shocked) don't have a stong opinion about AA. Yeah I know, it's crazy, pittpizza doesn't have an opinion.
I can clearly acknowledge the benefits, which can all be chalked up to one big idea "Remedying the effects of past discrimination" BUT I am not wholly convinced that the benefits outweigh the detriments.
Some argue that recognizing race at all, sets us back and just makes it the focus of unwarranted attention. They say acknowleding race in any way is racism (the whole "an alien wouldn't identify us into races" point). The name of this theory escapes me.
Others point out that it just pisses non-minorities off, and therefore fuels the racism fire. Still others mention that minorities may be afllicted with a subconscious "I wonder if I just got this job because I'm black" inferiority complex.[/quote]
Granted, AA is well meaning but that doesn't mean it fulfills its intent. Speaking as a member of a minority, I don't think AA is all it's cracked up to be. I've worked hard to be my own boss of my own company so any of my success or failure is mine & mine alone. I think AA breeds laziness where a minority thinks he/she can get it on ethnicity/gender alone.
Now, on the theoretical hypothesis on who I'd hire if all other things besides ethicity/gender are equal, it'd be the person who negotiated the higher salary. If the person was audacious enough to say he/she's worth X amount of dollars more than what I initially offer and can convince me of its value, then that person was worth hiring (and I haven't been proven wrong yet). Anytime a resume gets past my staff's filter process & in front of me, I tell my staff to tape over the names so I only judge them solely on skills & achievements. When I interview someone, I tend to do it over the phone so I won't be clouded/influenced by my own perceived ethnic bias (I don't care about accents as, in my particular business, if you can't communicate clearly anyway, I'm probably not going to hire you as I emphasize communication a lot).
ing GOP remember? So lets just continue to let it flow. I really (get ready to be shocked) don't have a stong opinion about AA. Yeah I know, it's crazy, pittpizza doesn't have an opinion.
I can clearly acknowledge the benefits, which can all be chalked up to one big idea "Remedying the effects of past discrimination" BUT I am not wholly convinced that the benefits outweigh the detriments.
Some argue that recognizing race at all, sets us back and just makes it the focus of unwarranted attention. They say acknowleding race in any way is racism (the whole "an alien wouldn't identify us into races" point). The name of this theory escapes me.
Others point out that it just pisses non-minorities off, and therefore fuels the racism fire. Still others mention that minorities may be afllicted with a subconscious "I wonder if I just got this job because I'm black" inferiority complex.[/quote]
Granted, AA is well meaning but that doesn't mean it fulfills its intent. Speaking as a member of a minority, I don't think AA is all it's cracked up to be. I've worked hard to be my own boss of my own company so any of my success or failure is mine & mine alone. I think AA breeds laziness where a minority thinks he/she can get it on ethnicity/gender alone.
Now, on the theoretical hypothesis on who I'd hire if all other things besides ethicity/gender are equal, it'd be the person who negotiated the higher salary. If the person was audacious enough to say he/she's worth X amount of dollars more than what I initially offer and can convince me of its value, then that person was worth hiring (and I haven't been proven wrong yet). Anytime a resume gets past my staff's filter process & in front of me, I tell my staff to tape over the names so I only judge them solely on skills & achievements. When I interview someone, I tend to do it over the phone so I won't be clouded/influenced by my own perceived ethnic bias (I don't care about accents as, in my particular business, if you can't communicate clearly anyway, I'm probably not going to hire you as I emphasize communication a lot).
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Feh. That's when they take advantage of you. PMS has no basis in the empirical world.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']Feh. That's when they take advantage of you. PMS has no basis in the empirical world.[/quote]
Ummm.....yeah....whatever you say boss.
I know how much you hate anecdotal evidence, but if you grew up with my sister, or were engaged to my fiance (you better not be!) you would have a different view.
Ummm.....yeah....whatever you say boss.
I know how much you hate anecdotal evidence, but if you grew up with my sister, or were engaged to my fiance (you better not be!) you would have a different view.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Yes, well...people do react to it, but that's not proving that it's biologically based. Placebo effect and all that.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
I'll have to remember to tell my fiance that the next time she is keeled over with cramps: "Cut it out honey, I'm trying to play some Super Mario Galaxy here. Besides, it's all in your head. BTW, can you grab me a beer?" I'm sure that will go over real well.
It's not in your nature to defend untenable positions, it doesnt suit you.
It's not in your nature to defend untenable positions, it doesnt suit you.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Untenable? You're the one justifying temperament shifts as a result of physical conditions? How one reacts to pain varies wildly. You should know that.
Additionally, you've finally just now brought the physical issue into consideration, which means you're now conflating the menstrual cycle (which undeniably exists) with an equally untenable claim that attitude and temperament are unavoidably caused prior to the monthly cycle. Sure, we've all seen it, but that doesn't mean it's biologically driven.
Additionally, you've finally just now brought the physical issue into consideration, which means you're now conflating the menstrual cycle (which undeniably exists) with an equally untenable claim that attitude and temperament are unavoidably caused prior to the monthly cycle. Sure, we've all seen it, but that doesn't mean it's biologically driven.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']Untenable? You're the one justifying temperament shifts as a result of physical conditions? How one reacts to pain varies wildly. You should know that.
Additionally, you've finally just now brought the physical issue into consideration, which means you're now conflating the menstrual cycle (which undeniably exists) with an equally untenable claim that attitude and temperament are unavoidably caused prior to the monthly cycle. Sure, we've all seen it, but that doesn't mean it's biologically driven.[/quote]
Is it really that crazy to suggest that temperment shifts might be related to physical discomfort? Sure reactions to pain vary alot, I just don't think that cramps, attitude, temperment or any other period related "icky stuff" can be categorized so neatly into biologically caused or pychologically caused especially when hormones (biological change with psychological effects) get involved. Some women go on birth control simply because it alleviates their PMS: I'm not assuming that it works biologically, for all I know it may just be the placebo "The doc said this would help so it helps" but it does lend support to the contention that the attitude/temperment may be caused biologically if it can be medicated. Are attitude/temperment unavoidably caused by PMS? Of course not, I did not suggest that and if you thought I implied it there must have been some miscommunication. Women's responses to PMS are probably as varied as women themselves. However is it possible that PMS unavoidably causes a bad temper in some cases sure, why not? I just feel sorry for their spouses.
I'll be the first to admit I really don't know squat about this stuff, and am not particularly interested in continuing to discuss it. My point is only that I do not think that PMS is a social construct or placebo related, sure some may use it as a crutch and probably many males unfairly chalk up irritability to PMS, but not in every case.
This thread is starting to resemble a Midol commercial. I never, ever imagined this would be a subject I would discuss in vid. game message board threads.
Additionally, you've finally just now brought the physical issue into consideration, which means you're now conflating the menstrual cycle (which undeniably exists) with an equally untenable claim that attitude and temperament are unavoidably caused prior to the monthly cycle. Sure, we've all seen it, but that doesn't mean it's biologically driven.[/quote]
Is it really that crazy to suggest that temperment shifts might be related to physical discomfort? Sure reactions to pain vary alot, I just don't think that cramps, attitude, temperment or any other period related "icky stuff" can be categorized so neatly into biologically caused or pychologically caused especially when hormones (biological change with psychological effects) get involved. Some women go on birth control simply because it alleviates their PMS: I'm not assuming that it works biologically, for all I know it may just be the placebo "The doc said this would help so it helps" but it does lend support to the contention that the attitude/temperment may be caused biologically if it can be medicated. Are attitude/temperment unavoidably caused by PMS? Of course not, I did not suggest that and if you thought I implied it there must have been some miscommunication. Women's responses to PMS are probably as varied as women themselves. However is it possible that PMS unavoidably causes a bad temper in some cases sure, why not? I just feel sorry for their spouses.
I'll be the first to admit I really don't know squat about this stuff, and am not particularly interested in continuing to discuss it. My point is only that I do not think that PMS is a social construct or placebo related, sure some may use it as a crutch and probably many males unfairly chalk up irritability to PMS, but not in every case.
This thread is starting to resemble a Midol commercial. I never, ever imagined this would be a subject I would discuss in vid. game message board threads.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
It happens.
[quote name='mykevermin']A blathering polemic from a blithering idiot, who fails to address the fact that the laws of the land do prevent forms of discrimination, despite his undying hardon for not the constitution, but his interpretaion of the constitution.
He's like a political Mana Knight - his interpretation is gospel truth and the only one worth considering.
Why don't you address the points I make instead of turning into some pro-wrestling-style screaming AM radio dipshit? You're allegedly a smart person, but have nothing to offer but obfuscation and red baiting. That's so half-a-in'-century ago, man.[/QUOTE]
since you comrades have had a few days to masturbate each other and bask in your own self-righteousness, I'll now take the opportunity to respond to mykes points...
let me see....
I'm still trying to find them. I have to wade through the name calling and obfuscation. of his own positions....
wait, yess.....it seems we HAVE laws that protect "civil rights". Yes, and they are too overreaching. Just becuase some laws exist, does not mean they aren't contrary too the constitution, or morally wrong with regard to individual rights. Ever since it was written, all three branches of government have been overstepping their bounds and usurping power from the governed with or without their consent. It doesn't make what they write right, or gospel. Even myke should know this. He is, after all, halfway intelligent.
The only names I've ever called you, myke,were probably closely related to the recent "marxist dog" and were not intended to be personal remarks on your character or defame in any way. This is where your style and mine seem to differ. They are simply apropos labels for your political/economic leanings. You should take pride in your political ancestry and re-claim these titles as banners of triumph ! Or would you just prefer to obfuscate your true beliefs so that you don't offend future recruits? (hey, you used it twice in a post because you couldn't think of anything else - so why can't I ?)
I really am disappointed in your recent posts regarding me and my steadfast philosophical consistency. I would have expected a more scholarly response from a somewhat educated person. Battling capitalist dogma all day long from scholastic seclusion must have tired you out. When you can start making valid points instead of personal, emotion fueled attacks, I'll be sure to read them.
He's like a political Mana Knight - his interpretation is gospel truth and the only one worth considering.
Why don't you address the points I make instead of turning into some pro-wrestling-style screaming AM radio dipshit? You're allegedly a smart person, but have nothing to offer but obfuscation and red baiting. That's so half-a-
in'-century ago, man.[/QUOTE]since you comrades have had a few days to masturbate each other and bask in your own self-righteousness, I'll now take the opportunity to respond to mykes points...
let me see....
I'm still trying to find them. I have to wade through the name calling and obfuscation. of his own positions....
wait, yess.....it seems we HAVE laws that protect "civil rights". Yes, and they are too overreaching. Just becuase some laws exist, does not mean they aren't contrary too the constitution, or morally wrong with regard to individual rights. Ever since it was written, all three branches of government have been overstepping their bounds and usurping power from the governed with or without their consent. It doesn't make what they write right, or gospel. Even myke should know this. He is, after all, halfway intelligent.
The only names I've ever called you, myke,were probably closely related to the recent "marxist dog" and were not intended to be personal remarks on your character or defame in any way. This is where your style and mine seem to differ. They are simply apropos labels for your political/economic leanings. You should take pride in your political ancestry and re-claim these titles as banners of triumph ! Or would you just prefer to obfuscate your true beliefs so that you don't offend future recruits? (hey, you used it twice in a post because you couldn't think of anything else - so why can't I ?)
I really am disappointed in your recent posts regarding me and my steadfast philosophical consistency. I would have expected a more scholarly response from a somewhat educated person. Battling capitalist dogma all day long from scholastic seclusion must have tired you out. When you can start making valid points instead of personal, emotion fueled attacks, I'll be sure to read them.
bread's done