You clearly don't understand the U.S.

Post #87,012 by drewk 3/10/03 8:31:56 AM Reply	You clearly don't understand the U.S. Not that that's a bad thing. It doesn't really make sense. Those of "the rules" that aren't so "obvious", though... Are, one would hope, at least clearly stated somewhere, so people know what the fuck they have to behave like. They can't do that. Why? As you said above that quote: You can forbid public drinking/drunkenness or lewd behaviour (or, as I've said before, loitering) -- you don't have to resort to more or less arbitrarily throwing specific people out. We have laws about what you are or aren't allowed to prohibit. If someone wants to prohibit them anyway, they can explicitly claim the right to be arbitrary. As long as you don't give a specific reason you're (somewhat) leagally protected. That's why I said I support racist membership policies and all the rest. If someone is actually going to practice it, then I want them to come right out and say so. I guess I could have been more clear that I support their right to have such policies, not that I support the intent of the policies themselves. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #87,025 by CRConrad 3/10/03 10:30:35 AM Reply	Just because the USA is stupid, you don't have to be, too. Tha Drookster explains(): [Quoting me:] Those of "the rules" that aren't* so "obvious", though... Are, one would hope, at least clearly stated somewhere, so people know what the fuck they have to behave like. They can't do that. Why? As you said above that quote: You can forbid public drinking/drunkenness or lewd behaviour (or, as I've said before, loitering) -- you don't have to resort to more or less arbitrarily throwing specific people out. We have laws about what you are or aren't allowed to prohibit. If someone wants to prohibit them anyway, they can explicitly claim the right to be arbitrary. As long as you don't give a specific reason you're (somewhat) leagally protected. Fuck that. No, really, I mean it -- FUCK that! Yours is an overly-legalistic society, so utterly and moronically bent on suing each other for anything and everything -- and, therefore (albeit only as a consequence of that original cause), also on protecting oneself from being sued -- that you're suing each other, right and left, over nothing. And, what's at least just as bad, you're busily creating an idiotic system of "rules" that aren't rules; of arbitrary discriminations "in order not to be arbitrary", apparently as an attempt "not to be sued". Sheesh, man, can't you SEE that that's just plain fucking BULLSHIT? That that's no way to build a sane society?!? What you people need to do, is to get over your fucking lawyer-complex. Quick, before you turn yourselves into such morons that you can't find the way back. That's why I said I support racist membership policies and all the rest. If someone is actually going to practice it, then I want them to come right out and say so. I guess I could have been more clear that I support their right to have such policies, not that I support the intent of the policies themselves. That's stupid, short-sighted, morally repugnant, and, well, just fucking STUPID. It's akin to saying, "We don't need no silly laws against 'murder' and such. If someone is going to go around killing people for fun and profit, I'd much rather they come right out and say so." It contributes to the malaise, in stead of working against it. Which should be -- nay, is! -- every thinking man's duty. (): What I knew, already, that he meant. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad]* (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #87,046 by tseliot 3/10/03 11:16:23 AM Reply	Yeah, I can understand your anger, but... America is low-context. What that means is that we spell out ev-er-y-thing, down to the last letter, phoneme, or nuance. That behavior pattern is never going to go away by an act of will. It is a result of having, not lawyers, but the biggest mix of cultures and languages since Babel. The lawyers are a result of that (insert feedback loop here ;). So, that doesn't modify your whole argument, just explains why "arbitrary" is such a bad word over here. In most countries I've been in outside the U.S.A., the power representatives (judges, police, statesmen, etc.) have a modicum of personality power over the subgroup, and can render judgment on laws and squabbles with the assumption that all parties either 1) share the culture of the arbiter, and in some way submit themselves to that power relationship on a personal level, or 2) are outsiders, in which case the parties don't bother trying to pretend things are really fair. In the U.S., since a far greater number (some would say a majority) of power interactions are cross-cultural to some extent, we pretend harder. This results in achingly exact descriptions of what is right and what is wrong, so that behavior can be dealt with as behavior, and not as intent, intent being much harder to define in a cross-cultural context than in a monoculture. To rephrase, in most societies, the people in power can rule on disputes. Here, "the people are the power" and dispute over rules (that was pithier than I usually like, but I couldn't pass it up :). Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
Post #87,073 by drewk 3/10/03 12:53:21 PM Reply	I think you're still missing part of what I said That's stupid, short-sighted, morally repugnant, and, well, just fucking STUPID. It's akin to saying, "We don't need no silly laws against 'murder' and such. If someone is going to go around killing people for fun and profit, I'd much rather they come right out and say so." Except that I think murder should be illegal.[1] And I think that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. Yes, this caused massive problems for minority populations in the not-too-distant past. Yes, it leads to tyranny of the majority. But what's the alternative? When I asked what gives you the right to set rules in my store, you [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=86577\|said]: A store (or a mall) doesn't exist in a moral vacuum -- it sits in the middle of a community, of society. How exactly is that different? That is just another way of saying the majority (the community) gets to set the standards of what I can or can't do in my store. So in your view is the community only allowed to enforce restrictions with which you happen to agree? [1] Hey, lookit that, I larned to spel. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #87,141 by CRConrad 3/10/03 5:07:46 PM Reply	No, it's becoming obvious YOU don't know what you're saying. Drew Kime-s: [Quoting me:] That's stupid, short-sighted, morally repugnant, and, well, just fucking STUPID. It's akin to saying, "We don't need no silly laws against 'murder' and such. If someone is going to go around killing people for fun and profit, I'd much rather they come right out and say so." Except that I think murder should be illegal.[1] And I think that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. Which is an inconsistent and therefore illogical position. (At least in how you apply it; and above all in how you JUSTIFY it, basing your pro-discrimination view on, of all things, property "rights".) Yes, this caused massive problems for minority populations in the not-too-distant past. Yes, it leads to tyranny of the majority. So it shouldn't be done. Which means it should be forbidden. THAT is the logical and self-consistent position here. And it happens -- no, BTW, it's no coincidence -- to be my position. But what's the alternative? When I asked what gives you the right to set rules in my store, you [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=86577\|said]: A store (or a mall) doesn't exist in a moral vacuum -- it sits in the middle of a community, of society. How exactly is that different? Uh, the thing is, it's NOT SUPPOSED to be "different" -- it's exactly the SAME reason that keeps you from committing murder: As a member of society, there are some things you get to do, and some things you don't. In your store (or mall), just like in your home. That's what I have been saying all the time: That there is no difference, and if one can be forbidden, then obviously the other can, too. The one who's been claiming that there's some "difference", on the grounds that some things that I say should be forbidden happen on Holy Private Property, is YOU -- and it's YOU who haven't been able to show WHAT that mysterious "difference" is supposed to be, exactly. And now you turn around and ask me "How exactly is that different?", as if the lack of a difference were somehow proof that YOU are right?!? Which bloody Kindergarten debating club did that twisted reasoning -- naah, "reasoning", in quotes! -- last work for you in? Fuck, even Bryce couldn't be that illogical! That is just another way of saying the majority (the community) gets to set the standards of what I can or can't do in my store. Which is exactly consistent not only with my position, but even with what you now claim to be YOURS: Yes, of course the community gets to set the standards of what you can or can't do in your store. Heck, it even gets to say what you do in your home! For instance -- an instance which, only a few lines higher up, you said you support -- the law doesn't allow you to commit murder even there. At least I assume you didn't mean you "think murder should be illegal" except if you commit it on your Private Property? So in your view is the community only allowed to enforce restrictions with which you happen to agree? No, that seems to be YOUR view. Or rather, your view seems to be that the community is allowed to enforce some restrictions, with which you happen to agree, even on your Holy Private Property(1); and others, with which you don't agree, it isn't allowed to enforce, on the grounds that you're doing it on your Holy Private Property(2). Or something very much like that... I'm not quite sure just WHAT the fuck you're saying, actually, because it's all so ill-thought-out, so inconsistent and illogical, that it's quite confusing, really. [1] Hey, lookit that, I larned to spel. Now all that remains is for you to learn to READ. Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001. And actively advocating it since 2003. (1): Even the really-private property of your home, where you still aren't allowed to murder. (2): Even the not-really-so-private property of your store or mall, where you say you should be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or whether one's T-shirt is adorned with peace slogans or not. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #87,221 by Ashton 3/11/03 1:53:08 AM Reply	{sigh} And the jingoists want to suppress immigration [Again] .. it's always on someone's agenda. Hell - immigration is the only Hope of our reversing our present death-spiral into final irrelevance. Xenophobia is as hard to disguise as leprosy. And here's a furriner who groks the fucking Constitution AND the implications of its (merely sane guidelines) better than 90% of the current crop of Consumer 52%-non-voting 'citizens' could demonstrate. So obv your mama didn't have no stupid children - but I tend to think that your educational system might have a wee bit to do with your managing to (I assume) handle your own particular legal code and pretty well grok one x000 miles away. Meanwhile, here in Disneyland West: dumbth grows, Bizness steals and eat their youg; cabals take place and Christian OT Preyers in Govt. Buildings\ufffd are preparin for the Tribulations, bettin on bein the Chosen Ones for Rapturin out of airplane cabins [! - really] and otherwise.. welcoming-in (they Love these reptile-brain fantasy words) Armageddon. (Complete with Nintendo-morphing and Dragons) Glad yer outta range of Ground Zero, CRC - someone has to pass on a bit of civilization after The Hanging-Chad Warz are ended / Dubya is impeached or, whatever. Ashton We know how cruel truth often is; we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling. Poincar\ufffd
Post #87,241 by drewk 3/11/03 8:34:34 AM Reply	Boy, did I say that badly I didn't realise how badly until I read your reply and though, "Yeah, WTF was I thinking. Allow me to clarify: Yes, it leads to tyranny of the majority. ... But what's the alternative? When I asked what gives you the right to set rules in my store, you said: A store (or a mall) doesn't exist in a moral vacuum -- it sits in the middle of a community, of society. How exactly is that different? Uh, the thing is, it's NOT SUPPOSED to be "different" -- it's exactly the SAME reason that keeps you from committing murder I didn't mean how is that different from murder. I meant how is that not another form of tyranny of the majority? In your reply you repsonded to that separately, but that's what I was drawing the parallel to. To make it more clear, in 1964 in Birmingham, Alabama, "the community" had agreed that they could hang black men and rape black women. Sometimes the community is wrong. This country is founded[1] on the premise that the individual has rights that can't be taken away by a king, prime minister or president.[2] We deify the individual here. I think there are some people who take this to an unhealthy extreme. But I agree with the general premise that as long as my choices don't hurt anyone -- and refusing to do business with them doesn't count -- then no one should have any right to tell me I can't make those choices. The logical extension of that is that I don't get to tell other people to stop doing things that offend me. So in the case with the t-shirt, I don't think the mall (or rather the guard) should have kicked him out for it. But if I want to defend his right to wear what he wants, then I have to defend their right to say, "Not in our place." [1] Or at least that's the mythology we choose to believe. [2] Yes, Ashcroft is trying desperately to change this. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #87,269 by mmoffitt 3/11/03 10:07:25 AM Reply	Very nicely put. If all you fur-en-ers leave iwethey, can you tell me where you're going? bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?

Welcome to IWETHEY!