IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New And this is why people FIGHT with you on the issue
http://www.cnn.com/2...ex.html?hpt=hp_t1

It's all or nothing. Actually, worse than nothing. This slippery slope leads to imprisonment, torture, and horrible death.

BTW: these laws were create due to US assholes pushing the issue:
http://www.thedailyb...evangelicals.html

You are in "good" company.
Expand Edited by crazy Feb. 24, 2014, 07:35:32 PM EST
Expand Edited by crazy Feb. 24, 2014, 07:41:45 PM EST
New Yup. Also...
http://www.washingto...dodge_t049203.php

It’s possible the “religious liberty” campaign is about to hit a big speed bump tomorrow if AZ Gov. Jan Brewer listens to business leaders and even some of the Republican legislators who voted for a religious exemption bill and vetoes it. But it’s beginning to dawn on a lot of people that the very idea of letting religious “conscience” carve out big and self-defined exemptions from obedience to the law sets quite the dangerous precedence.

The Prospect’s Paul Waldman sums it up nicely today:

[...]

If we grant religious people the kind of elevated citizenship conservatives are now demanding, where the special consideration given to religious practice is extended to anything a religious person does, the results could be truly staggering. Why stop at commerce? If things like employment law and anti-discrimination laws don’t apply to religious people, what about zoning laws, or laws on domestic abuse, or laws in any other realm?


Yup.

MM might like to review his old comrades' writings and arguments. ;-)

http://www.anu.edu.a...dhomsexuality.htm

[...]

I want to take up the debate on the side of Marxism. On the one hand to argue that the self-labelled communist states and the Western Communist Parties aligned to them, rather than representing Marxism are examples of the defeat of communism, defeat of the 1917 worker’s revolution in Russia; and on the other I want to describe the real Marxist tradition, a tradition that offers both an analysis of oppression and the way to win liberation. [5]

The focus of this paper – and the argument carried within it – will be on the works and practice of the early German and Russian Marxists and their organisations as they are both the source of the original analysis of oppression and provide the most revolutionary examples of the fight for liberation.

Marxist analysis of oppression begins with the role of the family, a way of organising human relations that arose with class society as a means of ensuring an orderly transfer of society’s surplus wealth within the ruling class (and out of the reach of the labouring classes) and transmitting much of society’s behavioural norms, particularly amongst the classes with no wealth to transfer. The oppression of women – and hence the basis for the oppression of homosexuals – also coincided with the origin of class society.[6]

[...]


Cheers,
Scott.
     No one here I know of agrees with me on this. - (mmoffitt) - (176)
         Public accommodations laws. - (Another Scott) - (23)
             Are we really that weak? - (mmoffitt) - (22)
                 won't sell to blacks natives and rceaga - (boxley) - (14)
                     And don't forget suspected commies! -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                         Actually, I'd be okay with that. - (mmoffitt)
                     Nope. Thanks for herring. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (11)
                         either you are a public establishment or a key club - (boxley) - (10)
                             Dupe - ignore. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                             I don't think flowers and cakes for weddings rise that high. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                 So it's a different in magnitude, not kind? -NT - (malraux) - (7)
                                     I don't think so. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                         If they stick to the... - (folkert) - (4)
                                             You mean ... - (drook) - (1)
                                                 Yes... - (folkert)
                                             The baker may have. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                 These people are ignorant fools. - (folkert)
                                         Hmm, nope. - (malraux)
                 What's wrong with treating people equally? - (Another Scott) - (6)
                     I guess the difference for me was the purpose. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                         yeah, like shoving that handicapped thing in your face - (boxley) - (3)
                             How many handicapped persons got married at the Grammy's? - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                 how many handicapped at the grammies? :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                     There are some mentally challenged! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                         Homosexuality *is* normal, you doofus. - (pwhysall)
         Replace the word "gay" with "black" and see how it flies - (pwhysall) - (5)
             Nice try. Assumes facts not in evidence. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                 Incorrect. - (pwhysall) - (3)
                     In public institutions, no. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                         They're not private if they're public. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             What about if the door sign is posted... - (folkert)
         Of course, the Arizona business community has . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
         Here's the probolem (goining meta) - (drook) - (8)
             Unpossible!!11 -NT - (Another Scott)
             Heh. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                 Is it ok for a waiter in a restaurant to refuse a request? - (crazy) - (5)
                     That's not the case here. Here's a better analogy. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                         and your answer is? -NT - (crazy) - (3)
                             I'm not a fan of Compulsory Participation in Rituals. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                 It is not a ritual. - (folkert)
                                 Who invited participation? - (crazy)
         Judge's ruling. - (Another Scott) - (21)
             Their argument was weak. But so was the judge's. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                 No. It compels them to treat them like any other customer. - (Another Scott) - (19)
                     That's a little disingenous. - (mmoffitt) - (18)
                         Please enumerate all the services that represent endorsement - (drook) - (9)
                             There's a reason why I didn't take the bait. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                 Why? - (drook) - (7)
                                     10%? Update your stats. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                         Another half-step back - (drook) - (1)
                                             Bzzzzt. Wrong. - (mmoffitt)
                                         Try again. - (malraux) - (3)
                                             Good catch. Well said. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                             They did, however, - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                 Already covered that. - (malraux)
                         Having a business isn't a right. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                             But Free Speech is. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                 Lots of "speech" is restricted for businesses. - (Another Scott)
                                 why would you have a problem with that? - (boxley) - (3)
                                     Is it the Buddhists that had it the same way? I forget. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                         no, it was the nazi's that flipped it -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                             Ah. Thanks! -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                 "No. I do not want to participate in that." FULL STOP - (folkert)
         Gotta give him credit - (rcareaga) - (20)
             Re: Gotta give him credit - (pwhysall) - (19)
                 You must be new here? -NT - (scoenye) - (2)
                     rofl! -NT - (Another Scott)
                     as AS puts it... - (folkert)
                 Actually, he does have a rational viewpoint - (crazy) - (15)
                     So... that is what they call it... - (folkert) - (9)
                         Unnatural? - (crazy) - (8)
                             No... - (folkert) - (7)
                                 To close to reality, but not - (crazy) - (6)
                                     Well... - (folkert) - (5)
                                         ok, I can accept that - (crazy) - (4)
                                             So you're light in the loafers -NT - (drook) - (3)
                                                 I wish - (crazy) - (1)
                                                     Re: I wish - (pwhysall)
                                                 Re: So you're light in the loafers - (rcareaga)
                     The Slate piece is larger in Scale than this smaller topic. - (Ashton) - (4)
                         If I have such a bias, I am unaware of it. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                             Re: "a business oriented problem" - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                                 Indeed. :0) - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                     Who (first) said..? "The people is an ass." - (Ashton)
         And this is why people FIGHT with you on the issue - (crazy) - (1)
             Yup. Also... - (Another Scott)
         I'm going to try a different tack - (pwhysall) - (16)
             I don't think it contributes, but I don't think it detracts. - (mmoffitt) - (15)
                 again, let's do that 100% valid thought experiment - (pwhysall) - (14)
                     Don't get hung up on "normal". - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                         nonsense - (pwhysall) - (12)
                             Normal is the wrong word. - (mmoffitt) - (11)
                                 Blue eyes are "atypical". Being over 2 meters tall is also. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                     Sigh. The erosion of rights troubles me. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                         Businesses . are . different. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                             Weddings.Are.Not.People. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                 (One more thing) Read the judge's decision again. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                     42. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                 then maybe find a profession that does not serve the public? - (boxley) - (4)
                                     No, that is NOT okay. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                         what if 2 gay men went in? I would assume the same reaction - (boxley) - (2)
                                             It isn't. I never said it was. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                 Oh... - (folkert)
         Plan C - (pwhysall) - (1)
             Unpossible!!11 - (Another Scott)
         Sullivan(!) puts mmoffitt's case a bit more cogently - (rcareaga) - (7)
             Re: Sullivan(!) puts mmoffitt's case a bit more cogently - (pwhysall) - (2)
                 I'm sorry Monsiur, we are booked -NT - (boxley)
                 I'm actually susceptible to the argument that - (rcareaga)
             Thanks. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                 Here's another gobbet of raw meat - (rcareaga) - (2)
                     Er, what? - (mmoffitt)
                     lrpd that last sentence -NT - (boxley)
         how about a slightly different twist - (boxley) - (1)
             see 386792 - (folkert)
         Even Republicans backing out. - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
             I think that's due more to the threat of a loss of business. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                 Good. Let them lose the superbowl. -NT - (crazy)
         I've reviewed this whole damn thread again - (rcareaga) - (5)
             Deep in the closet - (crazy) - (4)
                 too easy - (rcareaga) - (3)
                     awww, dammit - (crazy) - (1)
                         Hey! I'm 'old' too, mofo - (Ashton)
                     It's not a phobia. - (mmoffitt)
         mmoffitt! Georgia agrees with you! - (rcareaga) - (47)
             Jeez, they're missing a whole new Enemy to persecute-- - (Ashton) - (1)
                 that taint news -NT - (boxley)
             No, they don't. I thought I'd made this clear. - (mmoffitt) - (42)
                 "I am opposed to wholesale discrimination." - (crazy) - (41)
                     I am not surprised. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (40)
                         Well, that's what it is. -NT - (pwhysall) - (39)
                             I may not agree with you. - (mmoffitt) - (38)
                                 You don't have to agree - - (pwhysall) - (37)
                                     The general form of that ... - (drook)
                                     Again with the misstatement of my position. - (mmoffitt) - (33)
                                         That may be your position - (malraux) - (4)
                                             Then he has an indefensible position. And THANK YOU! - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                 El dupo. -NT - (malraux) - (1)
                                                 That's your problem in this thread - (malraux) - (1)
                                                     -999,999 for me for clarity then. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                         Conflation of SSM with Klan and Neo-Nazi rallies? - (pwhysall) - (26)
                                             Reductio ad absurdum. - (mmoffitt) - (25)
                                                 Whatever. - (pwhysall) - (24)
                                                     Nitpick much? Substitute a Crips or Bloods rally then. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (23)
                                                         Re: Nitpick much? Substitute a Crips or Bloods rally then. - (pwhysall) - (22)
                                                             Okay, so I assumed something not proven, but likely. - (mmoffitt) - (21)
                                                                 The second reply to you in this thread pointed that out - (drook) - (20)
                                                                     It's not the same thing. - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                                                                         Stanford study from 1995. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                                                             Read the follow-up studies over the past 20 years. - (mmoffitt) - (14)
                                                                                 Point me to a cite, please. - (Another Scott) - (13)
                                                                                     That's not how that works. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                                                         Eh? - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                             thats the prove there is no gawd argument :-) -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                         So... when did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? - (folkert) - (9)
                                                                                             This is my last on this, and only because I like you & Scott - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                                                                                 What's the hypothesis, here? - (pwhysall) - (7)
                                                                                                     Re: what would attract you to this line of investigation? - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                                                         exactly, - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                             Um. - (mmoffitt)
                                                                                                         So you want to check whether it still is a mental illness? -NT - (pwhysall)
                                                                                                     If we must keep this up, new thread please? -NT - (drook)
                                                                                                     Because if it an illness, it might be fixable or prevented - (crazy) - (1)
                                                                                                         New. Thread. Please. -NT - (drook)
                                                                         So, when did you choose to be Hetero-Sexual? -NT - (folkert)
                                                                         Either way, it doesn't matter. - (malraux) - (1)
                                                                             Concur. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                         I think I get your position - (boxley)
                                     Well, we could be the Flat Earth Society! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                         Flat? FLAT? Everyone knows it's hyperbolic saddle-shaped! -NT - (pwhysall)
             well, there goes the gay black men convention in Atlanta -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                 Then ... let them eat cake! - (Ashton)
         Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill on Refusal of Service to Gays - (Ashton)
         Story behind the AZ (and other states) bill - (Another Scott) - (2)
             So every judge is now a member of the clergy ... OK -NT - (drook)
             Thanks ~~what I'd imagined: textbook religio-anarchy. Again. -NT - (Ashton)
         You got a buddy - (crazy)

Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent life are pointed AWAY from Earth?
897 ms