Total posts: 7,597
-->
@Vegasgiants
Can I be forced to serve food that a black person wants?
What kind of food do black people want exactly ? You mean like fried chicken and watermelon? You are being ridiculous now.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
They don't have to give a reason.
Yes, bigots can skirt the law. But this web designer chose not to play that game.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The point is you can't force me to do work I don't agree with
That’s bullshit. If you believe blacks and whites shouldn’t dine together, can you be forced to serve black customers at the same time you have white customers?
Yes you can be forced to accommodate them all at the same time.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
A lawyer can refuse to take the case of a gay person because he doesn't like the content of the case
Why don’t they like the content? Because it involves a gay person? That would be illegal.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Should I be forced to paint rainbow flags all over the house before I rent it
Do you know of an incident where a tenant forced a landlord to decorate a rental a certain way before they rent it? No, of course not.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Content is speech. I have a right to refuse business with content I don't like
It’s not your speech, it’s their speech.
A lawyer speaks for their clients. Can a lawyer refuse to represent someone because they are gay?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
So I must make any website a gay person wants because they are gay?
How is that different than renting to a gay person? Should landlords be allowed to refuse their rentals to gays? On religious grounds, yes or no?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Then you agree with the decision
No, I disagree. Calling it flawed might have tipped you off.
That logical thinking I narrated was SARCASM
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Can I refuse to create a web page because I don't like the content of the page?
For Nazis, yes. For a gay wedding, no. For a gay political rally, maybe, but it’s a stretch.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
So I have to make a web page for a nazi themed wedding?
Gorsuch’s argument is flawed.
If you are in some kind of speech business, you can deny certain groups such as gays your services. Just like a “creative” cake maker can refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding but a supermarket can’t refuse to sell a gay couple a cake off the shelf for their wedding. It’s the conservative SCJs bending over to accommodate bigots.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
What other constitutional rights can we deny to someone simply because they are a nazi?
You are arguing this ass backwards.
Do Nazis have a right to free speech? Yes
Are Nazis protected against discrimination? No
Can a business owner refuse service to a Nazi? Yes
Can an employer deny a job to a Nazi for declaring they are a Nazi? Yes
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Being a nazi is legal. It's free speech
This statement is not true. Being a Nazi is not free speech anymore than being a Republican is free speech.
Those are political ideologies. They are political parties. They are Political associations.
If someone refused to rent to you because you are a republican it would be tough shit.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Being a nazi is legal. It's free speech
It is legal. Being a racist is legal. Being intolerant is legal. But you can’t sue someone for not renting to you because you are nazi, racist, intolerant loser.
You can sue someone who refuses to rent to blacks, or gays, or Catholics. Understand?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
So I have to make a web page for a nazi themed wedding?
No, because being a Nazi does not require fair treatment.
Being gay, being black, being disabled, being Catholic does require fair treatment. Understand?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont think that would increase life.
Tell me how killing gay people would increase life then.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
One of the first commands God gave to humans was "multiply and fill the Earth".
So any woman who can’t have a child should be killed, right? Including old women?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That was not said by anybody on this thread.
It was said on another thread by Best Korea
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No. Bible commands the death of gays.
Where in the Bible does it command the death of gays?
What year was the Bible written?
How many times has the Bible been rewritten and reinterpreted?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You do understand that not everyone has college in their neighborhood?
In red states, yes. But that is also a choice people make.
Created:
Hypocrite, in the context given, means he was engaging in hypocrisy. That’s a description of behavior, not the person - at the person.
So dummy, means he was engaging in dumb thoughts and speech, That’s a description of behavior, not the person - at the person.
You are a ridiculous person. (not a personal attack) Just a description of your behavior
Reading comprehension matters.
Context matters.
Both of which you’re clearly oblivious to.
Created:
I never called them [a] coward, I referred to them as [an] intellectual coward.
What’s the difference exactly? It’s not like you are speaking to soldiers who demonstrated cowardice on the battlefield. You called them cowards. It’s a personal attack
.When addressing another’s behavior, demeanor, and attitude it isn’t an ad hominem.
That’s ridiculous. Who taught you that? So if someone’s behavior ( the things they say) is stupid, I should be able to call them stupid and dummy, right?
Personal attacks are just that, personal - as in at the person.
You didn’t say their actions were cowardly, you said they are intellectual cowards. That is a personal attack, genius.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I didn't think so. Get a theory that doesn't take 60 seconds to debunk
Well genius, you looked up the cost for tuition AND room and board and fees.
We were talking about tuition. The cost to take a class.
It’s ok if schools charge more for better dorms and food. Students can attend a college close to home and avoid those costs. But tuition is something that can’t be avoided. Tuition has gone from free or basically free to 20,000 in 2 generations. That is the problem and it was caused by pulling back on subsidies from the federal government THANK YOU RONALD REAGAN.
Aren’t you able to accurately argue a question? Is it because you never went to college?
Created:
-->
@Savant
It's not their idea, but they can refuse to express that speech by making the webpage.
They are in the idea expression business. This couple wasn’t asking the designer to make a website explaining why gay marriage should be accepted by society or why gay marriages should be legal. It was a webpage for their wedding. Their personal wedding day.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Do you really think people should only be allowed to support legal things?
Which side of the argument are you making here, both?
People should be REQUIRED to support legal things. It is not a choice.
Created:
-->
@Savant
That's a bad precedent to set. Gay marriage was illegal not too long ago.
Right, so the Supreme Court is making a mistake creating a “free speech” loophole for bigots to exploit.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Yet people are under no legal obligation to support it.
Not personally, just like people can choose to be racist. But you can’t exercise that choice is matters of business or public accommodation.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
and there we have the root of the matter. No principles, nothing about the constitution or the civil rights act. Just the plain old fact that you believe the designer is wrong.
It is principle and law that says you can’t discriminate against people with your business. You can choose to not marry a person of the same sex, you can tell your children it’s wrong, you can refuse to go to a gay wedding you have been invited to, but you cannot use you business to express your bigotry.
I own several rental properties in Florida. Should I be able to refuse to rent to people who are divorced on religious grounds? You know God hates divorce.
Should hotels be able to deny a divorced person a room on religious grounds?
Created:
-->
@Savant
If you hire a Jewish designer to paint your house with Nazi symbols, the designer can refuse because they don't want to endorse views they disagree with.
Or a non Jewish designer. Because it’s appropriate to not support Nazis. It is inappropriate to not support gay marriage. How do we know this? Gay marriage is legal in the United States. Being a Nazi is universally unacceptable. Get it genius?
Created:
-->
@Savant
It is if the particular webpage includes messages you disagree with.
No, it’s not. It’s not the web designer’s speech.
Created:
-->
@Savant
The designer objected to the design itself, not the fact that the customer was gay.
That’s bullshit. That’s like saying if you hired a contractor to paint your house pink, the contractor is choosing to paint your house pink. The reality is you are choosing to paint your house pink.
Created:
-->
@Savant
That's a good comparison to use.
No, it’s not
Few people tend to realize that the issue is the speech itself, not which customer is being served.
That’s what Gorsuch tried to argue in his opinion but it is flawed.
If you make a webpage for some gay couple THAT IS NOT YOUR SPEECH
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Can you be forced to make a anti gay webpage?
See again, no.
Because you are not declining to make the page because the client is heterosexual, you are declining to make the page because the page is homophobic.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How would the deviant designer know anything about bigotry?
That’s dumb
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Created a situation that caused tuition to skyrocket and then guaranteed a bunch of loans
Tuition went up beginning in the 1980s when the federal government stopped sending money to the states to subsidize tuition. Because we needed to cut taxes for wealthy people thank you Ronald Reagan.
Created:
Do you really want me to go through a number of threads to recount all the derogatory ad hominems IWRA has constantly and consistently repeatedly used towards users?
You are such a hypocrite. You make personal attacks all the time and then claim they are not personal attacks. And that is after you have said something stupid.
Here is your most recent post: Fuck, I thought this place was bad with intellectual cowards like badger, rational_madman, iwantrooseveltagain, americandebater24, orogami, whiteflame, et al was bad....shit, the moment you say one word someone doesn't like, and they report you, BOOM! Banned for 3 days.
So you can call someone a coward, but dummy is over the line? And you are surprised I say what I say?
So, since some moderator felt it necessary to be a fucking hypocrite in defense of another fucking hypocrite here at DART, I have to waste my time in order to establish this thread - yet again - because it is absolutely necessary as it is part and parcel to present day political and social discussions in this country.
So fucking hypocrite is ok, but dummy is over the line?
And to the one who wasted my initial time for a bullshit reason (whether I mention a name in the OP or the very second comment doesn't make a difference, same for anyone else who does the same, in which they did, and you didn't delete their thread, hypocrite!!!!!!!), in light of the fact that the one they favor did the exact same fucking thing but didn't delete the entirety of their thread - fuck you! No names. Because if I put a name in - the hypocrite will remove this thread once again. But they know who they are!!So...who is more racist in America? Blacks or Whites. Well, as of late, the obvious answer is blacks AND EVEN BLACKS agree!!!!!
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
I'll make a general post about it later today,I'm done with this conversation. I've lost interest.
Does this mean you’re not going to put out another “general post” later?
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
I'm done with this conversation. Feel free to jab at me as much as you like, I've lost interest.
I’m not surprised. When someone can’t defend their actions they often get tired of defending them.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
shrug* I'm not looking for your endorsement.That's an... interesting interpretation.
Really? How else should I interpret the “shrug” ?
It says you don’t care. I can do want I want.
Your goal should be consistency and fairness in enforcing the COC.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
See, it's a perspective like this that makes me wonder why I should consider what you're saying at all. If you honestly believe this to be true, then I guess I have nothing to glean from this conversation. Thanks for clarifying that.
How so? I mean you just admitted you have done an inadequate job as a moderator. Please clarify.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
That's an... interesting interpretation. What I'm saying is that working as a mod is a generally thankless job and that I'm going to get hate for it regardless of what I do. If I didn't learn to shrug it off, then I would have left the role a long time ago and never looked back. If your goal as a moderator is to make sure everyone is satisfied with what you're doing, then you're doing it wrong.
Well unless you became a moderator yesterday, it appears you haven’t done one bit of moderating your entire time on this site. So you can’t really call it a job, thankless or otherwise.
I know I could be doing better. That's part of why I'm doing this: to ensure that we have a more consistent form of enforcement. Your response to that is to argue that we should also be enforcing in other places, which doesn't really change the point of my initial post. I think there's room to discuss how moderation could better enforce other existing aspects of the CoC or add to the CoC in ways that are beneficial for the site, but that doesn't really change whether we should allow personal attacks or harassment. We can both recognize that those are a problem and aim to do a better job in other areas while we're at it.
Well this is very well said. But this site is doomed to become a refuge for wack jobs and their misinformation and hate speech if all your going to do is ban people for personal attacks and let misinformation and hate speech slide.
Without personal attacks, the misinformation and hate speech will be unchecked by the regular people on this site.
Created:
Don't be a hypocrite. If you're going to chastise one you must apply the same to the other.
And yourself.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Not the worst thing I've heard said about me
What was the worst thing? So others have expressed you are not good at your job? Maybe you should takes some time for reflection then and reconsider this attitude you have that you know what’s best when it comes to being a moderator.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
*shrug* I'm not looking for your endorsement.
So now you are saying you are all powerful, you can do what you want, and you don’t care if people think you are doing a terrible job. That’s great.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
If that's not obvious to you, fine, you can disagree with me. Just don't do it.
So since it’s ok to attack groups on this site, the way people attack transgender people, and you’re fine with that, it must be ok to attack moderators as a group.
If I said moderators are all a bunch of losers who have nothing better to do with their lives and they are thrilled to have this little pathetic power to enforce rules for some teeny tiny chat room and that makes them feel important, that would be fine, right? Because that’s not a personal attack, directly or indirectly, right?
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
And you can still respond to those people by pointing out the flaws in their views.
The flaw in their view is it’s a lie. Why do people lie? Because they’re liars.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Saying it's a stupid argument is fine. Saying it's "an argument only a dummy would make" is a personal attack because it's saying that the person making it is, and I can't believe I'm having to explain this, a dummy.
I can’t believe I have to explain I would not be calling them a dummy directly.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
I disagree with it being a call for anything, or claiming that anyone is justified in engaging in killing.
Then you are demonstrating you don’t have the judgment to be a moderator.
What if Oragami disagrees with you and says it is a call for violence?
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
yeah, that's not how moderation is going to respond. You can be derisive of their arguments, but that doesn't require personal attacks.
Oh, so I can say that’s a stupid argument or that’s an argument only a dummy would make and it would be a problem, is that correct?
You are setting yourself up to fail. You will get hundreds of flagged comments. You will respond to some and not to others making your enforcement inconsistent and then you’ll say DART doesn’t have the resources to have consistent enforcement.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
He did not call for their deaths, no. He claimed that it's established in the Bible that they should be killed. That's not calling for killing.
Are you serious? It absolutely is calling for killing and claiming a higher authority for the killing. And It it’s a lie and misinformation.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
People are still allowed to express their opinions on these issues so long as they don't push it into territory that encourages violence.
So people can post here that transgender people are grooming children and are all pedophiles but calling someone dumb for saying that is over the line.
You are beautiful
Created: