The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 03:34:44 AM

Title: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 03:34:44 AM
https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-Platform-Committee-FINAL-REPORT-6-16-2022.pdf

The Texas GOP released their new platform and it is special. Among the highlights of this gong show are officially rejecting the 2020 presidential election, referring to homosexuals as abnormal, a desire to ban all sex education, extending parental rights well beyond the age of majority in matters of healthcare, calling for a referendum on secession, tax breaks for the wealthy, abolishing the UN and some nod towards every other culture war issue the GOO has conjured over the last few years. If it wasn’t so scary, it would be hilarious and belong in the “Terrible Political Memes” thread.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Fortuna on June 24, 2022, 04:00:21 AM
Almost as crazy as mainstream progressives.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 04:14:20 AM
Almost as crazy as mainstream progressives.

Nice meme. Don’t drink the kool-aid, kid.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: crutonius on June 24, 2022, 05:01:05 AM
It's worth reading the document.  It's clever in a way in that it's so extreme that no one will believe that a mainstream political party actually said this.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2022, 02:17:25 PM
If it wasn’t so scary

Can you explain to us why you are so scared?
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 02:29:21 PM
If it wasn’t so scary

Can you explain to us why you are so scared?

Because they are actively seeking to roll back civil rights protections, undermine the democratic process, foster ignorance and widen the gap between the rich and poor even further.  This is how you tear down a society and even worse, millions of people will welcome their new overlords.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2022, 02:44:49 PM
If it wasn’t so scary

Can you explain to us why you are so scared?

Because they are actively seeking to roll back civil rights protections, undermine the democratic process, foster ignorance and widen the gap between the rich and poor even further.  This is how you tear down a society and even worse, millions of people will welcome their new overlords.

Also: Nazis/all dictators.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2022, 04:02:53 PM
Because they are actively seeking to roll back civil rights protections, undermine the democratic process, foster ignorance and widen the gap between the rich and poor even further.  This is how you tear down a society and even worse, millions of people will welcome their new overlords.

You are contradicting yourself. If million of people in Texas are welcoming it then it is democracy and the democratic process.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2022, 04:06:08 PM
Because they are actively seeking to roll back civil rights protections, undermine the democratic process, foster ignorance and widen the gap between the rich and poor even further.  This is how you tear down a society and even worse, millions of people will welcome their new overlords.

You are contradicting yourself. If million of people in Texas are welcoming it then it is democracy and the democratic process.
Unless there's more millions who do not.
Then its a dictatorship.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2022, 04:09:40 PM
Unless there's more millions who do not.

If that were the case then it would fail and Rama Set would have nothing to be "scared" about.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: honk on June 24, 2022, 04:12:22 PM
Politicians saying crazy and outrageous things is a non-issue! If their views aren't popular, then they'll lose, and if their views are popular, then it's democracy in action!
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2022, 04:39:26 PM
Politicians saying crazy and outrageous things is a non-issue! If their views aren't popular, then they'll lose, and if their views are popular, then it's democracy in action!

Correct. Look up the process of democracy.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Action80 on June 24, 2022, 04:44:13 PM
... millions of people will welcome their new overlords.
The only problem you are experiencing is it doesn't happen to be you claiming that title.

And they are correct in using the word "abnormal."
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rushy on June 24, 2022, 05:08:39 PM
Politicians saying crazy and outrageous things is a non-issue! If their views aren't popular, then they'll lose, and if their views are popular, then it's democracy in action!

This but unironically. If a 'crazy' politician sees a wide base of support, then you don't just have a 'crazy' politician, you have a 'crazy' population.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 05:41:27 PM
Because they are actively seeking to roll back civil rights protections, undermine the democratic process, foster ignorance and widen the gap between the rich and poor even further.  This is how you tear down a society and even worse, millions of people will welcome their new overlords.

You are contradicting yourself. If million of people in Texas are welcoming it then it is democracy and the democratic process.

It’s ok if you don’t understand democracy, but don’t try and make me agree with you.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 05:42:45 PM
... millions of people will welcome their new overlords.
The only problem you are experiencing is it doesn't happen to be you claiming that title.

Please stop.

Quote
And they are correct in using the word "abnormal."

Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 05:43:47 PM
Le epic triple post.

Politicians saying crazy and outrageous things is a non-issue! If their views aren't popular, then they'll lose, and if their views are popular, then it's democracy in action!

This but unironically. If a 'crazy' politician sees a wide base of support, then you don't just have a 'crazy' politician, you have a 'crazy' population.

You are mostly right except having a crazy population isn’t a non-issue. People have to share the world with Texas.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2022, 05:47:30 PM
Le epic triple post.

Politicians saying crazy and outrageous things is a non-issue! If their views aren't popular, then they'll lose, and if their views are popular, then it's democracy in action!

This but unironically. If a 'crazy' politician sees a wide base of support, then you don't just have a 'crazy' politician, you have a 'crazy' population.

You are mostly right except having a crazy population isn’t a non-issue. People have to share the world with Texas.

Alternatively, they are not the extremists. You are the extremist.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2022, 05:48:17 PM
Politicians saying crazy and outrageous things is a non-issue! If their views aren't popular, then they'll lose, and if their views are popular, then it's democracy in action!

This but unironically. If a 'crazy' politician sees a wide base of support, then you don't just have a 'crazy' politician, you have a 'crazy' population.

Not neccessarily, just one whose too polarized.

The way I see it, the less crazy ones are the majority.  But since they don't primary, the crazies get to pick their candidates.
Now the well meaning, not crazies have a choice: crazy asshole whose in their party... Or the enemy who will destroy all of America.
Lesser of two evils.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 05:55:14 PM
Le epic triple post.

Politicians saying crazy and outrageous things is a non-issue! If their views aren't popular, then they'll lose, and if their views are popular, then it's democracy in action!

This but unironically. If a 'crazy' politician sees a wide base of support, then you don't just have a 'crazy' politician, you have a 'crazy' population.

You are mostly right except having a crazy population isn’t a non-issue. People have to share the world with Texas.

Alternatively, they are not the extremists. You are the extremist.

I’ve thought about that. It’s not true. You can tell by how philisophically inconsistent their platform document is. They claim to want to reduce government interference then proceed to describe how they wish to insert themselves square in the middle of education, healthcare, business and interpersonal relationships. They declare that they want to represent the best interests of the people but then tell us how helping people is by reducing checks on the rich, increasing environmental pollution and stifling education. The cynicism it takes to present this platform as an actually consistent ideology rises to the level of malice.

EDIT: Don’t forget the white supremacist dog whistles, like “being opposed to the great replacement” or “protecting western culture”. Or full on embracing of the Big Lie as true.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2022, 05:57:09 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Alternatively, they are not the extremists. You are the extremist.

I’ve thought about that. It’s not true. You can tell by how philisophically inconsistent their platform document is. They claim to want to reduce government interference then proceed to describe how they wish to insert themselves square in the middle of education, healthcare, business and interpersonal relationships. They declare that they want to represent the best interests of the people but then tell us how helping people is by reducing checks on the rich, increasing environmental pollution and stifling education. The cynicism it takes to present this platform as an actually consistent ideology rises to the level of malice.

Feel free to quote them directly from the document rather than giving your hot take that they want to destroy the country. I simply do not believe you.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 06:12:07 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Alternatively, they are not the extremists. You are the extremist.

I’ve thought about that. It’s not true. You can tell by how philisophically inconsistent their platform document is. They claim to want to reduce government interference then proceed to describe how they wish to insert themselves square in the middle of education, healthcare, business and interpersonal relationships. They declare that they want to represent the best interests of the people but then tell us how helping people is by reducing checks on the rich, increasing environmental pollution and stifling education. The cynicism it takes to present this platform as an actually consistent ideology rises to the level of malice.

Feel free to quote them directly from the document rather than giving your hot take that they want to destroy the country. I simply do not believe you.

You don’t believe the thing I didn’t say? Incredible turn of events. This is such a poor deflection from my response I can only assume you have nothing to say about their inconsistency about the values they claim to uphold. Thanks for playing.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
There is so much that is comically villainous in this platform that I forgot the nugget where, for some reason (I wonder what it could be), the Texas GOP asserts that the equal protection clause expired in 1979.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Action80 on June 24, 2022, 06:45:00 PM
Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.
Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: stack on June 24, 2022, 06:49:34 PM
Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.
Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

How do you interpret the usage:

deviating from the normal or average

OR

unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 07:03:29 PM
Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.
Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

The usage in connection to homosexuals is absolutely a dog whistle. If it’s simply meant as something that deviates from the norm then there is no need to legislate away rights that have been granted to them. It’s clear the GOP considers same-sex marriage unwanted and not on utilitarian grounds either.

You aren’t stupid, you know all of this. But you enjoy being able to support homophobia without doing so explicitly.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Action80 on June 24, 2022, 09:22:36 PM
Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.
Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

The usage in connection to homosexuals is absolutely a dog whistle. If it’s simply meant as something that deviates from the norm then there is no need to legislate away rights that have been granted to them. It’s clear the GOP considers same-sex marriage unwanted and not on utilitarian grounds either.

You aren’t stupid, you know all of this. But you enjoy being able to support homophobia without doing so explicitly.
Yeah, I believe homosexuals are incapable of interpreting the word, "abnormal," without a negative connotation.

As are you, obviously.

Which offers no bearing or judgment on people, like me, who choose to use it to describe things that are not normal.

Making a statement, "Committing acts of homosexuality is outside of the norm," is not, at least for me, a dog whistle.

Pretty sad when statements of fact are treated as "dog whistles."
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: stack on June 25, 2022, 06:07:24 AM
Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.
Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

The usage in connection to homosexuals is absolutely a dog whistle. If it’s simply meant as something that deviates from the norm then there is no need to legislate away rights that have been granted to them. It’s clear the GOP considers same-sex marriage unwanted and not on utilitarian grounds either.

You aren’t stupid, you know all of this. But you enjoy being able to support homophobia without doing so explicitly.
Yeah, I believe homosexuals are incapable of interpreting the word, "abnormal," without a negative connotation.

As are you, obviously.

Which offers no bearing or judgment on people, like me, who choose to use it to describe things that are not normal.

Making a statement, "Committing acts of homosexuality is outside of the norm," is not, at least for me, a dog whistle.

Pretty sad when statements of fact are treated as "dog whistles."

I think what's pretty sad on a simply human level is this:

"...and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

Does that really mean it's ok to beat up a homosexual individual because they are abnormal (homosexual) and you won't be charged with assault because your beating of the individual was out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?

If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. Where does it end?

Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Fortuna on June 25, 2022, 06:27:55 AM
Almost as crazy as mainstream progressives.
Everything I don't like is a meme.

I'm sure even Lenin himself would shudder at the political viewpoints of progressive Canadians.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 25, 2022, 10:18:26 AM
Almost as crazy as mainstream progressives.
Everything I don't like is a meme.

I'm sure even Lenin himself would shudder at the political viewpoints of progressive Canadians.

If you don’t want me to think you’re a meme, don’t post stuff like this.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Action80 on June 25, 2022, 10:41:57 AM
Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.
Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

The usage in connection to homosexuals is absolutely a dog whistle. If it’s simply meant as something that deviates from the norm then there is no need to legislate away rights that have been granted to them. It’s clear the GOP considers same-sex marriage unwanted and not on utilitarian grounds either.

You aren’t stupid, you know all of this. But you enjoy being able to support homophobia without doing so explicitly.
Yeah, I believe homosexuals are incapable of interpreting the word, "abnormal," without a negative connotation.

As are you, obviously.

Which offers no bearing or judgment on people, like me, who choose to use it to describe things that are not normal.

Making a statement, "Committing acts of homosexuality is outside of the norm," is not, at least for me, a dog whistle.

Pretty sad when statements of fact are treated as "dog whistles."

I think what's pretty sad on a simply human level is this:

"...and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

Does that really mean it's ok to beat up a homosexual individual because they are abnormal (homosexual) and you won't be charged with assault because your beating of the individual was out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?
Holy crap.

The language is specific and has nothing to do with physical assault.

People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.
If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

Where does it end?
It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.
Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

When a group of people sharing the same values get together and put them to paper, you write and act as if that is a HUGE PROBLEM.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 25, 2022, 11:10:23 AM
Holy crap.

The language is specific and has nothing to do with physical assault.

Where does it say it has nothing to do with assault, specifically?

Quote
People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.

Who has faced criminal charges for simply stating they do not condone homosexuality?

Quote
Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

It’s unnecessary discrimination in a lot of cases.

Quote
It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

First off, Pride celebrations are not just about a sexual act so your characterization above is already off the mark. But if you want to know why Pride celebrations exist (I am going to assume you are ignorant and asking in good faith) well that’s simple.

Society largely made homosexuals feel ashamed and often made it unsafe to be homosexual for centuries. No one should feel threat or shame for being themselves and everyone should feel pride for who they are. Pride celebrations are a peaceful way to push back against people who want to discriminate against, propagate hate towards and oppress LGBTQ+ folk.

Quote
Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

So everything people value is traditional.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Action80 on June 25, 2022, 12:29:17 PM
Holy crap.

The language is specific and has nothing to do with physical assault.

Where does it say it has nothing to do with assault, specifically?
Since you are such a huge fan of inference, that remains an aspect for you to explain where it does.
Quote
People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.

Who has faced criminal charges for simply stating they do not condone homosexuality?
No one yet, and that is what the language hopes to establish and prevent.

Quote
Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

It’s unnecessary discrimination in a lot of cases.
You being the sole judge of what constitutes necessary and unnecessary, of course.

People have a right to engage in free enterprise with whoever they want, for whatever reasons they want.

Quote
It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

First off, Pride celebrations are not just about a sexual act so your characterization above is already off the mark. But if you want to know why Pride celebrations exist (I am going to assume you are ignorant and asking in good faith) well that’s simple.

Society largely made homosexuals feel ashamed and often made it unsafe to be homosexual for centuries. No one should feel threat or shame for being themselves and everyone should feel pride for who they are. Pride celebrations are a peaceful way to push back against people who want to discriminate against, propagate hate towards and oppress LGBTQ+ folk.
Actually, the shame comes from the same mentality that is incapable of understanding the word abnormal without negative connotation and the strong urge people have to engage in blaming others for their current physical and mental state.

Only weak-minded, superfluous people have the need to show off or claim pride in anything.

Quote
Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

So everything people value is traditional.
Mostly, yeah.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Fortuna on June 25, 2022, 03:51:08 PM
Almost as crazy as mainstream progressives.
Everything I don't like is a meme.

I'm sure even Lenin himself would shudder at the political viewpoints of progressive Canadians.

If you don’t want me to think you’re a meme, don’t post stuff like this.

You’re far too biased for your opinion on anything political to matter.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 25, 2022, 04:28:43 PM
Almost as crazy as mainstream progressives.
Everything I don't like is a meme.

I'm sure even Lenin himself would shudder at the political viewpoints of progressive Canadians.

If you don’t want me to think you’re a meme, don’t post stuff like this.

You’re far too biased for your opinion on anything political to matter.

Apprently it mattered enough for you to comment with a vapid “muh both sides!” Being honest about one’s feelings is important. Let’s talk more after you’ve read the GOP platform, k?
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: stack on June 25, 2022, 06:04:17 PM
Yes, you love dog whistles, I know.
Hmmm, you call the word "abnormal," a dog whistle?

Why?

The usage in connection to homosexuals is absolutely a dog whistle. If it’s simply meant as something that deviates from the norm then there is no need to legislate away rights that have been granted to them. It’s clear the GOP considers same-sex marriage unwanted and not on utilitarian grounds either.

You aren’t stupid, you know all of this. But you enjoy being able to support homophobia without doing so explicitly.
Yeah, I believe homosexuals are incapable of interpreting the word, "abnormal," without a negative connotation.

As are you, obviously.

Which offers no bearing or judgment on people, like me, who choose to use it to describe things that are not normal.

Making a statement, "Committing acts of homosexuality is outside of the norm," is not, at least for me, a dog whistle.

Pretty sad when statements of fact are treated as "dog whistles."

I think what's pretty sad on a simply human level is this:

"...and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

Does that really mean it's ok to beat up a homosexual individual because they are abnormal (homosexual) and you won't be charged with assault because your beating of the individual was out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?
Holy crap.

The language is specific and has nothing to do with physical assault.

I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?

People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.
If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

A little thing called "discrimination".

Where does it end?
It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

Is 'heterosexuality' defined solely by the commission of a sexual act? What about just plain old attraction?

Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.
Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

When a group of people sharing the same values get together and put them to paper, you write and act as if that is a HUGE PROBLEM.

So if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values"?
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Action80 on June 25, 2022, 09:16:13 PM
I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?
People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone. You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.

But, anyone committing assault on a homosexual and subsequently apprehended, would likely face criminal charges.

There is nothing in the platform indicating otherwise.
People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.
If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

A little thing called "discrimination".
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.

More people ought to be more discriminating.
Where does it end?
It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

Is 'heterosexuality' defined solely by the commission of a sexual act? What about just plain old attraction?
I achieve no sense of pride out of either.
Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.
Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

When a group of people sharing the same values get together and put them to paper, you write and act as if that is a HUGE PROBLEM.

So if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values"?
Who cares what they write about their values? I don't care.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: stack on June 25, 2022, 09:45:36 PM
I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?
People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone.

So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?

You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.

Hmmm, if memory serves, you just got off a 30 day ban for "Personal attacks in the upper".

But, anyone committing assault on a homosexual and subsequently apprehended, would likely face criminal charges.

Cool.

People stating they do not condone homosexual behavior are the ones facing criminal or civil penalties, for simply stating that belief.
If not, what does opposing homosexuality look like? What constitutes 'opposing homosexuality'? Not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple's upcoming wedding? Due to your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values? How about not giving a job to someone because they are abnormally homosexual? Because of your faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. A lender denying a loan to a gay couple because of their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Yeah, it could look like that.

What is wrong with that?

A little thing called "discrimination".
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.

More people ought to be more discriminating.

That's an interesting point of view. I guess we'll just leave it at you are pro-discrimination.

Where does it end?
It ends when you can come up with a valid reason for claiming to have achieved a sense of PRIDE due to committing a sexual act.

Is 'heterosexuality' defined solely by the commission of a sexual act? What about just plain old attraction?
I achieve no sense of pride out of either.


No one says you have to. But you didn't answer the question.

Who gets to define what 'traditional values' are? You want the government to define for you what 'traditional values' are? That seems quite big-government to me which I thought you were against.
Traditional values are the ones established and inculcated in each individual.

When a group of people sharing the same values get together and put them to paper, you write and act as if that is a HUGE PROBLEM.

So if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values"?
Who cares what they write about their values? I don't care.

Ok, cool, so I guess you agree that if a group of homosexuals gets together and commits their values to paper, that then becomes "traditional values".
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 26, 2022, 08:30:11 AM
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.
Care to elaborate?
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Action80 on June 26, 2022, 09:37:00 AM
I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?
People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone.

So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?
It is questionable if one can claim these characteristics if they are physically assaulting others.
You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.

Hmmm, if memory serves, you just got off a 30 day ban for "Personal attacks in the upper".
Actually, I was banned for posting a characterization of Joe Biden, in a thread about Joe Biden.

Me being banned has nothing to do with my spot-on characterization and any lack of moderator action related to your posts is more a statement related to poor moderation than a justification for what you do here on a daily basis.

A little thing called "discrimination".
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.

More people ought to be more discriminating.

That's an interesting point of view. I guess we'll just leave it at you are pro-discrimination.
You act as if you do not engage in the process yourself.

Which is a sign of cognitive dissonance.
No one says you have to. But you didn't answer the question.
I usually ignore worthless questions.

Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Action80 on June 26, 2022, 03:38:58 PM
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.
Care to elaborate?
On what?

My decision to engage in relationships with whom I please?
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2022, 03:48:28 PM
Every stance, law, political position, or opinion, is discriminating against someone who may feel differently about it.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: markjo on June 26, 2022, 04:03:44 PM
So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?
It is questionable if one can claim these characteristics if they are physically assaulting others.
I'm pretty sure that the KKK, Neo-Nazis and other white supremacist groups do.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Action80 on June 26, 2022, 04:32:32 PM
So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?
It is questionable if one can claim these characteristics if they are physically assaulting others.
I'm pretty sure that the KKK, Neo-Nazis and other white supremacist groups do.
And I am sure you question the legitimacy of the claims.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: stack on June 26, 2022, 05:33:46 PM
I never said it did include the word "assault". It was a question. Does the language allow someone to not be criminally liable if they assault a homosexual person based upon their faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values?
People who possess faith, conviction, and traditional values, are not the ones going around assaulting anyone.

So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?
It is questionable if one can claim these characteristics if they are physically assaulting others.

Agreed, but lots of people think they have faith, conviction, and traditional values when in the midst of committing a crime like assault. Like what about someone like the guy Qanon guy who broke into the Pizza place to save kids held against their will in the basement that didn't exist? He certainly had faith, conviction, and traditional values.

What about all the people that stormed the capitol, whacking police officers over the head, threatening to hang Pence, etc. Did they have faith, conviction, and traditional values?

You ought to know...I mean you are constantly on this forum questioning the validity of a person's faith, convictions, and traditional values via constant verbal assault and weak humor.

Hmmm, if memory serves, you just got off a 30 day ban for "Personal attacks in the upper".
Actually, I was banned for posting a characterization of Joe Biden, in a thread about Joe Biden.

Apparently, that is untrue. Your ban literally says, "Personal attacks in the upper, did not take the hint when warned. +30 days due to attempted ban circumvention +30 days due to another attempted ban circumvention!". Last I checked Biden wasn't here to be personally attacked. So it must have been personal attacks on others.

My point being, glass houses.


A little thing called "discrimination".
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.

More people ought to be more discriminating.

That's an interesting point of view. I guess we'll just leave it at you are pro-discrimination.
You act as if you do not engage in the process yourself.

Which is a sign of cognitive dissonance.

So you think it's ok to deny someone a service or product or job based upon their gender, color, or sexual orientation?

No one says you have to. But you didn't answer the question.
I usually ignore worthless questions.

Fair enough. All you have to do is plead the 5th.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: markjo on June 26, 2022, 05:57:21 PM
So no one with faith, conviction, and traditional values has ever assaulted anyone?
It is questionable if one can claim these characteristics if they are physically assaulting others.
I'm pretty sure that the KKK, Neo-Nazis and other white supremacist groups do.
And I am sure you question the legitimacy of the claims.
And I'm willing to guess that you don't.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 26, 2022, 06:36:00 PM
Every stance, law, political position, or opinion, is discriminating against someone who may feel differently about it.
I’m not really sure that’s what discrimination means.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Action80 on June 26, 2022, 07:47:16 PM
So you think it's ok to deny someone a service or product or job based upon their gender, color, or sexual orientation?
Why not?

You would cheer and wholeheartedly support the denial of a service, product, or job based on a person's worldview.

That's discrimination.

Free association is the way to go.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 26, 2022, 07:50:22 PM
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.
Care to elaborate?
On what?
On the bit I quoted...
Discrimination can mean "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."
But the definition which most people understand is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability."

How is there "nothing wrong" with that?
To expand on my reply to Tom. I'm a Remainer, I didn't want to Brexit. But the majority voted that way and while I think it was an idiotic decision I haven't been "discriminated against" because Brexit happen. That's democracy, not discrimination.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Action80 on June 26, 2022, 07:56:03 PM
There is nothing wrong with discrimination.
Care to elaborate?
On what?
On the bit I quoted...
Discrimination can mean "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."
But the definition which most people understand is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability."

How is there "nothing wrong" with that?
To expand on my reply to Tom. I'm a Remainer, I didn't want to Brexit. But the majority voted that way and while I think it was an idiotic decision I haven't been "discriminated against" because Brexit happen. That's democracy, not discrimination.
Free association.

You should be free to associate and do business with the reciprocated consent of others, whenever you want, wherever you want.

Pretty simple.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 26, 2022, 08:17:03 PM
You should be free to associate and do business with the reciprocated consent of others, whenever you want, wherever you want.

Pretty simple.
OK. So if I'm racist and I decide I want to open a restaurant and only serve whites then I should be able to.
And if that means I go out of business because white people boycott in solidarity then that's my problem.
I mean, I can kinda see an argument there but a fairly likely outcome is my restaurant would attract racists. And my hot take on racism is that it is, by and large, a bad thing. So I'm not sure it's something one should encourage.
I do think there's an argument that someone shouldn't be compelled to do things against their principles. So the infamous case of the baker taken to court for refusing to make a cake supporting gay marriage. I'm on the baker's side there. They weren't refusing to serve the couple because they were gay, they were refusing to print a message which went against their principles.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: markjo on June 27, 2022, 12:59:54 AM
So you think it's ok to deny someone a service or product or job based upon their gender, color, or sexual orientation?
Why not?
Because it's bad for business to exclude a lot of potential customers for irrelevant reasons.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2022, 01:52:13 AM
You should be free to associate and do business with the reciprocated consent of others, whenever you want, wherever you want.

Pretty simple.
OK. So if I'm racist and I decide I want to open a restaurant and only serve whites then I should be able to.
And if that means I go out of business because white people boycott in solidarity then that's my problem.
I mean, I can kinda see an argument there but a fairly likely outcome is my restaurant would attract racists. And my hot take on racism is that it is, by and large, a bad thing. So I'm not sure it's something one should encourage.
I do think there's an argument that someone shouldn't be compelled to do things against their principles. So the infamous case of the baker taken to court for refusing to make a cake supporting gay marriage. I'm on the baker's side there. They weren't refusing to serve the couple because they were gay, they were refusing to print a message which went against their principles.

The real irony is that the Venn diagram of people who want to promote “free association” and people who want to reign in “Big Tech Censorship” is nearly a circle.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 27, 2022, 07:25:47 AM
So you think it's ok to deny someone a service or product or job based upon their gender, color, or sexual orientation?
Why not?
Because it's bad for business to exclude a lot of potential customers for irrelevant reasons.
But that's the business owner's problem. If they only want to serve a certain demographic - and therefore exclude certain others - then isn't that literally their business? That's the argument. If they go out of business as a result then more fool them. But, overall, I don't think allowing segregation is a positive thing.

EDIT: And I think there's a difference between a baker refusing to serve a couple because they're gay, and refusing to serve a couple because they're asking for a pro gay marriage to be printed on a cake, if the business owner doesn't believe that. Tell you what, if someone had ordered an anti-gay marriage cake and the baker had refused then they'd have been hailed as heroes.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2022, 08:04:13 AM
To expand on my reply to Tom. I'm a Remainer, I didn't want to Brexit. But the majority voted that way and while I think it was an idiotic decision I haven't been "discriminated against" because Brexit happen. That's democracy, not discrimination.

You would be mistaken then. Democracy is clearly a form of discrimination against the minority. You were just conditioned to accept it.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 27, 2022, 08:20:43 AM
To expand on my reply to Tom. I'm a Remainer, I didn't want to Brexit. But the majority voted that way and while I think it was an idiotic decision I haven't been "discriminated against" because Brexit happen. That's democracy, not discrimination.

You would be mistaken then. Democracy is clearly a form of discrimination against the minority. You were just conditioned to accept it.
Literally quoted the definition above:

Discrimination can mean "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."
But the definition which most people understand is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability."

I've not been discriminated against because we have left the EU. We had a vote, my side lost. I'm still waiting to see what the other side won, but regardless I haven't been discriminated against
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2022, 08:35:54 AM
To expand on my reply to Tom. I'm a Remainer, I didn't want to Brexit. But the majority voted that way and while I think it was an idiotic decision I haven't been "discriminated against" because Brexit happen. That's democracy, not discrimination.

You would be mistaken then. Democracy is clearly a form of discrimination against the minority. You were just conditioned to accept it.
Literally quoted the definition above:

Discrimination can mean "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."
But the definition which most people understand is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability."

I've not been discriminated against because we have left the EU. We had a vote, my side lost. I'm still waiting to see what the other side won, but regardless I haven't been discriminated against

The majority is not inherently correct, and nor should it be inherently followed. In the 1600's people believed in the existence of witches and burned young women at the stake. They were not correct because they were the majority. Democracy can be a form of mob rule. It is a form of discrimination against the minority.

The Founders of the United States recognized this and framed the US as a republic with a Constitution and Bill of Rights which prevented the mob from trampling on certain inalienable rights. It is not a direct democracy where the majority can do anything they please. Representatives vote on laws and in elections, not the people directly. In US Presidential elections the person who wins the popular vote can sometimes lose the electoral vote.

Representative democracy has been seen as far superior, since smaller groups of people elect who they think is the best or most qualified person for the job and to pass a law you have to convince a series of qualified people to vote for it, not the masses who may be uneducated or easily convinced. The Ancient Greeks also recognized the danger of direct democracy and scholars like Plato critiqued it harshly.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: stack on June 27, 2022, 08:53:47 AM
Do you want to get rid of The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

For reference: The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 27, 2022, 10:33:01 AM
It is not a direct democracy where the majority can do anything they please. Representatives vote on laws and in elections, not the people directly.
And how's that working out for you?
I don't think any countries have a direct democracy. We have representative democracy here but we have a particularly poor version of it where we are always governed by a government which the minority of people voted for. I think representative democracy is the least bad way of making laws but our version of it needs a lot of improvement.

I wouldn't (edited - I originally put would, incorrectly) advocate direct democracy, partly because people are by and large idiots but also because you can't ask "the people" about every piddling thing. But even when we do have occasional referendums on bigger issues - I think the majority got it wrong on Brexit but I don't feel I've been discriminated against. The majority got what they wanted for good or ill.
Title: Re: The Texas GOP
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 27, 2022, 10:35:51 AM
I think the majority got it wrong on Brexit but I don't feel I've been discriminated against.
You don't, being presumably British, but there are large groups of people that do. A slim majority dicating whether the rights of others should be taken away is a deeply flawed system, too.