bintananth
behind a desk
You were making good points right up until you said "discrimination should be allowed".
No, discrimination should not be allowed at fucking all.
LGBT and the US Conservative Movement
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
No, discrimination should not be allowed at fucking all.
Why?
Can people not have personal opinions?
bintananth
behind a desk
They can. That does not mean their personal opinions are socially acceptable.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Of course it should. The idea that people can’t discriminate is absurd and obscene. Don’t people own their own property? If so why are people forced to let others access their property? Don’t people own their own bodies? If so then why are we forced to provide other people our labor against our will? Anti-discrimination laws are all inherently hypocritical too, since groups that are favored by the establishment (which is the far left) can’t be discriminated against but groups that the establishment dislikes can be discriminated against, or sometimes such discrimination is even mandated.
Discrimination is all someones opinions. WHy should the government control my thoughts?
I thought this was America
No but we absolutely should be enacting laws that protect the common citizen, especially children from trans people and the tranny against his or herself.
Depends, I'd be in favor of...amending the law to make cancelation by financial institutions and tech companies an act of domestic terror, with the managers and internal people who made the decision to silence or foreclose on anyone who expresses anti-Alphabet soup views face a trial where the death penalty is an option.
I think this should be done because society has overwhelmingly favored groomer culture to a dangerous degree and in a way that brutally represses anyone who objects to that.
reality proves that to the contrary, nevermind that most non whites have a racial agenda against each other more than they do against whites.
It's more than just denying reality, its an issue that kills, maims and shatters confused people...disabled people and children. Intervening to put a stop to it is an act of self defense, an act of filial and a defense of human rights.
Yes
Sure it is, outside of whites, not that we should from a moral standpoint.
Why not? It's a biological imperative and a self defense mechanism...Discrimination before the law is wrong, but personal discrimination is excellent.
Guess not?
Why would what's socially acceptable matter? our society is evil and depraved at present..and what's the accepted norm right now is that having families is an act of oppression, loving your spouse is a sign of privilege, parental rights are an illusion and your child doesn't have a gender until it decides it and if you intervene on said child's behalf you will be killed by police acting under orders of Social Workers or bankrupted, left homeless and left to see your children mangled in a group home by corrupt family court Judges.
Why should anyone tolerate the views of a society that stands for any of that?
bintananth
behind a desk
You've gone down the rabbit hole and are chasing Alice's Adventures in Wonderland to see what she found there.
Actually there is a major difference between personal discrimination and legal discrimination.
Do you prefer Coke over Pepsi? Are you not then discriminating against Pepsi by not purchasing their products?
Do you cheer for <insert sports team here> over <insert rival of sports team here>? Are you not discriminating against <rival sports team> by refusing to support them?
Did you vote for a candidate or party in an election? Did you not discriminate against the opposing candidate or party?
Did you decide to have a hot dog for lunch instead of a hamburger? Did you not discriminate against the hamburger by not having it for lunch?
On a personal level we 'discriminate' every day, with every choice we make.
But on a *legal* level, the law must treat all persons the same, all products the same, all businesses the same, etc. The reason this gets applied to private corporations is Public Accommodation Doctrine, businesses are deemed to be Public Accommodations, which makes doctrines that normally only apply to government apply to them. As the whole 'Bake the Cake' bullshit shows this is easily abused by activists stretching it into pretzels beyond all reason.
Doomsought
Well-known member
Being anti-gay is the goal not the means. We should focus on social pressure and shaming gays as sexual perverts. The law does not need to be involved here.
bintananth
behind a desk
There is a vast difference between "I don't want to deal with you because you're a twatwaffle*" and "I don't want to deal with you because you're an [insert highly offensive slur here]"
* Or some other term describing, possibly and probably in a much more offensive and hateful manner, just how displeased with their behavior you are.
You're right, one is rooted in personal preference, the other biology and it should only be illegal before the law, you've no right to try and force someone not to think a certain way and you certainly aren't going to unmake a million years of evolution guided instincts with laws.
bintananth
behind a desk
We, as a species, are about a quarter of a million years old and "behaviorally modern" began approximately 40-50 thousand years ago - right around when Neanderthals went extinct.
EDIT: they should have been the ones to survive instead of us because they, when compared to us, had pretty much every physical advantage.
Last edited:
Nah, I'm not just including humans in that but our ancestors as well.
We are a species primed for hostile competition and solidarity to the tribe and proliferation through expansion. Prejudice is just an extension of those extincts.
bintananth
behind a desk
We are large apex predators who hunt in packs. When I say large, I'm not joking. I'm about 6'0" weigh about 200-210lbs (as do my 16 siblings and both of my teenage children).
We can say "I'm bigger than you" to things like small lions, tigers, and bears.
bintananth
behind a desk
A 12-year old child is about the same height as mommy. Mommy probably has a good 20-30lbs on a grey wolf and she is vastly more dangerous than daddy because she'll resort to using weapons before he does.
Corollary point: while legal scholars tend to argue that Buck v. Bell was one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history on legal principle, the actual facts of the case are arguably even more horrifying.
Carrie Buck was involuntarily sterilized on the basis that she was a "threat to public health" due to a combination of feeble-mindedness and promiscuity. But the evidence clearly shows that she wasn't actually promiscuous and she was probably also not feeble-minded either. Rather, she was raped by the nephew of her adoptive parents, and the adoptive family arranged for her to be institutionalized in order to cover up the crime. Buck's daughter -- cited by Justice Holmes as "three generations of imbeciles is enough" -- was definitely not feeble-minded; she was in fact an honor roll student.
Even under the very limited standards of the laws of that day, the above facts meant that it was fairly clear that Carrie should not have been sterilized. Unfortunately, her lawyer was blatantly incompetent -- even at the time, several commentators noted that he made poor arguments, failed to call relevant witnesses, and "did not seem to know whose side he was on". It has since been discovered that the lawyer supposedly representing Carrie was himself an avid supporter of eugenics, a close friend of the doctor who "prescribed" sterilization, a board member of the state institution where Carrie was being held, and most importantly of all, he was literally the person who signed off on the paperwork to order her sterilized -- in other words, he wasn't actually incompetent, he was actively colluding against her.
Carrie Buck was involuntarily sterilized on the basis that she was a "threat to public health" due to a combination of feeble-mindedness and promiscuity. But the evidence clearly shows that she wasn't actually promiscuous and she was probably also not feeble-minded either. Rather, she was raped by the nephew of her adoptive parents, and the adoptive family arranged for her to be institutionalized in order to cover up the crime. Buck's daughter -- cited by Justice Holmes as "three generations of imbeciles is enough" -- was definitely not feeble-minded; she was in fact an honor roll student.
Even under the very limited standards of the laws of that day, the above facts meant that it was fairly clear that Carrie should not have been sterilized. Unfortunately, her lawyer was blatantly incompetent -- even at the time, several commentators noted that he made poor arguments, failed to call relevant witnesses, and "did not seem to know whose side he was on". It has since been discovered that the lawyer supposedly representing Carrie was himself an avid supporter of eugenics, a close friend of the doctor who "prescribed" sterilization, a board member of the state institution where Carrie was being held, and most importantly of all, he was literally the person who signed off on the paperwork to order her sterilized -- in other words, he wasn't actually incompetent, he was actively colluding against her.
Last edited:
Yes.We do not cared about pederasts.But if you were magnat with private army you could do whatever you liked from about 1696,and if you were peasant you were fucked no matter what your orientation was.
Althoug not as fucked as russian or prussian sefs - who was running to Poland to become polish serfs.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Children should certainly be protected. Giving kids a sex change or screwing with their hormones is abuse of the worst sort and should be outlawed. As for adults choosing to have their own bodies modified, that is a little bit tougher for me.
That is an issue that goes far beyond LGBQ… stuff. The big corporations use their power to silence dissenters for all sorts of reasons, critics of gays or Trans is only the tip of the iceberg.
Yes, I would outlaw companies intimidating people in this way, I would also make it a criminal charge and not a civil one.
The American right is and has always been against gays and transsexuals more than the left has, but for a century non-whites have always sided with the left for the gibs and every generation of neo-cons and cuckservatives tell us how conservative non-whites and that they are better and more conservative Americans than us and every election cycle proves what a load of bullshit that is. If we had closed our borders decades ago, if we didn’t have the 1965 immigration act, there would barely be a Democrat Party in America now, but because of non-white immigration there won’t be Republican Party in a decade, at least not one that can win a national election.
It does kill and disable, but mostly people who choose to disable themselves. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, just saying it’s ultimately not that important.
yep wasn't the first time progressives pulled that shit and wasnt the last either.
Thats why you should always be suspecious of people who say their new ideology will solve everything.