Posts by Viviane

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Viviane

You accuse

What, specifically, did I accuse anyone of falsely?

you complain

What, specifically, did I complain about?

you distort

I quoted you directly.

and worst of all you avoid.

I've avoided nothing.

I don't understand why anyone does any of these things.

Nor do you. In one sentence, you've done most of them and failed to show where I did any.

When someone has a question of me that is remotely relevant they ask and I answer. That's how it should be.

Agreed. You're aware that when you ask me a question that makes sense, it will be. No one is stopping you from doing that but you.

As recent as a few minutes ago you said if I wanted to know your position then I should simply ask. So I asked your position of something and you respond by avoiding.

I did tell you simply ask. I didn't however, avoid anything. "Simply asking" doesn't mean re-asking the same poorly worded question that doesn't make sense over and over.

If someone wants to know my position by asking me a question I don't get to frame the question.

I've never told you how to frame the question, no idea what you are complaining about.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Viviane

Okay. What is your position on a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause such discrimination based on race to cease?

"Simply ask", not continue to ask the same poorly worded question.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Viviane

As I said already, it was your use of broad language to describe something narrower. I only mentioned moral and ethic perspectives to illustrate why I objected to your language toward what I wrote.

You read something into the text that wasn't there. I can't help that.

My reason for asking you the question I did was to test your position for whatever it is. Even now you opt to avoid answering such a simple question, which is telling by itself.

As I've said, if you want to know my position, simply ask. Using a poorly constructed "test" question to attempt to derive them on your own isn't the way.

What it should be telling you is to ask directly and plainly if you want something.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Viviane

Not necessarily okay, but not illegal. I hope you realize simply saying something is okay to do suggests moral and ethical attributes in addition to legalities. Because something is legal to do does not make it okay morally or ethically. It only makes it legal.

I never suggested any moral or ethical attributes. You were reading that into what I wrote.

At this point my thought is that you don't want to share whatever is your real position in relation to societal discrimination. But my question remains should you want to pursue the subject of discrimination we find in society around us.

As I said, if you want to know the answer to THAT question, simply ask it. There is no need to ask a different question and attempt to derive my position.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Viviane

Let's be clear about your words "then it's OK to do."
What I've said is that if something is not illegal then it's OKAY in terms of legality. Saying "then it's OK to do" is amuch broader concept and is why I've objected to things you suggested of my comments.

Yes, if it's not illegal, then it's OK to do. You're arguing with yourself, I hope you realize.

I'm sure your view of yourself is different than mine, but on this subject you're not a very good communicator plus you're anxious to accuse. In my case you've either intentionally contorted things I've said in attempt to construct a strawman to then object to, or else you've completely missed the boat.

I'm quoting you. I can't help it if you want to argue that your words mean something other than what you keep saying.

Another excuse for not answering the question asked.

I've never said I would answer it nor am I obligated in any sense to answer it. It just so happens that the question doesn't make sense concurrent with my complete lack of obligation.

What do you think about a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause this discrimination based on race to cease?

I find it fascinating that you keep asking a question that doesn't make sense.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Viviane

My words you've quoted above certainly do not connote what you suggest. I have not opined that if there is no law against a certain thing than that thing is "fine" in my book. My words you quote say if something is not illegal then it is not illegal. Please note the phrase "not wrong UNDER THE LAW"!!! Whether a law is "fine" or not "fine" is something else.

Yes, if something is not illegal then it's OK to do. It's fine. You keep re-phrasing it, but still saying the same tautology over and over but disagreeing that you are saying that.

I'm asking because I'm trying to understand you and things you say as it relates to discrimination and what is "fine" or not "fine" and what should be legal or illegal.

You could simply ask that.

So what do you think about a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause this discrimination based on race to cease?

I think that question doesn't make any sense.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Viviane

Pardon me for pointing this out, but saying "Discrimination is not wrong under the law" is not saying "If it was legal it should be fine" or "It is OK as long as the law allowed it". My statement is said in relation to law and how that law is asserted. What I've said is not the broad statement you suggest of me.

But that's what you actually wrote. Is that not what you mean? You wrote "Discrimination is not wrong under the law unless the thing discriminated against is protected against discrimination".

That means that discrimination is fine as law as there is no law against it in your opinion.

More precisely what I've said means that if there is no law against [name your poison] then [name your poison] is not illegal. But there is a law against preventing [name any race] from voting hence preventing [name any race] from voting is illegal.

Fine, but that's not what you said previously. Are you now changing to that?

So what do you think about a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause this discrimination based on race to cease?

This is such a fascinating question. I am not sure if you are asking because you don't know the difference between civil and state court proceedings or because you think it's somehow a "gotcha" question that will really get me. Perhaps you think it's a trick question or trap.

8

Book of Job can help despite its absurdities!

by economy in

we are incapable of grasping stories that do not follow rational sequence of cause and effect.

one such typical example is book of job:.

1) it presents a god who tries to please his adversary at the cost of great suffering to his beloved ones..

Viviane

We are incapable of grasping stories that do not follow rational sequence of cause and effect.

Perhaps you should speak for yourself only.

102

A couple questions for atheists on Suffering

by little_Socrates in

who told you that the world should be free from suffering?.

do you find any value in suffering?.

do you think it is possible to experience all the beauty and goodness and pleasure the world offers without also experiencing the bad?

Viviane

viv you are twisting what i said as well as taking it out of context and then replying to something dreadful you have created in your own mind.

You wrote that suffering as value and you've not denied it. Child rape is suffering, therefore, according to you, it has value. Feel free to deny that.So far you haven't.

a chimera to be exact - a dreadful image that atheists see when they think they are confronted by a believer so I guess this is not just in your own mind but something created by the intelligentsia arm of modern atheism. It is an illusion and here you are imposing it on me. dreadful.

Imposing it on you? You're the one that said suffering has value. You were simply provided an example of suffering that you think has value.

That you refuse to deny your own words while attempting to blame others for them is disgusting, of course, but not nearly as bad as thinking child rape has value.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Viviane

You are prevaricating. Apparently you don't want to answer the question asked. Fine. That puts you in a class I discriminate against.

Well that's stupid. I ask again. It's not my problem that you can't explain why you don't know something.

Where have I asserted such a thing? Is that what I said, or is it your preferential reading of something I said?

And I quote you specifically.. Discrimination is not wrong under the law unless the thing discriminated against is protected against discrimination.

What you wrote means, in case you are unaware, means that as long as there is a law, it's legal. In that world, slavery and women not being allowed to vote is legal. Is that what you meant?

That said, and to the point of the discussion at hand regarding laws and punishing with law, I think the fair thing is to make sure laws are written clear enough for individuals to have ample opportunity to know how those laws will be used against them as punishment. If a law has to be interpreted by courts to form common law then that common law should also be asserted to give time for citizens to understand what is expected of them before asserting punitive measures based on the interpretation.

So.... you should take your own advice and think before you speak? Basically, you 100% agree, but haven't figured that out yet? Unless, of course, you think it's ok to hate on black people and women?