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

All I've seen you use me for is a person to vent on. You're loaded with anger, and you're loaded with yourself. You bicker over nothing.

Vent on you? No, I'm not angry at you or myself or the world in any way. You really shouldn't make assumptions about people. I am curious as to why you think I'm angry in any way.

For instance, I work in a field of IT where every detail matters. Millions of dollars of fines, lawsuits, the ability to continue business depends on whether or not I design something correctly for customers. Clarity is, above all, the the thing we have to have when answering questions. If a question isn't clear, we have to figure out how to make it clear.

It's not bickering to say "the question doesn't make sense, it needs to be made clear", it's the only way discussion on equal footing can continue.

For instance, if someone were to ask me whether or not I recommended VMware or Hyper-V, the answer is "Either neither and both depending on what you are doing and why you are asking." If someone asks me "should I used on-prem or off-prem cloud", same answer. Actually, first, I want to clarify what they even mean by cloud, what they are doing, why they are doing it and proceed from there.

Clarity, my friend. Clarity.

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

Something like it exists. See: Miss Black USA

OK. You didn't ask me about that so... describe, specifically, the thing you are asking me about, the thing you made up and want me to assume to know how you think it works.

1. Legal and moral.
2. What I'm asking about is a 501(c)3 corporation.
3. In the case of my question, yes, only "white" people could win the pageant.

Specifically describe the organization you are asking about and it's practices.

Without changing the question asked, make assumptions you feel necessary in order to answer what's been asked. If you need more clarification please feel free to inquire.
If your view did not matter to me I'd not ask it.

As I said, I won't make assumptions about your question. Describe to be the organization you are asking about. I absolutely will ask for clarification if needed and answer fully.

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

Wow. That's telling!
Logic 101: A burden of proof rests on whoever makes an assertion to prove that assertion true.
What this means: This burden does not shift because someone else does not ask you a question.

It is. I used you to prove it. That should definitely tell you something. I suspect it's not, but it should.

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

It's false to claim I thought the question I answered didn't make sense.
The sole thing I corrected was the misconception that science is a theory.

You wrote "First, science is not a theory. Science is a method". If you thought it made sense, you're very first action wouldn't have been to correct the very premise of the question. Since you did, clearly you felt the question was wrong.

As I said, burden of proof provided. If you need it made more clear, all you need do is ask. Since you've not after repeated overtures and offers to make it clear, it's obvious you've no interest in it.

Actually, you know what? I'll take pity on you. You ARE asking, you just can't admit it.

First, as far as I know, nothing called "Miss White America" exists. If it does, provide me a link and I'll look at it and see what it is and then form an opinion since obviously, it's 100% stupid to form an opinion on something that doesn't exist or, if it does, I don't know anything about or, if it is something you are using as an example, you've failed to explain what it is or provide details I could use to form an opinion.

Second, do you mean find as in legal? Fine as in moral? Again, none of those things can be answered without without knowing more about the thing you are talking about. Is is a business? A private organization with membership dues? Does the name mean that ONLY white people can be involved? Is it limited to people named White? Is it like the Odd Fellows group that also allows women, meaning the name doesn't reflect what their membership policy is?

Thirds, courts get involved when someone brings a lawsuit or charges or is seeking redress. Which of these things are you asking about? Courts don't just "get involved" on their own. Ask you asking if I think it should be illegal? Should law enforcement and then courts should get involved? That someone should sue them? That the courts should break tradition and get involved?

You are asking me to make a ton of assumptions about what you mean, what type of organization you are talking about, how they operate, etc. That's why it's a question that I am refusing to answer. You've given me nothing to work with without trying to read your mind. It doesn't make sense, asking someone to assume details.

So, jump on that, figure out what you are asking and ask it.

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

No. It's may way of kindly telling you the burden of proof is yours to prove your assertions are true.

I've already done that. In fact, you did it. You answered a question that was similarly poorly constructed by pointing out the question was wrong.

In any event, even without out, you've been told many times all you have to do is ask what is wrong with the question if you want to know. Until you DO ask, there is no burden on me.

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

If, as you claim, the question you posed is comparable to the one I asked you then the question I asked you is answerable.

I did answer exactly as you did. Your first act was to point out that the question itself didn't make sense. I've done that and offered to elaborate. So far you've chosen to remain in the dark on why your question needs improving. The difference is, I refuse to assume to know what you really mean and answer that instead.

So, at this point, you have literally answered the same way I have with the notable exception that I haven't told you what is wrong with your question, merely offered to do so.

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 keep asserting things like the question is stupid and it's poorly worded and it presents a false dichotomy and that it makes no sense. These are your assertions; not mine.

Well done. You've managed to tell me that what I said is what I said and not what you said.

Your assertions are yours to prove true, not mine to be curious about or mine to disprove. If you want to demonstrate why the question I've asked is unanswerable then do so and be done with it

Is this your way of asking for help? I've no particular interest showing why it's poorly constructed unless you are asking why. You're the one that wants the answer.

Until you prove your assertions true all they are is personal opinion.

Creationist refuse to believe in evolution, that doesn't make it less true.

So what? I don't care what you hold as personal opinions. I care what you can prove.

Are you asking? It seems like you're asking.

Right now what I see is an answerable question and, in you, someone for reasons unknown just does not want to answer that answerable question.

People see things that aren't there all the times.

Also, point of clarity, I said it doesn't make sense AND that I would have to make assumptions about what you mean to actually ask, not that it is not answerable. "Purple monkey dishwasher" could be an answer.

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

For comparison, here is a question with very similar construction qualities

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

I'm happy with the question the way it is, and it is answerable as it is. You apparently just do not want to answer it for what it asks. And, no I really don't need you to re-frame the question I want you answer. I've asked the question I want to ask. I've not asked the question you want me to ask.

Oh well. You're free to mistakenly think your question makes sense, that I am avoiding it for whatever reason and to display a complete lack of curiosity on why the question is deficient.

Wrong on all counts, of course, but horse, water, etc.

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

And yes I support vehemently gay rights to marry as much as I support religions to keep their backwards antigay morality.

Would you say the same thing if they were discriminating against people because they were African American?