|
That's fascistic not socialistic. Socialists would be trying to nationalise your bar for the people.Of course, NAZI was an acronym for National Socialist Worker's Party... but they were fascists. So the terms maybe aren't as clear-cut as we'd like. Or, if you get too extreme in one direction, no one can tell the difference between you and far extremists in the opposite direction. Like in Pac-Man, when you go off one side of the screen and re-appear on the other!
This is true. On the other hand, I doubt you could make a convincing case that Pinochet was a socialist. Authoritarian is rather closer to the mark. Whatever your opinion on economics (socialism vs capitalism) says nothing about your opinions on freedom (libertarianism vs authoritarianism).
And as it's fashionable to post Political Compass scores:
Economic: -4.83
Social: -4.6
It's been fairly consistent for a while now. And should explain why I felt the need to defend socialism from being associated with fascism. ;-)
Whatever your opinion on economics (socialism vs capitalism) says nothing about your opinions on freedom (libertarianism vs authoritarianism).
Very true. What I find is that in extreme enough fascist movements, large businesses tend to accrete vast power, which is then co-opted by the state. In extreme communism, all business is administered, supposedly "for the people," by the state. Opposite initial philosophy, with identical results. Pinochet's move towards privitization of businesses (the "economic miracle") in the long run led to greater inequality, and had the net effect of increasing government power (while it lasted, anyway).
As you note, take away the authoritarian trends, and the similarities break down. But I sometimes wonder whether extreme socialism or extreme enough capitalism also lends itself to a more authoritarian government...
|
|
Whatever your opinion on economics (socialism vs capitalism) says nothing about your opinions on freedom (libertarianism vs authoritarianism).True enough. What I find is that in extreme enough fascist movements, large businesses tend to accrete vast power, which is then co-opted by the state. In extreme communism, all business is administered, supposedly "for the people," by the state. Opposite initial philosophy, with identical results. Pinochet's move towards privitization of businesses (the "economic miracle") in the long run led to greater inequality, and had the net effect of increasing government power (while it lasted, anyway).
As you note, take away the authoritarian trends, and the similarities break down. But I sometimes wonder whether extreme socialism or extreme enough capitalism also lends itself to a more authoritarian government...
All forms of extremism tend towards authoritarianism. To be fair, all forms of government tend towards authoritarianism, as they all require a certain amount of restrictions of liberty on the citizens. The citizen demands that 'something be done', then complains when they don't like the something that was done. You can't please voters. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Partisan barbs aside, one of FEMA and the federal government's great advantages is the power to marshal tremendous amounts of resources - particularly money, something the Salvation Army and the Red Cross cannot do in anywhere near the magnitude. The flooding this June has strapped the Red Cross here in WI.
This advantage of power, which if we get right down to it, is the power to use the threat of violence to get people to comply, doesn't necessarily benefit the people caught up in these disasters.
One thing I find frustrating, is how the media and government immediately start using "2 minute hate" tactics to demonize people who raise prices in local areas on things like water and gas when something like Hurricane Katrina hits.
Yes, at first glance, when you hear about some guy selling water bottles for $50 a piece at his mini-mart, your probable reaction is that he is a heartless bastard.
But no one in the government thinks through what actually happens if they prosecute or threaten such people. It worsens shortages, while high prices can help relieve shortages.
If some guy at a mini-mart is 3 miles outside a disaster zone, and he has 200 water bottles in his store, and people start walking by and coming in to his store to buy what water they can, then the number of people who get some water is going to increase along with the price.
If he can sell those water bottles at $50 a piece, then people are going to buy 1, 2 or 3, a small amount. If he has to sell them at $1 a piece, then the first people into his store are going to stock up, they can't know when they will get more water, so they may buy 10 or 20.
The result, 10 to 20 people get water at $1 a bottle, while 50-150 people get water at $50 a bottle. The guy could charitably let individual bottles go at a lower price for someone who only has $1, $5, or $10, but if sells many of them at $50 a piece don't expect the media or government to tell us he did anyone a favor.
I'd say this really is a lousy answer. The correct answer is that you keep selling the water for $1, NO F#!$ that, thats a b!++@*#~ answer - If this happens near your town or city or whatever then you f~+@ing stand outside your shop and you hand everyone passing a f#$@ing bottle of water free of g@~~+@n charge and you suck down the $50 its going to cost you to do that. You don't need to control the price - you only got 50 bottles so the next 50 people get one and then you switch to giving people water from you lawn hose 'cause thats the best you can do and these people are in need of your help.
You can remember your capitalistic instincts when its tax time and you want to collect a tax credit on the 'charity work' you did that cost you $50 bucks in bottles of water.
|
|
I liked Fight Club, too, but, despite growing up on a farm, butchering animals, and being one of the 1% of people who wouldn't die *immediately* if sent off into the woods without any tools, I find nothing romantic about that rugged manly life. The first time I get an infected cut, I want an emergency room, not to have to press hot rocks against the injury and pray for it to burn out the infection before I get gangrene.
Anyone who finds that life "romantic" is probably off their nut. I don't find it romantic. What I do believe is that it is the ecological niche and lifestyle that humans should be occupying.
Again, about 95% that whole block was opinion, so don't think I'm trying to persuade anyone to agree with me. I never do.
|
|
Sweet! Let's get him back into the white house, STAT!OMG! Ronald Regan is back from the dead.Economic Left/Right: 5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87Sounds about right. I'm probably a litter lower on the social score, but not by much.
I can see loaded question bit, but I think the test would better if it made it clear on whether or not its talking about what you want from government, and adding a neutral button.
Raymond Pettibon (original bass player of Black Flag, artist) was born Ray Ginn, but changed his name because all the punkers made fun of him. Heh heh...
|
|
Egads. I knew gamers were a liberal lot, but come on now, there aren't ANY more traditional conservatives taking that test?The current batch of people who call themselves 'conservatives,' who are in bed with the people who consider our favorite pastime 'that devil-worship game,' have done a great job of turning gamers against them. As long as they take their money from the religious leaders who say that America deserved 9/11 and that God invented IEDs to punish us and that Katrina was sent to stop a gay pride parade in New Orleans, they'll continue to alienate people who have souls. When the candidate for President *actively seeks out endorsements from these people,* in the hopes of getting their votes and money, it doesn't reflect well upon their movement, or their morals, or their right to call themselves human beings.
If *real* conservatives (yanno, the ones who believe that government should stay the heck out of our private lives, bedrooms, bank accounts, phone lines, emails, etc.) ever come back into power, I'll welcome them back and ask where the hell they were when their movement got hijacked by the current batch, who've expanded the size, power and price-tag of the federal government more than any so-called 'big government' administration ever dreamed of doing.
I'd love to have them back, too. They should have cloned Reagan. Or, hell, maybe just go straight to the source and clone the founding fathers. I don't want ANYbody oppressed.
Reagan... Eh...
However, I would sell my soul if it could bring George Washington back into the presidency.
|
|
Yeah, maybe so.That's fascistic not socialistic. Socialists would be trying to nationalise your bar for the people.The problem is where do you go to get personal freedoms anymore? I live in Texas and you wouldn't believe how socialistic it is getting here. I own a bar/billiards place where I live and you wouldn't believe the power the police have over you. They can search your business at-will, shut you down at-will, and arrest you at-will. It's totally nuts!I'd be happy if this happened, but I'd VERY quickly relocate to a different state at that point. Illinois is suffocating in terms of personal liberty.
That looks about right. In terms of U.S. politics I think all the states should simultaneously secede from the union. Smaller liberal democracies govern themselves better. We can all sign some pact of mutual defense and settle our occasional differences via college sports.
you live in the people's repblic of austin, by any chance? we don't seem to have that problem here in houston, nor in dallas, when i bartended there, as i recall...
|
|
That sir is what Libertarians use. Slightly less mess, roughly the same outcome.like trying to secure a 3" screw in place with piece of concrete.You mean I should be using 2 5/8" instead?
I thought those were supposed to be put in using a brick.
This is fascinating! I always assumed that the Libertarians used nothing but dry set masonry, feeling that fasteners, adhesives, or mortar of any kind are an affront to the natural rights of the building materials, whose decision to associate together in a structure ought to be made according to their own conscience, not imposed by threat of force from a contractor.
Anarchists just use nails.
|
|
Yeah the world would be so much better with out Christians. Eyeroll...... who say that America deserved 9/11 and that God invented IEDs to punish us and that Katrina was sent to stop a gay pride parade in New Orleans, they'll continue to alienate people who have souls.Yeah! Especially those sick puppies that say things like, "China getting hit with an earthquake and killing thousands, that's karma, isn't it?" Damn sick people.They are not just in the US ya know! My mum holidayed in the peoples republic of Kanada visiting friends and the christmas message for the comming 2005 newyear was the "asians had that tsunami comming for not being christians".
The Christian fundamentalists are out of control. Considering String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution I think we should deport them to Labour camps in Antartica - that way they can have fight club in the snow for food and we can have happy they are gone parties.
He didn't say Christians. He said Christian Fundamentalists. There is quite a large difference.
|
|
That's fascistic not socialistic. Socialists would be trying to nationalise your bar for the people.Of course, NAZI was an acronym for National Socialist Worker's Party... but they were fascists. So the terms maybe aren't as clear-cut as we'd like. Or, if you get too extreme in one direction, no one can tell the difference between you and far extremists in the opposite direction. Like in Pac-Man, when you go off one side of the screen and re-appear on the other!This is true. On the other hand, I doubt you could make a convincing case that Pinochet was a socialist. Authoritarian is rather closer to the mark. Whatever your opinion on economics (socialism vs capitalism) says nothing about your opinions on freedom (libertarianism vs authoritarianism).
And as it's fashionable to post Political Compass scores:
Economic: -4.83
Social: -4.6It's been fairly consistent for a while now. And should explain why I felt the need to defend socialism from being associated with fascism. ;-)
keep in mind, pinochet was the only dictator i can recall EVER voluntarily stepping down, when he was sure chile wouldn't turn into argentina. he was a brutal bastard, to be sure, and his methods were deplorable, but he was a slightly different breed from the typical "president for life" type.
|
|
Yeah, because THAT has never gone south before. If anything, we need to set shorter term limits on EVERYBODY in government. Like maybe one four-year term for presidents and one six-year term for members of congress, and ban immediate family members of previous or existing leaders from serving.Can't we just appoint an Emperor? A brave leader, charismatic and just?
Resolute and steadfast in his concerns for the citizenry? A leader worth following....
Or maybe whoever can kill the existing president gets to be president. Either way, I'd be having a lot of fun watching.
|
|
I'm pretty sure all that was said tongue-in-cheek, especially YD's comments. I doubt they meant any offense, and they certainly weren't serious. Pythonesque humor isn't everyone's cup o' tea...Pythonesque humor requires inflection and other nonverbal cues to come across as humor.
Well, then, I guess it's a good thing that I hear voices in my head.
When has that behavior ever been quintessentially "Marxist"? Ideological monism crops up all over the political spectrum.Constantly.
Check some of his bizarre beliefs about D&D economics, or his casual attitude towards the extermination of political dissidents.
AAAAH HA HAHA HA HAAAAAA! OH, MAN ARE YOU A JOKER! WHAT A CUT-UP!
...
Oh.
|
|
When has that behavior ever been quintessentially "Marxist"? Ideological monism crops up all over the political spectrum.Constantly. Check some of his bizarre beliefs about D&D economics, or his casual attitude towards the extermination of political dissidents.Hmm..
I keep up with yellowdingo's posts, and there's something you notice over time: he has a sincere and serious side (like when he's posted condolences and taken a moment to actually answer a game mechanics question), and he has his ridiculous side (like posting five screens worth of research-verified grain market and distribution data in 12th century western Europe, or why UFOs work--or spelling Canada with a K and deporting people to the Arctic).The problem with YD's posts is that many of them contain some comment or allusion that is guaranteed to immediately offend someone (I can't stand his 9/11 jokes), but if you take a breath, read the entire post, hang it up against all the other posts in the thread, you'll discover--he's making a joke. The humor is black, the tone is Python.
Yeah, he's like me-
- he only gives a f%*% if the topic is consistently serious and/or relevant.
Unlike politics, which are listed in the thesaurus (mine, anyway) as the antonym of both seriousness and relevancy.
|
|
Hmm..
I keep up with yellowdingo's posts, and there's something you notice over time: he has a sincere and serious side (like when he's posted condolences and taken a moment to actually answer a game mechanics question), and he has his ridiculous side (like posting five screens worth of research-verified grain market and distribution data in 12th century western Europe, or why UFOs work--or spelling Canada with a K and deporting people to the Arctic).The problem with YD's posts is that many of them contain some comment or allusion that is guaranteed to immediately offend someone (I can't stand his 9/11 jokes), but if you take a breath, read the entire post, hang it up against all the other posts in the thread, you'll discover--he's making a joke. The humor is black, the tone is Python.
Perhaps when he calls you a terrorist for posting a dissent to one of his poorly thought out data dumps on medieval economics, or a plagiarist for using a forum but not producing the same sort of useless data dumps that he does, you will change your mind.
There is a point past which any comments become nothing but deliberately spewed venemous bile. That he tries to conceal that behind the occasional bit of black humor does not change said venomous bile to a joke.
Greeeeaaat logic, bro.
See, when ANYONE says something like that, I (not just me, either) would automatically assume that he was joking. Which he is.
|
|
I'd be happy if this happened, but I'd VERY quickly relocate to a different state at that point. Illinois is suffocating in terms of personal liberty.
That looks about right. In terms of U.S. politics I think all the states should simultaneously secede from the union. Smaller liberal democracies govern themselves better. We can all sign some pact of mutual defense and settle our occasional differences via college sports.
Oh, yeah. I'd be stoked, but still, I'd get the f@@@ outta New York.
|
He didn't say Christians. He said Christian Fundamentalists. There is quite a large difference.
He could as easily have left the Christian part out completely. Moslem fundamentalists are equally grumpy and un-fun. I'm sure that any violent Buddhist extremists out there would be just as unpleasant to be around (there's gotta be *one* out there...).
Anybody whose personal beliefs are more important to them than *my life* scares me.
Thanks to the whole 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' thing, and the 'Do Unto Others' rule and the 'cast not the first stone' exhortation and the 'judge not, lest ye be judged' ideal, Christians *shouldn't* be the sorts of people who blow up buildings or kill people who don't believe what they believe. Which means that we can dismiss those who are extremists and who do blow up federal buildings or shoot doctors and nurses outside of reproductive health clinics as not 'real Christians.' They're just nutjobs, like the folks who strap bombs to their bodies and think that the explosion will somehow propel them to paradise.
That's the problem with Darwin. One brand of extremist kills other people, blows up buildings, beats queers to death, shoots doctors and nurses, lynches black folk, practices moral suasion on Jews, gulags intellectuals, etc. The other brand of extremist goes on a hunger strike, pulls a Gandhi, lies down in front of a bulldozer, chains themselves to a tree, moves in front of a whaling ships harpoons and only gets *themselves* killed.
In both cases, they are people to whom a life (whether it be their own or someone elses) may be deemed less valuable than a belief.
Thanks to evolution, the people who kill *other people* are ones who get to breed. It could even be argued, based on population figures, that violent people have bigger families. Then again, having seen how annoying brothers and sisters can be, I'm not sure whether naturally aggressive and territorial and competitive people breed more, some sort of testosterone thing, or kids with siblings are more likely to SNAP as a result of the pressures of that little punk always stealing your stuff and narcing on you to mom. :)
|
|
I'm sure that any violent Buddhist extremists out there would be just as unpleasant to be around (there's gotta be *one* out there...).
well, a sizeable portion of the younger tibetan buddhists in exile in india are advocating a much more violent course of action towards the chinese. they dont seem to keen on the pasifistic path advocated by the dalai lama. so i'd say there's more than one...
|
|
keep in mind, Pinochet was the only dictator i can recall EVER voluntarily stepping down,
I remember being stunned that the Praetoria government in South Africa basically voted itself out of power. The idea of a governing body willingly ceding power / control seemed like crazytalk. I certainly can't imagine one of our governing branches saying, 'Oh hey, we've kinda been sucking, so we're stepping down and allowing the people to vote in some replacements.'
And then there's Venezuela, where their senate/congress/whatever has been repeatedly voting to give up more and more power to their red-shirted very undiplomatic leader who'se name I've forgotten again. Crazy people. "Please, lets not have any rights! Take care of us, Daddy! Make all of the hard decisions for us!"
For some reason, when I see these people like Putin, who want to remain in power forever, I am reminded of a line from a James Bond movie. The bad-guy puts his hand on a gun and says, "Remember El Presidente. You are only President... for life."
|
|
And then there's Venezuela, where their senate/congress/whatever has been repeatedly voting to give up more and more power to their red-shirted very undiplomatic leader who'se name I've forgotten again. Crazy people. "Please, lets not have any rights! Take care of us, Daddy! Make all of the hard decisions for us!"
that would be hugo chavez. he'll wear out his welcome soon enough. he already has colombia itching to kick his butt, for one...
|
|
Greeeeaaat logic, bro.
See, when ANYONE says something like that, I (not just me, either) would automatically assume that he was joking. Which he is.
Oh, that is verrrrrry logical.
Just assume that anyone who threatens you is just joking. That works so well in actually being prepared for when they start actually trying to kil you.I prefer more rational assumptions when my safety is concerned.
you live in the people's repblic of austin, by any chance? we don't seem to have that problem here in houston, nor in dallas, when i bartended there, as i recall...Yeah, maybe so.That's fascistic not socialistic. Socialists would be trying to nationalise your bar for the people.The problem is where do you go to get personal freedoms anymore? I live in Texas and you wouldn't believe how socialistic it is getting here. I own a bar/billiards place where I live and you wouldn't believe the power the police have over you. They can search your business at-will, shut you down at-will, and arrest you at-will. It's totally nuts!I'd be happy if this happened, but I'd VERY quickly relocate to a different state at that point. Illinois is suffocating in terms of personal liberty.
That looks about right. In terms of U.S. politics I think all the states should simultaneously secede from the union. Smaller liberal democracies govern themselves better. We can all sign some pact of mutual defense and settle our occasional differences via college sports.
No, I live about 60 miles north of Austin. The problem is that the local TABC and police are really aggressive and step over the line on occasion. In fact, they have gotten in trouble with their superiors many times for some of their actions. I'm friends with most of the other bar owners around town and their feelings towards the local authority is about the same as mine.
|
|
Pray tell, what did you write?
And just for the record, he was being facetious.
How do you know?
Is he one of your sockpuppets?If not, I have never seen him speak for himself and clarify his intent.
Maybe the problem is you are so caught up with gratuitous trolling in threads like this that you extend that to excusing people flaming like Yellowdingo.
|
|
No, I live about 60 miles north of Austin. The problem is that the local TABC and police are really aggressive and step over the line on occasion. In fact, they have gotten in trouble with their superiors many times for some of their actions. I'm friends with most of the other bar owners around town and their feelings towards the local authority is about the same as mine.
waco, maybe, agriplex? i know the cops in the waco/mexia/belton triangle can be problematic...
No, I live about 60 miles north of Austin. The problem is that the local TABC and police are really aggressive and step over the line on occasion. In fact, they have gotten in trouble with their superiors many times for some of their actions. I'm friends with most of the other bar owners around town and their feelings towards the local authority is about the same as mine.waco, maybe, agriplex? i know the cops in the waco/mexia/belton triangle can be problematic...
You got it!
|
|
You got it!
i feel for you. there is a lot of corruption in the police forces up your way, more than average, for sure. plus, it seems like the agriplex cops take having a badge as an excuse to just mess with people because they can. its sad, really. especially since a lot of cops i've met in texas seem to have a "live and let live" attitude as long as you aren't doing something seriously criminal...
|
Perhaps when he calls you a terrorist for posting a dissent to one of his poorly thought out data dumps on medieval economics, or a plagiarist for using a forum but not producing the same sort of useless data dumps that he does, you will change your mind.
There is a point past which any comments become nothing but deliberately spewed venemous bile. That he tries to conceal that behind the occasional bit of black humor does not change said venomous bile to a joke.
That so hurtful...not once did I discuss your sexlife.
|
|
Maybe the problem is you are so caught up with gratuitous trolling in threads like this that you extend that to excusing people flaming like Yellowdingo.
I respect your writing from the contest, but at this point, you're becoming the cause, not the cure. Might wanna make a mental ignore list and put yellowdingo, Shiny, myself and anyone else who is pissing you off on it.
Too much cool stuff to be had here to let intemperate comments on an off-topic thread sour you to this site, IMO.
That so hurtful...not once did I discuss your sexlife.
Not helping, man. Don't step down into it.
|
I was censored and threatened with a ban for a post similar to this. But since you are attacking Christians and not gays am sure you will be fine.Pray tell, what did you write?
And just for the record, he was being facetious.
It was something along the lines of "I don't want gays in Golarion, and if that makes me a homophobe, so be it." There was a thread about it. Look it up, if you can be bothered.
|
|
Maybe the problem is you are so caught up with gratuitous trolling in threads like this that you extend that to excusing people flaming like Yellowdingo.I respect your writing from the contest, but at this point, you're becoming the cause, not the cure. Might wanna make a mental ignore list and put yellowdingo, Shiny, myself and anyone else who is pissing you off on it.
Too much cool stuff to be had here to let intemperate comments on an off-topic thread sour you to this site, IMO.
That so hurtful...not once did I discuss your sexlife.Not helping, man. Don't step down into it.
Thats OK Set...no amount of walking on water is going to get him to like me, and considering my insistance on "tolerating" him really pushes his psychological buttons.
|
|
I'd say this really is a lousy answer. The correct answer is that you keep selling the water for $1, NO f&*! that, thats a b!#@~&!@ answer - If this happens near your town or city or whatever then you f&*!ing stand outside your shop and you hand everyone passing a f&*!ing bottle of water free of g$%&+$n charge and you suck down the $50 its going to cost you to do that. You don't need to control the price - you only got 50 bottles so the next 50 people get one and then you switch to giving people water from you lawn hose 'cause thats the best you can do and these people are in need of your help.
You can remember your capitalistic instincts when its tax time and you want to collect a tax credit on the 'charity work' you did that cost you $50 bucks in bottles of water.
Amen. What's CLEARLY right over what your political system is in favor of. I would hasten to add that Jeremy's attitude isn't capitalist, socialist, or communist; it's just plain charity, which at its best trumps ALL of the systems.
<rant>
Good grief, people. Deporting people because they don't agree with you is *madness*; I think most (all?) of you get that.
I have no problem with Christians, Hindus, Jains, Hebrews, Muslims, etc., etc., etc. as long as separation of church and state is vigorously enforced. I have a problem when, for example, organizations that use public funding and/or facilities start to mandate a particular set of beliefs for membership/participation *cough* Boy Scouts *cough.* Or when the teaching of science in public schools is compromised. Or when tax money gets funneled to religous organizations (sorry; faith-based initiatives).
Seriously keep religion out of my government (and away from tax revenues) and I'm satisfied. It all comes down to respecting the rights of others, whether you are an adherent of their religion or not. Is it really that hard to understand?
</rant>
... as long as separation of church and state is vigorously enforced. I have a problem when, for example, organizations that use public funding and/or facilities start to mandate a particular set of beliefs for membership/participation *cough* Boy Scouts *cough.* Or when the teaching of science in public schools is compromised. Or when tax money gets funneled to religous organizations (sorry; faith-based initiatives).
Seriously keep religion out of my government (and away from tax revenues) and I'm satisfied. It all comes down to respecting the rights of others, whether you are an adherent of their religion or not. Is it really that hard to understand?
So you believe it is ok to discriminate based on religious beliefs then? I mean do you hold the same standard to non-religious groups? Do you get to choose which mandates are appropriate for membership/participation to their groups before they can use PUBLIC facilities? Religious speech is a form of speech and should get the exact same protection as any other form.
Greeeeaaat logic, bro.See, when ANYONE says something like that, I (not just me, either) would automatically assume that he was joking. Which he is.
Samuel Weiss has cause. I remember the thread were he and Dingo got into it and Dingo was way off the reservation IMO.
|
|
So you believe it is ok to discriminate based on religious beliefs then? I mean do you hold the same standard to non-religious groups? Do you get to choose which mandates are appropriate for membership/participation to their groups before they can use PUBLIC facilities? Religious speech is a form of speech and should get the exact same protection as any other form.... as long as separation of church and state is vigorously enforced. I have a problem when, for example, organizations that use public funding and/or facilities start to mandate a particular set of beliefs for membership/participation *cough* Boy Scouts *cough.* Or when the teaching of science in public schools is compromised. Or when tax money gets funneled to religous organizations (sorry; faith-based initiatives).
Seriously keep religion out of my government (and away from tax revenues) and I'm satisfied. It all comes down to respecting the rights of others, whether you are an adherent of their religion or not. Is it really that hard to understand?
Pres Man,
His point was that exclusionary organisations should not get government funding. I don't care if you're Christian or atheist, when you say "that one can't join because he's the wrong faith/has a faith/hasn't a faith", you should not get supported by the government. The atheist union or Church of the FSM shouldn't get government funding either or discounts on government services (which is just another name for funding). On the other hand, as far as I know, they don't, but Christian organisations like the Boy Scouts do.Faith-based initiatives is harder. If you don't prostheletise and don't discriminate based on your religion, then they can be useful. As long as it's not just one faith that's getting them, as is currently the case.
|
|
Samuel Weiss has cause. I remember the thread were he and Dingo got into it and Dingo was way off the reservation IMO.
Greeeeaaat logic, bro.See, when ANYONE says something like that, I (not just me, either) would automatically assume that he was joking. Which he is.
Really? What reservation was that? I like to think being on the recieving end of open hostility gets me a different version of reality.
Ah bugger ya! lets go back to politics...So any one seen the Japanese Monkey at the Podium ad?
|
|
Well, then, I guess it's a good thing that I hear voices in my head.I'm pretty sure all that was said tongue-in-cheek, especially YD's comments. I doubt they meant any offense, and they certainly weren't serious. Pythonesque humor isn't everyone's cup o' tea...Pythonesque humor requires inflection and other nonverbal cues to come across as humor.
I disagree: you can read a Python script and still get the humor--in fact, it may be a bit more transparent.
Oh, and the intellectualized voices are OK until they manifest as Mr. Hariman sitting on the couch doing your taxes...
His point was that exclusionary organisations should not get government funding.
Let's assume that truly was his point (I'll wait to see what he says about it), then why not say just that? Why make the point only about religious organizations? If one instead means any exclusionary organization, then say that. Sometimes I don't think people realize how (subconsciously perhaps) they are against religious organizations. They get upset about behaviour from religous organizations that they happily tolerate from other organizations.
Why make the point only about religious organizations? If one instead means any exclusionary organization, then say that. Sometimes I don't think people realize how (subconsciously perhaps) they are against religious organizations. They get upset about behaviour from religous organizations that they happily tolerate from other organizations.
Because that is what the last several pages of this thread are about? Seriously, you really need to consider a comment in the context that it was made.
For the record, I do not support tax revenue being allocated to any group that excludes people based on race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
I do believe religious groups are among the worst offenders in this regard, but that is really beside the point.
So you believe it is ok to discriminate based on religious beliefs then? I mean do you hold the same standard to non-religious groups? Do you get to choose which mandates are appropriate for membership/participation to their groups before they can use PUBLIC facilities?
Actually, what I'm saying is that it ISN'T OK to discriminate based on religous beliefs (or lack thereof).
No one "gets to choose" anything. If an organization exludes people based on race/religion/sexual orientation, etc., then they can't use PUBLIC facilities, since those facilities are support by tax dollars. End of story.
Religious speech is a form of speech and should get the exact same protection as any other form.
There is no freedom of speech issue here. Protected speech means the government doesn't oppress/jail/penalize someone for saying something. It does not mean they are obligated to financially support one's organization.
If one instead means any exclusionary organization, then say that.
That's a good point. Part of the problem you perceive, though, might be that few groups are as focused on exclusivity as are some religions. For example, being a member of the National Society of Old Ladies Who Love Crossword Puzzles doesn't prevent you from also being a Scrabble Club Member, say. The (fictitious, as far as I know) NSOOLWLCP doesn't proselytize, claim that you aren't allowed to do puzzles if you participate in Bingo night, etc. But the Baptists (for example) become very, very upset if they catch you sitting on a prayer rug in a mosque.
Naturally, religion is vastly more important to most people than crossword puzzles; it's a more fundamental part of their lives. But most religions are still extremely possessive of their memberships -- always looking to attract more (like any organization), but refusing to allow simultaneous membership elsewhere. Which makes them fundamentally exclusionary.
If the NSOOLWLCP ladies started refusing to allow Methodists to join, or used their funding to lobby to enact legislation banning Scrabble, I'd say their funding should be cut.
That's a good point. Part of the problem you perceive, though, might be that few groups are as focused on exclusivity as are some religions. For example, being a member of the National Society of Old Ladies Who Love Crossword Puzzles doesn't prevent you from also being a Scrabble Club Member, say. ...
If the NSOOLWLCP ladies started refusing to allow Methodists to join, or used their funding to lobby to enact legislation banning Scrabble, I'd say their funding should be cut.
Yet what if they refused to allow young men to join their group (being a society of old ladies)?
Yet what if they refused to allow young men to join their group (being a society of old ladies)?
Same deal, if they get federal funding and are tax exempt. If all their funds come from taxable private dues, I'd let 'em exclude anyone they want, I suppose.
Same deal, if they get federal funding and are tax exempt. If all their funds come from taxable private dues, I'd let 'em exclude anyone they want, I suppose.
And what if they base who they include/employ based on other things, past criminial history for example? Should they also be excluded from recieving public funds?
Yet what if they refused to allow young men to join their group (being a society of old ladies)?
Then they lose public funding, since they are discriminating based on sex, a protected class.
However, since Old Ladies Who Love Crossword Puzzles haven't held any crusades of which I'm aware, nor do many young boys wish to join a group of old ladies playing Scrabble (at least compared, to say, the number who may wish to join the Boy Scouts, ostensibly a non-religous group), hopefully it wouldn't come to that. But if someone trying to make a point ensured that it did then there would be no choice; they must not receive public support.