Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sigh....is nothing safe from politics any more?
I bought some new dice. My PBP game is going well. I get to play D&D tomorrow in my friend's Ptolus campaign.
Dude! You're gone/irregular posting for ages, and when you do return, you show up in a politics thread?!?!?
FAWTLY Towers, old man, that's where you belong. Not here. Come have a virtual drink with the old crew and give us an update. I've been thinking of making a "Old timers you miss on Paizo thread" and you would've been near the top of the list.
|
|
Why not? What do you have against them? Damned, Archie Bunker wannabe you.Will you have a diverse, racially-balanced group of players?I'm in several that are diverse to the point of hilarity. The only races that are not represented are Indians and full-blooded Native Americans.
No people from India in my group, most likely because in our rural town their are very few if any living here. However I do have a full blooded Native American, who's grandmother once employed John Dillinger.
|
[Men and women's physiology differences necessitate different exercise requirements. Same with whites and bl...oh wait nevermind.
Oh, like how men lift weights and women...oh, wait never mind.
Or, like how men run on treadmills and women...uhhh
Well, men swim and women...errr
But, women do yoga and aerobics classes and men...well damn.And of course, if someone is a certified physical fitness instructor and happens to be female, she couldn't possibly help a man train, depsite the fact that men have been training women for decades.
I guess you got me there, how foolish of me.
Training programs are often customized to fit the individual. There are differences between men and women when it comes to how they exercise. One example of this has to do with the width of the pelvis. Since womens' pelvis' are wider, it can cause misalignment of the muscles connecting the pelvis and patella. Sudden starts, stops and pivots while running can cause the ACL to blow out much easier on a woman than a man.
To take our hosts, as an example. Paizo produces more 'mature' products than say WotC. Some people have expressed discomfort in the past about the tone of their products. They've voted with their wallets. Do we really need a government authority coming in and dictating Paizo make their content more G rated to not 'discriminate' againg folks who don't want slavery in their RPGs?
That’s a horrible example. Just because Paizo doesn’t offer products that everyone might enjoy doesn’t mean they are discriminatory. I don’t think a business owner should have to create a product for every creed, race, and fancy. If a cosmetics company comes out with a new line of make up that’s geared towards women of a certain skin color, that’s okay. That company shouldn’t be forced to make products that are for everyone. However, if a woman of a color that line is not made for comes up and tries to buy that color, the company should not have the right to refuse service to her.
|
Tranquilis, one thing that I've learned on this board is that people who throw the word "bigotry" around the most are usually the worst perpetrators of it themselves.
You were just discriminatory against the entire populace of Kentucky. Congrats. In fact, what does that say about your opinion of the rest of the South? I'm suspecting you're a bigot. I hope I'm wrong.
+1
Let's not get too bogged down in geographical issues. There are turds in every state; take Joe Lieberman for instance.
I'm just glad somebody's taking the time to talk about me...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That’s a horrible example. Just because Paizo doesn’t offer products that everyone might enjoy doesn’t mean they are discriminatory. I don’t think a business owner should have to create a product for every creed, race, and fancy. If a cosmetics company comes out with a new line of make up that’s geared towards women of a certain skin color, that’s okay. That company shouldn’t be forced to make products that are for everyone. However, if a woman of a color that line is not made for comes up and tries to buy that color, the company should not have the right to refuse service to her.
To take our hosts, as an example. Paizo produces more 'mature' products than say WotC. Some people have expressed discomfort in the past about the tone of their products. They've voted with their wallets. Do we really need a government authority coming in and dictating Paizo make their content more G rated to not 'discriminate' againg folks who don't want slavery in their RPGs?
Tell that to E-Harmony.
Tell that to E-Harmony.That’s a horrible example. Just because Paizo doesn’t offer products that everyone might enjoy doesn’t mean they are discriminatory. I don’t think a business owner should have to create a product for every creed, race, and fancy. If a cosmetics company comes out with a new line of make up that’s geared towards women of a certain skin color, that’s okay. That company shouldn’t be forced to make products that are for everyone. However, if a woman of a color that line is not made for comes up and tries to buy that color, the company should not have the right to refuse service to her.
To take our hosts, as an example. Paizo produces more 'mature' products than say WotC. Some people have expressed discomfort in the past about the tone of their products. They've voted with their wallets. Do we really need a government authority coming in and dictating Paizo make their content more G rated to not 'discriminate' againg folks who don't want slavery in their RPGs?
Hey, I agree with you on that one. If a gay man wants to use E-Harmony I don't think E-Harmony should have the right to refuse him service. However if the business they offer is matching up men and women then he shouldn't get all pissed off when the company finds a woman for him.
Tranquilis, one thing that I've learned on this board is that people who throw the word "bigotry" around the most are usually the worst perpetrators of it themselves.So, you admit that you're a bigot against bigots?
Bigot.
You found me out. Damn.
|
Hey, I agree with you on that one. If a gay man wants to use E-Harmony I don't think E-Harmony should have the right to refuse him service. However if the business they offer is matching up men and women then he shouldn't get all pissed off when the company finds a woman for him.Tell that to E-Harmony.
However, if a woman of a color that line is not made for comes up and tries to buy that color, the company should not have the right to refuse service to her.Granted, at that point I'd have to ask two questions:
1. When he signed up and they said "We'll find a woman for you", why didn't he immediately not give them money
2. If they didn't say "We'll find a woman for you" ever (which I doubt), I'd expect him to demand his money back
|
|
WTF? Seriously? You would think they would be a little more cognizant of what their candidates are saying on the public stage, especially after their first major primary win. I guess it just goes to show that the best way to deal with an opponent is to just give them enough rope to hang themselves with. OTOH, it is Kentucky, so hell, it might just help him in the polls...You were just discriminatory against the entire populace of Kentucky. Congrats. In fact, what does that say about your opinion of the rest of the South? I'm suspecting you're a bigot. I hope I'm wrong.
Rand Paul is a LIBERTARIAN (regardless of current party affiliation). If you know anything about Libertarians, they believe in true freedom - not the government regulated freedom that we're all subjected to.
Understand the position and you'll understand his answer, although it was political suicide to answer it in the way he did because 99% of the folks hearing the sound bite or reading the headline won't go beyond it.
Why he even appeared on Rachel Maddow's show is beyond me.
Would I have said it? No.
Do I see the philosophy behind it? Yes.
Do I agree with the vast uninformed interpretation of it? Hell No.
Do I agree that the Act should be repealed? Double Hell No.
As a Tennessean, I'm ashamed Al Gore's daddy fought and voted against the Civil Rights Act.
I'm no d@mn Demoncrat. You can bet your arse on that.
My how history is forgotten.
That portion was meant to be tongue in cheek...i guess it didn't really come across that way.
I lived in TN for about a year and a half and didn't experience any issues being in an interracial marriage. I met some people who had disowned their child for dating a black man and having his baby, but they didn't say anything to us (so we'll call that one neutral i guess).
I do believe that rural areas anywhere in the US can be a bit backwards...the south doesn't hold a monopoly on rural areas, so no, I don't really have anything against the south (except for those "the south will rise again" a+&!!#+s).
I wouldn't consider myself a bigot in any form of the word (unless hating bigots makes me a bigot...if so I guess I'm guilty as charged).
I knew it!
Tranquilis, one thing that I've learned on this board is that people who throw the word "bigotry" around the most are usually the worst perpetrators of it themselves.So, you admit that you're a bigot against bigots?
Bigot.
I'm also bigoted against tyrants who run their cults with an iron fist. Fascist!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm also bigoted against tyrants who run their cults with an iron fist. Fascist!I knew it!
Tranquilis, one thing that I've learned on this board is that people who throw the word "bigotry" around the most are usually the worst perpetrators of it themselves.So, you admit that you're a bigot against bigots?
Bigot.
I'm not sure if that cult is run so much as it runs around aimlessly.
|
|
I'm not sure if that cult is run so much as it runs around aimlessly.I'm also bigoted against tyrants who run their cults with an iron fist. Fascist!I knew it!
Tranquilis, one thing that I've learned on this board is that people who throw the word "bigotry" around the most are usually the worst perpetrators of it themselves.So, you admit that you're a bigot against bigots?
Bigot.
PONY!!!!
I think its need should be downplayed, that being said in some urban centers the difference between the underprivileged and those with a support structure are night and day. Most of the times this is very much in favor of those who have skin as light as mine. I think we should however change it that the criteria is not being a minority but being more in need. There are sections of our society that are underprivileged and skin color just doesn't matter. Of course I am all for pumping a lot of money into the educational system as well.
Edit We are 56th
No, we really aren't. As a % of GDP we are 56th. In terms of actual dollars spent per student, last time I checked, we were in the top ten, and might have been in the top five. The problem with our education system is not by any stretch of the imagination a lack of funding. It is a misappropriation of funding by entrenched bureaucracy and low standards for teachers.
I'm not sure if that cult is run so much as it runs around aimlessly.That sounds about right.
...and we like it that way.
...and we like it that way.I'm not sure if that cult is run so much as it runs around aimlessly.That sounds about right.
*runs around in circles, jumping all over the furniture*
|
|
No people from India in my group, most likely because in our rural town their are very few if any living here. However I do have a full blooded Native American, who's grandmother once employed John Dillinger..
Was he her hired gun?
[threadjack] John Dillinger worked as a migrant farmhand from time to time while he was on the run. She hired him to help harvest some crops for her. She did not even know who he was until the FBI came around after he had left looking for him. [/threadjack]
Dark and Stormy anyone?...and we like it that way.I'm not sure if that cult is run so much as it runs around aimlessly.That sounds about right.
Hit me!
*swings in on a rope*
Good day citizens! Did someone call for me?
*swings in on a rope*
Good day citizens! Did someone call for me?
*yoinks hat!*
Monkey in the middle!
Taunting seems to be okay.
*yoinks hat!**swings in on a rope*
Good day citizens! Did someone call for me?
Careful! You''ll mess up the feather, I spent all morning ironing it!
Granted, at that point I'd have to ask two questions:
1. When he signed up and they said "We'll find a woman for you", why didn't he immediately not give them money
2. If they didn't say "We'll find a woman for you" ever (which I doubt), I'd expect him to demand his money back
1. Because he probably wanted to make waves.
2. Because many people seem to think being unaccommodating is the same as being discriminatory.
Why not? What do you have against them? Damned, Archie Bunker wannabe you.Will you have a diverse, racially-balanced group of players?I'm in several that are diverse to the point of hilarity. The only races that are not represented are Indians and full-blooded Native Americans.
We tried, we really did try! But the most native american we get in our group is someone who is less than 5%, and the one indian dude we did try to get playing with us ended up being quite insane.
Tranquilis, one thing that I've learned on this board is that people who throw the word "bigotry" around the most are usually the worst perpetrators of it themselves.
You were just discriminatory against the entire populace of Kentucky. Congrats. In fact, what does that say about your opinion of the rest of the South? I'm suspecting you're a bigot. I hope I'm wrong.
Wow, way to add to the discussion: a single, sanctimonious sentence that fails to address the issue.
Who "threw it around"?
I've never used that word here save now, yet when someone links to a national story "about" bigotry and discrimination (whether accurately reported or otherwise) and accuses an entire state of being in the same camp as the guy in the story, some "Mighter than Thou" and his allies come chasing me?
My beef is no longer with the OP; he explained himself in a later post. My beef is with your kind of asinine, righteous dismissiveness.
Comparing establishments which ban an activity (smoking, drinking) to establishments which ban people based on the color of their skin seems pretty f-ing stupid to me.
This,
When the smoking bans rolled through Ohio, I fought it even though I don't smoke. If I want to go to a smoke free establishment, I'll go find one. If a smoker wants to go to a bar and have a drink and a smoke, let them.
The argument of 'what about the waitresses' rang hollow. They choose to work there.
I lived in an apartment complex that banned alcohol (owners were Mormons). I enjoyed that I'd not have a drunken neighbor at 3 in the morning. Should they be allowed to discriminate against drinkers?
The Government being race neutral is one thing, forcing someone to accomidate someone else is wrong.
Matt,
I should not have commented that what you said was stupid. What I had meant to say was that all of the examples you give are of people being unaccommodating, not discriminatory. The owners of the apartments you lived in were unaccommodating of people who drink alcohol by not allowing it on their property. However, it’s not discriminatory unless they don’t allow people who drink alcohol to rent their property. Paizo not offering products parents would find suitable for their small children is not discriminatory unless they prohibit parents with small children from buying their products. A big and tall store doesn’t carry clothing that a short, skinny person would typically wear, but simply because the store isn’t catering to the person’s needs isn’t the same as banning anyone under 4’ tall from their store.
|
Tranquilis, one thing that I've learned on this board is that people who throw the word "bigotry" around the most are usually the worst perpetrators of it themselves.
You were just discriminatory against the entire populace of Kentucky. Congrats. In fact, what does that say about your opinion of the rest of the South? I'm suspecting you're a bigot. I hope I'm wrong.
Wow, way to add to the discussion: a single, sanctimonious sentence that fails to address the issue.
Who "threw it around"?
I've never used that word here save now, yet when someone links to a national story "about" bigotry and discrimination (whether accurately reported or otherwise) and accuses an entire state of being in the same camp as the guy in the story, some "Mighter than Thou" and his allies come chasing me?
My beef is no longer with the OP; he explained himself in a later post. My beef is with your kind of asinine, righteous dismissiveness.
Umm. Way to misread Garydee's post.
Umm. Way to misread Garydee's post.Tranquilis, one thing that I've learned on this board is that people who throw the word "bigotry" around the most are usually the worst perpetrators of it themselves.
You were just discriminatory against the entire populace of Kentucky. Congrats. In fact, what does that say about your opinion of the rest of the South? I'm suspecting you're a bigot. I hope I'm wrong.
Wow, way to add to the discussion: a single, sanctimonious sentence that fails to address the issue.
Who "threw it around"?
I've never used that word here save now, yet when someone links to a national story "about" bigotry and discrimination (whether accurately reported or otherwise) and accuses an entire state of being in the same camp as the guy in the story, some "Mighter than Thou" and his allies come chasing me?
My beef is no longer with the OP; he explained himself in a later post. My beef is with your kind of asinine, righteous dismissiveness.
Yeah, if it makes you feel any better I'm pretty sure Gary's "asinine, righteous dismissiveness" as you call it was on your side.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Tranquilis, one thing that I've learned on this board is that people who throw the word "bigotry" around the most are usually the worst perpetrators of it themselves.
Wow, way to add to the discussion: a single, sanctimonious sentence that fails to address the issue.
Umm. Way to misread Garydee's post.
Celestial Healer, with respect, if Tanquilis misunderstood Garydee, then so did I. Ignoring who he was addressing, his post came across to me as being dismissive of people who point out injustice, tarring the lot of them with the charge of hypocricy.
I admit, I've found this thread fascinating. Never in my life would I have thought to hear anyone disputing either the necessity or providence of the Civil Rights Act. America did indeed have all manner of shopkeeper and business owner discriminating against all manner of minorities, in the years leading up to the law, and I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that repealing the law now would prove it unnecessary. (Indeed, as people are still convicted for violating the CRA, and as study after study show that employers still discriminate on the basis of race, I'm convinced it's still necessary.)
|
|
Celestial Healer, with respect, if Tanquilis misunderstood Garydee, then so did I.I admit, I've found this thread fascinating. Never in my life would I have thought to hear anyone disputing either the necessity or providence of the Civil Rights Act. America did indeed have all manner of shopkeeper and business owner discriminating against all manner of minorities, in the years leading up to the law, and I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that repealing the law now would prove it unnecessary. (Indeed, as people are still convicted for violating the CRA, and as study after study show that employers still discriminate on the basis of race, I'm convinced it's still necessary.)
Oh, no, I agree. I think people underestimate the damage racial segregation in the private sector can have on people's ability to function in society. There is a misguided sense that "the market will work it out, as people will simply spend their money elsewhere." That overlooks two issues:
One, that assumes that the minority groups in question have equal economic power, which is simply not reality. Groups that are disproportionately poor can be marginalized with little consequence.
Two, that assumes that business owners will realize that marginalizing others is potentially bad for business. Many of the small business owners I know are perfectly willing to take a stand on their beliefs (whether those beliefs are well-founded or malicious) even if it's not the best choice they could make for their bottom line.