I didn't make any of that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Printable View
I didn't make any of that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
She just wants healthcare, honey.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's one thing when children are separated from their parents, but when Sarah Huckasand is separated from her dinner, you know things have gone too far.
I support the restaurant's ability to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
big win for the free marketplace of ideas
I don't, as it's quite the slippery slope.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
We already saw where this slippery slope heads at full bore in the 40's/50's/60's, and history has a penchant to repeat itself. Maybe not the same protagonists, but definitely the same stories
Who do you think should decide what is right and wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I have another question.
Do you think that the reason I think that restaurant should be legally allowed to discriminate is because a system that allows that is one that more effectively weeds out bigotry than systems that don't?
I support their 'right' to do so, whatever that means. A business can decide who to serve and who not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I agree there's historical precedent for this going in bad directions; I just don't think this particular case is anywhere near the proverbial slippery slope leading going back to the civil rights abuses of the Jim Crow days.
Mostly I object to what they did because it's dumb. The woman is not a pedophile or murderer, she's just a paid liar. Let her stuff her fat face if she wants.
The worst part to me is this kind of thing just feeds the mutual outrage machine on both sides that helps make the country so divided. "Zomg they want to let MS-13 kill our kids but they won't serve our beloved press secretary dinner." vs. "Zomg she lies about whose idea it was to separate kids from families at the border, don't you dare serve her a cheeseburger." It's fucking exhausting.
The ironic thing is there's a lot bigger scumbags than SHS that get served in restaurants daily because no-one recognizes them.
It is pretty dumb isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Yep.Quote:
The worst part to me is this kind of thing just feeds the mutual outrage machine on both sides that helps make the country so divided. "Zomg they want to let MS-13 kill our kids but they won't serve our beloved press secretary dinner." vs. "Zomg she lies about whose idea it was to separate kids from families at the border, don't you dare serve her a cheeseburger." It's fucking exhausting.
Jim Crow were laws. I definitely do not support laws that require discrimination.Quote:
I agree there's historical precedent for this going in bad directions; I just don't think this particular case is anywhere near the proverbial slippery slope leading going back to the civil rights abuses of the Jim Crow days.
But they can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But they can. They can pick any individual they want and say 'sorry you we're not doing business with you'. At least in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Edit: I guess you missed the bit where the Supreme Court upheld the rights of the baker not to sell a wedding cake to the gay couple?
They did? Fantastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Prohibition of activity is for when the government is doing it or when a person is initiating violence or fraud. Other than that, things are better when people are allowed to do things other people might not like.
When you refuse service based on a persons sexual orientation, how is this fundamentally different from refusing service to someone based on the color of their skin, which I recall you saying shouldn't be legal.
I think people who refuse service to clientele based on skin color are very stupid. Even so, they, as long as they are acting only as private citizens, should be allowed that refusal. In return, I, and you, and everybody else, should be allowed to refuse them our business. Then, if my view is the main view, that they are stupid and are wrong to discriminate based on skin color, we get to punish them and watch them either go bankrupt or them come to terms with their actions and make a change that they believe to be their own in order to survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Should companies then, being private citizens, be able to refuse hiring people based on e.g. their skin color or sexual orientation? Or if they do hire them, should they be allowed to treat them differently, such as pay them less, make them work longer hours, block them from management and executive jobs etc? I suppose government agencies, not being private citizens, should not be allowed to follow these practices? What about partly government owned or overseen private entities?
Seems to me the human rights issues involved are unrelated to free market principles.
The problem is, some people would rather be cunts and have less money, like the baker. So it's not just a case where you can say 'if they're cunts they'll lose money and will then stop being cunts.' Because they won't.
That said, the gay people could have just found another baker (and I assume they did). It's not like they're right to have a wedding cake (if there is such a thing) was being infringed on. They just happened to run into a fundamentalist cunt. Bad luck, pick up the phone and call someone else.
You guys are bastardizing the cake case quite a bit here. The Supreme Court didn't rule that business could pick and choose who to do business with based on their beliefs. That's still wrong. And it's why what happened to SHS is wrong.
The baker in the case doesn't sell "standard" wedding cakes. Each one he makes is an original, which is probably why the gay guys didn't just shrug it off and go to anther baker. This particular baker was able to convince the court that baking this particular kind of cake for this particular occasion, for him, is an artistic expression. In other words, it's speech. And in America you can't compel someone's speech.
The narrow-ness of this court's ruling means that bakers, even the baker in this case, has to sell birthday cakes to gays. If he ever develops a line of "standard" wedding cakes that someone can choose out of a catalog....gays can buy 'em. If the gay guys come back in a year and ask for a cake that says "Happy Anniversary Chuck & Larry", they'll get it.
You must realize that this disproportionately disadvantages minorities... that's why you can't do that anymore. Do I need to break this down? If 10% of the population are A and 90% of the population are B, even if they have the exact same rights to discriminate, section A will be disproportionately affected by a factor of 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And I got to give credit, this actually makes sense of the cake case. While it might be a genuine reason, I don't think it holds up because it's a claim you could make about anything.
Well don't worry too much. Most of the reporting surrounding the decision included the phrase "not a precedent".Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Most commentary noted the "narrow-ness" of the court's ruling. Apparently there are laws on the books protecting artists-for-hire. So when Sam Harris hires a portrait painter and then asks "Make it look like I'm punching Jesus in the face!", the Christian painter can refuse that request. Harris can't then claim atheist-discrimination and sue. And that's actually been the law for quite some time.
The question in this cake case, was simply whether or not cake is art, and if those laws applied. You can go google the details if you're interested. This particular baker had a pretty compelling case for why his wedding cakes were "art". He also stated emphatically throughout the entire scandal that he would gladly sell his "standard" cakes and pastries to anyone. That probably worked heavily in his favor.
out of curiosity....what did you think before?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I just didn't know. I've been doing quite a lot of baking lately, but actual cake law has remained quite low on the list of things I care about.
I have to admit I haven't been keeping close tabs on cake-gate either.
Does the no-gays ruling apply to pies as well?
No I didn't miss the bit about not allowing blacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's so important to let business die with their dead ideas that delaying it is really detrimental. I'm yet to see a case where forcing social change results in helpfulness for any group in society. People are people and all it takes is time but unfortunately there is no replacement for that time.
I'm such a big supporter of the biggest changes in rights for any type of people are just being yourself and existing. Because that's what matters just be a normal human and funnily enough that is the change needed.
The funny thing about this post is that if you ever wanted to sell a cake, even feed it to people then it should be a hell of a lot higher on your priority list than you think because the government cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Private companies should be allowed to do any of that. Government ones should not. Ones with a mix of government and private should not as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
If you're interested, I can explain why I believe this results in less wrongful discrimination than otherwise.
Top mathematician Nassim Taleb would say that the small minority has disproportionate statistical impact (by a tremendous amount). It's called the Minority Rule. Perhaps this is an important reason why allowing people to make their own decisions yields significantly better results for the lowest rungs.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Is Cake Law related to Bird Law?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
As the arguably second most influential economist of all time once described (Milton Friedman): Mandating a company's behavior takes away the most important related power that laborers and consumers have: punishing that company for behavior deemed immoral, and rewarding its competitors for being moral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
In aggregation, these effects are very swift. And we see it happen all the time.
I suppose it's not obvious I'm first...Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I wish I could create a branch of mathematics that resulted in me being able to disagree with everything without ever saying anything. That shit is genuinely smart. Strangely enough I spoke about this the other night with a friend but couldn't remember his name, only black swan theory shows he's doing his job.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Ohh shit I turned down a job at a Catholic school because of funding ideologies and recruitment policies. I'm a martyr. My parents tell me to get a job. (well I didn't apply, that's a stance?)
It's something I quite dislike about him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I think he's got other stuff going on well. The Minority Rule is compelling. Coke is Kosher after all.Quote:
Strangely enough I spoke about this the other night with a friend but couldn't remember his name, only black swan theory shows he's doing his job.
I watch TV shows from 40 years ago and realise they're saying more interesting things than I ever do. Worse when you think at least Becker was getting laid.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Hawkeye, Trapper, and Colonel Henry Blake IMO.
Knock yourself out, but whatever the argument is, it will have to come down to special pleading because once again it's something that is happening to women in places like saudi arabia, and it has happend in the US before the civil rights movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So not only are you asserting it with no evidence, you are asserting it in the face of evidence to the contrary. I believe we've done this before.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw
Once again making threats based on a lie. If you still support this piece of shit, you're complicit.
I think I understand what you deem to be the mechanisms for that, and I'm not denying they have an effect, I just have strong reservations about them being the whole picture. Just as with the Minority Rule, it may be easy to confuse one identified mechanism to be the sole effecting mechanism.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What lie?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
This is what she said:
Quote:
“They’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they’re not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store,” Waters said. “The people are going to turn on them, they’re going to protest, they’re going to absolutely harass them.”
I think you know that this case has almost nothing to do with cake.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Imagine my surprise when an exact phrase search of that quote taken out of the context that makes Trumps tweet a lie takes me to Fox news.
It didn't come out of context. It came out of Maxine Water's mouthQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
In other supreme court news....Travel Ban Upheld!
#MAGA
I would say that when a system of humans has more individual liberty, that system has a more robust trial and error function.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
If you would like to explain more thoroughly, please do. Be sure to remember that a subset of the whole != whole setQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Do they allow popcorn and sour patch kids in the theater where you're watching this movie?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Just remember that you're complicit in supporting a man who has created a policy to separate children as young as 2 months old from their parents, who has banned people from traveling to the US, claiming national security concerns that are baseless - causing all kinds of issues for no reason other than looking strong to his idiot supporters. Who has introduced trade tariffs on canada and the EU claiming national security concerns. Who praised the Tiannamen square massacre as a strong move.
Here's what a strong move looks like in Trump's eyes:
https://www.quora.com/Tiananmen-Squa...efore-Tank-Man
He pulled out of the Iran deal in which Iran agreed on having on-site foreign inspectors to verify that they are no longer developing nuclear weapons. On the other hand he made absolutely no deal at all with NK, giving them way more than they asked for, for nothing. We didn't even get an accounting of their actual nuclear capability. Imagine being a citizen of NK, hoping that with a meeting with the american president would come human rights concessions, maybe you have family members abroad, or in concentration camps, or you don't know where they are, and what you get is absolutely no talks about human rights violation, instead Trump is singing praises about KJU, because obviously forced abortions, rape as punishment for defectors, and watching your people starve to death while you build yourself a dolphinarium is strong leadership to a fucking retard.
And talking about taxpayer money... Who do you think is paying for the trade war? Is it mexico?
I know you two are a lost cause, but I think everyone who has some common sense left and isn't actively fighting against this administration should be held accountable.
Bolded and indented for you from your response. They are getting exactly what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Wouldn't it be preferable to skip some of those errors if we've already identified them?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
yeah Oskar, but what about Hillary's emails?
He didn't create the policy. It's always been the policy, for everything, that you can't take your kids to jail with you when you're convicted of a crime. Whatever policy action Trump took, I see no evidence that it's sole motivation was to separate kids and parents. It seems pretty clear to me that the intent is to prosecute criminals. The left keeps presenting this like it was purely an exercise in racist cruelty. He got elected to secure the fucking border. Did you really expect that exercise to be all rainbows and lollipops??Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Baseless? Intelligence agencies, under the Obama administration, conducted an audit of security threats and vetting procedures. The result was a list of countries that were known sources of terrorism, and with which we did not have adequate diplomatic relations to conduct thorough vetting of travelers. That all happened before Trump ever announced his candidacy. You can debate whether or not there was a better way to react to the intelligence agency's reports. But what you can't do, is call the policy baseless. It clearly has a basis.Quote:
who has banned people from traveling to the US, claiming national security concerns that are baseless
See above, re: basisQuote:
- causing all kinds of issues for no reason other than looking strong to his idiot supporters.
I'm waiting to hear why that's a bad thing.Quote:
Who has introduced trade tariffs on canada and the EU claiming national security concerns.
Source? Is "praise" your word, or Trump's? Why does strong=praise? There are lots of terrible things in this world that could be called "strong moves". I could say it was a "strong move" when Montgomery Burns tried to expand the market for nuclear power by blocking out the sun. That doesn't mean I support the policy. Strength can be described independently of morality. In fact, I'm not sure why you insist on synonomizing the two in the first place.Quote:
Who praised the Tiannamen square massacre as a strong move.
Oh PUH-LEEEEEZE. Can the inspectors go anywhere they want? Any time they want? Unannounced? Do you know what "verify" means?Quote:
He pulled out of the Iran deal in which Iran agreed on having on-site foreign inspectors to verify that they are no longer developing nuclear weapons.
LOL, yeah and if we did it would be announced in a press release to CNN.Quote:
On the other hand he made absolutely no deal at all with NK, giving them way more than they asked for, for nothing. We didn't even get an accounting of their actual nuclear capability.
Is that a violin I hear? Imagine being the widow, or child of an MIA Korean War vet. Trump came home last week with his remains. You call that nothing? Imagine being a citizen of Seoul or Tokyo worried daily about a mid-air explosion turning you into vapor. Then one day an orange haired blob shows up and suddenly there hasn't even been a single missile tested in over half a year. You call that nothing?Quote:
Imagine being a citizen of NK........
You answered your own question already. Canada and the EU.Quote:
And talking about taxpayer money... Who do you think is paying for the trade war? Is it mexico?
So, out of curiosity, what exactly are you doing to "actively fight" this administration? Other than educating the 8 or so people here.Quote:
I know you two are a lost cause, but I think everyone who has some common sense left and isn't actively fighting against this administration should be held accountable.
I've learned that if my description is a laundry list of grievances, I probably have more thinking to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Absolutely, yet there is a catch: unintended consequences. Any system of sustainable error solving has to also solve the unintended consequences, most of which are not known or identified (hence unintended) at the time of implementation. The best functioning system is then not one that solves for errors given current knowledge and the current status, but solves for errors given future/potential knowledge and future/potential status. A system that sustainably solves problems isn't one that applies a known solution to a known problem; instead, it uses a known function to solve unknown problems, roughly speaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I have another response to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I don't know what exactly the errors are or exactly how to solve them. The same is true for everybody else. Policy doesn't derive from hard facts and hard science (because those don't exist within the domains of sociology). When somebody says that they know what is best for society, they're arrogant or confused or both.
I say that I don't know what is best for others because, regarding their unique and close circumstances, I have less information (and less skin in the game) than they do. The policy of letting people have liberty over their lives is fundamentally different than the policy of dictating over them, because the former is saying that I don't know what is best for the world while the latter is saying that I do.
I find that when people respond to a list of grievances with a non-sequitur, it's usually because can't defend their position.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Agreed, the system needs to be self-correcting. It's just that I'm unconvinced that the market forces, in effect evolution, is the most efficient solution in all cases. The correcting effect of trial and error is limited, in most cases just to the one making the error and some of those immediately around him, if even that, but certainly not the whole population at once. For every error that "makes it to the news" there are thousands that don't. This means the same errors are made over and over again before they become "known".Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Combining the trial and error process with predetermined (but dynamic, that is, the performance of which are regularly measured and adjusted when necessary) rules for known errors would give the best of both worlds. To me it's just not sufficient, that issues that have been around for hundreds of years under the influence of market forces without having been fixed, might be fixed at some point in the future.
It's certainly preposterous to claim to know the right answers to everything, but the same goes for claiming all answers are unknowable. We know perfectly well the answers to many questions, and not using that knowledge to patch the known errors seems folly. I'm all for maximizing liberties, but that does not extend to actions that affect other people's liberties.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Do you think killing and stealing should be legal?
I agree, but I don't agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
We both think that a free market is best for society. We both think that maximizing individual freedoms is best for society.
We probably both agree that neither of these is without its flaws and difficulties, but that they are still the best of what's around.
Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I have learned that if someone responds with empty generalities, they probably have nothing of value to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Wrong and irrelevant. Not wasting my time on the rest. The policy to separate every single child from their parent is part of Trumps zero tolerance policy. Irrelevant because I'm not a brainwashed cult member who would think that it was ok if Obama did it. You thinking that that would have any influence in how I feel about it speaks volumes about your mindset.Quote:
He didn't create the policy.
well, there goes the Nobel Prize.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...roup-1.4724735
NO WAY!
B-b-b-but total denuclearization, and Wuf predicted it months ago when noone would believe him!
I am shocked. Kim Jong Un not valuing a non-binding contract... what an unprecedented turn of events.
I am actually kinda surprised by the speed of which the dprk doesn't give a fuck. Done with photo-op, continue with business as usual.
Ya, but we had a great deal for those two glorious weeks. Too bad the Great Negotiator just got played bigly time.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It says in the article that there isn't a non-binding agreement about production of fissile materials.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
There's a non-binding agreement about testing nuclear missiles.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron
Scroll down for a timeline of denuclearization deals with NK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Check and mateQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
where the fuck did this come from??!!Quote:
Irrelevant because I'm not a brainwashed cult member who would think that it was ok if Obama did it. You thinking that that would have any influence in how I feel about it speaks volumes about your mindset
Kind of a noticeable lull in activity there between 2009 through 2016. Wonder what that's about....Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Yeah, I feel like this is just blood in the water for liberal media sharks. What sensible person really thought that KJU would go back to NK and just say "Alright boys...shut it down!"Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This process will take a long time. People who shit on Trump because he didn't get it done in one sitting sound like jack-asses. Trump's made more progress on this than anyone. Respect
There are much better, and funnier, cut ups of juxtaposed fox news statements on this topic on YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Go get yourself some lotion and a box of tissues and have yourself a great afternoon watching Hannity and Geraldo cram their feet in their mouths.
When you're done, and cleaned up, maybe do a deep dive into the entire commentary and see if the two situations are really the same, or if the words "without preconditions" make one situation unique.
At the end of the day, the US can't do jack shit about NK. Their trade partners and bordering countries: russia, china, and potentially SK can implement sanctions and force concessions. All the US president can do is his funny little cowboy dance to impress his voter base for the midterms.
What were saying before...about empty generalities...?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Your grasp on the english language is as tenuous as your grasp on reality.
I feel I've responded to your points with clear and specific language, in English. Your response has been empty generalities mixed with derogatory banter. Do you have anything intelligent to say? Or is it really all just regurgitated demagoguery with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar