Comment Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 886
Where was your outrage then?
Hypocrite.
LK
Where was your outrage then?
Hypocrite.
LK
Your hypocrisy is strong.
The bakery chose to not make a birthday cake for an innocent child.
Where was your outrage then?
LK
The problem with segregation wasn't that it was allowed to happen.
The problem with segregation was that it was legally mandated.
Haven't you ever seen the movies where there were police officers enforcing segregated dance floors at concerts?
If segregation was happening by choice, it would simply be a free market issue and people could vote with their dollars. Segregation was legally mandated and it wasn't optional.
"If I were in the south and a southerner didn't want me to eat in his restaurant and I forced my way in and then let him go back in his kitchen and prepare some coffee for me to drink, I'd consider myself insane to drink it." - Malcolm X
LK
You are mistaken.
What prompted this law was a bakery in Oregon was driven into bankruptcy because they declined to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
They were willing to sell the couple a different cake but that wasn't acceptable to the couple. They wanted to compel the bakery to make their wedding cake or face financial penalties.
THIS is why religious freedom laws are needed.
LK
So the KKK can force a black or Jewish printer to print posters for their next rally, then?
If you answer no, you agree with the govenrnor of Indianapolis. If you answer yes, you're in favour of slavery (forcing the printer to serve against their will). Pick one.
I remember when this happened and none of the hypocrites who are against this law said a thing in support of these people who wanted nothing more than to buy their child a birthday cake.
LK
That's a ridiculous argument, as surveillance has a chilling effect. It's not a hard restriction of freedom, but that doesn't really make a difference, and soft restrictions are easier to hide and deny.
First, don't think that I'm supporting spying on the general population. However, I don't feel it is the information that is bad, but what governments will do with it. For example, I don't see Google doing anything bad with the data they have on me. Yes, it's an invasion on my privacy, but frankly, I don't really care. What can they do? However, I can see governments abusing the data, especially given the recent IRS scandal where the government used information to punish groups opposing the president.
As for the "chilling" aspect of it, it's only a problem if 1) You know about it, and 2) You let it.
I can't say that a secret invasion of privacy limits my freedom in any way. How could it? I had no idea. That's not to say that it won't be used to limit my freedoms later. Everyone at one point or another is against the powers in Washington. Today, it's conservatives. In a few years, it will be liberals. Libertarians scare the bejeezus out of both parties.
It's not a tradeoff at all. Our intelligence agencies are likely the biggest threat to our security today. We are giving up liberty to be in more danger.
You are confusing privacy with liberty. While I view I have a right to a certain level of privacy, it has no effect on my liberty.
For example, if I were to strap a camera to my head and stream my life 24/7 onto the web, am I any less free than I was before? No, even though I had given up 100% of my privacy. My liberty would only be limited if I limited it myself. For example, if i decided not to view porn because the camera on my head would broadcast it and the whole world would know that I'm into midget-barbarian porn.
Liberty is diminished, however, when that lack of privacy is used against you. For example, if the state puts a GPS on your car and sends you a fine every time you exceeded the speed limit, your liberty would obviously be diminished. Or if the state put a camera in your bedroom and arrested you for masturbating in an unapproved manner.
Privacy is nothing more than the securing of information. Information has nothing to do with liberty. However, it could be used to restrict freedom.
You beat me to the punch.
This is what I was going to say on the matter.
And to be fair, it's not just Obama. It has been pretty much every head of the executive branch for as long as I have been alive but he's the guy there now.
LK
OK, I found the video. Yup, pretty hard to see it as anything other than a racist rant.
Googling the lyrics brings up a bunch of stories about it but nothing matched them from more than a day or so ago. I was wondering if there might be more to the chant but didn't find anything.
I did find very blatant lyrics about killing blacks, whites, Asians, pretty much any group there is. Hate is a universal human emotion, unfortunately.
SigEp is Sigma Phi Epsilon.
The accused Fraternity here is Sigma Alpha Epsilon.
(9 seconds of video? That's not enough to know the full context. What if the words just before were, "We'll never accept people who say," or something like that. This screams of Dowdification.)
Fraternities are just like any other group of self-chosen associates, they bond over commonalities. Some are all white, some are all black, some are all Engineers, some are all Jocks, whatever.
Prejudice and ignorance are fairly universal, as you've demonstrated.
This whole concept of "drive by porning" is nothing more than fear, uncertainty, and doubt spread by the "think of the children" namby-pambies who want to block adult sites from anyone accessing them on the internet.
Really? I guess some people are too young to remember WhiteHouse.com.
Because...
Patriarchy!
Cock-man Oppressor!
Triggered!
Just to be sure, you are making a Serenity reference, right?
LK
It's like when he says that he "believes" in the right to keep and bear arms. There's an asterisk in there somewhere.
LK
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
