I offered you a fair alternative that you say isn't happening. Then you say it is but it's unacceptable. But you said before that it's what they should do, Which is it?
I... don't recall saying anything like this? I don't know what "fair alternative" you're referring to is or the bit where I say it's "unaccpetable". I'm simply saying if we really want to be modern about this then we'd have a serious rethink on whether or not we want the state deciding what is or isn't an acceptable arrangement for human beings to congregate in is and then allow people to manage their own affairs - it's the only sensible way to deal with marriage due to its intrinsic links to religious practice historically (and the contradictory definitions of different cultures - the whole "one man, one woman," thing being demonstrably untrue throughout history and in different places - and America specifically being what it is historically has a less justifiable claim to tradition given it can only appeal to the many shared traditions of the mostly wholly immigrant population). But I don't see that happening because people don't think that deeply when it comes to questioning why things are the way they are in the first place - it's hardly unsurprising to me then that people will see an "attack" on "traditional" marriage.
It works on so many levels.
Because your contract doesn't make a hospital consider you next of kin for medical decision and visitation. It would also have some implications for retirement benefits, taxes, on and on and on.
All I'm hearing is "the current legal framework isn't setup to deal with this so it isn't setup to deal with this."
Of course, fell free to get the necessary changes in law put in place, but be prepared to deal with wingnuts quacking about people marrying pets and such.
Last time I checked this was happening with gay marriage anyway. Not that I expect such an outcome but separation of marriage and state is really the only way to allow people the freedom to arrange their lives the way they see fit.
I personally believe black people are human beings with rights and a soul. You're damned right I am intolerant of the contrary view.
I don't believe they have souls. But then again I don't believe anyone does.
Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the right to a gay marriage doesn't mean it's not a right.
Has anyone bothered to sit down and actually think about what marriage is? It is effectively a familial contract. Modern notions about love nonwithstanding that was the point for its creation - social control.
Why not strip the term of its special priviledge, lawyer up, form any contract you like and then proceed to bump uglies in any configuration you choose?
Oh right, because of irrational attachment to the word.
How come the homeopathic practitioners don't just row out into the sea and throw their goose livers in there? They could cure all diseases overnight. They must be mean capitalists if they're not doing things like that.
Where's the little glass bottles? Where's the shaking? Where's the successive titrations? You're not applying the true principles here, just a ludicrous caricature! That's why what you propse won't work. Not because it's a fundamentally incorrect Victorian era disease hypothesis.
And yet, for some strange reason, it doesn't remember the fact that it used to contain bovine fecal matter and all sorts of other bad stuff.
Only works when done in a pseudo-sciency way by a homeopathic practitioner - of course.
I don't think the people selling this believed in homeopathy somehow.
That's the comic, not What If? - which is all about things like how much power you'd need to illuminate the shadow of the moon or what happens to the Earth's geography if you drain the oceans of water.
Now, now, we'll have no facts on risk analysis here.
Radiation is scary and must be stopped at all costs.
That's why I'm starting a Kickstarter to blow up that most nefarious of radiation sources - The Sun.
Geez, you really are intellectually challenged, aren't you.
High praise indeed from an Anonymous Coward.
You made a general statement about "-isms".
Which made no attempt to be an exclusive definition but clearly only pertaining to the relevant discussion of discrimination. So I ignored your irrelevant side track because it was irrelevant, and still is irrelevant.
Intellect has never even attempted to challenge you has it?
I would have to start first.
You wrote "No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question." That's not a statement about what it means "here".
I do not see how this doesn't apply to racism unless you are saying there is no discrimination based upon the property of race whether or not that property is well defined - which isn't relevant.
Furthermore, you don't get to arbitrarily redefined words and then criticize people for not accepting your redefinitions.
I certainly do when I am clearly donig so for the purposes of hypotheticals in an argument.
I will outline this again for you.
I scare quoted racism - "racism" - since as it is commonly understood has additional baggage not relevant to the basic point as to whether or not acknowledging the existence of differing properties in population groups is a priori a immoral - something you refuse to make a statement on.
If you have such a problem with the word substitute whatever you want in its place that has effective meaning and then get back to what was actually said rather than what you think was said that allows you to have some righteous moral outrage.
it's with your attempt to determine what those differences are based on race and then treat people differently accordingly.
Please quote where I made such an attempt. "Treatment," is such a broad term but I can assume that you only mean that it can be derrogatory. Since I don't know entire phenotypical properties from the first glance of an individual nor since I have no particular yardstick by which to determine if there were any particular actions to take with regard to any individual based upon that other than obvious things like a deaf person isn't going to be able to communicate with me in the same way a hearing person would - a statement you will no doubt find problematic despite its obvious practicality - I have no specific approach to take any such action. You are obviously forming a caricature in your own mind based upon simply what the example is in question which again strikes to the point that you are the one with the problem and cannot take a dispassionate approach to a subject and you are infact the one with the prejudicial problems.
And the fact that lots of people are racists, like you are, is actually a big problem for our society.
Ignoring the fact that you basically don't know what my beliefs are with regard to people of other cultures are since I haven't said anything - although it would be rather problematic if I was the caricature you have formed in your mind for me in certain intimate interpersonal relationships that aren't relevant and you don't have to believe exist, you can simply read what I actually said on the matter rather than what you believe I have.
It doesn't matter that you believe that your racism is positive rather than negative.
Hypothetical question here: is the NBA racist? Is the 100m dash racist? Is the bobsleigh racist?
You keep on asserting I am making proscriptional statements on how one should behave rather than descriptional statements on factual matters.
So please, could you quote me somewhere where I've said we should whack a cracker or lynch darkies? I don't believe I said anything to this effect anywhere. This is all of your imagination and inability to read what is said on a controversial subject without jumping to your predujiced conclusions.
Again, *you* are the problem for "our" (since I probably am not part of it) soceity. Unthinking, emotionally laden, prejudiced moral panickers that would have us all mointored 24/7 for thoughtcrimes.
Definition of "racism" from Collins:
Hold it right there. I have very clearly stated what is meant here and as such the definitions you quote are irrelevant.
Would you like to address the meat of the point now?
The problem here isn't with me,
you hold racist beliefs, you simply think it's OK because you don't discriminate.
Not as you defined - clearly impossible since I already stated that I perfectly agree that what are referred to as races are a caricature of reality that have little utility. I am simply pointing out the facts here. That I am not concerned with moral panic and trying to make reality fit my prejudices rather than adjusting my perspectives to how the world is what you seem to have a problem with.
I am not going to pretend people aren't different no matter how you are going to define it because someone calls it a "moral issue" to not pretend we're all the same. So if you want to call me racist for that you go right ahead. That really is your problem.
You believe that there is a valid concept called "race" and that it is responsible for genetic differences between humans
Not really. Also the description springs from the phenomena - not the other way around.
That makes you a racist.
A racial discrimination based on fact isn't morally problematic as I outlined above. I know you don't get this.
In reality, the concept of "race" has no biological reality.
Regardless genetic differences in populations do even if catergorisation of people's based on skin colour is crude to say the least.
That is reality and you cannot pretend otherwise.
You're also mistaken that being lactose tolerant is "superior". First of all, you pay a metabolic price for your lactose tolerance. In addition, your lactose tolerance may encourage you to make bad nutritional choices.
Again why I quote it because I'm fully aware that superiority is relative to the environment one finds themselves in.
What you seem to have problem with is admitting the simple fact that people *are* *DIFFERENT* and that those differences *do* occur in population groups.
You are adept though at ignoring the vast amount of content, misunderstanding a portion of it and then attacking a strawman.
That's bullshit. "Racism" is an (incorrect) theory that there are intrinsic differences between races that make some inferior and some superior.
My ability to be tolerant of lactose is "superior" if I want to drink milk compared to the "races" of people who generally don't have that ability. Fact.
Sorry, genetic differences do exist. I'm not going to pretend that nobody is different out of misguided moral crusading. I'm perfectly happy to deal with the notion that we are all different, all have various strengths and weaknesses and that they may occur along population groups with certain shared characteristics.
It's only a problem if you use those differences to divide rather than to co-operate.