All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If we're going to use the axiom "By their fruits you shall know them" as our barometer for the validity of an idea, then can we blame Objectivism for the fact that Eddie Lampert, the CEO of Sears, nearly drove Sears to bankruptcy by trying to implement Objectivist philosophy into the corporate structure of his company?

    http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand...

    And what about Alan Greenspans's mismanagement of the Federal Reserve, and his dogmatic belief that free markets would always self-correct, despite all evidence to the contrary?

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Opps - just seen today's newspaper - it was Iraq. Not much difference tho'. Somewhere in Syria last week I think.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And there's scientific evidence of the biological and genetic origins of diabetes and Alzheimer's. Doesn't make them normal or natural, either.

    Answer the questions:

    1) What is the function of the reproductive organs?
    2) What is the function of romantic feelings?

    If you can answer those two questions honestly, it becomes obvious that people suffering from LGBT have an abnormality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually Religious beliefs if protected by the First Amendment. That kinda happened well before 1964, no?

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    How are homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, etc not male or female and not protected with the same rights as everyone else as set forth by the Constitution?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually the post above does not. But if I have no african american employees and someone takes me to court for discrimination how can I prove I 'm not racist? Generally when we ' re looking at resumes we can 't tell if they are representing a protected group. But if ee say we are an EOE, that means you should tell us your in a protected group and we 'll give your resume preferential treatment. That was not the 1 st Amendments intent
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, and making assumptions about the unknown aspects of the human genome and applying those assumptions to a perceived problem is not only bad science, it's faith - bordering on religion.

    The LGBT community was not included in the Civil Rights Act, for the same reason the Elks and Girl Scouts weren't.

    LGBT
    is
    not
    a
    sex
    or
    race.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Please show me where everybody deserves a basic level of dignity and respect?

    Would this include the inner circle of the Nazi party? Skinheads? Child molesters?

    Yes, I know what it says in the DoI, and as I've said, I could kick the Founding Fathers in the nads for sticking that in the DoI; but they could hardly be expected to see 200 years down the line when willfully stupid people would take what they were saying out of context.

    In the context of the preamble to the DoI, "equal" is addressing social class differences, not inherent physical or mental differences. The purpose was to justify their rebellion against the King.


    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Who is this " they"? I am me and I know no such thing. The Civil Rights Act led to many such laws including forced busing. That was only one of my points. The 1 st Amendment assured rights should be protected. The issue was (is) enforcement.
    The CRA just affected our ability to freely associate and it got involved in commerce telling us how we could hire. Now we have commissions making it their business our business, and other Acts which elevate the needs of some over everyone elses 's needs /desires. I don 't hire based on skin color, religion or sexual orientation. But thats what the Equal Opportunity Act wants. It actually incentivises protected groups by giving them special privleges for govt contracts over individuals. Shouldn 't this be the exact opposite? No discrimination. But that 's not the case. If you are in a protected group you get a preferred status for state /city /fed contracts. It 's not red herrings, it 's what the Act has lead to. Making it a valid point to bring up. The CRA and EOA have no place as a stakeholder in my decicion -making. That is not synonomous with being a racist bigot whatever
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, they don't. I repeat... it's not persecution because I refuse to agree that a tail is a leg and prop you up so you can stand on it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    " It does not protect religious belief from discrimination from non-government entities, such as a private business."

    This is true.

    "That's why religious belief needed to be specifically mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that *is* directed at the people. "

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is NOT part of the Constitution, it is in violation of the Constitution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "discrimination" is defined differently from "slavery".

    I find that interesting. You are in favor of using government coercion to force people to behave in ways in which they do not wish to... the very definition of slavery.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No such thing as "homosexual couples". There is no equivalence or alternative to heterosexual marriage. No contractual relationship between two members of the same sex fulfills the purpose of the mating ritual known as "marriage".


    I repeat as I've said all along... homosexuals can get married, just like heterosexuals can; they have the same onus and restrictions.

    If I wish to get married, I have to find a willing (unmarried) member of the opposite sex.

    If I have a "right" to marry whomever I love... there are a number of women out there one of whom is going to have to be coerced into marrying me in order for me to act upon my "right".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, the Christians are being forced out of the province of Syria, not by people saying bad things about them, not by people refusing to do business with them, not by people refusing to associate with them, but by people threatening them with violence and death.

    Which is as illegal to do towards Bob the Individual as it is towards Bob the Christian (or Bob the Black, or Bob the LGBT....)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As 'rights" are an individual attribute, "equal rights" would be based upon the individual, not identity groups.

    Therefore, the entire 1964 Civil Rights act is based upon a false premise.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -4
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course. They know they literally have no ground to stand on if we're talking about equal rights, so they try to use the red herring of quotas to distract from the issue of rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -3
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, but that's because people thought quotas would be necessary at that time. We can abandon quotas without abandoning the Civil Rights Act.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    H, I do sort of recall reports here and there of what is reported as unprovoked violence against gays (or some group, ah yes Jews recently in France). I assume not frequent. Even if it were frequent, say from some mass movement there should be laws against violence but not laws protecting specific groups. eg. man hits wife or vv, man bites dog, No special laws are needed. Hitting a gay or your spouse is no better or worse than hitting a sheepherder. Right now all Christian residents are leaving a province of Syria, there is a special tax, violence threatened against defaulters. I say, ideally there is from governments no discrimination, no special laws in favor or against individuals whatever their height color religion or lack of. Can argue about the blind or handicapped in wheel chairs.
    How LGBTs seem to be defending Islamists - the mind boggles!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If homosexuality is normal, please tell me how long society exists if everyone is homosexual only.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo