Gray Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Read it again. The business would be required to submit quarterly reports on how its employees were being re-educated. That's not actually what it said. Quote And Fox News is not a "state-run" news source. It's certainly behaving like one. Quote Edited to add: Here's something from the ACLU (you probably adore them) that quotes the Colorado Civil Rights Commission Report. That should be more to your liking. Happy now? This doesn't match the claims of the propaganda piece quoted earlier: Quote The Commission’s order affirmed previous determinations that Masterpiece’s refusal to sell Mullins and Craig a wedding cake constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Colorado law. The Commission also ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to change its company policies, provide “comprehensive staff training” regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers. This is pretty standard stuff. Edited July 12, 2017 by Gray Link to comment
USU78 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, Gray said: Hannity and Trump are your sources. This explains so much. Like I said, bubble. Can you say "ad hominem?" Link to comment
Gray Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Context makes a big difference. The context is the same arguments used to justify discrimination against black folks are being put forward to justify discrimination against gay folks. 1 Link to comment
Gray Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, USU78 said: Can you say "ad hominem?" I can, but it wouldn't be relevant. Link to comment
USU78 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Gray said: I can, but it wouldn't be relevant. Sneering at the source is ad hominem in the place of evidence or non-fallacious argument. 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 22 minutes ago, Gray said: Hannity and Trump are your sources. This explains so much. Like I said, bubble. I watched Hannity's show because it's the only source so far that has had a full-on interview of any length with Trump Jr. giving his side of the story. But apparently you wouldn't watch it because you want your information tainted by anti-Trump media. Who's really living in a bubble? Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Gray said: That's not actually what it said. In substance, yes it is. The individual reader can decide after viewing the link Quote This doesn't match the claims of the propaganda piece quoted earlier: This is pretty standard stuff. If it's standard stuff to force people into brainwashing sessions designed to strip them of their values, then heaven help us. The fact that you consent to such a thing is very telling indeed. Edited to add: What "propaganda piece quoted earlier"? The first source I linked to was the Denver Post which, in fact, has editorialized against the baker The Fox News source was a video you said you couldn't watch. Your ad homs cannot carry you very far if they make no sense. Edited July 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, Gray said: The context is the same arguments used to justify discrimination against black folks are being put forward to justify discrimination against gay folks. No. The situations are quite different. Link to comment
Gray Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, USU78 said: Sneering at the source is ad hominem in the place of evidence or non-fallacious argument. I said that he seems to keep himself in a bubble, and his sources bear that out. It's like going to the Godfather and Fredo to find out if the Godfather is guilty of some wrongdoing. It would only be ad hominem if I said his arguments were wrong because he relied on Hannity and Trump. You should know that. Link to comment
Gray Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: No. The situations are quite different. The situation is that that fundamentalists have found a new group to discriminate against. Link to comment
Gray Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If it's standard stuff to force people into brainwashing sessions designed to strip them of their values, then heaven help us. This is pretty extreme language, Scott. Brainwashing? Wow. No, it's standard to to train employees to comply with the law, especially when they've been in violation of the law in the past. 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The fact that you consent to such a thing is very telling indeed. It's telling that I'm not falling for the propaganda. Ironic that you used the word "brainwashing". 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 12 minutes ago, Gray said: I said that he seems to keep himself in a bubble, and his sources bear that out. It's like going to the Godfather and Fredo to find out if the Godfather is guilty of some wrongdoing. It would only be ad hominem if I said his arguments were wrong because he relied on Hannity and Trump. You should know that. That's what you implied. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Gray said: This is pretty extreme language, Scott. Brainwashing? Wow. No, it's standard to to train employees to comply with the law, especially when they've been in violation of the law in the past. It's telling that I'm not falling for the propaganda. Ironic that you used the word "brainwashing". If the law is that people should be "re-educated" to strip them of their values, I'd call that brainwashing. 2 Link to comment
Gray Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That's what you implied. Nope, not my intent at all. But if you want to be told only that the president is a paragon of virtue, sticking to sources like this is your best bet. But you'd have to ignore even conservative sources that are now saying that the situation is very serious. Edited July 12, 2017 by Gray Link to comment
Gray Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: If the law is that people should be "re-educated" to strip them of their values, I'd call that brainwashing. You mean trained so that they can be in compliance with the law. Training = "brainwashing" now. Goodness. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, Gray said: Nope, not my intent at all. But if you want to be told only that the president is a paragon of virtue, sticking to sources like this is your best bet. But you'd have to ignore even conservative sources that are now saying that the situation is very serious. I'll give you another chance to desist before I report that you are derailing the thread. 1 Link to comment
T-Shirt Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Gray said: That's a rather Orwellian argument. I don't know what you mean, Why is it Orwellian? Quote I doubt you'd say the same thing if the only legal marriage option available in the US were same-sex marriage. If the long-held traditional definition of marriage was that only people of the same gender can marry, humanity would have died out centuries ago. Quote Proponents of gay marriage make up a majority of the US. Gay marriage is the law of the land. The battle is already won. Maybe opponents of gay marriage can find another group to try to harass? The left-handed? Or perhaps red heads? If you say there was no attempt to change the definition of a word or establish new rights, why do you keep saying, "Gay" marriage instead of just "marriage"? Edited July 12, 2017 by T-Shirt 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Gray said: You mean trained so that they can be in compliance with the law. Training = "brainwashing" now. Goodness. I'll try this again. If complying with the law means that they must be "re-educated" into abandoning their values, that strikes me as despotic. And Nazi-like. And communistic. Edited July 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2 Link to comment
Calm Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) "If you say there was no attempt to change the definition of a word, why do you keep saying, "Gay" marriage instead of just "marriage"?" "Gay marriage" is seen as a subset of "marriage" by many, not as a redefinition. The addition of "gay" would be seen as the same as the addition of "temple". Both speak about marriages, but not all types of marriage. Edited July 12, 2017 by Calm 1 Link to comment
T-Shirt Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Calm said: "If you say there was no attempt to change the definition of a word, why do you keep saying, "Gay" marriage instead of just "marriage"?" "Gay marriage" is seen as a subset of "marriage" by many, not as a redefinition. If there needs to be a subset of the word, that means that something needs to be added to the definition that wasn't there before. If the word, "marriage" always included the right for a person to marry anyone they want, why the need for the new sub-set? 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: If there needs to be a subset of the word, that means that something needs to be added to the definition that wasn't there before. If the word, "marriage" always included the right for a person to marry anyone they want, why the need for the new sub-set? I think it's quite axiomatic that up to at least a generation ago, one attempting marry someone of the same sex would have been summarily rebuffed. 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: If there needs to be a subset of the word, that means that something needs to be added to the definition that wasn't there before. If the word, "marriage" always included the right for a person to marry anyone they want, why the need for the new sub-set? Do you see "Temple marriage" as a redefinition of marriage? 3 Link to comment
Gray Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: I don't know what you mean, Why is it Orwellian? Misinformation combined with manipulation in order to present a misleading picture. Let's say we outlawed all shoe sizes except for size 7. Then we claim that everyone has equal access to shoes. Technically true, but highly misleading. 17 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: If the long-held traditional definition of marriage was that only people of the same gender can marry, humanity would have died out centuries ago. Not really, straight people would simply have to have their relationships outside of marriage. But if this scenario happened, would you feel that you stood on equal grounds with gay people in regard to marriage rights? 17 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: If you say there was no attempt to change the definition of a word or establish new rights, why do you keep saying, "Gay" marriage instead of just "marriage"? So you'll understand what I'm talking about. The institution itself has been changing and evolving for centuries. 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think it's quite axiomatic that up to at least a generation ago, one attempting marry someone of the same sex would have been summarily rebuffed. There are many who still rebuff the idea of "temple marriage". 1 Link to comment
T-Shirt Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 20 minutes ago, Calm said: The addition of "gay" would be seen as the same as the addition of "temple". Both speak about marriages, but not all types of marriage. "Temple" refers to where the marriage is being held, it is not a sub-set of, "marriage". "Gay", refers to who is being married. Link to comment
Recommended Posts