Here We Go Again

[Gray]

On 8/31/2018 at 8:55 PM, RevTestament said:

Perhaps. That has yet to be really determined. But you say that like it's some kind of evil thing. Adoption agencies discriminate for all kinds of reasons - couples not having enough money, couples having poor health, and yes sometimes for religious reasons or preferences. If you don't like it, start your own adoption agency, and play god with some kids' future. But let me guess you would rather force some company to do things your way instead of watch adoption agencies for gays go broke.

Whether or not you agree with discrimination based on gender, governments have every right to expect organizations that accept government funding to follow government regulations. This spirit of lawlessness in the name of "religious freedom" is a plague.

[Walden]

On 9/3/2018 at 3:23 PM, Storm Rider said:

Always enjoy your comments even when I disagree I enjoy hearing from you.

I have no problem with a protest, any protest. I think that every citizen has the right to protest. The point that I am strongly against is stupidity. Do I think that doctors and nurses should protest overpopulation while a woman is giving birth? No - not the right time or place. Do I think that there should be protests against priests abusing other humans during Mass? Nope, not the right time or place. Do I think that there should protest Trump administration officials while they are dining with friends? Nope, again wrong time and wrong place.  Do I think that we should have protests during the National Anthem on national television at a football game or any other sporting event? Nope, again, it is the wrong time and the wrong place.

I wish we could know the sincerity of protestors - know their motivations. It might make others more sympathetic if we understand the real reasons why they protest. In this situation, if one of the instigators of this concept of - let's protest during the national anthem at an NFL game - was really serious. There would never be a whine about not playing football again. If you want to protest and are serious, you are not going to whine about being out of a job. Why is he out of a job? Because he has become persona non grata and a marketing nightmare for an industry that still wants to make billions of dollars and is not interested in their brand becoming a political football. It was a stupid choice and he is paying the price for it and he should pay the price for stupid choices just like every other human that makes a stupid choice.

The nation fails when its citizens have forgotten the value of their country. Remember, we are talking about a very select group of individual athletes that merit millions of dollars a year to entertain the public who is interested in their sport. No one plays that game because of their race, their ability to provide profound commentary on the US Constitution, or their ability to function as a medical doctor. They are paid to perform at what they are specialized in and at a level that few could match in the world. 

If these athletes wanted to really make an impact on a social cause, then get together at an event that has no other purpose than to discuss their social cause of choice. The national media would be there in abundance and everyone would listen. More importantly, they would not be disrespecting anything. To the contrary, everyone that listened would expect them to protest and to comment. 

This nation does not value their citizenship. Visit the United Arab Emirates (or any of the GCC nations) during their celebrations for their National Day. It seems like the vast majority of vehicles have pictures of their founder, Sheik Zayed and the current national leaders. Everyone respects their flag and their country. They value their citizenship and guard it closely. If someone is in their country illegally they are either put in jail, serve their time, and then taken to the airport and sent back to their home nation - or they are taken straight away to the airport and returned. What is unique is that they take fingerprints and eye-retina scans to enter the nation and have a visa, and then no illegal is ever allowed in again. Citizenship means something to them. 

Visit the United Arab Emirates and try to say anything bad about the government, the country's leaders or the national religion and see how quickly you are jailed. Mimicking the values of a theocratic dictatorship is not what I hope for our republic. Likewise, your example of UAE as a country grounded in ethnic pride is a bit misleading; according to Wikipedia, "The UAE is home to over 200 nationalities.^[4] Emiratis constitute roughly 20% of the total population, making UAE home to one of the world's highest percentage of immigrants." Maybe their display of ethnic pride is a fearful reaction to the large mix of peoples and cultures in that country.

Likewise, dictating when and where and how an individual should protest is much scarier to me and much more offensive to my sensibilities than seeing the actual protest itself.

IMO, a nation doesn't fail when it's "citizens have forgotten the value of their country," as you state, but rather, when it's citizens have forgotten the values that their country was founded upon, namely freedom, liberty and justice.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Whether or not you agree with discrimination based on gender, governments have every right to expect organizations that accept government funding to follow government regulations.

If you followed my posts I had no qualms with the result in this case being that the organization did receive government funds. My distinction was for private adoption agencies, which receive no government funds. 

Quote

This spirit of lawlessness in the name of "religious freedom" is a plague.

Do you really believe it is a lawless plague for a young LDS woman who is for example the victim of rape to want her infant to be adopted and raised in the LDS religion? Or is it more a symptom of an authoritarian, totalitarian regime to dictate to her that she has no right to do that, and that her child may be adopted by those who do not share her religious values? For example a couple in the Church of Satan? Or how about a 90 year old couple looking to adopt? Should a private adoption agency be able to discriminate against them on the basis of age? That type of thing is heading to a government which is just encroaching too far into our private lives, and I feel frankly there is not any real constitutional basis for. Yet, people say, I think a company open to the public should not be able to refuse service to a gay man who wants some gay slogan on his cake. Why not? Where does the constitution give the Federal government the right to tell a private business who to market to? It may be arguable that the states have retained that power, but is such interference desirable? Should the public really expect the Federal government to regulate things it really does not have the constitutional right to do? If enough people wish to do this they can certainly amend the constitution, but your claim of "lawlessness" is misplaced in this case. Should the government be able to dictate that a business must serve people without a shirt? Including a woman? Or people who smoke? However, if individual states wish to regulate these types of things they may have the power to do so, although then they will become subject to the due process clause or equal protection clause. So those with leftist sensibilities who like the government telling them how to run their businesses this way, can probably successfully set up a state somewhere that forces its sensibilities on their residents. Certainly we see states that allow different things such as marijuana. 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Do you really believe it is a lawless plague for a young LDS woman who is for example the victim of rape to want her infant to be adopted and raised in the LDS religion?

Are we switching to hypotheticals now? Because that's not what's happening.

 

Quote

Or is it more a symptom of an authoritarian, totalitarian regime to dictate to her that she has no right to do that, and that her child may be adopted by those who do not share her religious values? For example a couple in the Church of Satan? Or how about a 90 year old couple looking to adopt? Should a private adoption agency be able to discriminate against them on the basis of age? That type of thing is heading to a government which is just encroaching too far into our private lives, and I feel frankly there is not any real constitutional basis for. Yet, people say, I think a company open to the public should not be able to refuse service to a gay man who wants some gay slogan on his cake. Why not? Where does the constitution give the Federal government the right to tell a private business who to market to? It may be arguable that the states have retained that power, but is such interference desirable? Should the public really expect the Federal government to regulate things it really does not have the constitutional right to do? If enough people wish to do this they can certainly amend the constitution, but your claim of "lawlessness" is misplaced in this case. Should the government be able to dictate that a business must serve people without a shirt? Including a woman? Or people who smoke? However, if individual states wish to regulate these types of things they may have the power to do so, although then they will become subject to the due process clause or equal protection clause. So those with leftist sensibilities who like the government telling them how to run their businesses this way, can probably successfully set up a state somewhere that forces its sensibilities on their residents. Certainly we see states that allow different things such as marijuana. 

Very little of this has any basis in reality.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Gray

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Are we switching to hypotheticals now? Because that's not what's happening.

No. Again, you either are ignoring my point or simply don't get it. I clearly indicated that this Catholic charity was subject to government regulations and laws because it accepted government funds for its services. This makes it almost a semi or quasi- government agency for which laws against discrimination applies. The Constitution does not allow the government to discriminate. Once again my point is what justification is there for the government to interfere with a private adoption agency which does favor certain religious groups, and accepts no government funds? Do you believe my example was lawlessness? 

Quote

Very little of this has any basis in reality.

Oh contrare. Businesses discriminate all the time. I think virtually all cake shops would be perfectly happy to sell their wedding  cakes to any customer who stops in and wants one. That is the reality. The unreal stuff is when gays push that envelope by demanding gay promoting customizations in print or pictures. The cake shop owner is not denying a wedding cake to gays, but refusing a customized service. I believe there are clearly examples of gays who are purposefully pushing the envelope so as to create challenges to existing law. In other words they are manufacturing hypotheticals for legal reasons where otherwise no such case would exist. I think there are lots of possible demands a cake shop owner should reasonable be able to refuse - a cake with pornographic pictures or promoting a nudist colony, a cake promoting NAMBLA, a cake with swear words, etc. There are not only religious freedom concerns, but also free speech concerns which should be protected. Inferring such is "lawlessness" is not only inaccurate, but insensitive. 

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

No. Again, you either are ignoring my point or simply don't get it. I clearly indicated that this Catholic charity was subject to government regulations and laws because it accepted government funds for its services. This makes it almost a semi or quasi- government agency for which laws against discrimination applies. The Constitution does not allow the government to discriminate. Once again my point is what justification is there for the government to interfere with a private adoption agency which does favor certain religious groups, and accepts no government funds? Do you believe my example was lawlessness? 

I have no problem with a private, religious adoption agency that takes no government funds discriminating based on whatever categories it's concerned about. As far as I'm aware, discrimination in that context is entirely legal.

Discrimination becomes a threat and a pestilence where it exists in government, quasi-government, and public accommodations contexts.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Gray

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, Walden said:

Visit the United Arab Emirates and try to say anything bad about the government, the country's leaders or the national religion and see how quickly you are jailed. Mimicking the values of a theocratic dictatorship is not what I hope for our republic. Likewise, your example of UAE as a country grounded in ethnic pride is a bit misleading; according to Wikipedia, "The UAE is home to over 200 nationalities.^[4] Emiratis constitute roughly 20% of the total population, making UAE home to one of the world's highest percentage of immigrants." Maybe their display of ethnic pride is a fearful reaction to the large mix of peoples and cultures in that country.

Likewise, dictating when and where and how an individual should protest is much scarier to me and much more offensive to my sensibilities than seeing the actual protest itself.

IMO, a nation doesn't fail when it's "citizens have forgotten the value of their country," as you state, but rather, when it's citizens have forgotten the values that their country was founded upon, namely freedom, liberty and justice.

Yeah, you might actually want to live in the UAE or know the country before attempting to say what is and what is not in the UAE. The Emiratis, as you stated above from Wikipedia, has a large number of nationalities that live there as their labor force. However, the only citizens are locals and no one else. Their ethnic pride is based on many things, but the bottom line is that they actually have pride in their nation, which was my point.

Good evade - so you are okay protesting while a woman is bearing children, or during a mass, or at any time and in place?  Yeah, tell me another one. I don't buy it.  What is so difficult about stating you are going to march on Washington D.C. or down the main street in any city in the US?  You are just being silly.

[USU78]

22 hours ago, RevTestament said:

No. Again, you either are ignoring my point or simply don't get it. I clearly indicated that this Catholic charity was subject to government regulations and laws because it accepted government funds for its services. This makes it almost a semi or quasi- government agency for which laws against discrimination applies. The Constitution does not allow the government to discriminate. Once again my point is what justification is there for the government to interfere with a private adoption agency which does favor certain religious groups, and accepts no government funds? Do you believe my example was lawlessness? 

Oh contrare. Businesses discriminate all the time. I think virtually all cake shops would be perfectly happy to sell their wedding  cakes to any customer who stops in and wants one. That is the reality. The unreal stuff is when gays push that envelope by demanding gay promoting customizations in print or pictures. The cake shop owner is not denying a wedding cake to gays, but refusing a customized service. I believe there are clearly examples of gays who are purposefully pushing the envelope so as to create challenges to existing law. In other words they are manufacturing hypotheticals for legal reasons where otherwise no such case would exist. I think there are lots of possible demands a cake shop owner should reasonable be able to refuse - a cake with pornographic pictures or promoting a nudist colony, a cake promoting NAMBLA, a cake with swear words, etc. There are not only religious freedom concerns, but also free speech concerns which should be protected. Inferring such is "lawlessness" is not only inaccurate, but insensitive. 

 

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

 

It's been a long time since I've seen that routine. Apropos after 60 years.

[Anijen]

I would have to question the knowledge of constitutional law by those  who say the government does not discriminate or their discrimination is a pestilence. 

On 9/6/2018 at 3:02 PM, RevTestament said:

The Constitution does not allow the government to discriminate. 

On 9/6/2018 at 3:34 PM, Gray said:

Discrimination becomes a threat and a pestilence where it exists in government, quasi-government, and public accommodations contexts.

Examples of legal government discrimination:

• It is legal for a state run school to discriminate for diversity reasons.
• It is legal for a fire department or police station to hire more African Americans than Caucasian to rectify past wrongs.
• It is legal for age discrimination in government jobs (e.g. law enforcement will usually only hire if your age is younger than 35. The reason for this is many law enforcement agencies have a retirement age of 55 and with the age of 35 allows 20 years of service before the mandatory 55 age of retirement).
• Federal government authorities may discriminate on some immigrants while State governments cannot.
• Children of illegal aliens will get an intermediate level of scrutiny, US citizens a higher level of scrutiny, and illegal aliens the lowest level of scrutiny.

Levels of scrutiny are the different standards the Supreme Court will use in their decision making. For example race discrimination is considered a suspect class and will always get the highest standard of review [strict scrutiny]. The same for First Amendment rights will get the highest level of scrutiny. Additionally, one law is supreme above other laws (e.g. the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) This means when state law butts head with federal law, the federal law will govern (the Constitution will control). A recent example of this is when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission interpreting a Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act went up against a First Amendment Issue at the Supreme Court.  The ruling decision was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was reversed by the Supreme Court (because the Supreme Court has the final say over state law). I am not arguing if their decision was right or wrong here, I am using it as an example of which court will govern (meaning has higher authority).

History has shown that some state law cases have prevailed over contrary federal laws. This has been good in some cases, but in all these cases it was the Highest appellate court in the country who gets to decide [the Supreme Court] and not the state court. 

Conclusion; Thus the Constitution does allow some discrimination, and does so at all levels (federal, state, county, city, etc.). governments are allowed to discriminate in certain areas.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Anijen

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Anijen said:

I would have to question the knowledge of constitutional law by those  who say the government does not discriminate or their discrimination is a pestilence. 

Examples of legal government discrimination:

• It is legal for a state run school to discriminate for diversity reasons.
• It is legal for a fire department or police station to hire more African Americans than Caucasian to rectify past wrongs.
• It is legal for age discrimination in government jobs (e.g. law enforcement will usually only hire if your age is younger than 35. The reason for this is many law enforcement agencies have a retirement age of 55 and with the age of 35 allows 20 years of service before the mandatory 55 age of retirement).
• Federal government authorities may discriminate on some immigrants while State governments cannot.
• Children of illegal aliens will get an intermediate level of scrutiny, US citizens a higher level of scrutiny, and illegal aliens the lowest level of scrutiny.

Levels of scrutiny are the different standards the Supreme Court will use in their decision making. For example race discrimination is considered a suspect class and will always get the highest standard of review [strict scrutiny]. The same for First Amendment rights will get the highest level of scrutiny. Additionally, one law is supreme above other laws (e.g. the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) This means when state law butts head with federal law, the federal law will govern (the Constitution will control). A recent example of this is when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission interpreting a Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act went up against a First Amendment Issue at the Supreme Court.  The ruling decision was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was reversed by the Supreme Court (because the Supreme Court has the final say over state law). I am not arguing if their decision was right or wrong here, I am using it as an example of which court will govern (meaning has higher authority).

History has shown that some state law cases have prevailed over contrary federal laws. This has been good in some cases, but in all these cases it was the Highest appellate court in the country who gets to decide [the Supreme Court] and not the state court. 

Conclusion; Thus the Constitution does allow some discrimination, and does so at all levels (federal, state, county, city, etc.). governments are allowed to discriminate in certain areas.

Well, technically the situations you are discussing are not really the constitution, but interpretation of it. It is analogous to the express constitutional right to bear arms. Yet, I don't know any lawyer who would argue that means I have the right to bear my own private nuclear warhead. Why? Because, the potential harm outweighs any rational basis for it. So going back to your examples, yes the constitution does not allow discrimination, and expressly guarantees equal protection under the law. The rights of affirmative action are not in the constitution, but are a court and legislative created creature, which the courts can end at any time - lest we end up with affirmative action cases for white pro basketball players. There are often conflicting rights which can come into play in particular situations such as gender based rights and rights from freedom of government interference in religious choices or free speech. Which rights will predominate in a particular situation since the constitution expressly guarantees all of them? That balancing act is often decided by the courts rather than constitutional language. For instance the age related discrimination you brought up for armed services, is allowed because it has a rational basis for the physically demanding nature of the job. So, it is allowed despite the express constitutional language guaranteeing equal protection presumably despite one's age. Other non-discrimination law is based upon legislative acts rather than constitutional language.

Surely, as a lawyer you understand this. Which is why what was once not recognized as a right, can change to being a protected right. Yeah. I took constitutional law too.  

[Anijen]

On 9/8/2018 at 10:34 AM, RevTestament said:

Well, technically the situations you are discussing are not really the constitution, but interpretation of it. It is analogous to the express constitutional right to bear arms. Yet, I don't know any lawyer who would argue that means I have the right to bear my own private nuclear warhead. Why? Because, the potential harm outweighs any rational basis for it. So going back to your examples, yes the constitution does not allow discrimination, and expressly guarantees equal protection under the law. The rights of affirmative action are not in the constitution, but are a court and legislative created creature, which the courts can end at any time - lest we end up with affirmative action cases for white pro basketball players. There are often conflicting rights which can come into play in particular situations such as gender based rights and rights from freedom of government interference in religious choices or free speech. Which rights will predominate in a particular situation since the constitution expressly guarantees all of them? That balancing act is often decided by the courts rather than constitutional language. For instance the age related discrimination you brought up for armed services, is allowed because it has a rational basis for the physically demanding nature of the job. So, it is allowed despite the express constitutional language guaranteeing equal protection presumably despite one's age. Other non-discrimination law is based upon legislative acts rather than constitutional language.

Surely, as a lawyer you understand this. Which is why what was once not recognized as a right, can change to being a protected right. Yeah. I took constitutional law too.  

My post was that the government can discriminate and it does. You can argue what is and isn't discrimination all you want and say as many times as you can, but doing so does not change the fact that it is discrimination (good or bad). Cherry picking what you say is not discrimination , but really just affirmative action, and then claiming what I wrote down is not discrimination well, we will just have to agree to disagree. the immigration policies and age policies I submitted are not just affirmative action, but are still discrimination (good or bad).

Refusing to accept that our government does not discriminate is, silly. Then turning it on a play of words such as; well, its how the Constitution is interpreted, it is still discrimination and no matter the interpretation is still discrimination.

According to you, an interpretation of the Constitution is not the Constitution. I guess you are an original intent, plain text backer, like Scalia was, and Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, are now (btw, so am I). I'll just end with this final word; interpretation of an issue protected by the Constitution, is still an issue protected by the Constitution.

I am glad you had Con Law, where did you take it and who was your professor? Just asking out of curiosity, I might know the person.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Anijen

[Gray]

On 9/8/2018 at 12:48 AM, Anijen said:

I would have to question the knowledge of constitutional law by those  who say the government does not discriminate or their discrimination is a pestilence. 

Examples of legal government discrimination:

• It is legal for a state run school to discriminate for diversity reasons.

No, it's not legal to discriminate "for diversity reasons". You're quite mistaken.

 

Quote

• It is legal for a fire department or police station to hire more African Americans than Caucasian to rectify past wrongs.

Not an example of discrimination

Quote

• It is legal for age discrimination in government jobs (e.g. law enforcement will usually only hire if your age is younger than 35. The reason for this is many law enforcement agencies have a retirement age of 55 and with the age of 35 allows 20 years of service before the mandatory 55 age of retirement).

Yes, in some cases age discrimination is legal. For example, minors are not allowed to vote.

 

Quote

• Federal government authorities may discriminate on some immigrants while State governments cannot.

Impossible to evaluate unless you clarify.

 

Quote

• Children of illegal aliens will get an intermediate level of scrutiny, US citizens a higher level of scrutiny, and illegal aliens the lowest level of scrutiny.

Please go into further detail.

 

Quote

Levels of scrutiny are the different standards the Supreme Court will use in their decision making. For example race discrimination is considered a suspect class and will always get the highest standard of review [strict scrutiny]. The same for First Amendment rights will get the highest level of scrutiny. Additionally, one law is supreme above other laws (e.g. the Constitution is the supreme law of the land) This means when state law butts head with federal law, the federal law will govern (the Constitution will control). A recent example of this is when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission interpreting a Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act went up against a First Amendment Issue at the Supreme Court.  The ruling decision was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was reversed by the Supreme Court (because the Supreme Court has the final say over state law). I am not arguing if their decision was right or wrong here, I am using it as an example of which court will govern (meaning has higher authority).

History has shown that some state law cases have prevailed over contrary federal laws. This has been good in some cases, but in all these cases it was the Highest appellate court in the country who gets to decide [the Supreme Court] and not the state court. 

Conclusion; Thus the Constitution does allow some discrimination, and does so at all levels (federal, state, county, city, etc.). governments are allowed to discriminate in certain areas.

Most examples you've brought up so far seem to be specious.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Gray
Missing "not"

[Anijen]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

No, it's iegal to discriminate "for diversity reasons". You're quite mistaken.

You are agreeing with me, but also telling me I'm wrong? I wrote "It is legal for a state run school to discriminate for diversity reasons." or did you mean to say "[il]legal?" If you meant to say "No, it's [il]legal to discriminate "for diversity reasons". You're quite mistaken," then it would be you who is mistaken. Colleges may use different standards for race in their admission policies to make a more diverse student body. it has been the law for sometime now.

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Not an example of discrimination

It is for the white and asian kids who are not accepted. I'm not complaining here, all I am saying there is legal discrimination allowed and justified for diversity reasons.

 

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, in some cases age discrimination is legal. For example, minors are not allowed to vote.

Ok. I liked my example better on age discrimination for hiring. So here you are agreeing with me.

 

Quote

Most examples you've brought up so far seem to be specious.

Then please explain how.

 

Takeaway: Discrimination is allowed by the government (my original point).

Edited September 10, 2018 by Anijen

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Anijen said:

You are agreeing with me, but also telling me I'm wrong? I wrote "It is legal for a state run school to discriminate for diversity reasons." or did you mean to say "[il]legal?" If you meant to say "No, it's [il]legal to discriminate "for diversity reasons". You're quite mistaken," then it would be you who is mistaken. Colleges may use different standards for race in their admission policies to make a more diverse student body. it has been the law for sometime now.

Missed a word - fixed now. Aiming for diversity is not discrimination. I don't find the newspeak on that persuasive.

 

10 hours ago, Anijen said:

It is for the white and asian kids who are not accepted. I'm not complaining here, all I am saying there is legal discrimination allowed and justified for diversity reasons.

White and Asian kids are accepted at every college in America

 

10 hours ago, Anijen said:

 

Ok. I liked my example better on age discrimination for hiring. So here you are agreeing with me.

Everyone knows there are some limited examples of legal age discrimination. Child labor laws, for instance.

 

10 hours ago, Anijen said:

 

Then please explain how.

Please see my first sentence in this response

 

10 hours ago, Anijen said:

 

Takeaway: Discrimination is allowed by the government (my original point).

So far all you've established is some common sense discrimination based on age.

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

So far all you've established is some common sense discrimination based on age.

Then I made my point, that being there is discrimination.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Then I made my point, that being there is discrimination.

You might have also pointed out that felons are discriminated against or that the dead are discriminated against too in terms of job opportunities. I suppose that would be equally as relevant.

[Walden]

On 9/6/2018 at 3:34 PM, Storm Rider said:

Yeah, you might actually want to live in the UAE or know the country before attempting to say what is and what is not in the UAE. The Emiratis, as you stated above from Wikipedia, has a large number of nationalities that live there as their labor force. However, the only citizens are locals and no one else. Their ethnic pride is based on many things, but the bottom line is that they actually have pride in their nation, which was my point.

Good evade - so you are okay protesting while a woman is bearing children, or during a mass, or at any time and in place?  Yeah, tell me another one. I don't buy it.  What is so difficult about stating you are going to march on Washington D.C. or down the main street in any city in the US?  You are just being silly.

My point is the ethnic pride of Emiratis just might be a reaction of fear from being outnumbered by foreigners...kind of like the ethnic, white pride of certain groups in the US who show hate towards foreigners, or those who are not of WASP heritage/ethncity.

Also, though I do not believe it is in good taste to protest while a woman is giving birth, nor while she is practicing her right to enter a clinic for an abortion, etc. I do not believe the government should be mandating freedom of speech and/or assembly based on what the government mandates as good taste.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Walden said:

My point is the ethnic pride of Emiratis just might be a reaction of fear from being outnumbered by foreigners...kind of like the ethnic, white pride of certain groups in the US who show hate towards foreigners, or those who are not of WASP heritage/ethncity.

Also, though I do not believe it is in good taste to protest while a woman is giving birth, nor while she is practicing her right to enter a clinic for an abortion, etc. I do not believe the government should be mandating freedom of speech and/or assembly based on what the government mandates as good taste.

1

I don't think so. The GCC nations have imported their blue collar - and white collar, for that matter - since they found oil in regions. They have been outnumbered in their own nations for generations. However, they have never, ever given away their citizenship to those who come to their nations. They guard their citizenship significantly greater than the majority of nations in the world. You will find with further study that the reason they guard their citizenship is a commitment to their own people and how they disperse their wealth. Though it is true that most of them govern through some form of monarchy, they provide significant benefits to their citizens. Are they elitist? Yes, I would say they have such an influence or an expression of such in their nations. However, no more than we see in/on Black Pride, college campuses, Liberal elitists, etc., and ad nauseum.  If you think to denigrate the Arabic nations by comparing them to White Nationalists - I have no problem with that. I will just make sure we will use your standard liberally with all the Left and their overwhelming intolerance of anyone and any group that thinks, talks, or acts differently than they have determined is best for the stupid, unthinking proletariats they desperately seek to lead around by the nose. 

Nor do I think that the government should define what is in good taste and when it is appropriate to stage a protest. It is left to the people to determine good taste....and that is the problem. Stupid people do stupid things. When stupid people do something disrespectful then others speak up and say, "Hey, Joe, don't treat a woman like that."  Eventually, the jerk gets the message and we bumble along. 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Stupid people do stupid things. When stupid people do something disrespectful then others speak up and say, "Hey, Joe, don't treat a woman like that."  Eventually, the jerk gets the message and we bumble along. 

Often non-stupid people do stupid things also. My former therapist defined such actions as neurotic or maybe a form as form of neurosis. 🤔

Glenn

[Calm]

Quote

When stupid people do something disrespectful then others speak up and say, "Hey, Joe, don't treat a woman like that."  Eventually, the jerk gets the message and we bumble along. 

If this worked, then why after thousands of years is our society is still full of people saying stupid things about each other and many getting paid for it?

Edited September 14, 2018 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Often non-stupid people do stupid things also. My former therapist defined such actions as neurotic or maybe a form as form of neurosis. 🤔

Glenn

Then count me neurotic. I really do tend to hate these kinds of labels because they diminish the human condition. If we do something stupid, wrong, or thoughtless then we have some form of sickness. The reality is that humans do stupid, silly, wrong, thoughtless things as a result of being human not because we are deficient or sick. 

I have a few friends, or more than a few, that are professional counselors. I have known others that have gone to professional counselors, psychiatrists, etc. Some have found a new sense of stability and ability to cope with the rigors of daily life. Others it did not help. I went to a counselor a little less than ten years ago for a few months.  I found it a rather expensive way to talk to myself. I believe this form of therapy has a place within our society for helping people. However, when we go beyond counseling to those who create new identifications for mental illness, etc., I am less supportive, impressed, etc. I guess my problem is that they seem to crap up the perception of just being human. Please note that the topic of severe emotional or mental distress or sickness is not what I am addressing; that is an area where I am far more supportive and confident of their abilities and work. 

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If this worked, then why after thousands of years is our society is still full of people saying stupid things about each other and many getting paid for it?

I think peer pressure has the ability to correct poor behavior when society consists of individuals who want to be members in good standing in their society.  When the majority of society is not interested in membership in the community then nothing impacts their choices. On the other hand, individuals exhibit behaviors that work for them; they achieve their main objectives more often. As a result, they continue to choose poorly or badly.

I also think we come to the question of the choice between good and evil. When we teach individuals to be a master of the passions it is not surprising that humans achieve a high rate of self-mastery - not perfection, but just a high degree of being in control of their passions the majority of the time. When we teach individuals that their passions are not to be controlled and should be free to express them then humanity begins to reflect the behavior of the lowest form of an animal. Then there are those who just choose evil; they live beyond the rule of law, societal expectation, and common decency. 

At the end of the day, humans will remain human. The fact that peer pressure works is evident in the reality of civil societies throughout the world. 

[Calm]

 

Quote

At the end of the day, humans will remain human. The fact that peer pressure works is evident in the reality of civil societies throughout the world. 

And people tend to seek out peers they feel comfortable with, so in many cases those peers are applauding that behaviour from what I see (think politics pretty much anywhere for an example).

I have yet to hear of one society where bullying or harassment is not a common complaint, so I guess I am just not seeing the effect of peer pressure you say is there.  Not saying there aren't lots of good people out there, just saying I would expect less bad behaviour if it was as effective as you are describing.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Calm

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Then count me neurotic. I really do tend to hate these kinds of labels because they diminish the human condition. If we do something stupid, wrong, or thoughtless then we have some form of sickness. The reality is that humans do stupid, silly, wrong, thoughtless things as a result of being human not because we are deficient or sick. 

I have a few friends, or more than a few, that are professional counselors. I have known others that have gone to professional counselors, psychiatrists, etc. Some have found a new sense of stability and ability to cope with the rigors of daily life. Others it did not help. I went to a counselor a little less than ten years ago for a few months.  I found it a rather expensive way to talk to myself. I believe this form of therapy has a place within our society for helping people. However, when we go beyond counseling to those who create new identifications for mental illness, etc., I am less supportive, impressed, etc. I guess my problem is that they seem to crap up the perception of just being human. Please note that the topic of severe emotional or mental distress or sickness is not what I am addressing; that is an area where I am far more supportive and confident of their abilities and work. 

Okay.

 

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

 

At the end of the day, humans will remain human. The fact that peer pressure works is evident in the reality of civil societies throughout the world. 

The problem is that civil societies as a whole may not always be choosing the better part. Then peer pressure works the wrong way. Smoking is one of those things where for many decades it was the cool thing to do. Fortunately science and the ugly reality of the spread of lung cancer has tempered that a lot.

Glenn

Glenn