Boycott Chick-fil-A with me!

Jaxel said:
I had a weird dream last night. Basically my father came proclaimed that he was giving up Mormonism... all I could think was "You're a mormon?"
So if you're Mormon, and a gay-bashing bigot, and giving millions of dollars to fund gay-bashing groups in the name of Mormonism...
Click to expand...

Funny thing, I was actually raised a Mormon from when I was really small till I was bout 15 (I then was "to cool" for church). But some strange things these mormons are. Up untill the early 90's, other races other than white, in the mormon church was non-existant. I even remember that "Cane & Able" story being vaugley racist saying that black people bear the "mark of Caine" thats why they are black.

The constant ridicule from other members because of our low social status and being straight to poor to pay tithing, lead me away early. My family still goes to church and is involved in church activities, but I havent been in 20 years or so. And being gay & mormon....oh no, that is a big no no, thats instant ex-communication.

I actually drove by the place today that I thought didnt exist....And I flipped em off ass I went by......and said "This is for my homie lobo" viva la raza!!

HRD
 
oi. the mark of cane didn't just apply to black people. it was a sign of those that god did not deem worthy to carry the preisthood. and there were many white people who carried the lineage of cain and could not get the presithood. That changed in the 60's/70's revelation from the church president. you would know that if you paid attention in church hrd. You should also remember that the first quarum of the 70 had 3 black members that each held the preisthood. Also that being gay is not excommuicable. acting on those impulses, confessing to a chuch bishop or leader and not showing remorse for what transpired will.
 
all right so I honestly didnt pay that much attention at church. And my memories of my particular ward and stake for that matter, came from a mentally screwed up adolecsent. My family and I were treated horribly, thats the only parts I remember.

If I offended, I humbly apologize Hubbs. My comments might have been inapproproate to some and somewhat ill informed. sorry. Just my take on the mormons, but Im always open to listen.

HRD
 
IvyFanboy said:
We're not a democracy as people believe we are for a reason. We are a republic for the intention to protect the minority from the tyranny of the masses. There are certain things that fall under a zone of human rights that negates the need for vote. Gay rights easily falls within them and yet we still must put it through vote because of religious groups, which is defying the entire concept and yet somehow is still tolerated

If you really believe that, you believe that slavery, oppression towards race, and other past sins of our country were fully justified because a majority felt they could vote on human rights.
Click to expand...

No because all of these things were also eventually eradicated by vote. Backed up by the will of the majority to defend them. Without the majority, the decisions will have no authority. Without authority, there can be no victory. A defeat at the polls has finality. It crushes resistance. A defeat by court exists to be challenged. If your opposition wins at the polls and you need to lawyer your way to the finish line they will always have that over you, and they will always feel justified in their position. Your rights in this country protect your ability to say whatever you want. Use that.

IdleMind said:
People voting based on their religious beliefs is just the same as voting based on any other other conditioned notion, really. A society is just the inertia of it's age, and its culture.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Actually a lot of things were eradicated because of key law makers and riots/violence in terms of human rights. The majority of people did not suddenly give african americans favor, it was deemed unfair and unjust by the definings of the law and was corrected. It took educated people of power to control that decision, it was not done by the people in overwhelming mass. Sadly though gays are being forced into a vote.

To believe a majority knows best is to be as ignorant as the majority itself. Everyone deserves voice but not all voice should be equal and what should determine it's worth is the experience and knowledge on the subject. Currently people allowed to vote believe false scientific facts about gays, have little interaction with it's community, have been misinformed that they are perverts, etc... There are VERY few people that have done any research or had any real understanding of the culture and retain the belief that oppressing them is fine.

Imagin if Christian's were the minority and we all voted that they couldn't show church ads in public, people could vote to have your church not be in their town, marriage was not valid if you were both of the same religion, and you were not allowed to see your dieing significant other because you weren't considered legally married? Would this be justified? Should we be at the tyranny of ignorance en mass simply because one ideology out fucked and out killed the rest in history to gain the numbers?

Not every topic is subject to vote in a civilized society. We all pay taxes and other sacrifices to allow us to be under the governments benefits such as protection, due process, etc... If the government isn't doing that, it's not working. So once again we are not a true democracy and if you ever believe a majority is right, remind yourself of:

slavery, segregation, the current hatred towards American Muslims and mosques, George Bush, Jersey Shore's ratings
 
You know to counteract my previous eloquence; I am going to say "who knows best" is at best a patronizing statement, and at worst, an ignorant one.

My incoherent point is this: The only advantage a civilized society has over an uncivilized on is people don't split each others skulls over insults and differences (as often). We have developed this idea that is not the normal operating procedure; when anyone who has done some basic psychology can tell you; the absence of order quickly has people devolve. It is a luxury that we are afforded- that luxury is difference. So when people nitpick about people voting over their religious beliefs; or any other belief... or when we have the freedom to boycott a major corporation for their tied-in activities that we don't agree with, just think- it's all a surrogate for killing them for messing with you.

When you put it in that perspective; it's kind of hard to get mad about... well.. anything.

-Idle
 
IvyFanboy said:
Actually a lot of things were eradicated because of key law makers and riots/violence in terms of human rights.
Click to expand...
Lawmakers that came into power how exactly? By royal decree? The majority doesn't always know best, but for any edict to stand the majority of the people have to come around to it. Nobody forced the 19th amendment and it stands to this day. Row vs Wade was forced however and hangs by the thread of a justice seat.

Everyone deserves voice but not all voice should be equal
Click to expand...
And there we have the heart of the matter. Like I said, that's liberty. And who decides who's voice should be worth more than somebody elses'? You? That's fine and dandy so long as it's the opposition getting squelched. Luckily you are not dictator of America. As it stands nobody is taking away your ability to vote or be heard. The fact we're doing things by vote instead of by show of arms shows we can bring about change in a civilized manner.

Should we be at the tyranny of ignorance en mass simply because one ideology out fucked and out killed the rest in history to gain the numbers?
Click to expand...
You seem to think that all Christians are your enemies, or that Christians are incapable of moderation or consideration. This has come up time and time again in your posts and seems to border on outright hatred. With that kind of rhetoric how can you be expected to be moderate or considerate yourself? I'm a catholic for instance and I'm not voting to restrict anyone. I've had friends and family who have "come out" in recent years. That they can and nobody freaks out says a lot. The world is changing. Even the catholic church can not bring itself to say anything bad about gays, and in fact has been trying to reach out to them. You have astoundingly little faith in humanity nor for the system.
 
voted in by a majority yes but there's more too it than that. Factors of getting voted in require that the politician side with enough people and the right mix that they don't polarize and have a party cannibalize itself (See: Sarah Palin 08'), they also must consider bipartisanship to win evenly weighted groups, they must consider seeking favor of special interest groups, etc. Voting on a person often means compromising. I voted for Obama and Reid, but you can believe even I had issues with some stances they had when I voted, but I compromise and so must others. On top of that, the politican must follow rules and a system of checks and balances to help require enough of a majority or other factors to have any power in some decisions. There is also the fact politicans, even the shitty ones, have skills voters don't and have a better chance of making a more reasonable decision even when their supporters push against them.

However...many loop holes are found and the issue is often finding ways to stop people from abusing the system to bypass the intention, hell look at our congress right now. The system in it's intention should work to tell the masses they are wrong on occasion and do sometimes, but we need to fix the exploits people are finding. And some law makers are and that's where we get change and progress when these get fixed.

Your quick witted response had some merit, but you over simplify and you fail to address my point that the majority does not necessarily mean it's right. While I stood up for our system I full heartedly stand by my belief people should not be given equal power per vote (hold on there's an explanation before you start screaming commie or what have you...). I believe everyone should have the right to an equal vote, but must earn that by showcasing understanding on the context of what they vote. And by understanding I mean, things that can be addressed as unbiased and indisputable facts are necessary to make a coherent decision. If you asked republicans who voted for Bush's 2nd term if they believed that Iraq caused 9/11 despite mountains of proof, news, etc.. etc.. the number would shock you. Many of those people voted for Bush based solely on completely incorrect info. He got reelected. Had you done a simple fact test and weighted the votes based on understanding of current events, what the presidents job even is (Hint: it's not make laws like some voters think...yeah...some people actually believe that's what his job is and then go vote!), etc... there's no way Bush would've even been close. This disregards personal bias and stance. This is about the fact people are taking opinions stemmed from incorrect info and giving them public power and it's ok....because they form a mass. (Now keep in mind i said per context. Meaning if I know a lot about civil rights and the constitution but not a damn thing how aggriculture affects the economy, my vote is not going to be the same on all things. This way it's not about who went to Yale, you can be educated simply by trade and a better alignment to the issue than even those and really...they should have more say then I if they know more. Really the only issue with my idea is the logistics and convincing people to let of of the system in affect...but that would mean convincing "the masses"...the spiral that wraps so tight it begins to fuck itself at the core.)

NOW...this is not to say all within a party are dumb misinformed Fox viewers and blind Michael Moors liberals...but the ones who are can merge with a coherent group that's already there and give a considerable swing of advantage...and thus is the fucked up world I bitch at.

(I'm going to turn this into a book by the time im done proving your wrong)
 
IvyFanboy said:
(I'm going to turn this into a book by the time im done proving your wrong)
Click to expand...
And you're going to do that by insisting that a segment of people should not be allowed to vote because you don't like their ethics? No publisher will touch your book as long as it's going to get.

As for this idea:
Really the only issue with my idea is the logistics and convincing people to let of of the system in affect...but that would mean convincing "the masses"...the spiral that wraps so tight it begins to fuck itself at the core.)
Click to expand...
You're running into the same brick wall I am though, and the people who make their bread and butter on misinformation wouldn't stand for it.

As for your idea of a competency test, you have no idea how often I have proposed such a thing myself.The idea came to me during Bush's second election run and was really cemented by the time the Anti-Obama campaign rolled around. The only problem is how specialized one has to be to vote on a subject. Setting the bar too high for instance on military spending would preclude anyone who wasn't in the military. As such only military men would vote and with groupthink would be more likely to green light as much spending as they wanted. It could be abused, if the right people, or the wrong people, wrote it. I can't imagine what kind of questions you would ask on this gay knowledge test though. As long as I get to write it we're cool. I couldn't help but come up with a few samples:

4. Gay people's greatest weaknesses are:
A. Members of the same sex.
B. Kryptonite.
C. Sunlight and Holy Water.
D. House Music.

5. Gays produce offspring via:
A. Stealing our souls.
B. Testube.
C. Adoption.
D. Budding.

6. When exposed to sunlight gay people:
A. Sparkle.
B. Turn to ash.
C. Under go photosynthesis.
D. Tan.

7. Gay people gaurd their clutch of eggs for:
A. 2-3 weeks
B. 4-6 weeks.
C. Never. The eggs are left to hatch on their own.
D. Never. Gay people do not lay eggs.

8. You can catch Gay by:
A. Sharing the same drink with a Gay or Lesbian person.
B. Swimming in the same pool as a Gay or Lesbian person.
C. You can not catch Gay.
D. Watching too many musicals.

9. The original cast of the village people included:
A. Policeman, Cowboy, Biker, Firefighter, Astronaut.
B. Policeman, Cowboy, Biker, Construction Worker, GI.
C. Policeman, Rodeo Clown, Chef, Construction Worker, Sailor
D. Dinosaur, Jedi Knight, Disco Dancer, Carnival Barker, Hairdresser.
 
so it is ok to be who you were born as...as long as you show remorse for it...

hrd....que vivaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

ifb...lololololol
 
Lol@ Ghengis John for thinking stupid people should have a say in things they know nothing about :D
Cause everyone's equal, everyone should have an equal say, yeah? Except nobody is equal. Haven't you learned anything from competitive fighting games?

That'd be like having non-gamers vote on the polls that decide which games should be run as main events at EVO.

Nobody really believes everyone should have a say. The founding fathers didn't, and people today don't. People who claim they do? Self deception.

Sure, people should be able to have their needs heard. But if the message is retarded, i.e. with no reasoning other than "man in the sky said so," why listen?

Imagine a scenario where a large group of people, large enough to decide the results of a poll, wants to ban videogames. They all have nonsensical reasons, "virtual worlds undermine the real world," "videogames cause circles to be also square," "some guy living outside of everything said so," "I'm an orange," whatever. Why the fuck should the minority allow it? Idk this all seems very simple to me.

Fuck chick-filet, fuck ethically subjective beliefs, and fuck the idea of equality.

Screw considerations of whether everyone having a say is the way it should be or not, do you know that isn't even possible? All voting systems are inherently flawed.
 
That's why you have a constitution and a supreme court.

So that even if more than half the population is functionally retarded about a subject (evolution), they can't force the entire country to be retarded with them.
 
Signia said:
Lol@ Ghengis John for thinking stupid people should have a say in things they know nothing about :D
Cause everyone's equal, everyone should have an equal say, yeah? Except nobody is equal. Haven't you learned anything from competitive fighting games?
Click to expand...

We're not talking about expertise here, we're talking about opinions. And to that end, you can't say your opinion is more valuable because you're right. Everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks theirs is right. We force people to accept the consensus of the majority all the time, that doesn't mean we refuse to hear them out. When you do that, they get mad. It might have been acceptable at one time, but the franchise has been extended specifically because those without it started to become harder and harder to placate without it and their "betters" still routinely made major screw-ups. People today wouldn't stand for it, especially where they once had it. If you expect to be able to shut out the majority of the people prepare for a short reign. Without popular sovereignty there isn't a lot to legitimize a government. Wealth generation? Entitlements? New governments could always promise to do these things better.

Screw considerations of whether everyone having a say is the way it should be or not, do you know that isn't even possible? All voting systems are inherently flawed.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean we go back to despotism.

If the man who says "I'm an orange" wants to say "I'm on orange" then by all means he has the right to say it. That protection extends to you as well and those protections are important. They also protect you from the mob. Otherwise you get into the situation where you start determining who knows best should rule and it's a slippery slope determining that criteria. It wasn't fair when only wealthy land holders could vote and it wasn't fair when the polit bureau were the only ones who could either. Looking at the state of this country I doubt we'd go with aptitude anyhow, because we never have, we'd probably end up going with wealth. As for your disregard of ethics or considerations, without them politics would probably devolve into a bloodbath. There are countries like that and they mostly comprise the third world. I have no desire to emulate their lifestyle. Sorry I didn't throw as many expletives in there as you did, I must not be as bright as you are.

Sure, people should be able to have their needs heard. But if the message is retarded, i.e. with no reasoning other than "man in the sky said so," why listen?
Click to expand...
How's governmental stability strike you? What are you going to do otherwise? Lock them up? Have them watched? Write their names in your death note?

page said:
That's why you have a constitution and a supreme court.
So that even if more than half the population is functionally retarded about a subject (evolution), they can't force the entire country to be retarded with them.
Click to expand...

And as Page said, we do have protections from retardation. Though I guess it's only right to expect a guy with a Light Yagami avatar to look down on people like ants and demand a strong central authority. Also to eat chips really intensely. Really though I don't want to talk about this anymore. Because I once again have had the depressing realization that what we talk about here means nothing. We aren't organizing a new state or debating legislation. We're on the internet, chatting on a forum.

Jaxel said:
HAHAHAHA...
Click to expand...
Thankyou, heck I'm happy somebody laughed.
 
People who believe in some sort of aristocratic or merit based governing system are always under the impression that they will be the ones in the upper crust.

That these people point to past mistakes as a reason for this is equally ignorant. There is a reason why we needed to enforce restrictions on literacy tests when it comes to elections with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Explain how getting one question wrong on a test like this is a good reason that I shouldn't be allowed to vote. Sure, all of the answers are in the constitution of my country, but I can't take a person seriously who actually thinks that knowing all that minutiae is necessary for you to understand what you're voting on.

And it's not just poor blacks that you can exclude with such systems. You can pretty much exclude any person you please with a well written test. You may think you're smarter than everyone else and thus qualified, but it doesn't work that way. Are you smart enough to get past the arbitrary restrictions passed by the arbitrary ruling authority?

The one thing I can say that you people certainly have in common with aristocracies of the past, is the unshakable belief in the superiority of your own opinions. You can argue that this isn't the case, but it shows time and time again in the opinions that you state are fact.
 
I specifically said the questions would be based on unbias FACT that would apply to the context of the vote. EX:

For President:

Does the president make laws or congress?
Yes
No
(check box if it is important to you)

if box goes unchecked the deduction of your weighted vote is minimal compared to answering the fact wrong. The weight of opinion is always based on the knowledge of the facts needed to form the opinion. look at our SC5 thread, if person A just picked up the game a month ago and has no idea what frame data is and says move B is too good, please nerf and a professional player C comes up and says the move is too weak because it's unsafe and has no mix ups to cover it....those opinions should NOT be equal, it is not to say the new player shouldnt have some voice...just not as much as the other for now.

Once again the logistics of my idea going into affect in the first place and not being done improperly is of deep concern but it is a superior method on paper. It does provide an answer to the fact not all opinions are equal and there needs to be a way to filter the value of an opinion.

There is an obvious issue with determining which questions are important, but the key concept would be to only ask those that directly apply to process, affect, and evidence. So Sharron Angle vs Reid you may ask questions about their quoted claims in their ads as many were proven lies. If you were going to the polls believing things their were researchable lies, it is something that needs to be addressed in the poll. Opinion and facts such as "how many laws are in so and so state" are not things that matter...so that one text in the previous post would have fatal flaws as it has completely arbitrary questions to the point of the test.

but this is a large derailment of the OP. I only ever mentioned my concept as a plea for some kind of system that would better filter out people and business to wield power against minorites such as gays unjustly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom