The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

[Jedidiah]

All who break the law are entitled to equal justice before the law.

Until or unless they are convicted.

[Epoetker]

Nah, it’s the demand for full equality before the law as guaranteed in the US by the Constitution as recognized by the courts of the land - most recently by Conservative appointee judge Posner (that pawn of satanic elitism if you are to be believed) re Indiana and Wisconsin gay marriage laws.

That's not an issue of 'equality before the law,' that's 'striking down laws that offend the ideal of human equality,' just as the Civil Rights Act struck down other laws that acknowledged the reality of human race differences. Are you free-associating again?

You meant that like the pigs in Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’: “All animals are equal but some (pigs) are more equal are others”. For “pigs” read: “white, male, law-abiding citizens”. When did you acquire such a high sense of personal entitlement?

When have I ever been a crusader for 'equality' of any sort? I'm a man, not a pig making elaborate pretensions at being a man.

You persist with your unevidenced conspiracy theories dripping with racist bigotry in this instance, and homophobic bigotry in the case of homosexual law reform.

Again, you're free-associating the word 'conspiracy' with Things you Hate, which is something that maybe schoolchildren just learning the words do, but tends to become incredibly tiresome in adults.

The Civil Rights movement succeeded because the courts ensured that the principle of equality before the law underlying the Constitution was enforced. Simple justice, no devious satanic plot exercised by mysterious elites for their own nefarious reasons.

Translation: Our unwritten moral feelings and cultural hatreds trump your written laws, and bitterly clinging to the text of the Constitution, no matter what it says, is a fool's game when we have the power.

In this case, I agree again. Laws may rule men, but there must always be men to interpret the laws, and thus the law will not save you when the men have no common understanding of those laws, no matter how clearly written. So why do you still cling to the DSM?

What’s offensive is your sensible opinion regarding the hyper-protected and unequally promoted citizens of society such as blacks and homosexuals. Injustice is the violation of another's rights according to law and this is precisely what you are promoting with your rednecked “keep ‘em in their place” mentality.

But most of the 'injustice' you speak of was a part of the law in the past, so if it was legal back then, there was no injustice at the time, correct?

The elites are indoctrinating young innocent minds with the pernicious doctrine that all men are equal before the law – is this what you’re saying? Really! What do the “elites” have to gain from such wickedness?

What did Napoleon have to gain from publicly stating that "all animals are equal"?

JIM CROW! JUSTICE! WHIG HISTORY! INEVITABLE FORCES OF EQUALITY! PRAISE THE TEXTBOOK VERSION OF HISTORY! MY TEAM GOOD, YOUR TEAM BAD!

Really, the older days were objectively better socially, culturally, economically, and professionally. Acknowledging and controlling for human differences, even on a crude level, works a lot better than pretending they don't exist. Your particular neurosis appears to be Baby Boomer psychology.

After all, Boomers pioneered the art of publicly complaining about how one's in-group was responsible for keeping down some out-group, to whom it owed some kind of reparations. This is a stronger form of disloyalty than mere cultural defection. If some small chunk of the in-group feels like they don't identify with their culture, and want to join or at least affiliate with a more distant culture, what's the big loss to their in-group? Let 'em go. But when that small group of discontents wants to take something big away from their in-group and give it to the out-group, to correct what they see as unjust domination, now they plan on dealing a much larger wallop to Us in favor of Them.

What areas of life are subject to this thinking and action about correcting injustices between the in-group and the out-group? Whites and blacks, men and women, heteros and homos, those born into wealth and those who were not, and so on. These are all demographic groups whose membership is not a matter of choice, unlike a political party, church denomination, marital status, number of children, place of residence, etc. They have a sense of guilt from having been born into a dominant demographic group (whites, males), whose dominance is unjust and whose oppression of subordinate groups requires atonement.

In their minds, there's just something unnatural about one group being dominant, when its members were accidentally born into it, rather than admitted or elected on the basis of merit. The state of nature, they believe, is egalitarian, so that if whites come out ahead of blacks in economic life, it is a grossly artificial state of affairs, and could only have come about through concerted and sustained manipulation by the dominant group. With this new awareness — after a little "consciousness-raising" — they feel compelled to atone for the historical sins of the dominant group that they were accidentally born into.

But in all those cases, there is a natural inequality across groups that is biological rather than historical: whites have higher IQ on average than blacks, men produce tons more testosterone than women, heterosexuals are more capable of deferring gratification.

Whether this natural inequality ought to be allowed to show up in status inequality is a matter of debate, which is not important here. The point is: Boomers don't even realize, indeed they emphatically deny that these inequalities have a natural basis. They want so much social engineering to minimize these inequalities precisely because they believe that they have no natural basis, but are rather the outcome of so much social engineering by the current dominant groups in the opposite direction.

Thus, in their view, their sweeping plans are not introducing social engineering into an unregulated state of nature, but correcting an existing set of plans for social engineering (drafted and enforced by the dominant group for its own benefit) with a different set of plans in the opposite direction, in order to restore society back to the egalitarian state of nature.

You'll have to forgive this exploration of the Boomer mind, but it is crucial to understand the psychology behind their characteristic damning of the dominant in-groups that they belong to.

Thanks for your concern but Bangkok, where I’m currently based, is a bit light on koalas, kangaroos and Aborigines, but I get your snide intent. One day you might understand that mockery is the weapon of intellectual impotence.

Mockery is a quite suitable weapon against slaves, liars, toadies, and cowards, and that's why I use it against you. Now that I know that you live not only in a First World country, but in a first world country whose order is secured by a actual Monarch and King, I can safely conclude that your opinions have absolutely no bearing on your actual experienced reality, and are but cheerleading for a war that you're staying as far away from as possible, and are thus naturally ignorant of anything but the propaganda reels for your own side. Facts on the ground are a bit different, dearie!

[Tassman]

Law breakers are not equal.

All who break the law are entitled to equal justice before the law.

[Jedidiah]

Law breakers are not equal.

[Tassman]

Funny how you missed the meaning of this.

By-the-way anyone of any color is more equal if they are law-abiding.

NO citizen is “more equal” or “less equal” than any other citizen; this is the point. The law should apply equally to all, whether or not they are Epoetker’s favoured “white, male, law-abiding citizens” or blacks, or women, or homosexuals.

I think one of the main points in all this is, is Psychology a science? It all seems rather subjective.

No it's not subjective. The American Psychological Association defines Psychology thus:

"Psychology is the study of the mind and behaviour. The discipline embraces all aspects of the human experience — from the functions of the brain to the actions of nations, from child development to care for the aged. In every conceivable setting from scientific research centres to mental healthcare services, "the understanding of behaviour" is the enterprise of psychologists".

http://www.apa.org/support/about/apa...gy.aspx#answer

[JimL]

Fetuses WILL participate in society and they DO participate as much as any newborn does, you sanctimonious twit. The societal rules we were discussing was concerning OUR behavior, not those of the undesirable, remember? Should WE kill undesirables to make society better? Nothing was mentioned about THEIR behavior, other than they were "undesirable". Please try to follow the actual argument, mister ninny.

Societal laws are only applicable to those who actually participate in and are legally obligated to obey the laws that govern that society. Fetuses do not participate, do not act, are not subject to laws, and have nothing to do with the subject. Please try to stay on topic, rather than trying to change it, okay?

The situation with abortion is exactly the same. My example was of sick or undesirable people (like poor people, criminals, deformed, insane, those in comas, etc) and why wouldn't it be good and normal to kill them to improve society. You are the one that said that it would be detrimental to society and individuals to do such a horrible thing. I believe one of your arguments was "what if they came for you?"

No, fetuses are not exactly the same, and again putting aside the controversy of when life actually begins, fetuses are not active members of society and are not governed by any laws. Since for some reason you are unable to understand that, then try to keep your argument focused on those to whom we both agree are active members of society.

Yet you are perfectly fine with killing unborn innocent beings who could end up changing the society for the better. How many Einsteins were aborted that could have given us the gifts of their genius? Or cured cancer?

I understand how badly you want this discussion to be about fetuses and abortion, but it isn't.

You sir are nothing but a sick, undesirable person. Perhaps I should lobby for retro-abortion for people like you, since you obviously contribute nothing to society except idiotic comments and dumbassery.

I have little doubt Sparko that extermination would be your solution for those who think differently than yourself. Thats why us libral parrots are here you sanctimoneous twit.

[Jedidiah]

You meant that like the pigs in Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’: “All animals are equal but some (pigs) are more equal are others”. For “pigs” read: “white, male, law-abiding citizens”. When did you acquire such a high sense of personal entitlement?

Funny how you missed the meaning of this.

By-the-way anyone of any color is more equal if they are law-abiding.

[Sparko]

Fetuses do not participate in society, so, putting aside the controversy as to when life begins, which is a topic for another thread, there is no need of societal rules governing their behavior. Other than that i take it that you concede the present argument to the libral parrots.

Fetuses WILL participate in society and they DO participate as much as any newborn does, you sanctimonious twit. The societal rules we were discussing was concerning OUR behavior, not those of the undesirable, remember? Should WE kill undesirables to make society better? Nothing was mentioned about THEIR behavior, other than they were "undesirable". Please try to follow the actual argument, mister ninny.

The situation with abortion is exactly the same. My example was of sick or undesirable people (like poor people, criminals, deformed, insane, those in comas, etc) and why wouldn't it be good and normal to kill them to improve society. You are the one that said that it would be detrimental to society and individuals to do such a horrible thing. I believe one of your arguments was "what if they came for you?"

Yet you are perfectly fine with killing unborn innocent beings who could end up changing the society for the better. How many Einsteins were aborted that could have given us the gifts of their genius? Or cured cancer?

You sir are nothing but a sick, undesirable person. Perhaps I should lobby for retro-abortion for people like you, since you obviously contribute nothing to society except idiotic comments and dumbassery.

[seer]

I think one of the main points in all this is, is Psychology a science? It all seems rather subjective.

[Tassman]

Agreed.

How could you not agree?

Nah, it's a demand for words and laws to be redefined to the advantage of the people doing the redefining.

Nah, it’s the demand for full equality before the law as guaranteed in the US by the Constitution as recognized by the courts of the land - most recently by Conservative appointee judge Posner (that pawn of satanic elitism if you are to be believed) re Indiana and Wisconsin gay marriage laws.

No, not really. It doesn't actually take when those citizens are white, male, or law-abiding. That's enough for me to dismiss it.

You meant that like the pigs in Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’: “All animals are equal but some (pigs) are more equal are others”. For “pigs” read: “white, male, law-abiding citizens”. When did you acquire such a high sense of personal entitlement?

Your statement makes no sense and can be safely ignored as typical liberal pointing and sputtering to simulate a response when you haven't got one.

Less sense than it should, admittedly – there’s a missing sentence; not that that would affect your all too predictable knee-jerk responses.

I said that the Civil Rights movement succeeded because elites, i.e., the most powerful and influential people in the country, were behind it. They chose George Wallace to make an example of because their elitist people hate hicks. But in the end, George Wallace was proven right in "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" in actual practice, as those elitists themselves can be found almost without exception in 95-100% white neighborhoods. But beating up on hicks is good fun for elites, I suppose.

You persist with your unevidenced conspiracy theories dripping with racist bigotry in this instance, and homophobic bigotry in the case of homosexual law reform.

The Civil Rights movement succeeded because the courts ensured that the principle of equality before the law underlying the Constitution was enforced. Simple justice, no devious satanic plot exercised by mysterious elites for their own nefarious reasons.

Please provide your personal definition of "injustice" before throwing around that word in a manner offensive to those to whom it actually means something.

What’s offensive is your paranoid opinion regarding the marginalized citizens of society such as blacks and homosexuals. Injustice is the violation of another's rights according to law and this is precisely what you are promoting with your rednecked “keep ‘em in their place” mentality.

Most people are indoctrinated in schools to believe so, most with any experience of integrated schools come to appreciate the wisdom of the arrangement. Ironically, those who grow up in effectively segregated schools are the ones most likely to believe in integration, having no particular life experience with your vibrant liberal pets. Like you, for example.

The elites are indoctrinating young innocent minds with the pernicious doctrine that all men are equal before the law – is this what you’re saying? Really! What do the “elites” have to gain from such wickedness?

So, instead, you are in favour of returning to the good ole days of the Jim Crow Laws when the blacks knew their place and everyone (i.e. “white, male, law-abiding citizens”) was happy. What about a return to slavery? Or keeping the “little woman barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen where she belongs? Or the homosexual safely in his closet? They were the great days weren’t they before the blacks, Jews and gays ruined everything? <sarcasm>

If by 'took a long time,' you mean "Issued immediately by federal dictate and enforced by out-of-state personnel", then yes.

No, ignorant one, I mean a long time. Starting in 1917 with Buchanan v. Warley through to 1971 when the Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, upheld desegregation busing of students to achieve integration. Plus significant acts of civil disobedience such as when Rosa Parks in1955 refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man with this act of civil disobedience being a catalyst in the growth of the Civil Rights movement. This resulted ultimately in the overthrow of the Jim Crow Laws which had made a mockery of “equal before the law”. In short, it took a long time, but justice was eventually served - except for the “white, male, law-abiding citizens” of course.

Tassman, you seem to be posting without any clear direction or argument.

The direction is very clear, namely that there is no good reason for denying segments of the population (blacks, women, homosexuals) their full civil rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of the USA – as the courts have been demonstrating recently regarding gay marriage legislation.

I would suggest slowing down a bit, maybe de-stressing by feeding the koalas, riding the kangaroos, or watching the aborigines before posting again.

Thanks for your concern but Bangkok, where I’m currently based, is a bit light on koalas, kangaroos and Aborigines, but I get your snide intent. One day you might understand that mockery is the weapon of intellectual impotence.

[Epoetker]

Ergo

In your case I take that as meaning, "ERROR, GOTO"...

fetuses are not themselves participants in society so there is no need of rules with which to govern them. Your go to argument is off topic!

Your rejoinder is not one I'd imagine presented in anything but a hurried and robotic monotone by a hurried and robotic bureaucrat, perhaps one who realizes that his responses aren't actually causing the people bothering him to go away. Just as when you said "there are no laws between consenting adults" when I overloaded your memory register previously, it looks like pressing you at all makes you say the most bluntly unfactual things, that are easily refuted in a single wikipedia site.

Homophobic blather lifted from homophobic blogs.

BEEP BOOP LOSING ARGUMENT BUFFER OVERRUN DEPLOY CRIMESTOP STRING "HOMOPHOBIC" SHUT DOWN ALL COMMON SENSE PROCESSES

[JimL]

They are at the very least likely future participants in society, and their presence tends to change the tenor, at the very least, of the society that already exists around the mother. Granted, liberals also tend to reflexively denounce any commonplace cultural celebration of pre-childbirth, so I apologize if the experience is remote from your particularly provincial understanding.

Ergo fetuses are not themselves participants in society so there is no need of rules with which to govern them. Your go to argument is off topic!

If being a continuous vector for deadly and expensive-to-treat infectious diseases, a radioactively narcissistic buzzkill, and so open about both that you're the only non-Irish white group effective at driving out black people doesn't make you detrimental to society, I'm not sure what does.

Homophobic blather lifted from homophobic blogs.

[Epoetker]

Fetuses do not participate in society, so, putting aside the controversy as to when life begins, which is a topic for another thread, there is no need of societal rules governing their behavior. Other than that i take it that you concede the present argument to the libral parrots.

They are at the very least likely future participants in society, and their presence tends to change the tenor, at the very least, of the society that already exists around the mother. Granted, liberals also tend to reflexively denounce any commonplace cultural celebration of pre-childbirth, so I apologize if the experience is remote from your particularly provincial understanding.

Homosexuality for example is no more detrimental to society than is heterosexuality

If being a continuous vector for deadly and expensive-to-treat infectious diseases, a radioactively narcissistic buzzkill, and so open about both that you're the only non-Irish white group effective at driving out black people doesn't make you detrimental to society, I'm not sure what does.

[JimL]

Well if you are against eliminating undesirable people from society because it is detrimental to society and the individuals living in it, then I agree.

So you must be against legalized abortion!

Welcome to being pro-life, JimL!

Fetuses do not participate in society, so, putting aside the controversy as to when life begins, which is a topic for another thread, there is no need of societal rules governing their behavior. Other than that i take it that you concede the present argument to the libral parrots.

[Sparko]

What i'm saying is that it is good to eliminate those behaviors that are detrimental to society as a whole, such as theft, murder, fraud, assault, rape, etc etc. etc. without at the same time infringing upon the individuals right to free self expression. I never said anything about eliminating people from society as that is the opposite of the actual goal of a free people living together as a group. What some in the religious community advocate for, i.e. in a theocracy, the goal is to not only eliminate behavior that is detrimental to society as a whole, but also to eliminate the individuals right to free expession whether it be detrimental to the whole of society or not. Homosexuality for example is no more detrimental to society than is heterosexuality but some in the latter group would like to impose their own morals upon those in the former not because their behavior is detrimental to society, but because they don't really believe in the individuals right to freedom of expression unless it is in agreement with their own personal moral beliefs.

Well if you are against eliminating undesirable people from society because it is detrimental to society and the individuals living in it, then I agree.

So you must be against legalized abortion!

Welcome to being pro-life, JimL!