Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.

Minichan

Topic: Tennesse bill l would allow Christian grad student counslers to deny services to lgbt students.

Anonymous A started this discussion 4.3 years ago #26,322

I love how this stuff happens constantly but then Christian fundies still claim to be a persecuted class.


Ward was a graduate student in counseling at Eastern Michigan University. Because she was a Christian, she refused to treat a suicidal gay student because her faith prevented her from “helping him feel better about himself.”

After she refused to undergo LGBT “sensitivity training,” EMU kicked her out of their grad program. In 2010, a judge supported the school’s decision. Ward and her lawyers appealed it. Instead of continuing a drawn-out legal battle, EMU opted to settle the case and pay Ward $75,000 to basically go away.

The Michigan House of Representatives also passed a bill in her honor so that no school could punish a student “who refuse[d] to counsel a client because of a ‘sincerely held religious belief.’” (The Senate never acted on it.)

Now, Tennessee legislators are working with Ward’s lawyers and conservative activist David Fowler (president of the Family Action Council of Tennessee) in order to pass a similar bill. Because why wouldn’t someone want to reward such admirable bigotry…?

Senate Bill 514 (PDF) is sponsored by State Senator Joey Hensley (while House Bill 1185 is sponsored by State Rep. John J. DeBerry, Jr.) and would allow religion to be used as an excuse for not treating a client:

A public institution of higher education operating under chapter 8 or 9 of this title shall not discipline or discriminate against a student in a counseling, social work, or psychology program because the student refuses to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of the student, if the student refers the client to a counselor who will provide the counseling or services.

It’s similar to what Christian pharmacists want with their “conscience clauses” — they want to get out of doing their jobs if they disagree with you on a moral level. Just as those pharmacists want the right to not give you birth control pills that your doctor prescribed, this bill would let social workers-in-training refuse gay clients because they oppose gay rights for religious reasons, in essence, giving Christians a green light to be bigots outside of church without fear of punishment.

Jake Morris, director of the graduate program in counseling at Lipscomb University, said students need to be able to treat a wide range of clients, not just those who share their religious values.

“I want my students to be able to help anyone who walks in their door,” he said. For example, if a student thinks divorce is sinful, that student still needs to know how to treat clients who have gone through a divorce.”

Students, Morris said, should be exposed to a wide range of clients while in training. That will help them become competent professionals.

“We are health care professionals,” he said. “We need to act like it.”

That’s really the issue here. This bill would allow religious students to graduate even if they’re unable to do the work required in such professions. It’s not about religious liberty — no one is forcing the counselors to “accept” homosexuality; they just have to help their clients.


http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=%20HB1185&GA=108

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130311/NEWS0201/303110029/1972?nclick_check=1


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/15/the-julea-ward-is-a-christian-bigot-act-passes-in-michigan/

Cathy !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #397,408

TL:DR please?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #397,410

@previous (Cathy !TGirlYJKXM)
School counselors are allowed to refuse to counsel gay students if it goes against their religious beliefs. One woman refused to help a suicidal gay student, because she said that her religion did not allow her to help his self esteem.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #397,412

@397,408 (Cathy !TGirlYJKXM)
This also means that they could refuse to provide services to anyone "sinning" such as pregnant or sexually active students, and students of a different religion.

Cathy !TGirlYJKXM replied with this 4.3 years ago, 27 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #397,421

@397,410 (A)
@previous (A)
The way this is put makes it sound like murder.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #397,422

@previous (Cathy !TGirlYJKXM)
Its not murder, but its horrible, and unconstitutional. A school counselor is hired to help all of the students, not just other fundies.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,435

This is pretty bad. They're trying to enshrine bigotry and discrimination into the law, for fuck's sake.

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,488

what is your problem with it? How do people not have the right to work for or not work for whom they wish?

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 53 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,490

Would you prefer that fundies actually do try to counsel suicidal lgbt kids?

Cathy !TGirlYJKXM replied with this 4.3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,495

What would Jesus think?

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,498

@397,490 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
@397,488 (D)
If you sign up to be a councilor, you know, a person who's meant to be understanding and nurturing, you should do your goddamn job.

It's also kinda worrying what the law implies. Who's to say that it won't lead to calls for councilors to be able to opt-out of other "undesirables"? Or spread to other professions?

And, this is the most important issue, in my opinion, you don't overcome prejudice by making concessions to the goddamn predjudiced. Making it a law implies that there's a legitimate cause for this discrimination. If a bigoted councillor tried this with a black person or a women, you wouldn't just say "oh we should respect his prejudices and make a law protecting them." No, you'd fire him for refusing to do his bloody job.

(Edited 48 seconds later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 7 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,499

@397,490 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
I'd prefer them to leave their religion out of their jobs. Its not professional.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 53 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,501

@397,488 (D)
That isnt about this. They agreed to work for a school, and to counsel the children. They shouldnt get to pick certain children that they will not help.

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,503

@397,498 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
So a counselor should have to endorse and nurture behavior he finds to be against a person's best interests?

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,504

@397,501 (A)
I think it's far more professional to refuse to help someone if you think there's some reason you can't help the person, or you have some personal reason for disagreeing with their life choices. Counselors do this all the time.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 49 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,506

@previous (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
So would they have to call in a separate counselor for gay kids, or children with a different religion?

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,508

@397,504 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
The woman in the original suit, refused to help a suicidal gay child feel better about his self esteem. How is that about encouraging bad behaviors?

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 38 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,509

@397,506 (A)
I assume they have more than one counselor on staff. Should religious people be forbidden from being counselors if they actually believe in the tenets of their faith?

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 33 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,510

@397,508 (A)
Many people of faith believe homosexuality is destructive. I'm not endorsing this.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,512

@397,509 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
No, as long as they dont discriminant. I'm an athiest, but I'm not allowed to forgo changing the briefs of Christians, am I?

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 58 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,513

@previous (A)
Okay. I want a counselor to help me feel better about my eating disorder, or my use of meth. All counselors must agree with my choices or they are prejudiced. Silly personal beliefs about different lifestyles shouldn't get in the way of their professionalism and willingness to nurture me as a person.

(Edited 31 seconds later.)

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,516

@397,503 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
So what if they hate black people? Or don't like other religions? Should we let councillors opt out of those too?

Hey, I know, let's just make laws for all jobs so that people can avoid minorities they don't like? It's not the councillors fault, obviously.

@397,510 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
Those people are wrong. We need to move forward from that. Just like with civil rights and feminism. This law is a step backwards.

@397,509 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
They should be able to put them aside for the purpose of their job.

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,520

@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
There is no "choice" aspect to being black. I don't believe there is one to sexuality, either, but I don't think it's been proved either way.

(Edited 34 seconds later.)

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,531

@previous (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
There's actually very compelling evidence for it not being a choice, being biological in nature and present at birth. Differences have been found in gay brains, and various biological influences such as genes and womb conditions have been identified. And if it's a choice, how the fuck do you explain closet cases? Or gays who come from really religious families? The whole "oh it's a choice" thing is a load of crap. It's a naive belief stemming from religious indoctrination. It shouldn't be legitimised by being enshrined in the law.

(Edited 27 seconds later.)

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,535

@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Isn't there similar evidence for a predisposition to alcoholism/addiction being biological in nature and present at birth?

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,536

@previous (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
Yes, but it isn't a catch-all. It's just a predisposition, it isn't required to develop a dependence on alcohol.

(Edited 14 seconds later.)

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,539

@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Couldn't the same be said of homosexuality and dependence on dick?

squeegee joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 31 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,540

Unless the girl denies counciling to divorcees and other sinners, then she is just a bigot against gays. She's selecting which sinful lifestyles she personally dislikes and is choosing not to council them based on that alone. Otherwise she wouldn't be singling out homos.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,551

@397,513 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
They could help your self esteem right? Its not like the child was a "practicing" homosexual.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,555

@397,540 (squeegee)
I agree. A school shouldnt have to hire multiple counselors because a few refuse to do their job, because of religious preference.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,562

@397,539 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
Are you trying to argue that the biological factors for alcoholism are the same as those for homosexuality? A person with the alcohol predisposition might never drink any alcohol if it's never offered to them or they're encouraged lt to. You can't really do the same thing with sexual attraction.

And homosexuality and alcoholism aren't even a good comparison. One is a sexual orientation, the other is a full-blown addiction. A gay man isn't going to develop withdrawal symptoms and start getting all skakey because he doesn't score for a week or so.

@397,540 (squeegee)
Such is the hypocrisy of fundies. But they'll probably conveniently forget this fact.

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 30 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,563

@397,551 (A)
Presumably they'd encourage me to engage in healthier behavior.

And personally I believe LGBT is just fine, but that's part of a cultural debate. Counselors can't escape from culture any more than the rest of us, and it's not like psychology has any real science to back up its bullshit anyway.

I think the law to "protect" counselors is stupid and they should just find weird religious places to work if that's what they want to do. A school should be able to say what kind of counseling it wants.

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 37 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,564

@397,562 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
How long have you gone without cock? It's not easy, and you shouldn't mock it.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 30 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,565

@397,555 (A)
In fact, they should make laws like this for racist and sexist councillors too! It's the best solution for everybody, clearly.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,567

@397,563 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
But this wasnt about behavior but thoughts. A child was suicidal because they felt like they might be gay, but not because they were having gay sex.
Also, I dont think that employers are allowed to ask question before hiring about things like compassion for gays.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,569

@397,565 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
What if someone decide to refuse counsel to fat people, or Mormons or something? People would be flipping out. What if cafeteria workers refused to serve Muslim kids? its crazy.

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,573

@397,567 (A)
Sure, but if she knew she couldn't sincerely tell the student it's okay to be gay?

I don't know of any reason an employer couldn't ask that, though it would have to be based on actual qualifications for the job (ability to work with gay clients) rather than a religious belief. Most employers don't ask the "illegal questions" (age, religion, etc.) out of an abundance of caution, but they're actually fine to ask - just not to use in the hiring decision.

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,575

@397,569 (A)
Based on how I read it, the counselor here didn't refuse to counsel him because he was gay, but because she knew she couldn't support him in feeling good about being gay long-term. Because she thinks it's wrong. Lots of counselors think it's wrong to belong to stupid cults or be fat, and might well refuse to counsel someone who wouldn't change their lifestyle to match the counselor's belief system. I don't see this as very different.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,579

> And personally I believe LGBT is just fine, but that's part of a cultural debate.
Racism and feminism were once "part of the cultural debate" too! Do you think that we should respect those people's bigotries too?

> Counselors can't escape from culture any more than the rest of us,
Yeah, the whole not being judgemental part of their job is really more of a suggestion anyway.

> it's not like psychology has any real science to back up its bullshit anyway.
Actually, it has researchers constantly doing experiments and analysing data to test the validity of their theories, and advances in neuroscience have let it look at the brain itself in even more detail. Sounds pretty damn scientific to me. But of course, if it gets in the way of your favourite predjudice then it's much easier to just disregard psychology instead.

Honestly, I'm surprised that as an Obama supporter you're arguing that we enable homophobia. What would Barry say? :(

@397,564 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
I'm sorry. I'll cock mock less in the future.

@397,569 (A)
lol'd. Yeah, all this does is legitimise homophobia. Hardly any other thing would be considered for this.

(Edited 28 seconds later.)

HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,580

She was such a great and strong Christian for denying services that could have saved the life of a fellow student.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,585

@397,573 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
You cannot ask those things, or ask age, sexual preference, or even if they have children before hiring. Also, even if you did ask someone if they had anything that would stop them from doing their job, they would lie.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 34 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,587

@397,575 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
What would you say if this counselor couldnt make a girl feel good about being a female?

HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 4.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,589

Do they allow for Muslim graduate students to do the same?

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,595

You guys aren't even trying to understand what I'm saying. I don't like homophobia.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,596

@previous (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
Yes, we understand your sentiment about keeping homophobes and gays apart, but it's the fact that they want to make it a law that's questionable.

By making it a law, they legitimise homophobia. In a profession that's mean to be a place where you can get help no matter who you are, no less. On paper it might seem like it's being done for a good reaon but when you start to analyse it, it falls apart.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,597

@397,595 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
I know you dont, but we cant make exceptions for people just because they're religious. Not for this, and not for health care services either.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,599

There's also the issue of why single out gays, too. Why should we respect a religious person's predjudice and not a racist's? If a councilor felt that they "couldn't help" black people, do you honestly think that people wouldn't cry racism if they passed a law allowing councilors to disciminate who they help based on race?

(Edited 1 minute later.)

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,600

@397,596 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Oh. I don't support the law. I do think counselors should be able to counsel based on their religious beliefs, though.

squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,602

@397,555 (A)
well, they need to settle the matter right now and say that all people who chose to work in a certain profession have to abide by the general practices of that profession and not exclude individuals from their services based on discrimination.
If you want to be a doctor, then you help sick people, not just sick christian people.
If you're going to be a pharmacist, then dole out medication, don't just give it to Christians, or give out only medicines you approve.
If you're going into counseling or social work, then you help people who need help, not just suicidal Christians.
What would this girl have done if he'd have been muslim, tried to convert him first and then bolster his self esteem so he doesn't commit suicide? Bullshit, she would've talked him down.
Could she not have said that people love him, and to make him think about how they would feel if they lost him? Couldn't she have just said that nothing would be more painful than losing him, and that nothing he could ever do, or be, would make them feel worse than losing him?
no. she said, "nope, can't help ya, yer gay. and i think that's wrong. so, i'm hangin' up. bye."

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,604

@397,600 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
What if their religious beliefs discriminated against blacks?

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,608

@397,600 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
The only place where that's arguably acceptable is if they're counseling somebody who explicitly shares their religious beliefs. Otherwise it has no place in that profession.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 35 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,609

@397,604 (A)
I think it would be morally wrong, but a matter for whatever professional licensing organization to deal with.

(Edited 12 seconds later.)

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,610

@397,608 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
What about secular people who think homosexuality is wrong? I think the standard should be the same regardless of the reason for it. Either counselors can have moral beliefs or not.

I also find the idea that counselors should be "nonjudgmental" absurd. There is still right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,612

@397,609 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
Wait, what? You think that this should be a reason to lose a teaching license?

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 46 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,614

@397,610 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
This law is specifically about allowing prejudicial behavioral because of deeply held religious beliefs. Secularists would not be allowed to do so.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,617

@397,610 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
> What about secular people who think homosexuality is wrong? I think the standard should be the same regardless of the reason for it. Either counselors can have moral beliefs or not.
Doesn't matter. Homophobia is homophobia. As has been argued, it has no place in this profession. Why're they're homophobic doesn't matter.

> I also find the idea that counselors should be "nonjudgmental" absurd. There is still right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy.
Nobody is saying that. What's being said is that predjudices don't need to and shouldn't come into it. You can offer good advice/feedback and not be a bigot.

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 12 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,618

@397,612 (A)
No no, the psych/counseling organizations should be able to deny and revoke licenses to people who want to practice this way.

@397,614 (A)
Yeah, I was more arguing about the idea of religiously oriented counselors, not the law. Any employer should be able to "discriminate" against fundies when they do shit this stupid.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,620

@previous (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
So you're saying that counselors should be able to discriminate, but also these same practices should be enough to have their licenses pulled?

Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,626

@397,614 (A)
But then that's discriminating against secular homophobes which violates the equal protection clause.

Meta !PARAdoxiHw double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,629

What I don't get though, is why is the bill so narrow in focus? It doesn't cover fully trained counselors, just counselors in training. Are they to establish a beachhead for later expansion?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,631

@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Probably, and also because of that one woman who brought on the first law suit.

beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,632

@397,629 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Interesting. Protections for doctors in training wrt abortion are similar - you can refuse to do abortions when you're in training, but it's legal to fire or refuse to hire a doctor who won't.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 4.3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,633

@previous (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
I could see that being later expanded to a full protection of abortion-refusing doctors when the political climate is right.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 7 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,806

@397,498 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> If you sign up to be a councilor, you know, a person who's meant to be understanding and nurturing, you should do your goddamn job.
who are you to say this? Isn't up to the person's employer, or themselves?

> It's also kinda worrying what the law implies.
Yeah freedom of association is so worrying

> And, this is the most important issue, in my opinion, you don't overcome prejudice by making concessions to the goddamn predjudiced. Making it a law implies that there's a legitimate cause for this discrimination. If a bigoted councillor tried this with a black person or a women, you wouldn't just say "oh we should respect his prejudices and make a law protecting them."
why have you consistently misspelled counsellor
the law implies no such thing, and furthermore, laws don't make morality. things are moral or immoral separate to their legality.

> No, you'd fire him for refusing to do his bloody job.
if i was his employer, yeah. but im not. youre not either. whats it got to do with you?

Anonymous D double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 32 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,807

@397,499 (A)
wow bigotry

Anonymous D triple-posted this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,808

@397,501 (A)

> That isnt about this.
yeah it is lol

> They agreed to work for a school, and to counsel the children. They shouldnt get to pick certain children that they will not help.
um they work for a public university. the state sets the rules for them. what are you actually complaining about?

Anonymous D quadruple-posted this 4.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,810

@397,567 (A)
> Also, I dont think that employers are allowed to ask question before hiring about things like compassion for gays.
Why, then, do you not support the ability for employers to do this?

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 21 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,817

@397,806 (D)
> who are you to say this? Isn't up to the person's employer, or themselves?
Themselves Counsellors are meant to be understanding and not bring in their personal beliefs. if you can't keep your own bigotry out of it then it's not the profession for you.7

> Yeah freedom of association is so worrying
So you'd agree with this law's extension to, say, blacks? Maybe other professions too? It's just freedom of association, after all.

> why have you consistently misspelled counsellor
Didn't know the right spelling. Do now.

It's a good thing you made this point, actually. My whole arguments secretly hinges on my grammatical accuracy.

> the law implies no such thing,
So it's implying that there isn't a legitimate cause for the discrimination?

> nd furthermore, laws don't make morality. things are moral or immoral separate to their legality.
I didn't even bring up morality. I gave logical reasons why this law was a bad thing.

> if i was his employer, yeah. but im not. youre not either. whats it got to do with you?
> You must be the person who made this table to criticise it!

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 7 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,835

@397,807 (D)
Hey mountainscum. I like how its bigotry when you ask a Christian to do their job.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,836

@397,810 (D)
They havent done that. They shouldnt have to. When you hire someone to counsel students, that means all of them. Not just other Christians.

(Edited 23 seconds later.)

Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,837

@397,806 (D)
Freedom of association? Wow. maybe my strong religious believe doesn't allow me to see men nude. I guess that I can only care for women, even though my place of employment hired me to care for all of the residents.

Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 4.3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,848

@397,817 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I just realized that anyone could pop into these threads and say something stupid, and we'd believe them to be MM because that what he always does.

(Edited 3 minutes later.)

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,856

@previous (A)
True, but if somebody came in and started going on about sex with little boys, we'd naturally assume it was to4str.

But mountainman's debating style is quite distinct, so it's likely him.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,857

@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yeah its him. I like how he corrected your spelling, because thats what people they are unable to debate properly.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #397,859

@previous (A)
Yeah, my whole argument clearly hinged on my spelling.

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #397,883

@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
…plus, Americans have counselors and councilors.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,012

@397,817 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Themselves Counsellors are meant to be understanding and not bring in their personal beliefs.
Who are you to say what they are "meant" to be? Isn't it for themselves or their employer to decide their duties?

> if you can't keep your own bigotry out of it then it's not the profession for you.7
Agreed, most places would probably fire you. But this place is run by the state i.e. by idiots, hence you get rules like this

> So you'd agree with this law's extension to, say, blacks? Maybe other professions too? It's just freedom of association, after all.
> A public institution of higher education
This only affects state universities. The state is quite justified in setting the curriculum for state universities.

> It's a good thing you made this point, actually. My whole arguments secretly hinges on my grammatical accuracy.
I thought you might have been misunderstanding because councillor is a politician but anyway get snarky about it cool

> So it's implying that there isn't a legitimate cause for the discrimination?
> implying everything implies something

> I didn't even bring up morality. I gave logical reasons why this law was a bad thing.
You keep saying that laws "legitimise" (I assume you mean this not strictly literally which would be a tautology, but in the sense of granting moral approval) activities, so yeah you have

> > You must be the person who made this table to criticise it!
what

Anonymous D double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,013

@397,835 (A)
They're not doing a job? They're studying at a uni?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,015

@previous (D)
Their job as counselors.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,016

@397,836 (A)
> When you hire someone to counsel students, that means all of them.
Except that's the point of this story. When the state hires (she's studying but anyway) someone to counsel, they don't mean all of them.

Anonymous D double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,020

@397,837 (A)
Then you've broken your employment contract and are liable to be fired. However they may still have a place for you as women live longer and there would be more of them in aged care.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,022

@398,016 (D)
They dont mean counsel all of the kids? Thats interesting, which children are allowed to get counseling?

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,023

@397,857 (A)
@397,859 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
i was unsure if he understood the thread because he was consistently not just misspelling but using a different word

but yeah assume bad faith and what not

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,024

@398,020 (D)
Wow, that had nothing to do with anything. Why shouldnt I get to choose who I bathe If I have strong religious convictions against it?

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,025

@398,022 (A)
You posted this story! What don't you understand about it?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 7 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,026

@398,023 (D)
No you werent. More lies.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,027

@398,024 (A)
> Why shouldnt I get to choose who I bathe
because you're not a slave?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 6 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,028

@398,025 (D)
What dont you understand?

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,029

@398,026 (A)
yes i was lol
you're funny when you go into contrarian mode

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,030

@398,027 (D)
lol Nice point. Maybe I should sue like this Christian lady, so that they make a bill in my state. lol

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,031

@398,028 (A)
The state has said that students don't have to counsel everyone.
therefore its not part of their course to counsel everyone.
therefore to say they aren't doing their job is wrong (unless you were to argue that "counselling" has an objective meaning that can't be altered by statue)

Anonymous D double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,032

@398,030 (A)
Why not?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,034

@previous (D)
Because you'd have a lot of people not getting care. I'm an atheist, but I'd never refuse to help a Christian. Its sad, that religion really doesnt help people with integrity, or kindness to fellow man.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,054

@previous (A)
> Because you'd have a lot of people not getting care.
This argument doesn't make sense. Currently people wash men and women. But if they said you didn't have to wash men, no one would do it? I doubt it.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,056

@previous (D)
Why wouldnt they? Some whites wouldnt wash blacks patients. Some anti Semites wouldnt wash jews.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,067

@398,012 (D)
> Who are you to say what they are "meant" to be? Isn't it for themselves or their employer to decide their duties?
What the fuck do you think a counsler s meant to do? In what situation would they be encouraged to bring in their own biases and beliefs? That's not something a counsler, who in this case their job specifically involved counsling a diverse range of people, is supposed to do.

> Agreed, most places would probably fire you. But this place is run by the state i.e. by idiots, hence you get rules like this
Oh my god. Did mountainman... just agree with somebody he was debating with? :O

> This only affects state universities. The state is quite justified in setting the curriculum for state universities.
Whether they're justified is irrelevant. This bill has very worrying implications and flaws, the fact that they're able to bring it in doesn't change this.


> So it's implying that there isn't a legitimate cause for the discrimination?
> implying everything implies something
Of course it implies that. How does it not imply that?

> You keep saying that laws "legitimise" (I assume you mean this not strictly literally which would be a tautology, but in the sense of granting moral approval) activities, so yeah you have
Not especially. When I say legitimise, I mean that it'll make people see homophobia as acceptable, thus encouraging people to be more homophobic. I'm not being particularly moral about it, just noting that this bill would have a negative effect (encouraging homophobia).

> what
The fact that we're not the employer doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on this.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,142

@398,056 (A)
You mean whites that are currently washing black patients? lol your argument is silly

Anonymous D double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,145

@398,067 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> What the fuck do you think a counsler s meant to do? In what situation would they be encouraged to bring in their own biases and beliefs? That's not something a counsler, who in this case their job specifically involved counsling a diverse range of people, is supposed to do.
So you are going to go the route of arguing "that "counselling" has an objective meaning that can't be altered by statue"?

> Oh my god. Did mountainman... just agree with somebody he was debating with? :O
I agree with people all the time, although typically if I agree I don't make a post saying "I agree" because that's kind of pointless

> Whether they're justified is irrelevant. This bill has very worrying implications and flaws, the fact that they're able to bring it in doesn't change this.
> implying implications
Basically they want to be able to accredit "Christian counsellors" who will work for churches and other religious institutions through state universities. That is my understanding of the purpose of the law.

> Of course it implies that. How does it not imply that?
Because law doesn't determine morality. Hence law doesn't lend moral approval to things.

> Not especially. When I say legitimise, I mean that it'll make people see homophobia as acceptable, thus encouraging people to be more homophobic.
But this isn't the case. Are you arguing that Christians had disavowed their ancient religious dogma because of a few decades of statutes? Or are you arguing that people are all repressed homophobes, only restrained by law?

> I'm not being particularly moral about it, just noting that this bill would have a negative effect (encouraging homophobia).
I'm not saying you're "being moral about it", I'm saying you are attributing a moral dimension to legislation that doesn't exist.

> The fact that we're not the employer doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on this.
oh yeah have an opinion but some people think they are not just entitled to an opinion but an active say in how others run their lives

Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,186

All I have to say is, "are you really that surprised?" Everyone knows heteros are the laziest fucks on earth. Does it honestly surprise you they'd hide behind religion to get out work?

Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 45 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,200

> mountainman

damlol

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,206

@398,145 (D)
> So you are going to go the route of arguing "that "counselling" has an objective meaning that can't be altered by statue"?
In most cases, yes, of course it does. Unless they're some Christian counsler, which this person wasn't, they shouldn't bring in their personal beliefs.

Again, this person's job specifically involved dealing with a diverse range of people. Argue about the definition of counselling all you want, but this is a fact.

> Basically they want to be able to accredit "Christian counsellors" who will work for churches and other religious institutions through state universities. That is my understanding of the purpose of the law.
Student counselling is an inappropriate place for it then, given the diversity of the student body. Again, why not roll our similar laws for racists or sexists? It's blatant homophobia.

> But this isn't the case. Are you arguing that Christians had disavowed their ancient religious dogma because of a few decades of statutes? Or are you arguing that people are all repressed homophobes, only restrained by law?
Dude what. Christian dogma is persistent, and not everybody is a repressed homophobe. This has nothing to do with the fact that a law legitimising homophobia will encourage homophobia. People with homphoboc beliefs are going to interpret this as the local government approving of their beliefs.

> I'm not saying you're "being moral about it", I'm saying you are attributing a moral dimension to legislation that doesn't exist.
Every law carries implications. The laws against murder imply that murder is wrong. Laws against rape imply that rape is wrong. A law letting homophobes to avoid gays within their profession implies that they have a legitimate reason to do so. Morals don't really come into it.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 40 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #398,227

@398,142 (D)
They dont currently have a choice, they would with bills like this.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 13 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,524

@398,206 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> In most cases, yes, of course it does. Unless they're some Christian counsler, which this person wasn't, they shouldn't bring in their personal beliefs.
There is no "of course" about it. This is a highly controversial statement to make and most people would dispute that words have objective or intrinsic meaning. Do you really support this?

> Student counselling is an inappropriate place for it then, given the diversity of the student body.
My guess is the state doesn't trust them without the immediate supervision of the university.

> Again, why not roll our similar laws for racists or sexists? It's blatant homophobia.
Because the state has no interest in accrediting race or sex counsellors, but they do in accrediting religious counsellors.

> the fact that a law legitimising homophobia will encourage homophobia.
lol no it won't. It would only allow homophobes to be homophobes.

> People with homphoboc beliefs are going to interpret this as the local government approving of their beliefs.
So you actually agree with me re: only homophobes repressed by law would continue to be homophobes?

> Every law carries implications. The laws against murder imply that murder is wrong. Laws against rape imply that rape is wrong.
These moral dimensions precede the law. Murder and rape are wrong, so we made laws against them.

> A law letting homophobes to avoid gays within their profession implies that they have a legitimate reason to do so.
No, it doesn't at all. Not prohibiting smoking or obesity doesn't legitimise them.

> Morals don't really come into it.
Just because you keep saying "legitimise" doesn't mean that aren't referring to laws lending moral approval to things

Anonymous D double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 43 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,526

@398,227 (A)
So people who freely chose to wash blacks now, wouldn't? Sounds incredibly unlikely hey

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,539

@previous (D)
They arent free now, because they would lose their jobs, and wouldnt be able to sue.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,569

@previous (A)
They chose to get a job washing blacks lol

please try to keep up

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 9 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,586

@398,524 (D)
> There is no "of course" about it. This is a highly controversial statement to make and most people would dispute that words have objective or intrinsic meaning. Do you really support this?
So your counter-point is trying to argue about what a counsler actually does? You haven't actually said anything against my statement that Christian beliefs usuallu have no place in such a profession.

> Because the state has no interest in accrediting race or sex counsellors, but they do in accrediting religious counsellors.
But what about freedom of association? Your arguments keeps changing. First you say that you're in favour of it because you view it as freedom of association, now you're in favour because you think that the state needs specifically religious counslers?

Also, nobody has said anything about them having a specific interest in training religious counslers, the purpose of the law is to let homophobes avoid gays.

> > the fact that a law legitimising homophobia will encourage homophobia.
> lol no it won't. It would only allow homophobes to be homophobes.
Dude. You've pretty much agreed with what I just said.

> So you actually agree with me re: only homophobes repressed by law would continue to be homophobes?
No, people who weren't necessarily too homophobic before may interpret this as the government support homophobia. But again, you're agreeing with me that it will encourage homophobia, ergo making it a bad law.

> These moral dimensions precede the law. Murder and rape are wrong, so we made laws against them.
Okay, since you're so fixated on morals, what "moral" precedes this law? Homophobia is acceptable, that's what.

> No, it doesn't at all. Not prohibiting smoking or obesity doesn't legitimise them.
How does it not imply that they have a legitimate reason? If the local government felt that there wasn't a legitimate reason for homophobes to avoid gays, would they have suggested this law?

> Just because you keep saying "legitimise" doesn't mean that aren't referring to laws lending moral approval to things
dude you're the one who keeps brining up morals

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 31 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,589

@398,569 (D)
every job that they pick makes them deal with blacks. thanks

!KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,615

She should not be forced to provide counselling against their religious belief, but failing her from her course for not doing so was the right thing to do. You can't pick and choose things you do in your class, either you do your work or you fail the class.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,697

@398,589 (A)
> dealing with blacks = washing the fetid asshole of an aged negro

you are so crazy. you pass because you type normally

Anonymous D double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,707

@398,586 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> So your counter-point is trying to argue about what a counsler actually does? You haven't actually said anything against my statement that Christian beliefs usuallu have no place in such a profession.
Is the deliberate misspelling just to rile me? My point is that as an accredited occupation "counsellor" is defined by statute. The legislation says that Christian beliefs do have a place in the profession.

> But what about freedom of association? Your arguments keeps changing. First you say that you're in favour of it because you view it as freedom of association, now you're in favour because you think that the state needs specifically religious counslers?
I'm allowed to have multiple arguments to support a premise....

> Also, nobody has said anything about them having a specific interest in training religious counslers, the purpose of the law is to let homophobes avoid gays.
They don't have to say this explicitly, it's the obvious inference.

> Dude. You've pretty much agreed with what I just said.
Are you using the same word for thoughts and actions?

> No, people who weren't necessarily too homophobic before may interpret this as the government support homophobia. But again, you're agreeing with me that it will encourage homophobia, ergo making it a bad law.
But the government's support doesn't make an act moral or immoral. If people were opposed to homophobia, they will remain so. If they were opposed to homosexuality, they will remain so.

> Okay, since you're so fixated on morals, what "moral" precedes this law? Homophobia is acceptable, that's what.
Me? Your whole argument is that laws (or the lack of) make thing morally permissible. You think you can escape this by (mis)using other words, but you can't. A great mass of people think homosexuality is a grave moral disorder and do not support it. That is what enabled this bill to pass.

> How does it not imply that they have a legitimate reason?
> How does it not
Is this a serious question? It just doesn't. Unless you think the government "legitimises" everything there isn't a law against.

> If the local government felt that there wasn't a legitimate reason for homophobes to avoid gays, would they have suggested this law?
Now the definition of legitimate is in question. Some would argue that someone wanting to avoid gays is a legitimate reason in and of itself (freedom of association). Others may argue on more practical grounds that it would do society good (because of the higher level of care people would receive) if religious counsellors and pastors received a level of formal training in counselling, and this law enables them to receive this training at state universities.

> dude you're the one who keeps brining up morals
sigh

Anonymous D triple-posted this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,708

@398,615 (!KThEOwLwbU)
> You can't pick and choose things you do in your class, either you do your work or you fail the class.
And now that's not part of the class.

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 20 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,862

@previous (D)

Removing part of a class because of the opinion of a bigot is wrong. It should remain part of the class and the bigot should be removed, not the other way around. Any thing else is statist facism

(Edited 3 minutes later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #398,865

@398,142 (D)

It does where I work. Many racists would prefer not to interact with blacks on the job, if they could also keep that job.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 day later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,209

@398,862 (!KThEOwLwbU)
> democratically-elected representatives setting the rules of a state-owned and state-run university is bad
at least you're not like an idiot or something

Anonymous D double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,211

@398,865 (A)
Your argument is silly everywhere. Firstly, because it has no relevance to the case in the OP. Secondly, because you are saying that people who are willing to wash the fetid assholes of senile negroes are actually racist bigots.

kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,214

@previous (D)
Many are racists, I know because I work with them. Currently where I live, there are no job opportunities that allow people to completely avoid blacks.
Also, I work with some people who hate gays, and they would love to avoid them. Are you really trying to say that bigots never work in the health care field? You live in a fantasy world.

kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,215

@399,211 (D)
What you've basically said is that no one can be a racist, if they are willing to serve blacks, when the truth is there are no jobs where they are only around whites, or straight people, or Christians. Take waitressing. Some waitresses think that blacks don't tip, and so don't want to serve them If they refused to do so, they would get fired.

kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) triple-posted this 4.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,218

@399,211 (D)
Recently, a new co worker told me that she left her last retirement home, because there were too many gay people there. lol We had only met twice, and she decides to tell me that. But she had no choice in not dealing with them. If she were allowed to not take care of gay patients, but also keep her job, she would have taken that choice.

kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) quadruple-posted this 4.3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,219

A question for the fora:

Have any of you known a racist, or homophobe, that would refuse to deal with the particular type of person that they hate, if they could still keep their job, and make money? I know many.

kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) quintuple-posted this 4.3 years ago, 23 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,223

@399,211 (D)
I've noticed that you've used the term "fetid" twice. Are you disgusted by the miracle of life that god created?

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 8 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,338

@398,707 (D)
> The legislation says that Christian beliefs do have a place in the profession.
Just because the legislation says something doesn't automatically make it right. I thought you'd be against what the state says, bud.

> They don't have to say this explicitly, it's the obvious inference.
You're saying this while also claiming that it doesn't imply that homophobia is legitimate. You're twisting what it implies to suit your own argument.

> But the government's support doesn't make an act moral or immoral. If people were opposed to homophobia, they will remain so. If they were opposed to homosexuality, they will remain so.
So tour solution to homophobia is apathy and concession? Don't think that'll work, somehow. And why are you suddenly placing so much importance on what the government says?

> It just doesn't
Quality argument there, mountainman.

> Now the definition of legitimate is in question. Some would argue that someone wanting to avoid gays is a legitimate reason in and of itself (freedom of association).
But it's not. Would it be a legitimate reason for racists? How about sexists?

> Others may argue on more practical grounds that it would do society good
Yeah, segregation has a great track record for improving society.

> (because of the higher level of care people would receive)
Letting counslers flippantly reject people based on things they can't help doesn't improve care. It makes it more awkward for people to get help.

Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,339

@399,211 (D)
You are a fucking queen. First, because you are homosexual in the case of the OP. Secondly, because you are saying that people who are saying things are not actually saying. Thirdly, beause you are a comlpete douche.

tldr; you are a moron.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 13 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,343

This thread is quickly becoming the Texas thread part 2: electric boogaloo.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,351

@399,209 (D)

> elected representatives

Statism

Anonymous L replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,367

@399,223 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
He is rabidly racist

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4.3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,370

@previous (L)
His messiah, Ron Paul, has expressed his dislike for blacks, so it must be right.

(Edited 26 seconds later.)

Syntax joined in and replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,384

@399,218 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)

> Recently, a new co worker told me that she left her last retirement home, because there were too many gay people there. lol We had only met twice, and she decides to tell me that. But she had no choice in not dealing with them. If she were allowed to not take care of gay patients, but also keep her job, she would have taken that choice.

Probably the stigma of Gays being diseased-unclean -

I have a friend who is a Lesbian and she is one of those who does the peck on lips upon greeting - but get this - she will not kiss a gay guy on the lips. Y? Because she thinks about places gay guys put put or place lips on - U may have to think about this cause its still too early for me to sprel it out.

(Edited 46 seconds later.)

Anonymous J replied with this 4.3 years ago, 45 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,396

@399,370 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
See also: biblical bullshit about race

kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 3 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,506

@399,367 (L)
I agree. He's also tried to insult me in another thread, by referencing my leg hair, which is strange because god made me that way.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 6 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,686

@399,214 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
> completely avoid blacks
> washing the dicks of incontinent negroes
lol there is literally nothing in between these two scenarios!

Anonymous D double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,692

@399,338 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Just because the legislation says something doesn't automatically make it right.
So you're doubling down on your "words have objective meanings" argument?

> You're twisting what it implies to suit your own argument.
I could say the same for you. Meaningless.

> So tour solution to homophobia is apathy and concession? Don't think that'll work, somehow.
Non-state action isn't apathy or concession. This is the Bastiat's socialist fallacy "If we say we don't want the state to do something, they think we don't want it to be done at all."

> And why are you suddenly placing so much importance on what the government says?
I am addressing you argument on its own terms.

> Quality argument there, mountainman.
A suitable response to "It just does"

> But it's not.
A highly ironic thing to say consider the above.

> Would it be a legitimate reason for racists? How about sexists?
If you consider people an end in and of themselves, yes. You may not hold this, though.

> Yeah, segregation has a great track record for improving society.
Are you suggesting atheists should be "integrated" into churches? What else could such a statement mean?

> Letting counslers flippantly reject people based on things they can't help doesn't improve care. It makes it more awkward for people to get help.
These people would be counselling anyway. Now they have training from state universities.

Anonymous D triple-posted this 4.3 years ago, 40 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,693

@399,351 (!KThEOwLwbU)
> proving my point

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 27 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,719

@399,686 (D)
Tell me the difference, It would involve most healthcare work.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 26 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,720

@399,686 (D)
also lolololololololololol you're always having so much fun.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,725

@399,719 (A)
how about every job that doesn't involve washing someones genitals?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 13 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,737

@previous (D)
So would doctors, and nurses count, because they often handle genitals.

Anonymous L replied with this 4.3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,743

@399,725 (D)
Kill yourself. Immediately.

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 7 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,822

@399,693 (D)

That you're a statist facist? Ron Paul 2016 legalize decadence

Also only the university should decide who is and isn't allowed to be in the university, not the government

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 27 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,831

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
> the state shouldn't run the state-run university
at least you're not like an idiot or something

Anonymous D double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 19 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,832

@399,737 (A)
Serious questions only please.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,834

@previous (D)
That was a serious question. Is it possible for racist nurses and doctors to exist?

(Edited 7 minutes later.)

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,842

@previous (A)
> how about every job that doesn't involve washing someones genitals?
> what about job that involves washing genitals?
fuck off, you're either trolling or retarded and I have no time for either

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,845

@previous (D)
So, could a nurse be a racist?

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 48 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,846

@399,842 (D)
Also: calling people retards, its what jesus would so.

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,858

@399,831 (D)

> the university shouldn't be allowed to run itself
> except for in most things where it does run itself
> just not when I don't like the things it decides to do
> and then I'm all for the rule of law
> hi I'm mountainman and I think the government shouldn't make people do things, except when I think that they should in which case I think that the government should make people do those things
> hi I'm mountainman and I am a massive gaping anus

(Edited 4 minutes later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,861

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
He's also okay with the government shutting down abortion clinics and trying to pass heartbeat amendments. Because I guess, libertarians dont believe in bodily autonomy, when it involves sexually active women.

(Edited 6 minutes later.)

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,865

@previous (A)

It makes me laugh how he complains about how the government should not have the power to make everyone do things he does not agree with, like paying taxes, and denies their authority to pass laws requiring him to do those things, but when he has his own opinion about how how the country should be, like by criminalising abortion, he suddenly begins defending the government's power and supporting their authority to pass laws.

Anonymous L replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #399,872

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
He's a fascist, not a statist.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 3 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #401,671

@399,858 (!KThEOwLwbU)
> the university shouldn't be allowed to be run by the people who own it and fund it
> >except for in most things where it like what they chose
> >just not when I don't like the things it decides to do
> >and then I'm all for the rule of law
> >hi I'm ash and I think the government shouldn't let people do things, except when I think that they should in which case I think that the government should let people do those things
> >hi I'm ash and I am a massive gaping anus

at least you're not stupid

Anonymous D double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #401,672

@399,861 (A)
@399,865 (!KThEOwLwbU)
> if a person argues that taxation is wrong they are forbidden from expressing a preference on what the state should do with tax money

it helps that everyone who opposes me is very stupid

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #401,714

@previous (D)

You argue that the state itself is wrong, retard.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #401,716

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
Exactly the same argument...

> if a person argues that the state is wrong they are forbidden from expressing a preference on what the state should do

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #401,719

@401,671 (D)

This is nonsense. It's like you copy-pasted my post and then tried to edit it to apply to me, except you failed horribly. I mean, it's not even exposing some hypocrisy like in the original.

> I think the government shouldn't let people do things, except when I think that they should in which case I think that the government should let people do those things

Yeah, I do. That's how it works. I think they should allow some things and disallow other things, it's funny how you think that's supposed to be a conflicting opinion like yours.

!KThEOwLwbU double-posted this 4.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #401,721

@401,716 (D)

Doublethink.

kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #401,727

@401,719 (!KThEOwLwbU)
I've heard Repub politicians do this. Paul Ryan was like that. He didnt believe in federal aid going to states, but since it happens, he'll take it.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #401,840

@401,721 (!KThEOwLwbU)
Literally retarded.

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 2 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #402,573

@previous (D)

Quality argument.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #402,739

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

that means shit coming from you

kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #402,745

@402,573 (!KThEOwLwbU)
The child molester is judging you. Quick, strike back!

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #402,748

@402,739 (D)

It's strangely fascinating how you leave arguments you lose by sacrificing your dignity. You've been wrong in every other argument you've ever made and you were wrong again this time. The post I'm quoting is as contemptible and cretinous as the person making it. You're an abject failure at everything you've ever done and unless your parents are as unintelligent as you are, they are deeply, deeply ashamed of you. The world would be a little bit brighter for everyone if you went out and got eaten by dingos.

kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 4.3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #402,751

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
They should have put him down after the first grooming. Thats a parent's responsibility.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #402,813

@402,748 (!KThEOwLwbU)
> lose
You actually claimed that to argue a second preference isn't an attempt to reach consensus, isn't pragmatism, etc. but hypocritical. You're an idiot. Implausibly stupid. I actually have a suspicion that you're trying to troll me by saying such nonsense.

Anonymous L replied with this 4.3 years ago, 12 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #402,873

@previous (D)
> moving goalposts

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 38 seconds later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #402,874

@402,813 (D)

When your "second preference" is the polar opposite of your first preference, then I feel comfortable in calling you hypocritical. If you were looking for consensus you'd try and go for the middle ground, not let the "other side" have their way. Also considering that the definition of consensus is "an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole", coming to one about discriminating against a minority group seems quite impossible.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 day later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #403,307

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
> state shouldn't do anything
> if the state must do something, do things I like
> polar opposites
so dumb

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 13 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #403,407

@previous (D)

> state should do nothing
> state should do something
> these are not polar opposites

Yeah

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 10 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #403,583

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
> what is a conditional clause

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #403,750

@previous (D)

> the state doing something is not the state doing something when they only do things i like. when they do that they're not actually doing something

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #403,751

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
> what is a conditional clause

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #403,753

@previous (D)

> I'm going to insist that a conditional clause means anything when it doesn't

squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #403,761

the most narrow-minded, bigoted people i know always end up being christian.
can't just be a coincidence.

Anonymous L replied with this 4.3 years ago, 51 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #403,766

@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
inb4 correlation vs causation from mountainpedo

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 8 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #403,935

@403,753 (!KThEOwLwbU)
no one could be that stupid...

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.3 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #403,943

@previous (D)

> What do you mean I want the government to do something?
> How ridiculous!
> I didn't say that at all!
> I said I want the government to do things when I like the things it does!

Anonymous D replied with this 4.3 years ago, 37 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #403,945

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
> what is a conditional clause

you're like 20 years old

there's no way you don't understand the word "if"

(Edited 14 seconds later.)

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 1 day later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,271

@previous (D)

Would you like to explain to me what the presence of your condition means? Whether the government is doing something you like or whether they are doing something you aren't, they're still doing something, which is the opposite of doing nothing.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,287

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
> Would you like to explain to me what the presence of your condition means?
wtf man

> if |if|
> conjunction
> 1 introducing a conditional clause.
> - on the condition or supposition that; in the event that:

Yes, not-x is the opposite of x. It is not hypocritical to desire not-x IF x is unavailable. That you would continue to assert this demeans you.

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,294

@previous (D)

> It is not hypocritical to desire not-x IF x is unavailable.

You talk about wanting a glorious anarcho-capitalist society but as soon as that would result in something you disagree with happening, you suddenly become an advocate of an authoritarian state.

the x in question is abortion and it is already available. You wish for not-x over x and yet deride others for the same thing for things that inconvenience you, like having to pay tax.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 53 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,301

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)

> You talk about wanting a glorious anarcho-capitalist society but as soon as that would result in something you disagree with happening, you suddenly become an advocate of an authoritarian state.
Not at all. Anarchy is my preference, but if not that, I would like that the state act in ways I agree with.

> the x in question is abortion and it is already available. You wish for not-x over x and yet deride others for the same thing for things that inconvenience you, like having to pay tax.
wtf are you talking about, this is a thread about counselling

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,333

@previous (D)

Who gives a fuck, you've done it for abortion too.

Gay tolerance then, whatever. Same sentence except with that.

If anarchy was your preference then you would have supported the rights of this university to kick out that student and opposed the new law.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous J replied with this 4.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,352

@404,301 (D)
Kill yourself.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,355

@404,333 (!KThEOwLwbU)
> Who gives a fuck, you've done it for abortion too.
everyone cares about thread derailings

> Gay tolerance then, whatever. Same sentence except with that.
The sentence still doesn't make sense.

> If anarchy was your preference then you would have supported the rights of this university to kick out that student and opposed the new law.
If the state is funding the university I want it accountable to the state. I would prefer the state not fund the university.

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 14 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,516

@previous (D)

> If the state is funding the university I want it accountable to the state.

even if the state is doing an evil act?

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 13 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,666

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
The state is doing an evil act in the very funding, so that question is kind of pointless.

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 11 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,771

@previous (D)

So two wrongs DO make a right in your opinion?

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 19 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,912

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
How you can infer that I will never know. You're either an idiot or a liar.

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #404,920

@previous (D)

You think the state funding a university is evil.
You think the state exerting power is evil.
You think the state exerting power over a university it funded is good.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 10 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #405,082

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
> conflating objective and subjective
> false dichotomy of evil and good
> what is a conditional clause

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 13 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #405,297

@previous (D)

> I'm mountainman and when I can't argue with something I either use the term 'ad hominem' or 'false dichotomy'.
> Also repeat myself over and over again.

(Edited 26 seconds later.)

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 8 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #405,492

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
> keep making the same argument
> confused when you keep getting the same reply

> denies false dichotomies exist rather that admit to having made one

it's more fun when you are so obviously, painfully, wrong

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 57 minutes later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #405,545

@previous (D)

> claims someone is making the same argument
> when what is actually happening is that he keeps making the same response to the arguments which prompts a rehash of the argument

> claims that I made a false dichotomy rather than summarising his own views
> hopes i will be swept up in an argument about technicalities about the post and forget why i made the post in the first place

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #405,667

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
> fallacious arguments are only a technicality
> continually claim that conditional clauses mean nothing
> wonder why no one is taking you seriously

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 22 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #406,313

@previous (D)

> fallacious argument
> not a summary of your views

> claim that it means something in this case despite logic to the contrary
> deny that people would take me more seriously than you

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #406,386

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
> not a summary of your views
yeah that's my point

> claim that it means something in this case despite logic to the contrary
yes "logic" tells me that conditional clauses have literally no meaning

i guess other blind people might put credence in a blind man's directions...

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 10 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #406,461

@previous (D)

> My views aren't my views when they show me to be inconsistent! That's fallacious!
> I'm going to insist you have a fallacious argument for using the term "evil" even though I did it myself!

> I'm going to focus on only the first half of the sentence and use it to strawman my opponent.
> By doing so, I can ignore the conditional clause to continue arguing that conditional clauses always, ALWAYS, change the meaning of a sentence.
> I don't even realise that I just made the most ironic post in Minichan history.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mountainman.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #406,472

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)

> it is literally impossible for someone to mischaracterize another persons views
> if I don't understand a fallacy, it's not a fallacy

I can't believe you are actually arguing that the word "if" has no meaning
this is hilarious
i still think you're trolling, nobody could be that dumb

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 5 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #406,567

@previous (D)

> I can't believe you are actually arguing that the word "if" has no meaning

In the context of the argument that a government doing something is a government doing something regardless of any "ifs", yes I am.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 16 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #406,865

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
that's not the argument. the argument was whether it was hypocritical to have a preference order of 1. x and 2. not-x . obviously it is not, but you continue to assert that it is. unless you have just been majorly confused this whole time and didn't realize that is what you were saying

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #406,884

@previous (D)

By phrasing it as "x" and "not-x", you deny the polarity of the two. It's actually "x" and "opposite of x". Plus there is more than one thing being argued about since you keep shifting goalposts and focusing on new things. For the argument mentioned in @406,567, (!KThEOwLwbU) see your evasion tactics in @405,082 (D).

Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 4.2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #406,886

200 get!!!

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #407,078

@406,884 (!KThEOwLwbU)
not-x is literally the opposite of x.

you're right, that is not the only argument being made. you think i'm being a hypocrite for having a preference order of 1.x and 2. not-x and you think that the conditional clauses have no meaning.

both are retarded and immediately wrong

!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 4.2 years ago, 15 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #407,264

@previous (D)

> not-x is literally the opposite of x.

No, a not-x is simply something that is not x. In this case not-x is the opposite of x, but it's phrased in a way which would deny that. Like calling sickfuck pedophiles like you "child lovers", it's technically correct in every way except for the meaning.)

> you're right, that is not the only argument being made. you think i'm being a hypocrite for having a preference order of 1.x and 2. not-x and you think that the conditional clauses have no meaning.

> you think i'm being a hypocrite for having a preference order of 1.the government not existing and people being free to do whatever they would without interference and 2. the government being authoritarian and banning things, and you think that the fact i only want them to ban things I don't personally like has no meaning.

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 14 hours later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #407,585

@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
> No, a not-x is simply something that is not x.
the opposite of something that is x is something that is not x
omg you are such a sophist lol

pedophile literally means child lover
academic usage is in line with this
only plebs use it colloquially to mean sexual abuser of children

i can't tell if you are trolling or actually just very stupid
you're not doing obviously trolly shit like walter so i'm leaning towards you're just dumb

squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 4.2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #407,591

@previous (D)
but not-x could equal y or z, which aren't the opposite of x... it's simple algebra, moron.

Also, you're the only one here who looks dumb. it's... the way you debate. It's like you learned all of the things that people do to ruin debating (such as using logical fallacies and the like to confuse the argument) and you purposefully use them to try and "win" an argument, especially when you're wrong (or just stupid.) I haven't decided if you took high school debate and learned what not to do, and do the opposite to troll, or if you're just dumb.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say it's the latter.

(Edited 26 seconds later.)

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #407,628

@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)

not-x is the opposite of x

you are embarrassing yourself to suggest otherwise

Anonymous N replied with this 4.2 years ago, 20 minutes later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #407,634

> i can't tell if you are trolling or actually just very stupid
Ad hominems are MM's sign of retreat! You're in good shape here, squeegee.

squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 4.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #407,636

@407,628 (D)
not-x could have any value that isn't the opposite of x. say x is a number, like 4. Not 4 could be, well, infitiy number of things, even chains. chairs are not 4, and that would fit the parameters of not-x.
now if you said -x is the opposite of x you'd have an argument. lrn 2 logic.

(Edited 53 seconds later.)

squeegee !first/o5zA double-posted this 4.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #407,637

and you can even extend -x is the opposite of x to whatever you like, even chairs.
negative chairs is the opposite of chairs.
nice and reasoned.

(Edited 22 seconds later.)

Anonymous D replied with this 4.2 years ago, 1 day later, 4 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #407,912

@407,636 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
i would be happy to concede this as I would be validated by it (state doing something isn't the opposite of state doing nothing; state doing everything would) but I am still not sure about it

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 2.8 years ago, 1.4 year later, 1.5 year after the original post[^] [v] #495,595

@402,748 (!KThEOwLwbU)
damlol

Mountainman = rekt

Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 2.8 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1.5 year after the original post[^] [v] #495,597

I love fags because I am a San Franciscan.
If you’re dissing on my homos
then this censure’s what you’re risking
(I’m insisting on containing my temper but listen up):
you shouldn’t ought to be intolerant about who queers like to fuck!

Fags are great. They’ve got hundreds of uses.
You can see them on TV explaining what puce is.
Abstruse is the world, but very simple is the homo:
he or she is anyone who’s keen to do another one more so
than the opposite. Follow?
Fags are great ‘cause almost every single one swallows —
or so I’m led to believe. Lesbians also I’ve heard of,
not to mention non-gender-identified spivaks seeking nerd love.
And I’ve spurned just about everything there is,
‘cause I was born here, and here’s where I live.
Here, I give you this advice: love a fag today,
either up close and personally or from far away.
See, fags are gay, and gay’s a good adjective.
It means like happy and high, but you had to just
shy me away from the topic of my fag-love...
something maybe that you’re lacking in? Don’t get mad just
‘cause you don’t have such a big heart as Frontalot.
You could love fags too! You already think dykes are hot.
Why not come on down to the street fair?
There’s asses in chaps plus rough trade to meet there,
some of whom been barebacking it in back alleys for years.
Yo, I promise if you visit you could meet some queers.
And if you love even just one, hooray!
If you don’t, well I hope you enjoyed your stay,
and I hope you go on your merry way
with the chorus of my song slowly turning you gay.

And you don’t love fags. This much is apparent.
You’re having nightmares about them. Every time you get your hairs cut,
you stare what you suspect could be a queer man
in the eye, in the mirror, enzymes coming out your fear gland.
He’s got scissors near your eardrums!
You might lose your hearing, you don’t watch it with these queer ones.
And here comes your presidential cheerleader now,
so “disturbed” by the marriages in my home town
that he’s got to take the tip top law in the land down
scribble on it: “I hate homos, big bad frown.”
Put it back up, be like “What? It’s better!
Y’all were with me a second ago
when I said that marriage was threatened!
And it was! Under siege by these villains.
Can you believe they wanted to gang up and have children?
Tthere would be an army of them, teeming and thronging,
tempting every American to give in to forbidden longing.
I thought they couldn’t reproduce. That was their weakness!
Now what are we gonna do? They’re gonna seek just
treatment under the law? Dammit, that’s like saying
it’s okay to be gay. Or a lesbian! Hey man,
you cannot say that. Society would crumble and fall apart.”
I’ll think about that on the BART,
gladdening every inch of the ride
to be on the way to the where-I-reside:
not just a place where I keep my stuff,
but the spot got plenty of the kind of person that I love.

Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 2.8 years ago, 4 hours later, 1.5 year after the original post[^] [v] #495,638

slay the gay
:
[upload]

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting, also keep in mind you can minify URLs using MiniURL and generate image macros using MiniMacro.