There's too many hate for Christians around the World

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Bhav said:

The part of Darwins theory which has not been *proven* true is natural selection leading to new species (at least within the animal kingdom). 

 

 

His original example with finches was flawed, because its not provable that they had diverged into seperate species that could not reproduce.

 

For example, we look at the human influenced variation in the genetics of dogs, we see a much wider and diverse range of variation and physical features. Yet no matter how extreme the difference between two differemt BREEDS of dogs, they still remain the same species as they can reproduce and create fertile offspring.

 

The definition of what makes a species seperate (in the animal kingdom) is that it cannot breed with another species to create fertile offspring. It is very likely true that while Darwin's finches displayed physical variation, they were still the same species but different breeds, and like dogs could still reproduce.

 

So basically, the diversification of a current species into two entirely new ones has yet still not been observed, at least not within animals (it has in protozoa, but thats because the definition of species is different fr single celled organisms).

 

 

P.S. I only studied humans so have no clue about the plants side of it (non human biology was boring to me, and I substituted those modules for a music minor).

 

P.P.S Archeological digs of human and other animal fossils is also an entirely different thing, but still is not a clear observation of natural selection leading to new species in animals.

Except that's not what the theory states. Natural selection doesn't eliminates the less adequate competitors. It just makes the adaptations that work better more likely to reproduce and pass on said mutations. Over a very long period of time this eventually creates new species. Nowhere does it says that the species that do not adapt automatically die under Natural Selection is perfectly acceptable and even likely than the previous species it's still successful enough to continue to thrive but the new species can adapt to new environments: kinda why even though most land creatures have sea ancestors we still have plenty of creatures in the sea still: the old species continue to thrive on their old environment but the mutated ones are able to break new ground and instead become the fittest to survive under a completely new paradigm.

 

Seriously so many of you call darwinian evolution a fantasy and so far you all expect us to take it as an absolute fact without actually discussing why it's wrong as if it's somehow ok to criticize Darwin to still be "scientific"

 

Guess what? To quote Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So excuse me if I don't take your word for it people but explain why Natural Selection is supposedly disproven.

[Albatross]

On 7/30/2016 at 5:31 AM, valdyrgramr said:

I'll look back at it when I have a bit more free time.  I give a better response when my head isn't in Destiny/more in Ancient Civ mind.

ahaha that's understandable. Any time you can is fine for me.

 

On 8/2/2016 at 6:30 PM, colonelsofcorn said:

The Old Testament is still entirely valid, except for the specific parts that Jesus fulfilled. Homosexuality and many other sins are still sins to this day. 

False. Don't spread what you believe what Laws were fulfilled or not by Jesus. He fulfilled the entire Law of the Moses and all that came before him, not "some of them". 

 

(Matthew 5:17-18)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”

 

Please also see the translation of what "abolish" came from, which is the word "kataluo" ("to loosen" or as used classical with connection to law "to invalidate"). He didn't say this once or just twice, either. Jesus said on multiple occasions he was to fulfil the Law of Moses (Pentateuch), especially all "concerning him".

 

I don't see at all where you could even begin to say he only fulfilled "specific parts" and came through that the only thing he didn't fulfil was "homosexuality is a sin". In all, Jesus did not come to rival or destroy the Law, but to fulfil it all for us. So valid? Of course. We are to use it as a guide, to understand the Lord and where we stand today, but we are not to follow the Law any more nor acknowledge it as Law as Christians/Catholics/etc. It is the whole point of Jesus Christ.

 

If you are going to harbour disgust or whatever you want to call it for gay people, don't use the Bible to back it because the Bible never states homosexuality is a "sin". Not once. The word "sin" and "homosexual" is never once used in the original text (with the later not even existing as a word at the time) nor even in the translations that we have.

 

What are told is that "unnatural sex" is "detestable" when Paul witnesses grown men raping little boys and when men planned to rape two of God's angels—that's all for straights too, not "just" homosexuals. But if we are to believe that because the Bible says unnatural sex is sinful it = homosexuality is sinful doesn't that also mean that being straight is also a sin? Or do you naively believe the Bible thinks unnatural sex is only a sin when engaged by homosexuals or that straight people do not engage in unnatural sex?

[stconquest]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Except that's not what the theory states. Natural selection doesn't eliminates the less adequate competitors. It just makes the adaptations that work better more likely to reproduce and pass on said mutations. Over a very long period of time this eventually creates new species. Nowhere does it says that the species that do not adapt automatically die under Natural Selection is perfectly acceptable and even likely than the previous species it's still successful enough to continue to thrive but the new species can adapt to new environments: kinda why even though most land creatures have sea ancestors we still have plenty of creatures in the sea still: the old species continue to thrive on their old environment but the mutated ones are able to break new ground and instead become the fittest to survive under a completely new paradigm.

 

Seriously so many of you call darwinian evolution a fantasy and so far you all expect us to take it as an absolute fact without actually discussing why it's wrong as if it's somehow ok to criticize Darwin to still be "scientific"

 

Guess what? To quote Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So excuse me if I don't take your word for it people but explain why Natural Selection is supposedly disproven.

I believe with the Finches, the theory is the bird mutations split the flock into two thriving variations due to the overpopulation of the bird species.  Some birds developed to hunt for one food source, the other to a second food source and the ones that could not adapt would eventually die off.  By spitting the food sources up allowed the birds to not need to compete as much for a single food source.

 

We have evidence that land mammals took the the seas and lost their freaking legs.  A change in beak shape is not a big deal.

 

Essentially, Darwin was not wrong... although he had to have been wrong about some of the theories he put forth.  When you can't access the data, you are left to your imagination.  He had a limited amount of access to the natural world, as do we today.  His limits are not ours though.

[colonelsofcorn]

6 hours ago, stconquest said:

Let me answer the same way you post:  You're wrong, I don't see any legitimacy to your statement.

 

@dalekphalm  I hope you understand that corn will most likely want you to do all the explaining/rationalizing for his statements.  I don't think he really knows what the hell he is saying.

 

You are more patient then me, so at least you won't blow up on him.  I really want to avoid exchanges with him.  We are not saying the same thing.

It's true though. Darwinian evolution cannot scientifically hold up, so I have the absolute right to claim there is no legitimacy. 

[colonelsofcorn]

4 hours ago, Albatross said:

ahaha that's understandable. Any time you can is fine for me.

 

False. Don't spread what you believe what Laws were fulfilled or not by Jesus. He fulfilled the entire Law of the Moses and all that came before him, not "some of them". 

 

(Matthew 5:17-18)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”

 

Please also see the translation of what "abolish" came from, which is the word "kataluo" ("to loosen" or as used classical with connection to law "to invalidate"). He didn't say this once or just twice, either. Jesus said on multiple occasions he was to fulfil the Law of Moses (Pentateuch), especially all "concerning him".

 

I don't see at all where you could even begin to say he only fulfilled "specific parts" and came through that the only thing he didn't fulfil was "homosexuality is a sin". In all, Jesus did not come to rival or destroy the Law, but to fulfil it all for us. So valid? Of course. We are to use it as a guide, to understand the Lord and where we stand today, but we are not to follow the Law any more nor acknowledge it as Law as Christians/Catholics/etc. It is the whole point of Jesus Christ.

 

If you are going to harbour disgust or whatever you want to call it for gay people, don't use the Bible to back it because the Bible never states homosexuality is a "sin". Not once. The word "sin" and "homosexual" is never once used in the original text (with the later not even existing as a word at the time) nor even in the translations that we have.

 

What are told is that "unnatural sex" is "detestable" when Paul witnesses grown men raping little boys and when men planned to rape two of God's angels—that's all for straights too, not "just" homosexuals. But if we are to believe that because the Bible says unnatural sex is sinful it = homosexuality is sinful doesn't that also mean that being straight is also a sin? Or do you naively believe the Bible thinks unnatural sex is only a sin when engaged by homosexuals or that straight people do not engage in unnatural sex?

If you think Jesus fulfilled all Old Testament law, then there is absolutely no law found in the Bible. Jesus fulfilled certain laws, which is why all things aren't still practiced. Homosexuality is not biblically sanctioned and that's where I stand on that issue.

[MrDynamicMan]

1 hour ago, colonelsofcorn said:

It's true though. Darwinian evolution cannot scientifically hold up, so I have the absolute right to claim there is no legitimacy. 

How exactly cant it? It has been evidently proven. What parts of it dont check out? It has been consistently proven, and anything otherwise is willful ignorance or lack of understanding. 

 

"Religion is an ever shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance."

-Niel degrasse Tyson

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, colonelsofcorn said:

If you think Jesus fulfilled all Old Testament law, then there is absolutely no law found in the Bible. Jesus fulfilled certain laws, which is why all things aren't still practiced. Homosexuality is not biblically sanctioned and that's where I stand on that issue.

Is not only not sanctioned is explicitly forbidden. And not that I want to incite an in war here though I am genuinely curious: How do you deal with Christians that say "Oh well Jesus didn't forbid it, the old testament is only for Jewish people" which is an argument I've heard from Christians countless of times, even on this thread (I think).

[MrDynamicMan]

In response to the OP. your comparison of Christians to black/hispanic/W. E. ethnic group simply doesn't work. Those are physical traits they were born with, and I will not judge someone based on a a part of their physicality that they have no control over. However, I will  judge someone based on their choices, and insisting on ignorantly believing something even in the face of insurmountable evidence. You have to be willfully blind and ignorant to insist that God is real and everything in the bible is true. That Is why I give Christians flak, because they are intentionally ignorant to the objective truth. 

[dalekphalm]

8 hours ago, stconquest said:

I believe with the Finches, the theory is the bird mutations split the flock into two thriving variations due to the overpopulation of the bird species.  Some birds developed to hunt for one food source, the other to a second food source and the ones that could not adapt would eventually die off.  By spitting the food sources up allowed the birds to not need to compete as much for a single food source.

 

We have evidence that land mammals took the the seas and lost their freaking legs.  A change in beak shape is not a big deal.

 

Essentially, Darwin was not wrong... although he had to have been wrong about some of the theories he put forth.  When you can't access the data, you are left to your imagination.  He had a limited amount of access to the natural world, as do we today.  His limits are not ours though.

 

5 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

How exactly cant it? It has been evidently proven. What parts of it dont check out? It has been consistently proven, and anything otherwise is willful ignorance or lack of understanding. 

 

"Religion is an ever shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance."

-Niel degrasse Tyson

The thing about Darwinian Evolution is that it shouldn't ever even be discussed anymore.

 

Yes, the overall theory was grounded with good facts and observations. But here is the fundamental problem with Darwinian Evolution: It's using 1800's Biology and Science.

http://www.livescience.com/3305-time-put-darwin-place.html

Evolution - as it should be referred to, if speaking of the current accepted model, is true, and is an evolution (lol) of Darwin's theory. But Darwin was limited by the science and understanding of the time, and of the lack of technology to do further investigations.

 

I can't say what @colonelsofcorn's motivations are - they seem to be somehow nefarious - but on this specific point, he's not wrong. Darwinian Evolution is outdated and should be left in the dirt.

 

Evolution, though, is fact, backed by many years of research and experimentation and empirical evidence.

 

I think that's the confusion here. Some of you are taking it as a personal attack against science that Darwin's theories were, by today's standards, pretty damn simplistic and very incomplete. Science isn't wrong. Evolution isn't fake. But Darwin is quite out dated now.

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

The thing about Darwinian Evolution is that it shouldn't ever even be discussed anymore.

 

Yes, the overall theory was grounded with good facts and observations. But here is the fundamental problem with Darwinian Evolution: It's using 1800's Biology and Science.

http://www.livescience.com/3305-time-put-darwin-place.html

Evolution - as it should be referred to, if speaking of the current accepted model, is true, and is an evolution (lol) of Darwin's theory. But Darwin was limited by the science and understanding of the time, and of the lack of technology to do further investigations.

 

I can't say what @colonelsofcorn's motivations are - they seem to be somehow nefarious - but on this specific point, he's not wrong. Darwinian Evolution is outdated and should be left in the dirt.

 

Evolution, though, is fact, backed by many years of research and experimentation and empirical evidence.

 

I think that's the confusion here. Some of you are taking it as a personal attack against science that Darwin's theories were, by today's standards, pretty damn simplistic and very incomplete. Science isn't wrong. Evolution isn't fake. But Darwin is quite out dated now.

I honestly can't tell if you're naiive or disengenious here but you should know that some of the cornerstones of Creationist rhetoric are ad hominem attacks on Darwin and an intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of the theory of evolution by natural selection stating things like "Microevolution is proven but Macroevolution is a myth" (hint; they're the same fucking thing) and "Darwin was a racist who created his theory to support Eugenetics!" (Irrelevant to the validity of his findings).

 

What you state however is accurate: his theory is not so much disproven so much as it has been greatly expanded as we continue to gain a lot of knowledge and such. But the core principles like Evoution and Natural Selection are proven facts of science today.

[MrDynamicMan]

12 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The thing about Darwinian Evolution is that it shouldn't ever even be discussed anymore.

 

Yes, the overall theory was grounded with good facts and observations. But here is the fundamental problem with Darwinian Evolution: It's using 1800's Biology and Science.

http://www.livescience.com/3305-time-put-darwin-place.html

Evolution - as it should be referred to, if speaking of the current accepted model, is true, and is an evolution (lol) of Darwin's theory. But Darwin was limited by the science and understanding of the time, and of the lack of technology to do further investigations.

 

I can't say what @colonelsofcorn's motivations are - they seem to be somehow nefarious - but on this specific point, he's not wrong. Darwinian Evolution is outdated and should be left in the dirt.

 

Evolution, though, is fact, backed by many years of research and experimentation and empirical evidence.

 

I think that's the confusion here. Some of you are taking it as a personal attack against science that Darwin's theories were, by today's standards, pretty damn simplistic and very incomplete. Science isn't wrong. Evolution isn't fake. But Darwin is quite out dated now.

Whilst what you say is correct, IMO its a trivial difference. When peopel say "evolution" or "Darwinian evolution" odds are theyre talking about the same thing, thr current model of evolution.

 

I also seriously doubt he knows the distinction between the two, and even if he does he could be using "darwinian evolution is bullshit so evolution must be too." or something like that. My point is that it is more of a technicality than an important philosophical argument.

[ace_cheaply]

On 7/23/2016 at 2:29 AM, wcreek said:

 

Again, if a business refuses to serve gay people. Which in turn they lose substantial profit to the point they can no longer operate that is capitalism. But as I did also say arguing whether or not a business should or shouldn't be able to determine who they will or will not serve on the grounds of sexual orientation and their own religion turns into a bit of a revolving door. One argument is that by.

You say religion should be a private matter, but that your fine with a PRIVATE business being fined 100,000 for their beliefs.  Talk about hypocrisy.  Either you believe people have a right to their own beliefs, or you believe that your beliefs should be enforced on them.  Those are the only two options in this situation.  I'm an atheist, and i have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with a business serving whoever they want.  What happened  to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," these days it's "you better serve me if I'm gay or I'll fucking sue you." It's pathetic.  Capitalism isn't suing or fining until a business has to shut down...It would be those gay people spreading the word, and people who share their beliefs refusing to go there, organically reducing business and proving your point with your wallet. IF enough people agree with you, the profits go down and the business either is forced to change or the one across the street will take all of their customers.  That is fucking capitalism. The entitlement of people these days disgusts me. 

[Misanthrope]

14 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

You say religion should be a private matter, but that your fine with a PRIVATE business being fined 100,000 for their beliefs.  Talk about hypocrisy.  Either you believe people have a right to their own beliefs, or you believe that your beliefs should be enforced on them.  Those are the only two options in this situation.  I'm an atheist, and i have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with a business serving whoever they want.  What happened  to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," these days it's "you better serve me if I'm gay or I'll fucking sue you." It's pathetic.  Capitalism isn't suing or fining until a business has to shut down...It would be those gay people spreading the word, and people who share their beliefs refusing to go there, organically reducing business and proving your point with your wallet. IF enough people agree with you, the profits go down and the business either is forced to change or the one across the street will take all of their customers.  That is fucking capitalism. The entitlement of people these days disgusts me. 

So as long as is private businesses we should also send the negros to the back of the bus and their own bathrooms? They should have their own schools too?

 

Capitalism is not absolute, that would be complete fucking chaotic madness. We must have limits to the market and discrimination based on who you are as a person should be one of them.

 

For example I respect your right to disagree with this point and state it so. As loudly as you want. But what you're doing is arguing intolerance because you don't get to be intoletant. That's a non-sequitor you don't have the right to impose your faith on others and that includes discriminating on the basis of a different faith, race, sexual orientation,etc.

 

[ace_cheaply]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

So as long as is private businesses we should also send the negros to the back of the bus and their own bathrooms? They should have their own schools too?

 

Capitalism is not absolute, that would be complete fucking chaotic madness. We must have limits to the market and discrimination based on who you are as a person should be one of them.

 

For example I respect your right to disagree with this point and state it so. As loudly as you want. But what you're doing is arguing intolerance because you don't get to be intoletant. That's a non-sequitor you don't have the right to impose your faith on others and that includes discriminating on the basis of a different faith, race, sexual orientation,etc.

 

Um, i'm not sure if you're aware, but there are private businesses that don't allow white people in, naacp, all black colleges, all black channels, so yes, I believe that private business can discriminate. 

 

I completely disagree. Be as intolerant as you want, just don't expect not to suffer social consequences in the form of no friends and economic consequences in the form of loss of business. I DO believe capitalism should be left to function unopposed in most situations.  Public defenders and hospitals and those cases would be the obvious exception, but they're not exactly private now are they. 

[ace_cheaply]

11 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

 you don't have the right to impose your faith on others and that includes discriminating on the basis of a different faith, race, sexual orientation,etc.

 

I don't have faith, for one.  Secondly, discriminating on the basis of a different faith...You mean, like suing someone for not wanting to serve you? Do we have forced labor now, where you can't decide where and when to work if the other person is a protected class.  That is NOT equality, it is privilege.  I don't have to work for you if i don't fucking want to, and i shouldn't owe you anything for it.

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

I DO believe capitalism should be left to function unopposed in most situations.  Public defenders and hospitals and those cases would be the obvious exception, but they're not exactly private now are they. 

We had that: it resulted in child labor, 16 hours per day shifts, people being paid only in foodstamps that would barely feed them, hundreds of thosuands dying due to job injuries, mass widespread oppression of people, you name it.

 

You will not like to hear this but if it wasn't for Marxism during the late 19th century and early 20th century we wouldn't have any kind of reform when it comes to workers rights and fair and reasonable work ours, fair compensation, etc. And we would still be making people work more than pack animals.

 

The market didn't fix any of that if anything, we had to fix the fucking market and regulate it, as it should be.

 

[dalekphalm]

39 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Whilst what you say is correct, IMO its a trivial difference. When peopel say "evolution" or "Darwinian evolution" odds are theyre talking about the same thing, thr current model of evolution.

 

I also seriously doubt he knows the distinction between the two, and even if he does he could be using "darwinian evolution is bullshit so evolution must be too." or something like that. My point is that it is more of a technicality than an important philosophical argument.

Trivial, perhaps to those of us who understand evolution (at a basic level at least) and understand it's importance.

 

But yes I realize that Creationists use "Darwin was wrong" as an attack against the scientific method and against evolution (Of course substituting Creationism as the "true" method of human creation).

 

The thing is, the sooner we drop "Darwinism" or "Darwinian Evolution" as a term, the more we can disassociate from those Ad Hominem attacks. There no longer is a "Darwinian Evolution". It's just Evolution. Which, all three of us here know is correct and factually supported by evidence.

 

@Misanthrope It's not so much as me being naive, but rather, having discovered a new understanding on WHY we must stop mentioning Darwin when talking about Evolution - especially when talking with a Creationist.

 

There's no reason to ever talk about Darwin in conjunction with Evolution anymore, unless we're simply talking about historical perspective or a straight up History Lesson. If we're talking about modern Evolution, it's so far past where Darwin was, that they only have a basic resemblance. Modern Evolution includes things like DNA (Which straight up wasn't discovered until 10 years after Darwin published his Theory), and other advanced scientific concepts that literally didn't exist yet in the 1850's.

54 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I honestly can't tell if you're naiive or disengenious here but you should know that some of the cornerstones of Creationist rhetoric are ad hominem attacks on Darwin and an intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of the theory of evolution by natural selection stating things like "Microevolution is proven but Macroevolution is a myth" (hint; they're the same fucking thing) and "Darwin was a racist who created his theory to support Eugenetics!" (Irrelevant to the validity of his findings).

 

What you state however is accurate: his theory is not so much disproven so much as it has been greatly expanded as we continue to gain a lot of knowledge and such. But the core principles like Evoution and Natural Selection are proven facts of science today.

 

I hope that helps you both understand my position, and why I say "Darwin was wrong" - he wasn't wrong on everything - most of his Theory is still the basic foundation for what became Modern Evolution, but he definitely got some things wrong, and other things he never even considered because it was decades or centuries before humans would discover certain aspects of science.

[ace_cheaply]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

We had that: it resulted in child labor, 16 hours per day shifts, hundreds of thosuands dying due to job injuries, mass widespread oppression of people, you name it.

 

You will not like to hear this but if it wasn't for Marxism during the late 19th century and early 20th century we wouldn't have any kind of reform when it comes to workers rights and fair and reasonable work ours, fair compensation, etc. And we would still be making people work more than pack animals.

 

The market didn't fix any of that if anything, we had to fix the fucking market and regulate it, as it should be.

 

Yes, the morality of the industrial revolution was shitty, but guess what, instead of child labor here, it just moves to China.  I'm not saying that makes it correct, it is morally repugnant. But if we didn't allow outsourcing, and removed the child labor laws, you honestly believe there would be a rampant child labor problem in the US now?  The labor unions started organically apart from the marxist movement during the 1880's, as far as I know.  

I'm not for a completely free market, but I'm for a hell of a lot more free market than we have now. 

[Misanthrope]

Oh ok so you're basically trying to take away a bad argument before is made I get it. I don't necessarily agree with the tactict but I can see your reasoning behind it, carry on then.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, ace_cheaply said:

You say religion should be a private matter, but that your fine with a PRIVATE business being fined 100,000 for their beliefs.  Talk about hypocrisy.  Either you believe people have a right to their own beliefs, or you believe that your beliefs should be enforced on them.  That's the only two options in this situation.  I'm an atheist, and i have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with a business serving whoever they want.  What happened  to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," these days it's "you better serve me if I'm gay or I'll fucking sue you." It's pathetic.  Capitalism isn't suing or fining until a business has to shut down...It would be those gay people spreading the word, and people who share there beliefs refusing to go there, organically reducing business and proving your point with your wallet. The entitlement of people these days disgusts me. 

A business whether it be publicly traded or privately own can't and shouldn't have a religion because businesses aren't people.

 

Also in what world is it okay to discriminate against someone on something they can't change? Such as sexual orientation or gender identity. Are you trying to say that if some company wants to say deny people of a difference race service because their personal religion says so, is that okay or is it racist? Because I think that most people would call it racist.

 

Now I think 100,000 was a bit harsh of a fine for that business but they did kind of violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

I'm an agnostic atheist too but again, I don't think a business should have the right to discriminate because of their personal beliefs or views. Now for other reasons a business could deny. I'm saying that denying service is necessarily a bad thing but when they're doing it for no better reason than because the customer is for example, gay and their personal religion says that being gay is wrong or something. That's not a good reason to deny service to someone.

 

1 minute ago, ace_cheaply said:

Um, i'm not sure if you're aware, but there are private businesses that don't allow white people in, naacp, all black colleges, all black channels, so yes, I believe that private business can discriminate. 

 

I completely disagree. Be as intolerant as you want, just don't expect not to suffer social consequences in the form of no friends and economic consequences in the form of loss of business. I DO believe capitalism should be left to function unopposed in most situations.  Public defenders and hospitals and those cases would be the obvious exception, but they're not exactly private now are they. 

White people can watch those "Black channels" and "all black colleges" are intended for african americans but I think that they'd probably let people in even if they weren't black. 

 

And actually some hospitals are privately owned.

[ace_cheaply]

11 hours ago, wcreek said:

A business whether it be publicly traded or privately own can't and shouldn't have a religion because businesses aren't people.

 

Also in what world is it okay to discriminate against someone on something they can't change? Such as sexual orientation or gender identity. Are you trying to say that if some company wants to say deny people of a difference race service because their personal religion says so, is that okay or is it racist? Because I think that most people would call it racist.

 

Now I think 100,000 was a bit harsh of a fine for that business but they did kind of violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

I'm an agnostic atheist too but again, I don't think a business should have the right to discriminate because of their personal beliefs or views. Now for other reasons a business could deny. I'm saying that denying service is necessarily a bad thing but when they're doing it for no better reason than because the customer is for example, gay and their personal religion says that being gay is wrong or something. That's not a good reason to deny service to someone.

 

White people can watch those "Black channels" and "all black colleges" are intended for african americans but I think that they'd probably let people in even if they weren't black. 

 

And actually some hospitals are privately owned.

Is it ok to have a Black Entertainment Television, affirmative action, female only scholarships, the naacp, gay/transgender scholarships, diversity quotas or all black schools? Are they not discriminating on the basis of race and sexual orientation and gender?  Is that okay or is it racist/oppression/sexist?  A business, especially a small business IS its owners.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, ace_cheaply said:

Is it ok to have a Black Entertainment television, affirmative action, the naacp, gay/transgender scholarships, diversity quota's or all black schools? Are they not discriminating on the basis of race?  Is that okay or is it racist?  A business, especially a small business IS it's owners.

It is actually NOT ok and it actually IS racist and sexist practices operating under an utterly false premise: that there's a group of people that are inherently oppressors based on nothing else than their genitals or their melanin levels on their skin.

 

So yeah 100% agreed.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, ace_cheaply said:

Is it ok to have a Black Entertainment television, affirmative action,female only scholarships the naacp, gay/transgender scholarships, diversity quota's or all black schools? Are they not discriminating on the basis of race and sexual oreintaion and gender?  Is that okay or is it racist/oppression/sexist?  A business, especially a small business IS it's owners.

BET, Affirmative Action, Female only scholarships, and Black only scholarships I agree are racist/sexist.  Again, I did say that "all black schools" aren't actually all black, they do admit people who aren't black to those schools. Historically they were all black because African americans couldn't go to college with whites at the time.

However, I don't think I'm aware of LGBT scholarships.

 

Sure but again that doesn't mean that its owners have the right to discriminate.

[ace_cheaply]

 

7 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Again, I did say that "all black schools" aren't actually all black, they do admit people who aren't black to those schools. Historically they were all black because African americans couldn't go to college with whites at the time. However, I don't think I'm aware of LGBT scholarships.

 

Sure but again that doesn't mean that its owners have the right to discriminate.

Fair enough

 

http://www.hrc.org/scholarship-database/c/california

 

Alright, we'll I'm much more libertarian than you. I believe people/businesses who discriminate should be shunned and organically punished, not through lawsuits for hurt feelings. 

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

 

Fair enough

 

http://www.hrc.org/scholarship-database/c/california

 

Alright, we'll I'm much more libertarian than you. I believe people/businesses who discriminate should be shunned and organically punished, not through lawsuits for hurt feelings. 

C'mon it's more than hurt feelings and you know it (At least, most of the time).

Sure, there's occasionally someone who abuses the system to get what they want - but that kind of person exists in every kind of human population - religious, athiest, gay, black, Hispanic, white, Russian, Beaver (I mean Canadian), etc.

 

Getting denied service at a business because of nothing more than the fact that you are gay is NOT JUST HURT FEELINGS.

 

That's like saying "Oh well, all those thousands of businesses who denied Black People work or made them work for pennies and hide in the back rooms so no one could see a "coloured folk" running around wild, well those black people just had hurt feelings!"

 

Hell no. Now, I'm not one of those white people who has collective white guilt. I've known friends of every race there is, my fiancee is native american, and I fucking hate racism. But I never personally owned any slaves or pushed for racist laws. My grandparents weren't even alive yet when Slavery was a thing. I owe no debt to any person simply because of their race.

 

But to deny that they faced real hardship and discrimination and racism? And just call it hurt feelings? That's quite simply naive at best, and disingenuous/nefarious at worst.

 

Laws like that, that force equal rights and force anti-discrimination laws, exist because people, inherently, aren't good. Society will often take advantage of another group when it can give them an edge by doing so. Businesses are even more likely to take advantage. Small businesses are at more risk for the owner letting his personal opinions affect the way he does business.

 

These laws exist for a reason. I understand you're a Libertarian and want to let "society and the market" decide punishment, but guess what? That doesn't work in real life, or it takes absurdly much too long (We're talking decades of hardship and suffering so that a business can finally be "punished" by society.

 

You can argue that a $100,000 fine is too much. But arguing that the law shouldn't exist at all? No. If there is a problem with the system, fix the problem. Don't throw the system away because there's one tiny issue you have with it, that is easily fixable.