Lurker > Mr Lasastryke

Most of the regulars who posted here in 2004 are now gone, so the "nobody leaves" thing isn't really true.

"Nobody who makes a goodbye topic really leaves" is still undeniable, though!

Annie Hall

If there hadn't been a bunch of username changes, you'd recognize even more names!

yup. and if their audience thinks that makes them racist and leads them to boycott the show, the free market is working!

The problem with this logic is that you let people suffer to come to a solution of the problem, in this case by being discriminated.

This is always the problem with "let the free market correct itself" logic. It's comparable to how advocates of the free market think every employer should be allowed to fire all their employees overnight for no reason at all. "If an employer does this, their company will go bankrupt and the free market will have corrected itself once again!" Marvelous, too bad all the former employees have died of starvation in the meantime.

I recognize that I'm not the intended audience and think they should be free to discriminate using whatever criteria they want because the are a private organization that presumably receives no federal funding and what they do has no direct impact on me.

So you'd be fine with them refusing to let black women enter?

interesting stuff on freedom of speech, I recommend it to everyone in this topic:



You expect me to listen to a 15-minute clip by a Communist?! Pfft. I'm going back to the Ron Paul topic to watch the 200 YouTube videos posted there.

As I said before, many people don't view transgendered individuals as more then a lifestyle choice, and hence they feel it is acceptable to discriminate against people that chose their lifestyle as opposed to being unable to choose their race.

I was asking what you think about this, not "many people".

the scope of these two scenarios is not the same, as I outlined previously

I'm not sure how that's relevant, though. Do you think it's more acceptable to discriminate against genders than races?

memes that are overused.

which is pretty much all of them, unfortunately.

i hate these topics

a lot

May I ask what you mean by "these topics"? I don't think we frequently have topics with 280+-posts-arguments on women who've undergone a sex change.

What TVontheRadio said. Most hyped for The Dark Knight Rises, but interested in how the superhero team thing in The Avengers is going to turn out.

Procrastination =! laziness.

Right?

Basically that single parents (I single-out the moms because I was talking specifically about "dealbreakers" when dating) are not heroes. That rather than hold them up as role models, society should hold them up as failures and examples of what NOT to do.

What other people said. I can agree that there's no reason to hold single moms up as role models, but some of them do a fine job raising their child(ren). And your "society should hold them up as failures" stance is ridiculous.

bump

You advocate an interventionist policy sometimes, and a non-interventionist one other times.

Duh? Yeah, I decide what my opinions are by looking at the specific situations, rather than always advocating the same policy regardless of these situations. What a concept!

To promote "stopping Texas from becoming sovereign" is to promote intervening in the political affairs of Texas, is it not?

Sure, but my point is that it's not necessarily hypocrisy to say that the government should do different things in different situations. Following your reasoning, I'd be a hypocrite if I support the death penalty as punishment for a murderer, but not a burglar. I don't get why if you think government intervention is bad in one single instance - the war in Iraq - you automatically have to think government intervention is bad in all possible instances.

To oppose non-intervention in foreign policy, but not domestically, is just sort of hypocritical.

Not really. You really don't see a difference between stopping Texas from becoming sovereign and sending troops to Iraq to fight a war?

I'm sure you meant to say there's no such thing as leftist NON-interventionists.

Plenty of leftists advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy. Contrary to popular belief (among some people), we don't see everything in terms of black and white.

Leftists aren't going to dispute it until we come to a war they agree with. Leftists have an amazing ability to believe that they are for peace and have always been for peace during the times when they are for peace, completely forgetting the times when they were for war.

not sure if serious

bump

"The leftists" don't want a global currency. Some leftists do. Some rightists do as well.

Everything in Its Right Place

Can we have Ron Paul as president but Ben Bernanke as economic czar? RP can cut out all the government spending and borrowing, but Bernanke can keep the money printing going.

I like how you make it sound like government spending and borrowing aren't economic issues >_>

bump

bump