Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you're against same sex marriage you're __________________.

Fill in the blank.

Penist

Not minding your own gd business.

Doesn't have a T on the end.

I'm confused 😝

bigoted

Originally posted by Klaw
If you're against same sex marriage you're __________________.

Fill in the blank.


If you're against blacks having their own schools, you're a racist.

And if you say blacks should have their own schools....

Originally posted by cdtm
If you're against blacks having their own schools, you're a racist.

And if you say blacks should have their own schools.... Geeze I wonder why telling a historically marginalized/controlled group what they can and can't have would both be considered racist hmmmmm

This might be a tough one to figure out...

Originally posted by Newjak
Geeze I wonder why telling a historically marginalized/controlled group what they can and can't have would both be considered racist hmmmmm

This might be a tough one to figure out...

Wouldn't that include forced integration via the state ? I wouldn't want to be forced to go to school in china town or Mexican town.

People tend to self segregate.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Wouldn't that include forced integration via the state ? I wouldn't want to be forced to go to school in china town or Mexican town.

People tend to self segregate. And are you getting forced to do those things?

What forced integration are you talking about? Like are you talking about the forced integration of interracial schools back in the civil rights era?


These are important contextual questions that need to be asked.

They also don't change my original specific point to CDTM

Originally posted by Newjak
And are you getting forced to do those things?

What forced integration are you talking about? Like are you talking about the forced integration of interracial schools back in the civil rights era?


These are important contextual questions that need to be asked.

I'm not personally forced to do much, however I live in a culture where this is the case.


Yes on the civil rights movement, but also in general. My focus here is on the inclusion of the State. If two people wish to associate, in any capacity, I'm about that and would fight for it.

Politics is also downstream from culture, meaning integration would have likely happened anyways. Making the civil rights laws being passed a political win via using minorities as pr pawns. Laws like the civil rights movement hurt minority races and hurts race relations overall.

Do other countries have laws similar to the civil rights movement ? How did it go for them ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'm not personally forced to do much, however I live in a culture where this is the case.


Yes on the civil rights movement, but also in general. My focus here is on the inclusion of the State. If two people wish to associate, in any capacity, I'm about that and would fight for it.

Politics is also downstream from culture, meaning integration would have likely happened anyways. Making the civil rights laws being passed a political win via using minorities as pr pawns. Laws like the civil rights movement hurt minority races and hurts race relations overall.

Do other countries have laws similar to the civil rights movement ? How did it go for them ? Are you not familiar with U.S. history?

There was no integration happening in the south naturally? In fact the opposite was happening and they were doing everything in their power to keep minorities separate from them.

Originally posted by Newjak
Are you not familiar with U.S. history?

There was no integration happening in the south naturally? In fact the opposite was happening and they were doing everything in their power to keep minorities separate from them.

I'm not familiar but apparently your past dictates your future and it seems racist.

It's not complex, the colour of someone's skin shouldn't be an issue. I don't get it. Why is this even an issue?

No more then someone's religion.

Well I'll stop you there. All religions are bs this is obvious.

Originally posted by Newjak
Are you not familiar with U.S. history?

There was no integration happening in the south naturally? In fact the opposite was happening and they were doing everything in their power to keep minorities separate from them.

Who is they ? If it's individuals, I would be okay with that. If by they you mean the state then no bueno.

Forced integration or forced segregation are wrong. If the south was segregationist, why didn't blacks move to the north ?

P.s. https://mises.org/wire/age-entitlement-legacy-anti-discrimination-laws

Originally posted by Blakemore
Well I'll stop you there. All religions are bs this is obvious.

Buddhism and jainism can be okay, but that's about it.
And even those are anti human in certain aspects.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Well I'll stop you there. All religions are bs this is obvious.



Not obvious to everyone however.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Buddhism and jainism can be okay, but that's about it.
And even those are anti human in certain aspects. no.l

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Who is they ? If it's individuals, I would be okay with that. If by they you mean the state then no bueno.

Forced integration or forced segregation are wrong. If the south was segregationist, why didn't blacks move to the north ?

P.s. https://mises.org/wire/age-entitlement-legacy-anti-discrimination-laws This almost screams of satire because you have to be joking

Originally posted by Newjak
This almost screams of satire because you have to be joking



I'm not, just uneducated. Also, reducing someone's view to simple absurdity is the tactic of the narcissist and why I made the steelmanning thread, in which I personally discovered the difficulty of seeing someone else's side of things.
What core concepts am I missing on your end of things ?

Have you ever heard the phrase "the poverty of diminished expectations ?

I posted the article not to prove a point, but to see what you think of it.
It's an economist, whose views I respect, critiquing a book that critiques the civil rights movement. Thought it was an interesting third angle outside of just calling the civil rights movement good or bad.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'm not, just uneducated. Also, reducing someone's view to simple absurdity is the tactic of the narcissist and why I made the steelmanning thread, in which I personally discovered the difficulty of seeing someone else's side of things.
What core concepts am I missing on your end of things ?

Have you ever heard the phrase "the poverty of diminished expectations ?

I posted the article not to prove a point, but to see what you think of it.
It's an economist, whose views I respect, critiquing a book that critiques the civil rights movement. Thought it was an interesting third angle outside of just calling the civil rights movement good or bad. Yeah I'm going to assume you need to read some more on the civil rights era, also the preceding eras, if your best reply was this and why didn't the African American population move north.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah I'm going to assume you need to read some more on the civil rights era, also the preceding eras, if your best reply was this and why didn't the African American population move north.

Of course i would, I want to read more about everything.

I'm trying to meet you where you're at while being transparent about my biases. I'm a libertarian.

That question wasn't an aha gotcha attempt, I was genuinely asking you because you speak with authority on the subject. Was there laws passed that didn't let people move or something ?

You also didn't even try to answer if youve heard of the poverty of diminished expectations e.g. ivy league Universities grading at sat scores by race, which resulted in law suits from asians grouped because asian women had to score higher than white men, or how it's had a serious detrimental impact on academia, or how affirmative action students don't have confidence because they're unsure if they're there based on merit or melanin.

Originally posted by Klaw


Not obvious to everyone however. unfortunate

Lol

Originally posted by Klaw
If you're against same sex marriage you're __________________.

Fill in the blank.



Of course if you are against interracial marriage you are racist.


There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" I don't give a shit what the Supreme Court or anyone else says. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Of course if you are against interracial marriage you are racist.


There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" I don't give a shit what the Supreme Court or anyone else says. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

Facts do not care about your feelings.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Of course i would, I want to read more about everything.

I'm trying to meet you where you're at while being transparent about my biases. I'm a libertarian.

That question wasn't an aha gotcha attempt, I was genuinely asking you because you speak with authority on the subject. Was there laws passed that didn't let people move or something ?

You also didn't even try to answer if youve heard of the poverty of diminished expectations e.g. ivy league Universities grading at sat scores by race, which resulted in law suits from asians grouped because asian women had to score higher than white men, or how it's had a serious detrimental impact on academia, or how affirmative action students don't have confidence because they're unsure if they're there based on merit or melanin. Even if you don't understand the era you should understand why it is hard for poor undermined minorities to simply pack up and leave. There are logistical needs that make it harder to get out.

You also assume the North was a beacon of help. While yes the North was "better" biases in the North still existed.

This has been well documented in many studies you can go look up. For instance in order to move you need a place to live and some sort of income. It's been proven that minorities, especially African Americans, were and still are less likely to given equal treatment when trying to procure the above. It's been shown having an ethnic name on your resume can reduce your chances of even getting an interview.

Affirmative action was created to overcome the problem of repressed minorities needing to get more work experience to overcome the generational gaps other races getting a leg up.

So how would you handle that?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Buddhism and jainism can be okay, but that's about it.
And even those are anti human in certain aspects. An interesting thing about Buddhism: in Japan, where Buddhism was the prevalent school of thought, they didn't have disaster relief because Buddhism said that "everything happens for a reason", "life is suffering and we can do nothing about it", etc. Disaster relief was founded (with great difficulty) by Kagawa Toyohiko, a Christian. Buddhism would have been content with having people continue to unnecessarily suffer, whilst Christianity brought in a humane system of support that is now considered standard practice.

I find it funny that people realize that being against interracial marriage is racist yet their logic stops working when they can't apply the same logic to same sex marriage.

Also.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Facts do not care about your feelings.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Of course if you are against interracial marriage you are racist.


There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" I don't give a shit what the Supreme Court or anyone else says. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

Originally posted by Scribble
An interesting thing about Buddhism: in Japan, where Buddhism was the prevalent school of thought, they didn't have disaster relief because Buddhism said that "everything happens for a reason", "life is suffering and we can do nothing about it", etc. Disaster relief was founded (with great difficulty) by Kagawa Toyohiko, a Christian. Buddhism would have been content with having people continue to unnecessarily suffer, whilst Christianity brought in a humane system of support that is now considered standard practice.

Yeah that's why I said they have anti human components. That's why I'm an Austrian, praxeology's first axiom is that people have unlimited wants and that finite resources exist.

We only have this life, any system that turns people away from that truth is very ugly.

Originally posted by Klaw
I find it funny that people realize that being against interracial marriage is racist yet their logic stops working when they can't apply the same logic to same sex marriage.

Do you think that there aren't principled positions against gay marriage ?

Originally posted by Newjak
Even if you don't understand the era you should understand why it is hard for poor undermined minorities to simply pack up and leave. There are logistical needs that make it harder to get out.

You also assume the North was a beacon of help. While yes the North was "better" biases in the North still existed.

This has been well documented in many studies you can go look up. For instance in order to move you need a place to live and some sort of income. It's been proven that minorities, especially African Americans, were and still are less likely to given equal treatment when trying to procure the above. It's been shown having an ethnic name on your resume can reduce your chances of even getting an interview.

Affirmative action was created to overcome the problem of repressed minorities needing to get more work experience to overcome the generational gaps other races getting a leg up.

So how would you handle that?

The facts are that single parent income destroys a child's chance for a future. Single parent households in the black community directly correlates to the amount of welfare benefits received, since the new deal.

Black slaves had a higher marriage rate than modern blacks, and I think it would be pretty silly to argue that conditions for blacks now are worse for them than during slavery.

Youd handle it by changing the culture. Look to asian americans who sacrifice heavily for education, and make 20k more a year than the median income for whites.
Or east indie blacks who come to america and make more than whites, do you think nigerians have white names ?
If America blacks don't want to be successful, that's fine, but I don't think it's very empowering for them to cast as wide of a net as possible that calls them all victims.

What about all the black millionaires ? Did people throw money at them for being black ? Or because they provide value ?

I could send you videos or articles, but I noticed you don't respond well to that/address them.

Lastly, I wouldn't do anything about it other than live my life in a generous and compassionate way. The impulse to have some magical leader come wave his hands to fix problems is the problem.

**** all marriages

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Of course if you are against interracial marriage you are racist.


There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" I don't give a shit what the Supreme Court or anyone else says. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

What do you base this belief on?

@robtard

What do you think of this perspective on marriage ?

https://mises.org/library/marriage-under-influence-idea-contract

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@robtard

What do you think of this perspective on marriage ?

https://mises.org/library/marriage-under-influence-idea-contract Quickly skimmed it, will read later. But the "contract" thing is intriguing. Though we already have a form of that in the form of prenuptial agreements.

But I've never liked that our tax system can favor or not favor people depending if they're married. That needs to go.

Originally posted by Robtard
Quickly skimmed it, will read later. But the "contract" thing is intriguing. Though we already have a form of that in the form of prenuptial agreements.

But I've never liked that our tax system can favor or not favor people depending if they're married. That needs to go.

I'm looking forward to your response.

I think that about the taxes as well. To me, creating financial incentives in a system that should be built on something outside of that would be a obvious cause of ultra high divorce rate.

If getting married had no incentives and it was a institution built on mutual sacrifice less bad actors would get married.

What do you think about it? Likes, dislikes?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Do you think that there aren't principled positions against gay marriage ?

Principled?

Sure.

But that doesn't mean the principles are based in anything good or moral.

Originally posted by Robtard
What do you base this belief on?

His God, which has zero proof or evidence for existing.

Originally posted by Robtard
What do you think about it? Likes, dislikes?

I always reflect on our mutual self interest can lead to, not necessarily, immoral actors acting morally.

In the case of marriage, the evolution of marriage via contract empowered women to be on equal footing with men, minimizing the benefit of coercion through violence.
This was a huge beautiful stride towards the full realization of ubiquitous property rights.

This is why mixing the monopolization of force that is the state with a mutually agreed upon, and thus implicitly non violent (outside of mma or boxing aka mutually agreed upon combat) agreement can only distort it as an institution.

I'm not sure I dislike any opinion in the article.
I don't like the catholic church in general.
However they serve as an example of a social institution, one of the most powerful on the planet, that really wants something, but largely lost their crusade against ending divorce.

This can be contrasted with the political class' ability to act with relative imputiny e.g. starting and maintaining wars, nation building, interfering with business, incarcerating a huge percentage of it's population largely over non violent crimes etc.
And hence why I think the state is a unique organization, whose control is so deep people can't fathom removing it, which always reminds me of the ussr, nk, or any other dictatorial nation.

Originally posted by Klaw
Principled?

Sure.

But that doesn't mean the principles are based in anything good or moral.

Hmmm interesting point. Can I probe this a little ?

I'm an atheist, thus christian principles are mostly moot, therefore christian conclusions would never be correct to me.
Is this something like what you mean ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Hmmm interesting point. Can I probe this a little ?

I'm an atheist, thus christian principles are mostly moot, therefore christian conclusions would never be correct to me.
Is this something like what you mean ?

Feel free to probe.

No.

I'm agnostic myself.

I mean exactly what I said.

Just because you have principled reasons, doesn't mean they're good or moral.

Originally posted by Klaw
Feel free to probe.

No.

I'm agnostic myself.

I mean exactly what I said.

Just because you have principled reasons, doesn't mean they're good or moral.

I'm not trying to trick you, I was giving the analogy about religion because I wouldn't respect the principles of christian ideas and was seeing if that's what you meant about having immoral or bad principles.

I'll see if I can try an example but with less controversial material.

Hypothetical: if a guy was chugging a liter of soy sauce, based on the (bad/incorrect) principle that soy sauce is a detoxifying substance.

Is that an example of what you mean by having bad or immoral principles ?

Sure.

Originally posted by Klaw
Sure.

Okay, I completely agree with you then.

Reminds of the ayn rand quote:

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
What do you think about it? Likes, dislikes?

Gay marriage is more or less the "final straw" for them. They lost the culture war in terms of defending marriage as an institution.

Marriage itself has historically been a mechanism to perpetuate and protect family.

In practice, this of course meant ignoring abuses like tyranical husbands, or turning the eye against infidelity. It did generally result in shaming husbands and wives into sticking together though.

One thing the Right wasn't wrong about, was the effect on eroding marriage's importance, looking at the rise of divorces and single parent homes.

For better or worse.



Personally speaking, I have no desire seeing people locked into a miserable situation. But can't deny a lot of people simply aren't even trying. I mean, a friends sister and her new husband crumbled over sleeping arrangements. She wanted them in the same bed, he didn't.

Plus, he's an avid gamer, and she comes more from socialite background, and was fixated on things like intimacy. She'd speak up her displeasure at him wanting to game instead of cuddle, and he'd blow up.

The icing on the cake was he didn't want a divorce. He came from a Jewish family, from a sect that doesn't believe in it. Like Catholics used to. Got very ugly.


This all happened in less then four months,.it was unreal. Neither of them seemed particularly immature either, but they obviously hadn't grown up yet.