Yeah bigotry in business is cool. Wtf is wrong with you?This is no different than the sign that I used to see hanging in stores when I went to the beach that said "no shoes, no shirt, no service" because the business has the right to refuse service. Trying to force someone to bend to your will when it violates the other party's free will does not sit well with the majority of people. If you don't like it then take your business elsewhere.
It won't be long before someone sees this and snowflakes right off the left edge of the map.
The problem with that chimp study is how they define "justice." A true belief in justice requires that one care about fairness for others, not just for themselves.
So then how do chimps differ from conservatives? Definitions are linguistic refinements dependent on analytical thinking. When we think about our inner nature we are using words with emotional meanings, subjective definitions, from the past. Chimps can't really do that, at least not the the level we can. Chimps can transmit their individual experiences only by example. We carry in our heads what I like to call ten thousand tons of cabbage. All the cabbage we have collected in regard to our notions of justice, in my opinion, flow out of something pre-linguistic and deep within us. If it begins with a sense of fairness for oneself, that's a valid starting place.The problem with that chimp study is how they define "justice." A true belief in justice requires that one care about fairness for others, not just for themselves.
I can't wait for one of them to sue that business and lose at the Supreme Court.
You think the Supremes are going to have a special exception for MAGAts?I can't wait for one of them to sue that business and lose at the Supreme Court.
Surely the majority are dedicated to equal injustice for all. How could they not allow religious-phobes to fuck over whomever they want and not allow bigot haters to fuck them back.You think the Supremes are going to have a special exception for MAGAts?
Good luck with that.
This is no different than the sign that I used to see hanging in stores when I went to the beach that said "no shoes, no shirt, no service" because the business has the right to refuse service. Trying to force someone to bend to your will when it violates the other party's free will does not sit well with the majority of people. If you don't like it then take your business elsewhere.
It won't be long before someone sees this and snowflakes right off the left edge of the map.
So then how do chimps differ from conservatives? Definitions are linguistic refinements dependent on analytical thinking. When we think about our inner nature we are using words with emotional meanings, subjective definitions, from the past. Chimps can't really do that, at least not the the level we can. Chimps can transmit their individual experiences only by example. We carry in our heads what I like to call ten thousand tons of cabbage. All the cabbage we have collected in regard to our notions of justice, in my opinion, flow out of something pre-linguistic and deep within us. If it begins with a sense of fairness for oneself, that's a valid starting place.
My point is that while Vic is certainly right about the need for ethical development of children, no such striving for justice would take place or be attempted if there were no inner, innate. desire for it. We are not born a blank slate. All that is written on our consciousness is written on a blackboard that is fundamental to what a human being really is. The clay is partially set.
It is the same with language. Every newborn can learn any language because we are hard wired for it.
Thanks for educating people like me. Who knew being born black was akin to wearing or not wearing a shirt.This is no different than the sign that I used to see hanging in stores when I went to the beach that said "no shoes, no shirt, no service" because the business has the right to refuse service. Trying to force someone to bend to your will when it violates the other party's free will does not sit well with the majority of people. If you don't like it then take your business elsewhere.
It won't be long before someone sees this and snowflakes right off the left edge of the map.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the judicial branch and defines its powers. The "Case or Controversy" clause of Article III has been interpreted by the courts over time to require that there be an actual dispute that is ripe for adjudication.
Exactly, but this bit of information, this insight, when it accompanies a search for meaning like what is the Buddha nature or why do I suffer, the search for deeper meaning, the seeking to end despair, etc. is of profound importance and I think central to what enlightenment is. What is ethics, what is moral, what is truth, are we basically good or evil, how these things are viewed create our attitude. Is life positive or negative, futile or does it have meaning. The lack of the experience of this realization, really just an attitudinal shift, a change in perspective, the collapse of duality and the onset of a sense of being, Is the source of existential suffering. We seek happiness not knowing that we are happiness itself, that the seeking of it is our misery. We were born to love life, to feel.I agree with this, since it is nigh identical to the opinion I expressed here in the context of where "rights" come from. They come from instinct.
My main concern about the research is that it's sretching things to call the chimp behavior a belief in "justice." It's more like an instinctive prequel to it.
I would have LOVED to see someone ask Clarence during arguments that if they stated religious exceptions, could they refuse to make a website or a cake for him due to either race or interracial marriage.
But again, since the case was filed under false pretenses, it should be set aside entirely.
It's interesting to me that this even became a case. Why would you want to force someone to do work or perform a service for you if they didn't want to?
Purchasing an off the shelf product is far different than performing a direct service or creating a made to order item. I'm a contractor, if NAMBLA contacted me to remodel their main office the answer would be no. If I was forced to do the work under threat of lawsuit, that's forced servitude. Tell me how that's right.Because a problem like this never exists in a vacuum, evident here for example by the amount of money that will have changed hands because of "this one bigot" (in quotes because I would be extremely surprised if a larger conspiracy wasn't involved here).
A quick google suggests that approximately 67% of Americans identify as Christian. As a hypothetical, let's say that 67% of all businesses decide to refuse to serve gay people "because they can". No water, food, homes, sanitation, utilities, for gay people from any of those businesses. You don't see any kind of problem with this?
It’s a bold move to come out against the civil rights movement, haha. What you’re saying could be exactly applied to segregationists refusing service to black people.Purchasing an off the shelf product is far different than performing a direct service or creating a made to order item. I'm a contractor, if NAMBLA contacted me to remodel their main office the answer would be no. If I was forced to do the work under threat of lawsuit, that's forced servitude. Tell me how that's right.
What is it with you people and NAMBLA? Are your trying to tell us something?Purchasing an off the shelf product is far different than performing a direct service or creating a made to order item. I'm a contractor, if NAMBLA contacted me to remodel their main office the answer would be no. If I was forced to do the work under threat of lawsuit, that's forced servitude. Tell me how that's right.
Not bold at all, the supreme court just agreed with me.It’s a bold move to come out against the civil rights movement, haha. What you’re saying could be exactly applied to segregationists refusing service to black people.
Purchasing an off the shelf product is far different than performing a direct service or creating a made to order item.
I'm a contractor, if NAMBLA contacted me to remodel their main office the answer would be no. If I was forced to do the work under threat of lawsuit, that's forced servitude. Tell me how that's right.
You’re saying being required to serve the public is forced servitude and is wrong. This means the civil rights act is wrong in your opinion.Not bold at all, the supreme court just agreed with me.
That's not what I said at all and you know it.You’re saying being required to serve the public is forced servitude and is wrong. This means the civil rights act is wrong in your opinion.
I think it’s remarkable that you think businesses should be able to refuse service to black people, which is the inescapable result of your logic.
It is exactly what you said. You said that the law forcing you to work for someone you don’t want to is forced servitude and is wrong. The exact same logic would hold true for not serving black people.That's not what I said at all and you know it.
Go read the the courts decision and the boundaries/conditions it established.