Porn Site Bans North Carolina Users

[satimy]

I am asking you a simple question too and it seems like everything else, since it harms your world view you ignore it

No, its not discrimination, because they do not have to operate in the state, for the same reason I do not have to open a business in all 50 states and territories. Because its not practical.

Do you understand how the internet works?

[GennGreymane]

"The" real case? This stuff happens, quite successfully, all over the country. There are many communities that require homeowners to sign agreements with conditions about owning and/or selling their homes. Some of them require that you do not sell your home to a black person, some of them have different stipulations about the people you sell to. And they quite often have some pretty big penalties to them.

Ill send it to you in DM, its a cool read.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you understand how the internet works?

I do


and to continue

I dont have to have my business in all 50 states. Its not practical.

[Machismo]

I am asking you a simple question too and it seems like everything else, since it harms your world view you ignore it

No, its not discrimination, because they do not have to operate in the state, for the same reason I do not have to open a business in all 50 states and territories. Because its not practical.

There's your problem, you don't know what the definition of the word is. I've posted it multiple times, I cannot do your thinking for you. We all discriminate every single day, you just don't seem to know what that word means. Until you learn the definition of the word, I'm out. Let me know when you have it figured out.

[GennGreymane]

There's your problem, you don't know what the definition of the word is. I've posted it multiple times, I cannot do your thinking for you. We all discriminate every single day, you just don't seem to know what that word means. Until you learn the definition of the word, I'm out. Let me know when you have it figured out.

Heres your problem in your view you want something that not practical. I figured it out, but you really need to have a grasp of reality.

[Delekii]

There's your problem, you don't know what the definition of the word is. I've posted it multiple times, I cannot do your thinking for you. We all discriminate every single day, you just don't seem to know what that word means. Until you learn the definition of the word, I'm out. Let me know when you have it figured out.

There's your problem, you don't know what the contexual relevance of the word is. I've posted it multiple times, I cannot do your thinking for you. We all discriminate every single day, you just don't seem to know what that context of the word in this discussion is. Until you understand the context of the word, I'm out. Let me know when you have it figured out.

[satimy]

Ill send it to you in DM, its a cool read.

- - - Updated - - -



I do


and to continue

I dont have to have my business in all 50 states. Its not practical.

You realize that it costs more resources to block and discriminate against a state then not to then? Or you actually don't know how the Internet works?

[Machismo]

Are you willing to admit that what the website is doing in NC is an entirely different category of discrimination than what the law passed by NC falls into?

I need to keep asking this, because until such a point in time that you say so, it will continue to be the case that you are infering that the two are comparable. It's a yes or no answer. Then we can move on from there.

They are comparable, yes. In both cases, the business recognized a difference, and opted to base their decision on their own personal biases. I am fine with businesses doing both, even if I may despise the businesses that opt to discriminate against gay people. That does not mean I will try to use the government to stop them. If I choose to do that,t hen I am simply trying to force my beliefs onto them. Isn't that exactly what the homophobic bigots who banned gay marriage did?

[unfilteredJW]

I mean if you want to straw man and blatantly make things up we can have a really fun talk.

Holy pot and kettle, Batman!

[Krigaren]

However, if they choose to answer a question in a way the site does not like, they are choosing to not serve those people. That's discrimination, any way you look at it.

When you go to a porn site it'll ask you how old you are. If you say that you're not 18 or older, it won't allow you to view the contents. I guess that's discrimination against minors?

What about Steam? If I want to view a game page on Steam that has a certain "adult" rating and I enter in a birth date that's less than 18 years old, I'm not allowed to view that page. Discrimination?

But again, lets go back to the restaurant analogy. If I own a restaurant or a business and I decide that I just don't like living in that area anymore because the people smell. I move to another state and re-open my business there, but am I discriminating against smelly people?

What about a company who lays off all it's American workers because they cost more than people in India? Am I discriminating against Americans? Or money?

The fallacy of your argument is that you want to operate in absolutes. The world, and reality, doesn't work that way. There is always nuance, and there are always exceptions.

[Machismo]

There's your problem, you don't know what the contexual relevance of the word is. I've posted it multiple times, I cannot do your thinking for you. We all discriminate every single day, you just don't seem to know what that context of the word in this discussion is. Until you understand the context of the word, I'm out. Let me know when you have it figured out.

I do have it figured out. I simply love to point out logical inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

[GennGreymane]

You realize that it costs more resources to block and discriminate against a state then not to then? Or you actually don't know how the Internet works?

SO what, what if there was a tax issue they didn't like, or a regulation? That's a derivatives issue now if you are a shareholder.

[Machismo]

When you go to a porn site it'll ask you how old you are. If you say that you're not 18 or older, it won't allow you to view the contents. I guess that's discrimination against minors?

What about Steam? If I want to view a game page on Steam that has a certain "adult" rating and I enter in a birth date that's less than 18 years old, I'm not allowed to view that page. Discrimination?

But again, lets go back to the restaurant analogy. If I own a restaurant or a business and I decide that I just don't like living in that area anymore because the people smell. I move to another state and re-open my business there, but am I discriminating against smelly people?

What about a company who lays off all it's American workers because they cost more than people in India? Am I discriminating against Americans? Or money?

The fallacy of your argument is that you want to operate in absolutes. The world, and reality, doesn't work that way. There is always nuance, and there are always exceptions.

Yes, it is discrimination against minors. All those are cases where you recognize a difference, and using your personal opinion, make a decision based upon those differences.

Hell, I just want you to admit that it is actual discrimination, by the very definition of the word.

[Delekii]

They are comparable, yes. In both cases, the business recognized a difference, and opted to base their decision on their own personal biases. I am fine with businesses doing both, even if I may despise the businesses that opt to discriminate against gay people. That does not mean I will try to use the government to stop them. If I choose to do that,t hen I am simply trying to force my beliefs onto them. Isn't that exactly what the homophobic bigots who banned gay marriage did?

No, they aren't.

Homophobes who refuse to serve gay people have the aim of denying those people that service on the basis of what they are. That's it.
People who discriminate against homophobes who refuse to serve gay people have the aim of compelling those homophobes not to discriminate on the third party.

Intent is everything. It is categorically defining.

Murder without intent is manslaughter, or it is self defense, or it is temporary insanity, or whatever. In war times, murder may in fact be patriotic defense of one's fellow man.

In all cases, people are killing people. Context is _everything_.

The fact that both are categorically "discrimination" is as equally true as it is irrelevant and misleading. It's like trying to say "murderers are people, soldiers are people, AH HAH, SOLDIERS ARE MURDERERS".

[p291u]

Ill send it to you in DM, its a cool read.

No need, I wasn't asking for it. I was pointing out the fact that there is far more than one instance of this and that this hypothetical situation is real and exists throughout the country. It wouldn't even matter if it was illegal at the federal level. Small courts in areas of the country still rule in favor of this and people are not willing to front the cost of a protracted legal battle that lasts years of appeals. This is more than enough to discourage people and take the easy way out by just selling their house to the next person.

[IIamaKing]

ONE WHOLE PORN SITE!?!?!?! MY GOD!!!! If only there were millions of porn sites to use on the internet.

[GennGreymane]

No need, I wasn't asking for it. I was pointing out the fact that there is far more than one instance of this and that this hypothetical situation is real and exists throughout the country. It wouldn't even matter if it was illegal at the federal level. Small courts in areas of the country still rule in favor of this and people are not willing to front the cost of a protracted legal battle that lasts years of appeals. This is more than enough to discourage people and take the easy way out by just selling their house to the next person.

the case I bring up is a SC case so it was chosen above those to be a standard. And no, the SC rules above, if they say something and a lower court disagrees and brings another case up on appeal, the SC will be cited again by the moving party and the case will be reserved, but if it keeps going up then its up to the SC again, as there was a federal issue here and they have jurisdiction, the SC likely will not overturn it, as they rarely overturn themselves, but they can.

thats the process. Lower courts also tend to not try to over turn a SC case, because local courts usually do not handle federal issues, its the federal circuits.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0885fb50d9a92


"XHamster.com has been refusing to serve anyone from North Carolina since 12:30 p.m. EDT, Monday.

Instead, users with a North Carolina IP address are just seeing a black screen on their computer — no porn."
XHamster.com spokesman, Mike Kulich, said the website believes in equality for everyone.

“We have spent the last 50 years fighting for equality for everyone and these laws are discriminatory which XHamster.com does not tolerate,” he said in an official statement sent to The Huffington Post. “Judging by the stats of what you North Carolinians watch, we feel this punishment is a severe one. We will not standby and pump revenue into a system that promotes this type of garbage. We respect all sexualities and embrace them.”



That is a stupid thing to do. If they support LGBBQ thing than it would be logical to promote their websites in that area, not block them?

They fight inequality by stealing content which lowers the earning power of the female stars and others that work in the adult industry?

lol

[Machismo]

No, they aren't.

Homophobes who refuse to serve gay people have the aim of denying those people that service on the basis of what they are. That's it.
People who discriminate against homophobes who refuse to serve gay people have the aim of compelling those homophobes not to discriminate on the third party.

Intent is everything. It is categorically defining.

Murder without intent is manslaughter, or it is self defense, or it is temporary insanity, or whatever. In war times, murder may in fact be patriotic defense of one's fellow man.

In all cases, people are killing people. Context is _everything_.

Context is important. But, if people cannot even agree that they are both discrimination, then context cannot even be properly discussed. In both cases, the desire is to discriminate based on beliefs, usually hatred or anger. Once again, I have no problem if a private entity wishes to discriminate. That's why I support the websites freedom to do so, and it's also why I support a gay business owner whop does not wish to serve the Westboro Baptist Church. And yes, it's also why I support a homophobic business owner's freedom to not serve a gay person. I support their freedom of beliefs. I do not support the idea of them forcing their beliefs onto others.

[Krigaren]

Yes, it is discrimination against minors. All those are cases where you recognize a difference, and using your personal opinion, make a decision based upon those differences.

Hell, I just want you to admit that it is actual discrimination, by the very definition of the word.

No, what you want is to be pedantic. You have no interest in anything other than reducing this entire conversation down to a single point so that you can be right based on technicality.

[Delekii]

Context is important. But, if people cannot even agree that they are both discrimination, then context cannot even be properly discussed. In both cases, the desire is to discriminate based on beliefs, usually hatred or anger. Once again, I have no problem if a private entity wishes to discriminate. That's why I support the websites freedom to do so, and it's also why I support a gay business owner whop does not wish to serve the Westboro Baptist Church. And yes, it's also why I support a homophobic business owner's freedom to not serve a gay person. I support their freedom of beliefs. I do not support the idea of them forcing their beliefs onto others.

Homophobia is belief based. The outcome of homophobic actions are physically measurable; no belief is required.

Whether or not "gay people will send us to hell" is belief. Refusing to serve someone because they are gay causes that person to not be able to access that particular service at least, and causes mental or physical damage at worst.