Porn Site Bans North Carolina Users

[GennGreymane]

We talked about your contract example for more than an hour. You just didn't like what had to be said.

Your logic is inconsistent,m because you want to justify one form of discrimination, then whine about another. You tried to base it off an "unlimited" service, but that blew up in your face. By going down that road, you justified any website to choose to discriminate against anyone they want to. Of course, when I brought that up, you just started whining, and tried to change the subject and move the goalposts. SO, it really boils down to why you think someone should be allowed to discirminate. Other people cited actions versus being, but that would also point out the hypocrisy in not applying such a mentality evenly.

IN the end, you supprt discrimination when you find the "victim" morally reprehensible, and want to whine when it coems to the "victim" being somethign you support. Does that pretty much cover it?

Now, all those things you mention cause a clear case of harm. If your argument that refusal of service causes harm, then one should not be allowed to discriminate at all. THat would mean the gay business owner would be obligated to serve the WBC, because refusing to serve them would cause harm. Is that correct?

- - - Updated - - -

What blew up in my face? You never explained this. Because you dodge my questions

I never whined and I only brought up other examples. I don't see how that changes the subject, once again you are dodging.

Once again, you are doing nothing but dodging, you fail to support your own logic and fail to make an actual argument.

And yes, those things I mention cause harm, but according to your logic, the fact that there are laws against the harm makes it oppression because no one should impose a belief on another. Those laws are imposing beliefs that those are wrong on others. Thus according to your logic, there should be no laws. Not once do I call you horrible, I only bring up flaws in your logic. Stop playing victim.

[Machismo]

What blew up in my face? You never explained this. Because you dodge my questions

I never whined and I only brought up other examples. I don't see how that changes the subject, once again you are dodging.

Once again, you are doing nothing but dodging, you fail to support your own logic and fail to make an actual argument.

I supported it just fine, you simply didn't like it. You clearly do not support a business being allowed to refuse to serve gay people. Now, this is where it gets interesting. If you are going to be logically consistent, you would have to force a black business owner to serve KKK members, or a gay business owner to serve the WBC. If you do not want to force those owners to serve those groups, then you are being a hypocrite. It's not complicated. Either you are a hypocrite, or you would force those people to serve those groups, which seems like a shitty thing to do to someone. I'll let you decide.

[GennGreymane]

I supported it just fine, you simply didn't like it. You clearly do not support a business being allowed to refuse to serve gay people. Now, this is where it gets interesting. If you are going to be logically consistent, you would have to force a black business owner to serve KKK members, or a gay business owner to serve the WBC. If you do not want to force those owners to serve those groups, then you are being a hypocrite. It's not complicated. Either you are a hypocrite, or you would force those people to serve those groups, which seems like a shitty thing to do to someone. I'll let you decide.

I answered your question. Now can you make an actual argument instead of simply calling others hypocrite, or is your argument that weal that you cant even defend it with actual arguments.

According to your very logic, you would have doctors refuse life saving treatment based on someones beliefs, skin tone, and religion.

[Machismo]

I answered your question. Now can you make an actual argument instead of simply calling others hypocrite, or is your argument that weal that you cant even defend it with actual arguments.

I did make the argument, pointing out the hypcorisy (or dickish desire to force a gay business owner to serve the WBC) of your stance. I made the argument, and I backed it up multiple times.

Are ytou willing to force those business owners to serve those groups? Yes or no?

[GennGreymane]

I did make the argument, pointing out the hypcorisy (or dickish desire to force a gay business owner to serve the WBC) of your stance. I made the argument, and I backed it up multiple times.

Are ytou willing to force those business owners to serve those groups? Yes or no?

You never did back up your argument. Calling people who disagree with you hypocrites is not backing up your arguments.

Yup, I believe that if you open a service that used public space, much like a market, hospital, pharmacy, and other needed services, you should not deny entry to someone based on skin color, religion, creed or otherwise. I said it once, I said it multiple times.

[Felya]

You want to restrict some people's freedoms, but not others. That's the problem I have. You want to use your moral beliefs to justifyu forcing others to do what you want them to do. You are calling me a hypocrite for.... not trying to force things onto people... that makes no fucking sense at all. If you can show WHERE I support forcing my beliefs onto people, feel free to let me know.

Saying that you need super powers to identify people for bans based on a group, instead of their action, has nothing to do with my morality. It does make sense to you, otherwise you wouldn't be repeating your nonsense and ignoring what everyone is saying. It just doesn't fit your argument, which doesn't make sense. I've said many times already, even asked you how many times I should say action for you to understand. What I am saying has nothing to do with morality, while what you are saying focuses on nothing, but morality. There is no other reason for you to use KKK, instead of just bigots. Supporting signs banning groups based on morality of the owner, is supporting forcing your beliefs on others. You understand it as well, which is why you keep ignoring me saying it repeatedly... You are a hypocrite, the fact that you don't believe it, doesn't change that...

Once again, I don't want to force anything. That's the part you cannot seem to grasp. I am not supporting government legislation to force people to conform to my beliefs, am I? No, that's what you are doing.

You want to force people to live in a society where people do not have legal recourse to segregation. That's supporting government in forcing store owner's beliefs on others. I grasp it completley, you have done a fine job repeating it, without addressing why that's wrong. Do you want to force gay people to live in a society of 'no gays allowed' propaganda? It's a long shot for you to answer, as I've asked several times...

Store owners cannot deny service to anyone, that's the point. You made that clear with your very next sentence. You say it is acceptable to judge someone based on action, but simply being a neo-Nazi is no more an action than being a Christian. One is acceptable to discriminate against, the other is not. Your logic is inconsistent.

You don't see a differance between nazi ideology and religion? That's not an issue with my consistency... They are both equally except able to discriminate on their action, otherwise your use of WBC makes no sense at all. They claim to be Christian, Christianity is not what makes them bad. That's another thing you are now a hypocrite on...

If you are saying that they must take an action to identify themselves, then you have just justified the actions of a baker who said they would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. They have apparently identified themselves, just as a KKK member would do by wearing a hood. If we are going to follow your logic of "actions" then both instances should be free to refuse service.

Nope, wearing a hood does not identify you as a KKK member. That's just silly. What identifies you as a KKK member is your membership to a group. Getting a wedding cake, doesn't identify someone as gay. You are going to have to try harder to identify the action that makes a gay person gay. I can get a wedding cake with two husband figurines, without being gay. Store owner is saying I am banned due to their anti-gay law, I say I'm not gay and it's just a joke... Now what? I can also be gay, but a cake without figurines on top and then start making out with a dude after I buy the cake... Now what? What did your ban actually accomplish, other than be a government protected right to have an inflammatory society?

We had IDs to identify us as Jews, because USSR really made sure that once freedom to ban ban Jews was as effective as possible.

- - - Updated - - -

How would a "No Jews Allowed" sign actually prevent Jews from being served? Is there a way to identify someone as Jewish without them identifying themselves?

Boy, that just backfired on you.

In reality, a "No Jews Allowed" sign is no different than a "No KKK Allowed" sign.

How did that backfire on me, when my point is that your support of bans, doesn't actually work to ban anyone and only creates turmoil? You not reading what you reply to, is not backfiring... It's par for the course...

If you now agree, that a ban of a group, doesn't actually serve the purpose of banning that group. What is the point? Where did this freedom of yours suddenly go?

- - - Updated - - -

You never did back up your argument. Calling people who disagree with you hypocrites is not backing up your arguments.

Yup, I believe that if you open a service that used public space, much like a market, hospital, pharmacy, and other needed services, you should not deny entry to someone based on skin color, religion, creed or otherwise. I said it once, I said it multiple times.

He now admits that those bans don't actually do anything for the freedom to ban that group. He litteraly now supports signs to inflame people and nothing more.

[GennGreymane]

He now admits that those bans don't actually do anything for the freedom to ban that group. He litteraly now supports signs to inflame people and nothing more.

I wish there could be real discussion. But he just keeps stating everyone who disagrees is a hypocrite and is evil.

[Machismo]

You never did back up your argument. Calling people who disagree with you hypocrites is not backing up your arguments.

Yup, I believe that if you open a service that used public space, much like a market, hospital, pharmacy, and other needed services, you should not deny entry to someone based on skin color, religion, creed or otherwise. I said it once, I said it multiple times.

But you did not answer the question, so I guess I will have to make it as clear as possible. WOuld you force a gay business owner to serve the WBC?

Would you force a black business owner to serve the KKK?

Would you force a Jewish business owner to serve neo-Nazis.

I only ask, because of your answer, it seems you would allow a business to deny service because someone is gay. None of your qualifiers actually covered that.

[GennGreymane]

But you did not answer the question, so I guess I will have to make it as clear as possible. WOuld you force a gay business owner to serve the WBC?

Would you force a black business owner to serve the KKK?

Would you force a Jewish business owner to serve neo-Nazis.

I only ask, because of your answer, it seems you would allow a business to deny service because someone is gay. None of your qualifiers actually covered that.

Did you not actually read?

Now riddle me this
Should a pharmacy deny life saving medication because someone is gay? Should an ambulance not help someone in a car accident for being black? Should a doctor decline surgery because the dying patient is a racist?

[Machismo]

Saying that you need super powers to identify people for bans based on a group, instead of their action, has nothing to do with my morality. It does make sense to you, otherwise you wouldn't be repeating your nonsense and ignoring what everyone is saying. It just doesn't fit your argument, which doesn't make sense. I've said many times already, even asked you how many times I should say action for you to understand. What I am saying has nothing to do with morality, while what you are saying focuses on nothing, but morality. There is no other reason for you to use KKK, instead of just bigots. Supporting signs banning groups based on morality of the owner, is supporting forcing your beliefs on others. You understand it as well, which is why you keep ignoring me saying it repeatedly... You are a hypocrite, the fact that you don't believe it, doesn't change that...



You want to force people to live in a society where people do not have legal recourse to segregation. That's supporting government in forcing store owner's beliefs on others. I grasp it completley, you have done a fine job repeating it, without addressing why that's wrong. Do you want to force gay people to live in a society of 'no gays allowed' propaganda? It's a long shot for you to answer, as I've asked several times...



You don't see a differance between nazi ideology and religion? That's not an issue with my consistency... They are both equally except able to discriminate on their action, otherwise your use of WBC makes no sense at all. They claim to be Christian, Christianity is not what makes them bad. That's another thing you are now a hypocrite on...



Nope, wearing a hood does not identify you as a KKK member. That's just silly. What identifies you as a KKK member is your membership to a group. Getting a wedding cake, doesn't identify someone as gay. You are going to have to try harder to identify the action that makes a gay person gay. I can get a wedding cake with two husband figurines, without being gay. Store owner is saying I am banned due to their anti-gay law, I say I'm not gay and it's just a joke... Now what? I can also be gay, but a cake without figurines on top and then start making out with a dude after I buy the cake... Now what? What did your ban actually accomplish, other than be a government protected right to have an inflammatory society?

We had IDs to identify us as Jews, because USSR really made sure that once freedom to ban ban Jews was as effective as possible.

- - - Updated - - -



How did that backfire on me, when my point is that your support of bans, doesn't actually work to ban anyone and only creates turmoil? You not reading what you reply to, is not backfiring... It's par for the course...

If you now agree, that a ban of a group, doesn't actually serve the purpose of banning that group. What is the point? Where did this freedom of yours suddenly go?

- - - Updated - - -



He now admits that those bans don't actually do anything for the freedom to ban that group. He litteraly now supports signs to inflame people and nothing more.

You can't even say how I'm forcing people to do anything. Since I'm not supporting government legfislation, where is that force coming from? Is it coming from a property owner on his own land?

You cite the identification of Jews via ID cards, which is of course soemthing I do not support. Once again, this is backfiring on you, because YOU are the one supporting government intervention, not me.

By what you are saying, you would then force that gay business owner to serve the WBC, because none of their "actions" warrant not being served. The same would apply to black business owners, the KKK, and Jewish business owners and neo-Nazis. After all, you only seem to care about actions, so you would logically demand that those owners serve those people. Am I correct in that assertion?

Where did I support signs of any kind? I support freedom, nothing more, nothing less. What people do on their own property really is none of my fucking business. If someone does not wish to serve me, I move on.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you not actually read?

Now riddle me this
Should a pharmacy deny life saving medication because someone is gay? Should an ambulance not help someone in a car accident for being black? Should a doctor decline surgery because the dying patient is a racist?

I did read, and I wanted clarification. Please, answer those questions.

I think a privately-owned pharmacy should be able to serve whomever it wants, the same goes for an ambulance service, and the same for the hospital, as long as they are privately owned.

Now, go ahead and actually try to answer my question.

[GennGreymane]

I did read, and I wanted clarification. Please, answer those questions.

I think a privately-owned pharmacy should be able to serve whomever it wants, the same goes for an ambulance service, and the same for the hospital, as long as they are privately owned.

Now, go ahead and actually try to answer my question.

you should not deny entry to someone based on skin color, religion, creed or otherwise.

Not sure what your missing here........ like at all....

As for your FINALLY answering my question. I am glad you to answered! Now let me explain the issue with it. You are in effect imposing beliefs on others with your view point. But this is something you disagree with, but yet you support it. Someone is dying on a highway from a car accident, and because they are black an ambulance wont take them?

[Machismo]

Not sure what your missing here........ like at all....

As for your FINALLY answering my question. I am glad you to answered! Now let me explain the issue with it. You are in effect imposing beliefs on others with your view point. Someone is dying on a highway from a car accident, and because they are black an ambulance wont take them?

So, since being gay does not fall into those categories, does that mean you support a business onwers freedom to refuse to serve a gay person?

The exact same goes for the KKK member, neo-Nazi , and WBC. That's why I wanted clarification on those four instances, because you did not cover them. So please, answer for each specifically.

[GennGreymane]

So, since being gay does not fall into those categories, does that mean you support a business onwers freedom to refuse to serve a gay person?

The exact same goes for the KKK member, neo-Nazi , and WBC. That's why I wanted clarification on those four instances, because you did not cover them. So please, answer for each specifically.

I cant believe you don't know what otherwise can mean, did you want me to write in 100's of organizations. What if someone hates union workers? Or people who do fencing, or are in a golf club? As usual, you cant seem to be practical.

[Machismo]

I cant believe you don't know what otherwise can mean, did you want me to write in 100's of organizations? As usual, you cant seem to be practical.

I asked specifically for those four, because otherwise is very general. If you meant it to be all encompassing, you would have said, "or for any other reason." Since you decided to go vague, I wanted clarification on those four specifically. I want it on the record, in very clear words, that you would force those people to be served.

I only asked for four, that's not too difficult, is it?

[GennGreymane]

I asked specifically for those four, because otherwise is very general. If you meant it to be all encompassing, you would have said, "or for any other reason." Since you decided to go vague, I wanted clarification on those four specifically. I want it on the record, in very clear words, that you would force those people to be served.

I only asked for four, that's not too difficult, is it?

Its general in my opinion. I answered your question in full. I actually answered it multiple times through out this entire thread. Now, why don't you try to be productive in discussion instead of crying hypocrite when someone disagrees with you?

I dont have to change my style of speech to suit your requests only because you are upset.

[Machismo]

Its general in my opinion. I answered your question in full. I actually answered it multiple times through out this entire thread. Now, why don't you try to be productive in discussion instead of crying hypocrite when someone disagrees with you?

Dodge Dodge Dodge Dodge.

[GennGreymane]

Dodge Dodge Dodge Dodge.

It took 17 pages before you answered my question. Now will you try being productive?

[Machismo]

It took 17 pages before you answered my question. Now will you try being productive?

Sure:

Would you force a gay business owner to serve the WBC?

Would you force a black business owner to serve the KKK?

Would you force a Jewish business owner to serve neo-Nazis?

Would you force a business to serve a gay person?

It's so easy, it can be answered in a total of four words. Maybe you should try being a little more "productive."

[GennGreymane]

Sure:

Would you force a gay business owner to serve the WBC?

Would you force a black business owner to serve the KKK?

Would you force a Jewish business owner to serve neo-Nazis?

Would you force a business to serve a gay person?

It's so easy, it can be answered in a total of four words. Maybe you should try being a little more "productive."

I answered your question multiple times in this thread (and it took you 17 pages to even answer mine once). I dont now why you want me to keep repeating it. Its very weird.

[Logwyn]

Really? I'll be curious which state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophi..._United_States

Here you go. It will get your started.