actually, Larry I think Ryan’s point about it not being discriminatory is that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are treated exactly the same - both may bring a date of the opposite sex.
“treating exactly the same” does not always mean, of course “not discriminiatory”.
For example, if there was a dance and all couples would be told “you may bring a date of your choosing, as long as they are the same race as you”, would be discriminatory, even tho’ all are being treated ‘exactly the same’.
TheRyan has, over in the thread this one’s OP references, brought up the differing meanings of “discriminate” as in “a person of exquisite, discriminating taste” vs. the implication of acting negatively towards someone based on an inherent characteristic that is what is commonly meant by “to discriminate against someone.”
I make no comment on this distinction he is drawing at present.
Seems sort of like trying to bring the debate down to its mose basic elements. That would be a good tactic if everyone you were debating with were five years old, but I would think it safe to assume that, at the very least, those of us who have posted in that (and this) thread are all truly capable of figuring out which meaning of “discriminate” is being used. Certainly one or more of us would have become confused (and posted as such) were that not the case.
Anyone want to take bets that he starts in on ASCII drawings soon?
A True Seeker may bring wisdom and compassion to humans, narns, minbari, centauri, and many others. But even a True Seeker can not enlighten a Noccaleen Feeder.
I leave it to you to decide who is a True Seeker and who is the Noccaleen.
I already addressed this. I am not saying that permitting this would encourage sam-sex behaviour, I am saying that the Church is not completely off base in having that concern.
No. If, after all this, you still don’t know my opinion of coming to conclusions based on popular opinion, then you have been extremely unobservant.
PD
It’s not simply a case of slighly different wording. His change in wording completely change the meaning of the question. In the original, it was a question of effects: who will be effected how? In the second, it was about intent: what are their intents towards which groups?
Jabba:
They are not synomynous terms, but their meanings overlap. I do not see how the statement “they have similar meanings” said about terms that do not mean the exact same things is inaccurrate, nor do I think that discussing a term with overlapping meanings is a “tangent”.
Waverly
No, it’s not a tangent. I do not believe that this rule is intended to hurt anyone, and his question of who it is intending to hurt is therefore based on a false premise. Pointing that out is not a tangent.
Polycarp:
quote]TheRyan has, over in the thread this one’s OP references, brought up the differing meanings of “discriminate” as in “a person of exquisite, discriminating taste” vs. the implication of acting negatively towards someone based on aninherent characteristic that is what is commonly meant by “to discriminate against someone.” I make no comment on this distinction he is drawing at present.
[/quote]
I find that extremely dishonest. Simply by bringing that up, especially in a manner that completely ignores the context, is itself a comment.
iampunha
I was showing how the word “discrimination”, if taken literally, would not make sense, presented my definition of “discrimination”, and asked for other people’s definitions. I honestly do not know what definition other people are using. Apparently, trying to find out is “a good tactic if everyone you were debating with were five years old”.
When you find him Scylla, I’ll hold his arms back and you smack him. And when you get your sunglasses back, get my goddamn Swiss Army watch back from him, too.
I beg to differ. Just as you avoided the question when Esprix first phrased it, you are avoiding it now that I have specifically asked you what your answer would have been had ‘hinder’ been substituted for ‘hurt.’ Just more of your signature masturbatory word wanking. Which reminds me… from dictionary.com:
Emphasis mine on definition 4. So you do not believe the rule was intended to hinder or impair anyone? Fascinating. What, pray tell, is the fucking intention of this rule? We all know the answer, but rather than discuss the implications, you would prefer to sidetrack intelligent discussions with objections to words you obviously don’t even fucking fully understand.
You are one loathsome motherfucker, Ryan. I pity those that must endure your company.
[sub]now someone tell me why the quote tag no longer works.[/sub]
I would guess that when Esprit said, “He’s already said outright that being right is the whole point of his arguing”, he was refering to Ryan’s stance in the Cite and Link are not Synonyms thread. IIRC, the OP raised some eyebrows, but Ryan responded that he was merely noting that he preferred being right to being wrong.
It was the first 2 sentences that gave some pause.
I’m not sure how constructive this clarification is.
That was precisely my point, sir, regarding your bringing up the “discriminating tastes” idea – because I did not see any point to it with reference to the meaning of “discrimination” as “an unjust action founded on reasons without bearing on the issue at hand” being used in that thread up to that point. While it may be a definition for discrimination in a dictionary, it shed absolutely no light on the issue at hand so far as I could tell.
However, I am absolutely certain at this time that I will never grasp the points you are obviously trying to make through the haze of misunderstanding that has arisen between us. I therefore bow out of any further communication with you, with regrets – as I’ve said before, I do find the unorthodox perspectives you often bring to issues to be valuable when I can understand them clearly.
Do I even need to say it, word-Czar? I find quibbling over someone else’s wording while trodding on the English language with such abandon to by highly hypocritical.
Esprix, How does one answer question which one purports to not understand? (;))
Ryan, Apart from that, the whole point was that it discriminated against homosexuals, whether or not it was their intent to do so. Perhaps, somehow, they really made an honest mistake (which I doubt but it is, in theory, possible). But the effect is that they discriminated against homosexuals. Whether or not they intended to is a seperate matter from what they did, I agree, and is definitely worthy of discussion. But you cannot prohibit people with penises and say, “Well, hey, it could be that women have penises, too, so this isn’t discriminatory.” (with all respects to Hemlock’s old thread about the infamous Mary) The phrasing, intention, and effect are all seperate things and should rightly be considered so. But the effect was discriminatory, the phrasing is something I wasn’t particularly concerned about though it seems to be the cause of the effect, and the intention doesn’t change the fact that it is deisciminatory… if they didn’t mean to be discriminatory, then fine, repeal the notion in good faith and get on with it.
eris, he understands them - he just explained as much. But it seems he’d just rather argue about them than actually answer them. (Or, wait - is that telling lies about him? Will I get banned for that? :rolleyes: )
You’re wrestling with Jello, causing it no injury and straining yourself trying to get a hold. And all that blue-green goo doesn’t do a thing for your complexion!
You’re wrestling with Jello, causing it no injury and straining yourself trying to get a hold. And all that blue-green goo doesn’t do a thing for your complexion!
