Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

So I'm arguing with some idiots on facebook over the ordinance that the San Antonio City Council just passed preventing people from discriminating against gays, and this is the latest post.

"Your original "point" didn't make sense since protection against discrimination isn't special or unique to the LGBT community.

People can be bigots in their own time but if you run a business, there are rules and regulations you must follow when serving the public, or else we allow segregation to return."

The OP of the quote apparently doesn't know that segregation was a LAW passed by government.  Not a SOP of business because they liked it.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

So I'm arguing with some idiots on facebook over the ordinance that the San Antonio City Council just passed preventing people from discriminating against gays, and this is the latest post.

"Your original "point" didn't make sense since protection against discrimination isn't special or unique to the LGBT community.

People can be bigots in their own time but if you run a business, there are rules and regulations you must follow when serving the public, or else we allow segregation to return."

I hate so called Equality people!

[dallen68]

The OP of the quote apparently doesn't know that segregation was a LAW passed by government.  Not a SOP of business because they liked it.

I suspect there was a little bit of both involved, minus the "liking it" part, which has nothing to do with anything. For the most part, business SOP's tend to follow whatever is the cultural norm at any given time - and at that time ... (shouldn't need to be said)

Also, the end of segregation was a law passed by government, although technically speaking, it originally only applied to... well, the government.

"Your original "point" didn't make sense since protection against discrimination isn't special or unique to the LGBT community.

Actually, I'd like to know what the original point was... But anyway, protection against (any number of violations) shouldn't have to be "special" or "unique" - it should be "common" and "ordinary".

Which gives me an excuse to bring up a point that's aggravated me for as long as I can remember: The argument that because you're not (whatever not-special "special" circumstances some schmuck thinks they have) means you can't have an opinion on anything that might affect (people in said circumstances).

[Ibrahim90]

well, I guess pretentious titles are not the sole preserve of dictators from today or the Cold war (the title of Imad ad-din Zengi, assassinated in 1146):

سلطان الشام وغيره الأمير الاسفهسلار الكبير العادل المؤيد المظفر المنصور الأوحد عماد الدين ركن الاسلام ظهير الأنام قسيم الدولة معين الملة جلال الأمة شرف الملوك عمدة السلاطين قاهر الكفرة والمتمردين قامع الملحدين والمشركين زعيم جيوش المسلمين ملك الأمراء شمس المعالي أمير العراقين والشام بهلوان جهان الب غازي ايران اينانج قتلغ طغرلبك أتابك أبو سعيد زنكي بن اق سنقر نصير أمير المؤمنين.

translation:

[spoiler] the Sultan of the Levant and elsewhere the amir, the general, the great, the just, the aider (of God), the triumphant, the victorious, the unique, the pillar of the religion, ornament of the same, treasure of the state, protector of the people, the majesty of the nation, honor of Kings, supporter of the sultans, conqueror of the infidels and rebels, suppressor of the Atheists and Polytheists, leader of the Muslim armies, king of the princes, sun of the deserving, prince of the two Iraqs and of the Levant, Pahlavan, Jihab, alp conqueror of Iran Inaanaj qatlagh, tagharlbak, atabag, abu sa'eed zengi son of aaq sunqur, protector of the prince of the believers (i.e. the Caliph)[/spoiler]

here's the title of his enemy, the governor of Damascus:

وصاحب دمشق الأمير الاسفهسلار الكبير العادل المؤيد المظفر المنصور ظهير الدين عضد الاسلام ناصر الامام تاج الدولة سيف الملة محيي الأمة شرف الملوك عماد الأمراء كهف المجاهدين زعيم جيوش المسلمين أبو سعيد اتق بن محمد بن بوري أتابك سيف أمير المؤمنين.

[spoiler]rule of Damascus, the amir, the general, the great, the just, the aider of god, the triumphant, the victorious, triumpahtor of the religion, the arm of Islam, protector of the imam (it could also mean border area: hard to tell), crown of the state, sword of the people, bringer of life to the nation, honor of kings, pillar of Princes, cave* of the mujahideen, leader of the Muslim armies, abu sa'eed ataq son of Muhammad son of Buri atabeg sword of the prince of Believers[/spoiler]

*as in shelter


thankfully, the guy who recorded these long-winded titles (ibn al-qalaanisi (1070-1160)) wasn't exactly a fan of them..here's what he had to say:

I have  neglected in what I have mentioned of the affairs of the sultans of the time previously, and would like to take advantage of this time to mention their established adjectives and their free titles, so as to avoid their repetition in their entirety and taking too long to mention them, that and there is no established custom nor correct path in any classified history or published book for such a thing, but rather the custom is to strike off the full title and their rejection among those of knowledge and literature.

basically, he's saying that at the rate Sultan's names keep getting added to, he simply wouldn't have the space to write down the history itself...

[evensgrey]

well, I guess pretentious titles are not the sole preserve of dictators from today or the Cold war (the title of Imad ad-din Zengi, assassinated in 1146):

translation:

[spoiler] the Sultan of the Levant and elsewhere the amir, the general, the great, the just, the aider (of God), the triumphant, the victorious, the unique, the pillar of the religion, ornament of the same, treasure of the state, protector of the people, the majesty of the nation, honor of Kings, supporter of the sultans, conqueror of the infidels and rebels, suppressor of the Atheists and Polytheists, leader of the Muslim armies, king of the princes, sun of the deserving, prince of the two Iraqs and of the Levant, Pahlavan, Jihab, alp conqueror of Iran Inaanaj qatlagh, tagharlbak, atabag, abu sa'eed zengi son of aaq sunqur, protector of the prince of the believers (i.e. the Caliph)[/spoiler]

here's the title of his enemy, the governor of Damascus:

[spoiler]rule of Damascus, the amir, the general, the great, the just, the aider of god, the triumphant, the victorious, triumpahtor of the religion, the arm of Islam, protector of the imam (it could also mean border area: hard to tell), crown of the state, sword of the people, bringer of life to the nation, honor of kings, pillar of Princes, cave* of the mujahideen, leader of the Muslim armies, abu sa'eed ataq son of Muhammad son of Buri atabeg sword of the prince of Believers[/spoiler]

*as in shelter


thankfully, the guy who recorded these long-winded titles (ibn al-qalaanisi (1070-1160)) wasn't exactly a fan of them..here's what he had to say:


basically, he's saying that at the rate Sultan's names keep getting added to, he simply wouldn't have the space to write down the history itself...

Swap out the Islam-specific references for Christian ones, and you'd have a fair semblance any number of medieval European ruler's titles.  Similar replacement would render the titles styled by any number of despotic rulers of other cultures.

[Ibrahim90]

Swap out the Islam-specific references for Christian ones, and you'd have a fair semblance any number of medieval European ruler's titles.  Similar replacement would render the titles styled by any number of despotic rulers of other cultures.

yeah, that doesn't bode well....As an Atabeg (really bad), Imad ad-din was both mild and popular (which isn't saying much, but it means he's still considered a hero): he was a known drunkard, mass murderer, and oath breaker--all of which al-qalaanisi noted. imagine what worse people were styled with.


Oh, wait, it actually gets pretty amusing--and even borderline blasphemous--at times. like this guy (from Iran--contemporary to the above two):

[spoiler]Sultan of Khorasan, the exalted, the grand Shahenshah*, ruler of the necks of the nations, lord of the Arab and Foreign Sultans, protector of God's faith, ruler of the servants of God, the protector of the lands of God, sultan of God's Earth, deputy of the Caliph of God, honorer of the world and of the religion, shelter** of Islam and Muslims, arm of the conquering state, crown of the triumphant people, rescuer of endangered nations, father of al-harth sanjar son of malik-shah, physical expression of the power*** of the prince of the believers".[/spoiler]

a slightly more humble character, related to the above:

[spoiler]Sultan of Iraq, the exhalted Sultan, the grand Shahenshah, ruler of the necks of the nations, ruler of the Arabs and Foreigners, majesty of God's faith, sultan of God's Earth, protector of God's servants, protector of God's lands, triumphator of the Caliph of God, rescuer of the world and of the faith, cornerstone of Islam and the Muslims, arm of the conquering state and savior of endangered nations father of al-fat7****, mas'ud son of Muhammad son of malik-shah, treasure of the prince of the believers[/spoiler]

*Persian title, meaning, "king of kings". so yeah, he's apparently "the grand king of kings". Obviously he's competing with the Chinese Emperor.
**yep, using that word for cave again (kahf)
*** in the original Arabic, the word is"burhaan", which is somewhat hard to translate. the above is an approximation.
****it can also mean "father of the conquest".

you just know it's bad when the titles get really fancy, so as to require commentary on the names themselves...That and they really don't live up to the title (Imad ad-din Zengi never ruled or conquered Iran, or all of Iraq, or much more than the area of modern day Northern Syria and Iraq. He was still a talented commander, known to be the scourge of the crusaders.)

[MrBogosity]

I hate so called Equality people!

Yeah, equality for everyone EXCEPT business owners. We don't get our right to free assembly for some reason.

[Travis Retriever]

I suspect there was a little bit of both involved, minus the "liking it" part, which has nothing to do with anything. For the most part, business SOP's tend to follow whatever is the cultural norm at any given time - and at that time ... (shouldn't need to be said)

It was not a cultural norm, it was a government norm.  Do you honestly think businesses voluntarily hired additional people to keep blacks/etc out just so they could lose more money?  Hell, check out the free version of Mary J Ruwart's book Healing Our World.  She cites examples of business owners even *RIGHT AFTER* the Civil War (but before the laws of segregation were passed) saying "fuck it" and choosing their wallet over their bigotry!

Also, the end of segregation was a law passed by government, although technically speaking, it originally only applied to... well, the government.

1)  Even if I accept that at face value, solving a problem you yourself caused doesn't really make you a hero.  2)  Except it *was* applies to business too, not just gov't.

The rest of your post is unparsable.

[Travis Retriever]

Yeah, equality for everyone EXCEPT business owners. We don't get our right to free assembly for some reason.

[sarcasm in case it wasn't blatant enough]Well isn't that obvious? Because everyone who went to a government approved school knows that they are selfish, evil, greedy, meanie poopy heads who love watching people suffer and who kick puppies when no one's looking.   And that our Holy Government is the paragon and literally Polaroid of perfection and anyone who says otherwise is a racist/commie/terrorist/traitor/etc/etc/etc/etc. [/sarcasm in case it wasn't blatant enough]

[MrBogosity]

Well isn't that obvious? Because everyone who went to a government approved school knows that they are selfish, evil, greedy, meanie poopy heads who love watching people suffer and who kick puppies when no one's looking.

The thing is, even if that were the case, we even let people like the KKK and the neo-Nazis have their freedom of speech. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Why can't people apply that same concept to other rights as well?

[Travis Retriever]

The thing is, even if that were the case, we even let people like the KKK and the neo-Nazis have their freedom of speech. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Why can't people apply that same concept to other rights as well?

Well IIRC, as the comments on your videos from schpendrop (or however it's spelled) goes, apparently, freedom of association is not a right and is just an excuse to be racist...even though it is freedom of association part of self ownership that defines the right of slaves to leave their masters--and no longer be slaves, and of people in nations to not be forcibly annexed into others.  Or of the Jews during the Holocaust to not have to be thrown in concentration camps...but this is different because...well, just because!

But yeah, I honestly don't understand the different treatment of social and economic freedom/liberty that conservatives and liberals do.
Yes, I am aware they are both moving more and more towards the statist part of the Nolan chart, but you know what I mean.
That is, they're both just human action right?  Why does something that is right if done alone/with friends without using money somehow become wrong when money is involved or vise versa?  I never understood this line of thinking...As long as everyone consents that should be the end of it.  Period.  End of story.

[Travis Retriever]

"The USA's healthcare is a free market and that's why it sucks!" -- Too many people to even list.

Yeah, we've all heard that load of easily falsified garbage.

[nilecroc]

I suspect there was a little bit of both involved, minus the "liking it" part, which has nothing to do with anything. For the most part, business SOP's tend to follow whatever is the cultural norm at any given time - and at that time ... (shouldn't need to be said)

Also, the end of segregation was a law passed by government, although technically speaking, it originally only applied to... well, the government.

Actually, I'd like to know what the original point was... But anyway, protection against (any number of violations) shouldn't have to be "special" or "unique" - it should be "common" and "ordinary".

Which gives me an excuse to bring up a point that's aggravated me for as long as I can remember: The argument that because you're not (whatever not-special "special" circumstances some schmuck thinks they have) means you can't have an opinion on anything that might affect (people in said circumstances).

"So gays getting special privileges that no one else has is equality? Good to know."
They proceeded to call me ignorant and an idiot, and I responded by posting a link to fallacy files about ad hominems. One of them said that the link was irrelevant, and asked for my thoughts, which I gave.
The other guy said he sarcastically said he should be able to discriminate against me for being apart a religious cult.(Implying a must be a Christian to support this policy, and that I support discrimination)

I responded with:"1. I'm not a Christian. 2. I value freedom of association over a phony sense of equality. 3. Just because I disapprove of this law does not mean I support the discrimination. I simply disapprove of forcing people to associate themselves with people they don't like. If you don't want to support some bigot? Then don't do business with them. Also, attacking me instead of my points is a logical fallacy, since you try to discredit my point by attacking me."

The response I got was: "Your original "point" didn't make sense since protection against discrimination isn't special or unique to the LGBT community.

People can be bigots in their own time but if you run a business, there are rules and regulations you must follow when serving the public, or else we allow segregation to return."

I responded with:"They are being bigots on their time. It's their business and their property."
The two responses I got were:" I understand it's hard for you to be empathetic when you're a white male in America. Had you been a young man in the '50s, I'm sure I can imagine what side of the civil rights movement you would have been on."
After this one I just figured it was a lost cause. Being accused of being a racist for simply disagreeing with a retarded policy apparently makes me a racist, and I must lack empathy because of my gender, nationality, and race. People like this piss me off. They act like white nights for all the all the supposed victims in society, but are actually sexists, racists assholes who think every minority needs special protection against the evil man. Any descent is brushed aside like this.


"Considering that businesses can't discriminate against disabled people, other races, etc, I don't see why they should discriminate against LBGT people. I could always do business elsewhere, sure, but it's the principle of the thing."

[Travis Retriever]

"So gays getting special privileges that no one else has is equality? Good to know."
They proceeded to call me ignorant and an idiot, and I responded by posting a link to fallacy files about ad hominems. One of them said that the link was irrelevant, and asked for my thoughts, which I gave.
The other guy said he sarcastically said he should be able to discriminate against me for being apart a religious cult.(Implying a must be a Christian to support this policy, and that I support discrimination)

I responded with:"1. I'm not a Christian. 2. I value freedom of association over a phony sense of equality. 3. Just because I disapprove of this law does not mean I support the discrimination. I simply disapprove of forcing people to associate themselves with people they don't like. If you don't want to support some bigot? Then don't do business with them. Also, attacking me instead of my points is a logical fallacy, since you try to discredit my point by attacking me."

The response I got was: "Your original "point" didn't make sense since protection against discrimination isn't special or unique to the LGBT community.

People can be bigots in their own time but if you run a business, there are rules and regulations you must follow when serving the public, or else we allow segregation to return."

I responded with:"They are being bigots on their time. It's their business and their property."
The two responses I got were:" I understand it's hard for you to be empathetic when you're a white male in America. Had you been a young man in the '50s, I'm sure I can imagine what side of the civil rights movement you would have been on."
After this one I just figured it was a lost cause. Being accused of being a racist for simply disagreeing with a retarded policy apparently makes me a racist, and I must lack empathy because of my gender, nationality, and race. People like this piss me off. They act like white nights for all the all the supposed victims in society, but are actually sexists, racists assholes who think every minority needs special protection against the evil man. Any descent is brushed aside like this.


"Considering that businesses can't discriminate against disabled people, other races, etc, I don't see why they should discriminate against LBGT people. I could always do business elsewhere, sure, but it's the principle of the thing."

To be fair, calling someone an idiot/retard/whatever is not an ad-hominem.  It is only an ad-hominem if he tries to use it to defeat your position: "You're a an idiot, therefore you are wrong!"  Also, a refutation which has an insult tacked onto the end is also not an ad-hominem (ex: one of Shane's posts against many a state cultist who had it coming).  Otherwise, a good post.

Also, not sure why he brings up the bit about discrimination against one group of people as if that were something special--as a libertarian I don't think gov't should have ANY say in discrimination with business of ANY group of people.

[dallen68]

Also, not sure why he brings up the bit about discrimination against one group of people as if that were something special--as a libertarian I don't think gov't should have ANY say in discrimination with business of ANY group of people.

I bring it up for the reason you just said, which should have been obvious when I said it. And actually, I was talking about when people use the "you're not surhotchaperchlorome, so you have nothing to say about things that might effect surhotcherchlorome" argument. (You know, as if no one else is not hired somewhere, or not made to feel "comfortable" in the restaurant, or ignored at the party, etc.)Essentially, it closes any possibility of conversation, and thus any possibility of reaching mutual agreement.

And just as an aside: If a business owner doesn't want to serve you, they don't have to. As far as discriminating against LGBT, unlike discriminating for some other reason, you can't look at someone and tell this - so don't bring it up, and then you won't be discriminated against for being LGBT.