Thanks Obama

[torn asunder]

Dude... I explained myself repeatedly in this "debate". Your refusal to accept my explination is not the same thing as me not explaining.

your failure to adequately explain your stance is your fault, and in a debate, you would lose for not articulating it in a way that people can understand. so far, you're the *only* one who understands what you're trying to say. DEBATE FAIL.

look, directly reply to this...

you're trying to equate a cross-section of the general population, with a minority. in a generalized sense (which is how the world works) it's not discrimination if the cross-section encompasses all of the general population (or at least, doesn't specifically exclude certain groups). gay rights, or trans-gendered rights, or black rights, or latino rights, etc. all deal with the rights of a specific minority in relation to the general populous. a minority percentage of a cross-sectional population simply is not discriminatory. your argument is invalid.

i mean, directly reply to this. i have yet to see you explain yourself adequately on this. my guess is, you won't, because you can't defend your position.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I did replay to that. You do not have to part of a minority to be discriminated against but toi make you happy.. I'll say some more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

Case Law for Political Discrimination:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/427/347/

http://supreme.justia.com/us/445/507/case.html

You don't the WORLDS definition of discrimination... I can't do anything about that. I've explained my position, repeatedly. I have linked proof.. over and over.

Any time you discount a cross section of the populace simply because you don't like what they are saying/doing... you are practicing discrimination. They do not have to be a racial minority, gay, transgender or any of the ohter groups you mentioned.

Now, are you done insulting me yet?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

It is the strong and consistent policy of Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, and Harvard School of Public Health to treat all community members with respect, to provide an environment conducive to learning and working, and to ensure equal access to rights, privileges and opportunities without regard to race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, veteran status or disability. Harassment on the basis of these characteristics is inconsistent with the above principles and violates obligations of non-discrimination imposed by imposed by law and Harvard policy.

[Slogo]

I see what he's saying and there can be political discrimination. I just don't see this as discrimination. If Harvard had refused to enroll someone who was part of a high school group of young Republicans I would see that as discrimination.

I for one think we have an over-inflated defense budget. I don't know if I'm in the majority or not, but if not I don't feel any discrimination toward myself. But by your logic I would be discriminated against

[phee]

Being voted down and being discriminated against are very different things IMO.

[torn asunder]

Any time you discount a cross section of the populace simply because you don't like what they are saying/doing... you are practicing discrimination. They do not have to be a racial minority, gay, transgender or any of the ohter groups you mentioned.

based on the above definition, all voting is discriminatory, because it is dismissive of any vote that is cast outside of the majority's.

yes or no? (and if "no", why not?)

Edited December 21, 2010 by torn asunder

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Voting is not discriminitory... not allowing an issue to come to a vote at all that a portion of the populace wants addressed is.

two examples from this thread...

That 18% of the populace that thinks the world is the center of the solar system (you know, the crazy people). Rolling our collective eyes at them is discrimination, warranted yes, but discrimmination none the less. Now, if it came to a vote (you know, in the bizzarro world) and 82% of the population voted it down... thats not discrimmination.

case 2 is the 11% (approximatly 3.8million people) of the population of Canada that wants the Canadian healthcare system reformed to allow more instances where an individual can pay out of pocket for thier own insurance. Telling them thier concern is not worthy of reform is discrimination. Telling them that thier concern is something for the Provinces to decide is discrimmination. Bring their concern to a vote or at least being open to Parliment debating it would be the non-discriminatory stance.

How is voting not discrimination? Because the people in questions concern/belief/creed is at least being acknoledged as worthy of consideration.

[Jinx]

case 2 is the 11% (approximatly 3.8million people) of the population of Canada that wants the Canadian healthcare system reformed to allow more instances where an individual can pay out of pocket for thier own insurance.

I'm sorry. I tried really really tried. After unplugging my keyboard every time I logged into this discussion I cannot resist anymore. After all the Lunacy I have been reading from Gaf over and over again, almost like a Calvin and Hobbs comic. I have to interrupt for a slight musical interlude.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Carry on all and Merry,Happy whatever you celebrate,

JINX

Edited December 24, 2010 by Jinx