On June 10 2014 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
100 years from now they'll be saying the same about us
100 years from now they'll be saying the same about us
You people had dogs on leashes in public! And kept them in cages!? You animals!
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Roswell
United States250 Posts
June 10 2014 00:22 GMT
#21961
On June 10 2014 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2014 09:11 Nyxisto wrote: no no no! the 19th century folks had it all figured out! 100 years from now they'll be saying the same about us You people had dogs on leashes in public! And kept them in cages!? You animals! | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
June 10 2014 00:27 GMT
#21962
Also, hello guys, been a while. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21793 Posts
June 10 2014 00:31 GMT
#21963
On June 10 2014 09:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2014 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote: On June 10 2014 08:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On June 10 2014 08:33 Nyxisto wrote: On June 10 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On June 10 2014 08:06 Nyxisto wrote: On June 10 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On June 10 2014 07:05 Nyxisto wrote: "federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from? DOMA is from the mid 90's. Long Title: An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage But what exactly needs traditional marriage protection from? I don't understand the argumentation. Are gay people converting straight people into evil homosexual relationships as of late? Who is attacking marriage? DOMA prevented the term "marriage" from including homosexual marriages. Not sure what about that you don't understand. which also happens to exclude them from federal marriage benefits, which I don't understand, because why would anybody support something like that? Some people have values and beliefs that differ from your own. Did you not know that? Of course pretty much everyone knows that. Most people agreed that in America we should not legislate those religious beliefs designed to discriminate though. Historically, no. Public support for homosexual marriage is a recent thing. I'm not talking exclusively about Gay marriage or public opinion on it particularly. I mean the idea that we don't turn 'Christianity' into 'The Law' isn't new. To be fair there has been public support for gay marriage since they first starting asking the question (in polls). What's changed is, that it now represents the majority opinion and is supported more fervently. Keep in mind, public support for interracial marriage didn't become the majority until the late 90's... From 4% in 1959. It also wasn't until 1967 that the Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage bans as unconstitutional. (Yeah they arrested people for marrying outside their race in America less than 60 years ago...) I don't think it's a coincidence there is so much overlap in the factions who have stood in opposition of both using almost the same arguments. There is no question people hid/hide their personal prejudices behind a shield of religion then and now. This is one of many reasons I am constantly harping about the pervasiveness of Creationist rhetoric and beliefs in or political system. It leads to legislation like DOMA which is ridiculous by any measure. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
June 10 2014 00:32 GMT
#21964
On June 10 2014 09:12 Roswell wrote: Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that That has to do with the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the gay male community. As of 2011, nearly 20% of gay men have HIV/AIDS. They account for over 50% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the US, and that share is growing based on recent trends. It's a numbers thing, not a discrimination thing. Source | ||
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
June 10 2014 02:24 GMT
#21965
On June 10 2014 09:32 aksfjh wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2014 09:12 Roswell wrote: Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that That has to do with the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the gay male community. As of 2011, nearly 20% of gay men have HIV/AIDS. They account for over 50% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the US, and that share is growing based on recent trends. It's a numbers thing, not a discrimination thing. Source Yeah, but then even if you test clean you're not allowed to, so... | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
June 10 2014 03:23 GMT
#21966
Rep. Vance McAllister (R-LA) openly acknowledged on Thursday that members of Congress expect to receive campaign contributions for voting a certain way on bills. During an event with the Northeast Chapter of Louisiana CPAs, the congressman shared an anecdote that illustrated how "money controls Washington," according to the Ouachita Citizen. He said that many approach their work in D.C. as a "steady cycle of voting for fundraising and money instead of voting for what is right." McAllister discussed a bill related to the Bureau of Land Management, which he voted against. McAllister told the crowd that an unnamed colleague told him on the House floor that if he voted "no" on the bill, he would receive a contribution from Heritage, a conservative think tank. “I played dumb and asked him, ‘How would you vote?’” McAllister said. “He told me, ‘Vote no and you will get a $1,200 check from the Heritage Foundation. If you vote yes, you will get a $1,000 check from some environmental impact group.’” Heritage Foundation, an educational nonprofit, is barred from contributing directly to candidates. Its sister political action organization, Heritage Action, however, is allowed to do so. McAllister did not receive a contribution, but his colleague did, the congressman said. McAllister said he wasn't surprised he didn't get a check, as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Heritage are "upset" with him. The congressman was caught kissing one of his staffers, and has since decided not to run for re-election in 2014. “They are always trying to throw bullets at me," McAllister said of Jindal and the Heritage Foundation. "Once I told my friend about Gov. Jindal being mad at me, he said, ‘Well, that’s why you didn’t get a check.’” Source | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
June 10 2014 03:52 GMT
#21967
On June 10 2014 11:24 Funnytoss wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2014 09:32 aksfjh wrote: On June 10 2014 09:12 Roswell wrote: Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that That has to do with the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the gay male community. As of 2011, nearly 20% of gay men have HIV/AIDS. They account for over 50% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the US, and that share is growing based on recent trends. It's a numbers thing, not a discrimination thing. Source Yeah, but then even if you test clean you're not allowed to, so... Same if you go out of country. If it's a 1 in 5 chance you have HIV/AIDS, it's not a good idea to be taking and using your blood to save somebody's life. Note: this is only if you have had gay sex. If you're a gay virgin, you can still give blood. If it turned out left-handed people had a 1 in 5 chance of being HIV positive, you can bet your ass you'd see the same kind of selective processing. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
June 10 2014 05:45 GMT
#21968
On June 10 2014 12:52 aksfjh wrote: Depends on the country, or area of the country.Show nested quote + On June 10 2014 11:24 Funnytoss wrote: On June 10 2014 09:32 aksfjh wrote: On June 10 2014 09:12 Roswell wrote: Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that That has to do with the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the gay male community. As of 2011, nearly 20% of gay men have HIV/AIDS. They account for over 50% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the US, and that share is growing based on recent trends. It's a numbers thing, not a discrimination thing. Source Yeah, but then even if you test clean you're not allowed to, so... Same if you go out of country. If it's a 1 in 5 chance you have HIV/AIDS, it's not a good idea to be taking and using your blood to save somebody's life. Note: this is only if you have had gay sex. If you're a gay virgin, you can still give blood. If it turned out left-handed people had a 1 in 5 chance of being HIV positive, you can bet your ass you'd see the same kind of selective processing. It is a little heartening to see some on the left pause before jumping to homophobia (or racism sexism bigotry misogyny rape culture etc). | ||
Duvon
Sweden2360 Posts
June 10 2014 06:37 GMT
#21969
On June 10 2014 09:32 aksfjh wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2014 09:12 Roswell wrote: Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that That has to do with the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the gay male community. As of 2011, nearly 20% of gay men have HIV/AIDS. They account for over 50% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the US, and that share is growing based on recent trends. It's a numbers thing, not a discrimination thing. Source Questionable. First they estimate only 2% of the population being actively gay or bi (>5% Source), then they state that approximately 450k of those people have an infection. US pop 2010 was around 310 million. 2% of that ->6,2 million. 450k of 6200 -> 7,3%. They do state in your source that of the people testing within a national testing program, almost 20% had an infection. That said, I don't find it wholly unreasonable that active practitioners of gay sex should be barred from giving blood. I do think that multiple tests over a year for example, with no sexual relations in between, should be able to clear an individual of that "tainted" status. | ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
June 10 2014 13:47 GMT
#21970
On June 10 2014 15:37 Duvon wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2014 09:32 aksfjh wrote: On June 10 2014 09:12 Roswell wrote: Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that That has to do with the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the gay male community. As of 2011, nearly 20% of gay men have HIV/AIDS. They account for over 50% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the US, and that share is growing based on recent trends. It's a numbers thing, not a discrimination thing. Source Questionable. First they estimate only 2% of the population being actively gay or bi (>5% Source), then they state that approximately 450k of those people have an infection. US pop 2010 was around 310 million. 2% of that ->6,2 million. 450k of 6200 -> 7,3%. They do state in your source that of the people testing within a national testing program, almost 20% had an infection. That said, I don't find it wholly unreasonable that active practitioners of gay sex should be barred from giving blood. I do think that multiple tests over a year for example, with no sexual relations in between, should be able to clear an individual of that "tainted" status. The bureaucratic burden might be too great to handle in that case. Filling out a standardized couple of forms to go with a pack of blood is easy. Adding another couple of less standardized paperwork for selecting "yes" on section 5a (as an arbitrary example) means you have to train people to interpret that and not make mistakes. The computerization of healthcare and health records will probably kill this practice eventually, but it's just too much of a liability in the meantime. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
June 10 2014 17:51 GMT
#21971
As federal officials scramble to care for the thousands of unaccompanied immigrant children who have surged across the border in recent months, records obtained by BuzzFeed show that some minors have claimed that immigration officials physically abused them. One girl from El Salvador said she was run over by a U.S. government vehicle while being taken into custody in June 2011. The girl was turned over to a shelter overseen by a different federal agency and then was taken to the hospital, which diagnosed a “crush injury” in her right leg. She told a clinician that she was “trying to run away from immigration when she fell down and her right leg was run over by one of the tires on the vehicle,” according to an incident report. She also said she believed that immigration officials “were not attending to her needs and did not believe that the injury had been caused by being run over.” A boy from Guatemala claimed that a border patrol agent kicked him in the stomach while he was inside a detention cell in July 2011. Other minors reported being punched, denied medical treatment, or abused verbally. Source | ||
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
June 10 2014 19:04 GMT
#21972
On June 10 2014 09:16 KwarK wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2014 09:12 Roswell wrote: Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that Given lesbians can I'm assuming it's a public health thing rather than a homophobia thing. Similar to how sub-Saharan Africans can't give blood and African Americans can. It's still legitimizing prejudice. It's like how your 'individual' insurance profile is based on stereotyped inferential statistics, rather than actual facts about you personally. You could argue it's an efficiency or triage issue, but that would not eliminate the fact that they assume things about you based on others' behaviour. It's disheartening to see conservatives let the majority stain the character of the individual, not something I thought they believed in. | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
June 10 2014 19:31 GMT
#21973
On June 11 2014 04:04 Roe wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2014 09:16 KwarK wrote: On June 10 2014 09:12 Roswell wrote: Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that Given lesbians can I'm assuming it's a public health thing rather than a homophobia thing. Similar to how sub-Saharan Africans can't give blood and African Americans can. It's still legitimizing prejudice. It's like how your 'individual' insurance profile is based on stereotyped inferential statistics, rather than actual facts about you personally. You could argue it's an efficiency or triage issue, but that would not eliminate the fact that they assume things about you based on others' behaviour. It's disheartening to see conservatives let the majority stain the character of the individual, not something I thought they believed in. It's a public health issue. There are restrictions on people who have traveled to Europe too, and it's not because we're prejudiced against white folk, or are worried that Americans will be infected with French cowardice You may not donate blood if: You spent three or more months cumulatively in the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands) from 1980 through 1996. You spent five years or more cumulatively in Europe (including the United Kingdom from 1980 through 1996) from 1980 to the present. You received a blood transfusion in the United Kingdom or France since 1980. You were a member of the US military from 1980 through 1996, a civilian military employee, or a dependent of a member of the U.S. military and spent six months or more at a US military base in any of the following countries: From 1980 to 1990: Belgium, the Netherlands, or Germany From 1980 to 1996: Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Italy, or Greece source | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
June 10 2014 20:25 GMT
#21974
Put border security in place first, then tackle simplifying and expanding legal immigration into the United States and temporary worker visas. It isn't 1986 anymore, we now know all about passing amnesty with empty promises on security. | ||
KlaCkoN
Sweden1648 Posts
June 10 2014 20:36 GMT
#21975
On June 11 2014 04:04 Roe wrote: Show nested quote + On June 10 2014 09:16 KwarK wrote: On June 10 2014 09:12 Roswell wrote: Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that Given lesbians can I'm assuming it's a public health thing rather than a homophobia thing. Similar to how sub-Saharan Africans can't give blood and African Americans can. It's still legitimizing prejudice. It's like how your 'individual' insurance profile is based on stereotyped inferential statistics, rather than actual facts about you personally. You could argue it's an efficiency or triage issue, but that would not eliminate the fact that they assume things about you based on others' behaviour. It's disheartening to see conservatives let the majority stain the character of the individual, not something I thought they believed in. I can't give blood here in California on account of having lived in the UK for 4 years (Their loss really, now I just donate whenever I go see my parents instead). I doubt there is some sort of widespread discrimination against English people in general here though =p. This is one of the very few cases where I'm perfectly fine with profiling. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
June 10 2014 20:47 GMT
#21976
I sure as hell hope they're testing the blood for infections, anyway. | ||
KwarK
United States40781 Posts
June 10 2014 21:01 GMT
#21977
On June 11 2014 05:47 Souma wrote: All the blood that is donated gets tested anyway, does it not? If you're gonna test the blood then what's the point of discriminating? I sure as hell hope they're testing the blood for infections, anyway. they are | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
June 10 2014 21:06 GMT
#21978
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) revived his call for gun safety legislation Tuesday when asked if he'd like to see his bill mandating background checks for firearm purchases at gun shows and Internet sales come up in the Senate again. "I'm always -- I mean, it just makes so much sense," Manchin told TPM during a brief interview in the Capitol. "How do you argue against finding out if a person is a criminal or a person's mentally been adjudicated. All this needs to be done. Sure. I'd like to see reasonable people come to reasonable decisions on a reasonable piece of legislation." Manchin's remarks come in the wake of two shootings in the span of three days -- one Sunday in Las Vegas that lead to five deaths (including two police officers), and a school high shooting Tuesday in Oregon. The Vegas shooting caused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to reiterate his call for expanded background checks on Monday. Source | ||
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
June 10 2014 21:09 GMT
#21979
On June 11 2014 05:47 Souma wrote: All the blood that is donated gets tested anyway, does it not? If you're gonna test the blood then what's the point of discriminating? I sure as hell hope they're testing the blood for infections, anyway. Tests are not 100%. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21793 Posts
June 10 2014 21:22 GMT
#21980
On June 11 2014 05:25 Danglars wrote: If only we had an administration that didn't constantly talk up the DREAM act and a government that is committed to protecting the southern border against illegal entry. These "thousands of unaccompanied immigrant children" is not a freak occurrence, like the news story suggests with its missing back-story. It's the result of irresponsible policies advocated by business interests and bleeding-heart liberals. The current political climate gives hopes for illegal immigrants to sneak across, and become full-fledged citizens in a matter of years, if not by act of Congress (DREAM act, Schumer's bill, past amnesty attempts, future promised legislation) then by Obama's pen (DHS orders amongst others, striking words about using his pen and phone when Congress will not act). By maintaining a porous border, they are creating and exacerbating a crisis that leads to much pain and suffering for would-be illegal immigrants. It's encouraged and supported by the Obama administration. Put border security in place first, then tackle simplifying and expanding legal immigration into the United States and temporary worker visas. It isn't 1986 anymore, we now know all about passing amnesty with empty promises on security. I hear the 'secure the border first' talking point a lot. What is it that people mean when they say that? Like how? What percentage of a decrease would be 'secured', or how many illegal immigrants per month/year would it be when it was considered 'secure' enough to move forward on legal immigration? | ||
| ||
Next event in 5h 48m
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations
StarCraft 2 • Berry_CruncH196 StarCraft: Brood War• practicex 31 • Gussbus • LaughNgamez Trovo • Poblha • aXEnki • Migwel • intothetv • Laughngamez YouTube • Kozan • IndyKCrew League of Legends Other Games |
WardiTV Korean Royale
Kung Fu Cup
H.4.0.S
GSL Code S
herO vs Reynor
soO vs GuMiho
World Team League
Korean StarCraft League
Replay Cast
World Team League
Chat StarLeague
H.4.0.S
[ Show More ] BSL
Chat StarLeague
Sparkling Tuna Cup
World Team League
BSL
ForJumy Cup
|
|