PayPal cancels plan to open North Carolina operations center in response to state's anti-LGBT law

[Rippleman]

Luckily for the rational type, religion will die out in about 500 years, , Christianity dies out in about 200 years, with Islam dying out in about 300 more years after that. The age of mythology will be over and humanity can move forward into a new incredible age of enlightenment where everyone works for the betterment of the whole and where everyone is treated equally. Granted, people can still be disliked (even hated), but it would be because of their personality/actions rather then who they are. I wish I could be around to witness it.

 

[veLa]

Ah yes, nothing like putting words in my mouth! I never said they were the same issue.

You compared them as if they were. Or were you lumping in apples and oranges merely to show contrast?

To be honest, I'm curious at your level of education? Do you even have a college education? In my case I'm a professor at a research university. What do you do?

1. Yes.
2. Derivatives trader (paid on results, not commission).

My post was a sarcastic quip about discrimination and made no comparison at all. The issue here is discrimination against one of the most poorly understood subcultures in the world. Phony it up with the guise of religious freedom all you want, but most of us will see right through it.

I suppose, you're probably one of those proponents of the separate but equal parameter. Maybe we should have gay specific restrooms, gay specific water fountains, and gay only hospitals. That way your religious freedom of not having to be bothered by those who don't adhere to society's gender binary expectation won't be infringed upon.

 

[seefizzle]

Luckily for the rational type, religion will die out in about 500 years, , Christianity dies out in about 200 years, with Islam dying out in about 300 more years after that. The age of mythology will be over and humanity can move forward into a new incredible age of enlightenment where everyone works for the betterment of the whole and where everyone is treated equally. Granted, people can still be disliked (even hated), but it would be because of their personality/actions rather then who they are. I wish I could be around to witness it.

One can only hope, and that it happens sooner than later. The rate at which technology improves happens faster and faster with every cycle. It stands to reason that it shouldn't take 500 years for religion to die out, rather maybe a hundred years, or two hundred years. Each generation is successively smarter than the previous generation. Interestingly however, there are people out there that feel like it's their duty to teach artificial intelligence about religion. Try to wrap your head around that. There are people out there that literally want to teach computers about Jesus, and potentially convert AI to believing in god. It's wild. I'd like to think that one could teach computers about god but that the computers would realize it's all bullsh*t. http://gizmodo.com/when-superintelligent-ai-arrives-will-religions-try-t-1682837922

 

[davislane1]

Continuing with today's lesson...

Take note how veLa constantly moves the target in an attempt to gain the upper hand.

In his openeing comment, he accused me of being retarded. After I highlighted that I had already identified the analogy as poor, that segment of his original post was edited out. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. Maybe he only wanted to criticize the original comment and hit 'reply' on my response by accident. Who knows?

When I brought up the fact that free love isn't actually free, he completely ignored my position and brought up racial segregation, attempting to tie it to the issue at hand:

Man if only we could go back to the 50s when blacks and whites couldn't kiss or get married. When seeing two poeple of the same gender kiss resulted in you getting out of the car and beating them up.

Very emotionally-charged rhetoric.

When I pointed out that linking the two issues was nonsenical, he completely ignored what I said, claiming I was inserting words in his mouth.

It was at this point he attempted to disqualify by asking for credentials:

To be honest, I'm curious at your level of education? Do you even have a college education? In my case I'm a professor at a research university. What do you do?

When that didn't pay dividends, he shifted again. Once more, away from the issue at hand (the freedom to enter into contracts) to something completely irrelevant and nonsensical:

Do your religious beliefs mandate that you're fully aware of everyone's genitals?

This all begs a question.

What exactly is veLa attempting to avoid?

It's very simple.

The real issue at the heart of religious freedom is whether one class of citizens can force another class of citizens to do things against their will.

It would be very, very bad (at face value) to come out and say, "Yes. I believe that people should be forced to do things they believe are wrong if others believe they are right." This statement simply cannot be defended without being exposed as arbitrary, irrational, and tyrannical.

So, veLa dances arround the issue with emotional appeals and red herrings, thus attempting to bypass the rational faculties of the brain and ratchet the empathy dial up to 11. (Or maybe 12. I don't know what kind of dial he's working with).

As if to put the cherry on the sunday, he composed this gem as I was typing this out. Notice how he very succintly incorporates every single tactic pointed out above into a neat, two paragraph response:

My post was a sarcastic quip about discrimination and made no comparison at all. The issue here is discrimination against one of the most poorly understood subcultures in the world. Phony it up with the guise of religious freedom all you want, but most of us will see right through it.

I suppose, you're probably one of those proponents of the separate but equal parameter. Maybe we should have gay specific restrooms, gay specific water fountains, and gay only hospitals. That way your religious freedom of not having to be bothered by those who don't adhere to society's gender binary expectation won't be infringed upon.

This brings me to the final point. The purpose of my shtick, if you will.

The three laws of SJWs:

1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double-down.
3. SJWs always project.

And with that, today's class comes to a close. Have a wonderful day.

 

[Rippleman]

One can only hope, and that it happens sooner than later. The rate at which technology improves happens faster and faster with every cycle. It stands to reason that it shouldn't take 500 years for religion to die out, rather maybe a hundred years, or two hundred years. Each generation is successively smarter than the previous generation. Interestingly however, there are people out there that feel like it's their duty to teach artificial intelligence about religion. Try to wrap your head around that. There are people out there that literally want to teach computers about Jesus, and potentially convert AI to believing in god. It's wild. I'd like to think that one could teach computers about god but that the computers would realize it's all bullsh*t. http://gizmodo.com/when-superintelligent-ai-arrives-will-religions-try-t-1682837922

The reason why I believe it will take the 200 year gap is generational. Virtually 100% of all "religious signups" are done through indoctrination. With the internet and social interaction, total indoctrination is getting much more difficult and can only be truly had if the child being indoctrinated is cut off from all outside world views other then the parents own. Christianity will be the first to go due to the modernization of the west and all the information that is out there for children to question what their parents claims of truth to be. (example: if parents tell the child that snakes can talk, the child will see the wealth of information on the web/social sites/ etc of opposing the lie; hence the indoctrination is lessened). This effect will snowball and by the 4th generation (40 years per generation of parent/child) the ludicrous claims made by their great great great great grandparents will have all but be a memory in the page of a history book. Because of the middle east's educational system, it will take a further 300 years for Islam to disappear for the exact same reasons for the fall Christianity... increased knowledge, increased world awareness and decreased indoctrination. Just my 2 cents.

 

[mattfrompa]

Continuing with today's lesson...

Take note how veLa constantly moves the target in an attempt to gain the upper hand.

In his openeing comment, he accused me of being retarded. After I highlighted that I had already identified the analogy as poor, that segment of his original post was edited out. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. Maybe he only wanted to criticize the original comment and hit 'reply' on my response by accident. Who knows?

When I brought up the fact that free love isn't actually free, he completely ignored my position and brought up racial segregation, attempting to tie it to the issue at hand:

Man if only we could go back to the 50s when blacks and whites couldn't kiss or get married. When seeing two poeple of the same gender kiss resulted in you getting out of the car and beating them up.

Very emotionally-charged rhetoric.

When I pointed out that linking the two issues was nonsenical, he completely ignored what I said, claiming I was inserting words in his mouth.

It was at this point he attempted to disqualify by asking for credentials:

To be honest, I'm curious at your level of education? Do you even have a college education? In my case I'm a professor at a research university. What do you do?

When that didn't pay dividends, he shifted again. Once more, away from the issue at hand (the freedom to enter into contracts) to something completely irrelevant and nonsensical:

Do your religious beliefs mandate that you're fully aware of everyone's genitals?

This all begs a question.

What exactly is veLa attempting to avoid?

It's very simple.

The real issue at the heart of religious freedom is whether one class of citizens can force another class of citizens to do things against their will.

It would be very, very bad (at face value) to come out and say, "Yes. I believe that people should be forced to do things they believe are wrong if others believe they are right." This statement simply cannot be defended without being exposed as arbitrary, irrational, and tyrannical.

So, veLa dances arround the issue with emotional appeals and red herrings, thus attempting to bypass the rational faculties of the brain and ratchet the empathy dial up to 11. (Or maybe 12. I don't know what kind of dial he's working with).

As if to put the cherry on the sunday, he composed this gem as I was typing this out. Notice how he very succintly incorporates every single tactic pointed out above into a neat, two paragraph response:

My post was a sarcastic quip about discrimination and made no comparison at all. The issue here is discrimination against one of the most poorly understood subcultures in the world. Phony it up with the guise of religious freedom all you want, but most of us will see right through it.

I suppose, you're probably one of those proponents of the separate but equal parameter. Maybe we should have gay specific restrooms, gay specific water fountains, and gay only hospitals. That way your religious freedom of not having to be bothered by those who don't adhere to society's gender binary expectation won't be infringed upon.

This brings me to the final point. The purpose of my shtick, if you will.

The three laws of SJWs:

1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double-down.
3. SJWs always project.

And with that, today's class comes to a close. Have a wonderful day.

How do you expect to get through to anyone being so condescending? I don't even want to get into the issue in the article. When you open with, "Continuing with today's lesson..." it's more difficult to process your argument. Stay above the bs and your arguments will be more effective...with me at least.

 

[davislane1]

How do you expect to get through to anyone being so condescending? I don't even want to get into the issue in the article. When you open with, "Continuing with today's lesson..." it's more difficult to process your argument. Stay above the bs and your arguments will be more effective...with me at least.

I am not even remotely attempting to get through to anyone.

veLa was not engaged in honest conversation. His posts were all rhetorical attacks intended to make his opponents look like bad people. There was no substance, no argument, nothing redeeming. Only emotional appeals.

The proper response to that is to fire back with equally condescending rhetoric, laced with observable truths.

Once it became clear that he would not engage in reasoned discussion, I simply decided it would be better to entertain than engage rhetoric with dialectic.

Maybe someone enjoyed the post. Maybe it was offensive to others. I have no idea (other than the like it has recieved and your response).

Edit: I do agree with your core thought, however.

 

[veLa]

Continuing with today's lesson...

Take note how veLa constantly moves the target in an attempt to gain the upper hand.

In his openeing comment, he accused me of being retarded. After I highlighted that I had already identified the analogy as poor, that segment of his original post was edited out. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. Maybe he only wanted to criticize the original comment and hit 'reply' on my response by accident. Who knows?

Factually inaccurate. My initial post was a response to p51d007, not you.

Very emotionally-charged rhetoric.

When I pointed out that linking the two issues was nonsenical, he completely ignored what I said, claiming I was inserting words in his mouth.

It was at this point he attempted to disqualify by asking for credentials

Again, you're the one who accused me of feeling and not thinking, when I'm the PhD. This was mostly to establish the fact that I teach and perform research at university. In your profile you had your occupation as student, so I was testing the waters to see if you're educated.

When that didn't pay dividends, he shifted again. Once more, away from the issue at hand (the freedom to enter into contracts) to something completely irrelevant and nonsensical:

This was a response to another user as well. I don't know why you think that every time I respond to somebody else that it has something to do with you.

This all begs a question.

What exactly is veLa attempting to avoid?

It's very simple.

The real issue at the heart of religious freedom is whether one class of citizens can force another class of citizens to do things against their will.

It would be very, very bad (at face value) to come out and say, "Yes. I believe that people should be forced to do things they believe are wrong if others believe they are right." This statement simply cannot be defended without being exposed as arbitrary, irrational, and tyrannical.

So, veLa dances arround the issue with emotional appeals and red herrings, thus attempting to bypass the rational faculties of the brain and ratchet the empathy dial up to 11. (Or maybe 12. I don't know what kind of dial he's working with).

As if to put the cherry on the sunday, he composed this gem as I was typing this out. Notice how he very succintly incorporates every single tactic pointed out above into a neat, two paragraph response:

I'm not avoiding anything. I wouldn't directly respond to you if I was.

And I don't believe that these people are being forced to do things they don't believe are right. They're the ones obsessing over the intentions the users have with the product, or which bathrooms they use, when it's really none of their business.

This brings me to the final point. The purpose of my shtick, if you will.

The three laws of SJWs:

1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double-down.
3. SJWs always project.

And with that, today's class comes to a close. Have a wonderful day.

I have no clue what an SJW is, or what these laws are regarding them. However, I'm fairly confident that they are not scholarly or academic by any means.

 

[lna2000]

Why should less than 1% of the population force their values on 99% of the population.
If my young daughter needs to use a multi gender bathroom, I'm going in with her for protection.
How many fake transgender perverts will haunt the multi gender bathrooms?
Who will protect our wives and daughters from this deviant practice?

 

[veLa]

Why should less than 1% of the population force their values on 99% of the population.
If my young daughter needs to use a multi gender bathroom, I'm going in with her for protection.
How many fake transgender perverts will haunt the multi gender bathrooms?

In general, LGBT folks are not interested in imposing their values. They simply want the same protections the majority enjoys.

I'm wondering how many "fake transgender perverts" can you cite that have lingered around the restrooms before? Can you cite even a single case of a transgender person being a rapist? I doubt it, usually they're the ones who were abused.

Who will protect our wives and daughters from this deviant practice?

I really wish I had something to say to this that would be productive, but I guess it will be up to tough guys like you.

 

[davislane1]

My initial post was a response to p51d007, not you.

Like I said: benefit of the doubt. When I initially responded, the forum showed it as quoting my response in the same frame.

Again, you're the one who accused me of feeling and not thinking, when I'm the PhD.

Once again you claim to be rational while employing logical fallacies in attempt to gain the upper hand. Very dishonest.

 

[tonylukac]

Almost all laws came from religion; the commandments. Religion has and is going too far in making this a hell of rules for people not of that religion to follow. The gay hatred in religions is bad, and the obscure rule they're following, not a commandment, may even be being interpreted wrong. The number of people that are gay, a small minority?, is large as I've been come on to by about 40 men in 56 years in my life and I'm not that much of a prince charming in looks, not resulting in anything. There was a gay man at a certain company I worked for and the occasion of going to lunch with him got me a 3 week trip to california ibm school; he managed the money. I don't hang around in bars and even don't drink much. The forefathers of the us said we should sunset rules, get rid of them sometimes, yet we legislate more rules every day stifiling us.

 

[MannerMauler]

Why should less than 1% of the population force their values on 99% of the population.
If my young daughter needs to use a multi gender bathroom, I'm going in with her for protection.
How many fake transgender perverts will haunt the multi gender bathrooms?

In general, LGBT folks are not interested in imposing their values. They simply want the same protections the majority enjoys.

I'm wondering how many "fake transgender perverts" can you cite that have lingered around the restrooms before? Can you cite even a single case of a transgender person being a rapist? I doubt it, usually they're the ones who were abused.

It's not the transgenders we're worried about, it's the sickos pretending to be transgender, the ordinance said all that was needed for a man to decide that he feels like being a woman and vice Versa.

Do your religious beliefs mandate that you're fully aware of everyone's genitals?

No, it does not.


"Love the sinner, hate the sin." -St. Augustine.

I don't know about other christen faiths, but in the Roman Catholic Church, EVERYONE is welcomed, whether they're gay or not. I'm not going to quote scripture here as this isn't a debate with a presbyterian.

And before anyone ask (AKA other christens), we don't worship Mary, we honor her as the mother of God.

 

[noc81]

This is really sad.. If not for the hate, but the perpetual sex/body shaming that is still being pushed by most of our society. It's kind of pathetic really, just like those of you made uncomfortable by a few flaccid peni$es (good thing they've never seen 'Spartacus', xD).

A peni$ is a peni$, a vagin@ is a vagin@, and a bathroom is still just a room with various fixtures to accept bodily waste. The signs on the door have nothing to do with your personal preferences or beliefs, it's just a way to divide things up properly to present to the right audience (a urinal in a women's restroom is about as pointless as putting little garbage cans next to every toilet in a men's restroom. When it comes down to it, nobody really cares which you use.. Well, at least nobody I want to know.

This sex/body shaming is exactly what is causing this utterly confusing 'insert-whatever-here'-gender movement -- it's the result of their confusion of being told that everyone should be accepted as they are, but for some stupid reason men should wear blue and women should wear pink. One of the oldest civil rights, the right to screw up your children as you see fit, is entirely to blame for this. Stop pushing your extremist beliefs on others, just because you have an unhealthy psychological relationship with your own sexuality and body.

What happens when some $%&# decides to say that this law means that you can't take your child of the opposite sex into the bathroom with you..? I've actually seen this happen.. and thankfully the surrounding members of the public wasted no time into shaming that miserable #$%& into shutting their mouth, realizing that whatever their beliefs are that they are on the wrong side that time. And that, right there, is exactly what is happening with NC -- we are letting them know that this behavior is unacceptable, if not wholly morally wrong.

 

[noc81]

What's next, a no breastfeeding in public law..? Oh, wait..

 

[noc81]

Why should less than 1% of the population force their values on 99% of the population.
If my young daughter needs to use a multi gender bathroom, I'm going in with her for protection.
How many fake transgender perverts will haunt the multi gender bathrooms?
Who will protect our wives and daughters from this deviant practice?

I bet you are the type of person that refuses to stop for hitchhikers and distressed motorists, all because you heard a story once about somebody getting mugged in that circumstance.. So it's perfectly fine to not do the right thing 99.9999% of the time, because of a one in a million chance..?

I really feel sad for you.. How can you live like that, paralyzed by such irrational fears? Do you sleep with a gun under your pillow, and hide one on your person at all times, because you never feel safe? That's no way to live, brother.. I really feel for you, and hope you find the peace you need.

 

[Badvok]

The real issue at the heart of religious freedom is whether one class of citizens can force another class of citizens to do things against their will.

If you rephrased that as follows you might understand things a little better:
"The real issue at the heart of religious freedom is whether one class of citizens can stop another class of citizens from doing things against their will." Or in other words: Can a civil society impose laws that stop some members from hurting others no matter how much they want to?

 

[cliffordcooley]

Sexual separation is not discrimination.

 

[davislane1]

If you rephrased that as follows you might understand things a little better:
"The real issue at the heart of religious freedom is whether one class of citizens can stop another class of citizens from doing things against their will." Or in other words: Can a civil society impose laws that stop some members from hurting others no matter how much they want to?

Except such a rephrase would be completely dishonest.

 

[Danny101]

The North Carolina law is very rational in an irrational world. Gender is gender no matter what a person thinks and feels about it. The bathroom use has worked well up to this point, so why is it that now we must relax policies that's been in place for a very long time because some people can't decide what gender they want to be. The issue here is ultimately being respectful to people without coddling unto their every conceived notion. So to PayPal, and all other big box corporations, get out of the policy game and just do business based on your bottom lines. At least we can trust you on that. Leave the social issues to the citizens and governments. It's simpler that way. I have a PayPal account, so now I may have to close it. Woe unto those who call evil, good and good, evil.

 

[Danny101]

Truly amazing in this time and day that people are so obsessed with another persons practices, especially when it has no direct affect on their lives. This country was founded on the principles of freedom of choice, religion, speech, etc. If we worried more about the character of a person rather than their choices of gender, sex, or religion we would have a much smarter, more emotionally balanced, and happier society. The practice of love, in any form, leads to happiness rather than confrontation, hatred, war, poverty and all the other similar ills that plague mankind. Now, more than ever those immortal words ring true, "what the world needs now is love, sweet love".

Love also means as a parent unto a child. It's a 'No' for your own protection.

 

[Danny101]

Truly amazing in this time and day that people are so obsessed with another persons practices, especially when it has no direct affect on their lives. This country was founded on the principles of freedom of choice, religion, speech, etc. If we worried more about the character of a person rather than their choices of gender, sex, or religion we would have a much smarter, more emotionally balanced, and happier society. The practice of love, in any form, leads to happiness rather than confrontation, hatred, war, poverty and all the other similar ills that plague mankind. Now, more than ever those immortal words ring true, "what the world needs now is love, sweet love".

Actually, it was the hippies from the 60s and 70s who helped usher in the current paradigm. 'Love' divorced from rational values & principles results in fragmentation and conflict.

Man if only we could go back to the 50s when blacks and whites couldn't kiss or get married. When seeing two poeple of the same gender kiss resulted in you getting out of the car and beating them up. Those were the good ole days. When there was obviously under and upper class. When there was a constant clash between the established powers and the poor.

"Maybe one day we can choose how it feels to be a woman or a man."

You seem to have a difficult time separating the wheat from the chafe. Marrying same-sex couples vs interracial couples is not the same thing. Discriminating based on an unchangeable condition such as race, gender, or a disability is wrong, but discriminating based on behavior has merit and is prudent.

Another thing that is often glossed over. Grouping people from different societies will always bring conflict no matter how 'kum bai' yah' we want to be about it. A society built by Christians is not the same as a society built by Muslims. A society built in a democracy is not the same as a society built in communism. Discrimination does have it's place. While people can get along, it's usually not without sacrifice.

 

[Danny101]

https://mobile.twitter.com/_michaelhughes1/media/grid?idx=19&tid=661562991461036032 how's this, go tell this dude to use the women's bathroom.

I find it distasteful that corporations are the only ones getting policy done anymore.

And that keeping women and children safe bullshit, name one instance of a actual trans person who abused kids. If you find one that was not made up on the spot, you have a shitty argument. More than 5 I would consider, you will not find any that are not fake.

Also stop acting like people have any control over how they are born. It didn't help you with skin color, it didn't help you with homosexuality, and it won't help you here.

Lastly, just to preempt you, I find neo progressives just as loathsome as neo conservatives.

So the obvious answer is, don't be obviously out of place.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Every person has the right to be treated with dignity and respect: uhm, no

 

[Rippleman]

Every person has the right to be treated with dignity and respect: uhm, no

Biggest strawman that has ever been put forth.