News Stories

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I wouldn't really mind pushing some of the tax benefits of matrimony toward child rearing, but the problem is that you trivialize the gay marriage when you say it's purely about money.

What i ment is not that homosexual marriage is about financial matters. What I actually ment is that a lot of marriages in general are about financial matters.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I saw a report once on whether being married really cost less in taxes. The answer is that it depends. Unless we're talking about a couple of fiscalists, most people don't really know for sure if they'll play less in taxes when they marry.

I don't know about other countries, but if you get married in Germany, you get into another "tax class", in which you definitly pay less taxes than without marriage.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Being married is about a lot of other things, like child custody, visitation right...

Yes, maybe saying "symbolic" was a bit of an understatement, but of course in my "example law" these things would be included. I did write about homosexual married couples adopting children already as well.
But in my opinion the visitation rights laws are quite outdated...

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's also a matter of principle. Even though the back of the bus goes to the same places as the front, is it alright to tell Black people, or whatever minority, where they can or cannot sit?

It would be best if people are simply viewed upon as people. However a lot of people would call you a homophobe if you don't give away your own place for a black person and it is often not even the black person's fault. I noticed that the use of double standards about rasicsm is most prominent among white people trying to be "knights in shining armor" about the discriminated people and not the discriminated people themselves.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

It would be best if people are simply viewed upon as people. However a lot of people would call you a homophobe if you don't give away your own place for a black person

No one's making you give up your spot. Marriage's a big bus, there's more than enough seats for everybody.

and it is often not even the black person's fault. I noticed that the use of double standards about rasicsm is most prominent among white people trying to be "knights in shining armor" about the discriminated people and not the discriminated people themselves.

"Some anti-racists are overzealous, let's be a bit racist to compensate."?

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

No one's making you give up your spot. Marriage's a big bus, there's more than enough seats for everybody.


"Some anti-racists are overzealous, let's be a bit racist to compensate."?

A wonderful straw man argument, where you are answering to a POV that you created all by yourself.

i.e.: the only one I critisized here are the "overzealous anti-racists", as you call them.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

A wonderful straw man argument, where you are answering to a POV that you created all by yourself.

i.e.: the only one I critisized here are the "overzealous anti-racists", as you call them.

Then why did you even bring them up in the first place, if not as an excuse to oppose what you perceive as oppression from the anti-racist, anti-homophobe crowd? Heck, let's back up a bit. How are those guys overzealous, precisely? Did some asshole demand your seat in an actual bus based on your presumably white color? Or do you consider demanding equal rights to marriage and divorce and everything in between for homosexuals to be over-zealous?

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Then why did you even bring them up in the first place, if not as an excuse to oppose what you perceive as oppression from the anti-racist, anti-homophobe crowd? Heck, let's back up a bit. How are those guys overzealous, precisely? Did some asshole demand your seat in an actual bus based on your presumably white color? Or do you consider demanding equal rights to marriage and divorce and everything in between for homosexuals to be over-zealous?

Exactly, why did you bring up black people although the discussion was about "marriage for homosexual couples"?
But even though you did it first, I nonetheless did the same mistake, so I did not really do much better. So let us not derail the discussion any further, as to answer your question, I would have to.

But if you want to know my personal stance about racism, I can tell you: It is stupid. It used to be the a bit more understandable "fear of the unknown", when black people appeard to the public eye of europe for the first time. But today it is just stupid... and as we know stupidity cannot be cured. If the environment conditioned someone to be rasicst, it is usually too late for that person.



I think the laws regarding marriage need a complete overhaul, as they are, in my eyes, very outdated. (Though the details differ, depending on which country you are talking about). The overhaul, for which my example was one possibility, should of course include the matter of homosexual marriage as well. Any economic benefits, for ANY couples should have a good reason aside from "they are married". Of course all the things like visitation rights should be always included in the effects of marriage, completely detached from the economic matters.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Eragon

The difference being that he went one whole year without any kind of incident (the gay guy wasn't into alcohol and stuff, as far as I know). He stayed with him for a whole year and suddenly he becomes paranoid that his roomie will do something.

Oh. Then yeah, he was just being homophobic.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

I don't know about other countries, but if you get married in Germany, you get into another "tax class", in which you definitly pay less taxes than without marriage.

In the US, you get better deductions, but the combined income could also bump you up into a higher tax bracket. I believe the first threshold is somewhere around $65k a year.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

However a lot of people would call you a homophobe if you don't give away your own place for a black person and it is often not even the black person's fault. I noticed that the use of double standards about rasicsm is most prominent among white people trying to be "knights in shining armor" about the discriminated people and not the discriminated people themselves.

The "back of the bus" thing is a reference to Rosa Parks. Back then, black people were supposed to sit in the back of the bus so white people could sit in the front. She refused to move, and it caused a national stir.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Exactly, why did you bring up black people although the discussion was about "marriage for homosexual couples"?

Civil Rights Movement. Very similar to what's going on now with homosexuals, just not as easy to tell since it isn't a skin color.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by GDB

Civil Rights Movement. Very similar to what's going on now with homosexuals, just not as easy to tell since it isn't a skin color.

Which were successful. The current U.S. president is black. Of course there are still a lot of racists around, but I think it is not nearly as bad is it was described to be in the past.

But today it doesn't work that well anymore, because the "other side" simply does counter-movements and that "other side" is usually the one that is holding more money than the opposition and the media don't really help.

The only things that can have a similar effect as the civil rights movements of the past, are lots and lots of money and/or smart use of the internet. The letter obviously reffers to the ACTA protests.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Exactly, why did you bring up black people although the discussion was about "marriage for homosexual couples"?

Because they're also a minority who's had to fight for equal rights, equal treatment. You'd think the parallels would be obvious.

But even though you did it first, I nonetheless did the same mistake, so I did not really do much better. So let us not derail the discussion any further, as to answer your question, I would have to.

But if you want to know my personal stance about racism, I can tell you: It is stupid. It used to be the a bit more understandable "fear of the unknown", when black people appeard to the public eye of europe for the first time. But today it is just stupid... and as we know stupidity cannot be cured. If the environment conditioned someone to be rasicst, it is usually too late for that person.

That doesn't answer my question. Why did you bring up the problem of (unspecified) overzealous civil rights proponents, whether they're anti-racists or anti-homophobes?

Because when you do, especially when you abstain from saying exactly what they did, it looks like, while you're refusing the label of racist/homophobes, you nevertheless wish those people would stop making a stir. That they'd know their place, maybe, accept the statu quo and stop demanding to be treated by equals under the law, at least until such a time as the (endless) supply of "more important" issues has been dealt with.

[KiraYamatoFan]

I seriously believe the thread should be closed until further notice. This has gone out of control here.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

That doesn't answer my question. Why did you bring up the problem of (unspecified) overzealous civil rights proponents, whether they're anti-racists or anti-homophobes?

Because when you do, especially when you abstain from saying exactly what they did, it looks like, while you're refusing the label of racist/homophobes, you nevertheless wish those people would stop making a stir. That they'd know their place, maybe, accept the statu quo and stop demanding to be treated by equals under the law, at least until such a time as the (endless) supply of "more important" issues has been dealt with.

I didn't want to derail it further, but well whatever:

The ones I am talking about are not really "overzealous". I think "mindless followers" would be more correct. Under the disguise of "being on the good side and fighting against evil", a lot of politicians try to use certain civil right movements for their own gain, for example to gain popularity. They then throw around words, while twisting the meanings of them, however technically they never lie to the people, so political enemies cannot use those words against them.

An example for such a word would be "tolerance". A lot of people understand it as "live and let live" and in worst cases some even use it as a synomym for acceptance. But actually the word originates from the Latin word "tolere", which means "(to) carry". Yes, tolerance actually means "to bear the burden of living with other people whose lifestyle you cannot accept". But as I said most people are unaware of it and throw it around like candy. Actually even the mass media do that...

Of course this seems like simply nitpicking on the definition of a word, but what does this tell you?
If the politicians and media can "define" words as they see fit, then WHAT ELSE could they "define"? Obviously almost everything. And as they do so, the things that are defined by them will start to be associated with the things that they talk about.

In other words: the people are conditioned.

I actually have to admit that the example with the bus does not really fit what I talk about very much, but that which I call media(/politicans)-induced-prejudice DOES exist.

I think this should be enough proof.


@KiraYamatoFan: I gave Anh_Minh the warning that I didn't want to derail the thread, but he wanted the answer so much. But you are right, we should drop this discussion now. So, Anh_Minh if you want to continue the discussion, then create a new tread. As far as I am concerned, I have nothing to add.

[Anh_Minh]

Last word is mine, then.

I still don't see that this has anything in particular to do with civil rights fight. In any parade, you'll find politicians trying to take credit. In any cause, you'll find idiots.

That this is the case for anti-video game people (and how anecdotal your "proof" is! Not that you're wrong, there are plenty of idiots who want to ban video games for spurious reasons) says nothing, one way or the other, on the subject of equality. Especially as I don't think there's much overlap between the "think of the children" crowd and the "gays are people too" crowd.

[ganbaru]

Russia gives Snowden asylum, Obama-Putin summit in doubt
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9700N120130801

Berlusconi conviction leaves Italian government hanging
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9701HD20130801

[demonix]

Ariel Castro sentenced to life without parole plus 1000 years

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

I'm sure he will get some "tender" care from his fellow inmates, since rapists seem to be a fine delicacy in prison (although I think I heard that he is in solitary already because of such "tender" care happening already?).

I never understood the 1000+ year sentences. Is it done just to make things easier on the books? I know that they come about from multiple different charges stacking on top of each other. But to it sounds like something a 5 year old would come up with along the lines of "Nah ah! You're out for infinity plus 1 turns!"

[JokerD]

Do they bury his body in the prison for 1000 years after his death or something?

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

The answer is clearly that the US DOJ uses Necromancy.

[ganbaru]

Even when jobs return, Detroit's workers fall short on skills
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97107C20130802

Iran's Rouhani misquoted in remarks on Israel: state TV
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9710GN20130802

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Even when jobs return, Detroit's workers fall short on skills
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97107C20130802

That's ok, they don't need no training or education for skilled jobs, they can all go work at McDonald for 15/hr (or 21/hr like some have said)!

Because you know, they say they totally deserve to be paid that much for flipping burgers.

[Shyni]

Student sues DEA for abandoning him in jail cell, wins $4.1 million

Remember Daniel Chong? The University of California, San Diego student who the DEA arrested in a 4/20 drug bust in 2012 and then forgot in a jail cell for five days without food or water? He’s just been awarded $4.1 million in a lawsuit against the government.

(...)

But he had to undergo one hell of an ordeal for the payout. Left handcuffed in a cell for five days without food or water, Chong had given up and resigned himself to death after initially fighting to survive by drinking his own urine. He managed to carve “sorry mom” into his arm, and waited for the inevitable. He was found in extremely poor condition.

He actually sued for 20 million, but got 4.1, which still sounds like a lot. Must have been pretty painful being handcuffed and locked up with no food or water or anybody noticing though, (did the place have no guards or something?) so I find it hard to blame him.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

I never understood the 1000+ year sentences. Is it done just to make things easier on the books? I know that they come about from multiple different charges stacking on top of each other. But to it sounds like something a 5 year old would come up with along the lines of "Nah ah! You're out for infinity plus 1 turns!"

Pretty sure it's there to basically say "You cannot possibly get parole, and you have no chance to get out for good behavior." If it were just life, they could theoretically serve some amount, but then spend the rest of the time on parole.