Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Chuck Norris, a stereotypical "red" American, with (obviously) a penchant for guns, the bible, and the GOP, and this is news?!

Of course he dislikes gay people!

At least now, if Chuck Norris were to beat me up, I could tell him he's giving me an erection, and then he'll stop.

Why doesn't Chuck Norris simply roundhouse kick so fast that it goes back in time and....


Oh just forget it.

dæl wrote:At least now, if Chuck Norris were to beat me up, I could tell him he's giving me an erection, and then he'll stop.

Then you get to sue for assault AND sexual assault

Revenent Reiko wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Chuck Norris is a far right mouthpiece and homophobe.

I am a far left supporter who happens to be friends with a number of gay people, and I say that it's impossible for Norris to be awesome any more. He's gone too far by saying some people are worth less than others simply because they a) have less money or b) have a different sexual orientation. Neither of these can be helped: you're born with them or without them. This means that to be prejudice against either is as bad as being prejudice against someone because of the colour of their skin, and I would not be surprised if Norris has this prejudice as well. He is officially now Uncool.

Are you saying that having money is something you are born with...? And that you cant change it....?

Confused.

No. What I am saying is that you can't change it though. It's quite a deep philosophical thought, but look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
Combine that with the idea that you are born with, e.g. a talent for being good at maths, a large amount of greed, and some caring enough parents to get you into a good position for getting a job. You then go into banking and make a fortune. That was all you, right? I mean, it was you that worked hard when you were driven by greed, yeah? And anyone can do math, you just got to try!

But that's not the case. If you're not born good at maths, you can't get a job in banking, and can't make that money. In face if you have a naturally low IQ, chances are you won't have as much money at the end as someone who was born with a better brain. It's all luck, whether you're rich. If you believe in fate, you will understand this. If you believe in free will it will be harder to get your head round, but it all boils down to where you start off and what talents you have, what parents you have, and so on. Say you're born to a gypsy family, and don't have any amazing talents. Are you saying you have even the remotest chance at getting rich? Because if so, you're kidding yourself pretty hard.


Sorry if I'm introducing too much hard philosophy in a gaming forum, but it wasn't my idea to start a politics thread.

p_gray99 wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Chuck Norris is a far right mouthpiece and homophobe.

I am a far left supporter who happens to be friends with a number of gay people, and I say that it's impossible for Norris to be awesome any more. He's gone too far by saying some people are worth less than others simply because they a) have less money or b) have a different sexual orientation. Neither of these can be helped: you're born with them or without them. This means that to be prejudice against either is as bad as being prejudice against someone because of the colour of their skin, and I would not be surprised if Norris has this prejudice as well. He is officially now Uncool.

Are you saying that having money is something you are born with...? And that you cant change it....?

Confused.

No. What I am saying is that you can't change it though. It's quite a deep philosophical thought, but look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
Combine that with the idea that you are born with, e.g. a talent for being good at maths, a large amount of greed, and some caring enough parents to get you into a good position for getting a job. You then go into banking and make a fortune. That was all you, right? I mean, it was you that worked hard when you were driven by greed, yeah? And anyone can do math, you just got to try!

But that's not the case. If you're not born good at maths, you can't get a job in banking, and can't make that money. In face if you have a naturally low IQ, chances are you won't have as much money at the end as someone who was born with a better brain. It's all luck, whether you're rich. If you believe in fate, you will understand this. If you believe in free will it will be harder to get your head round, but it all boils down to where you start off and what talents you have, what parents you have, and so on. Say you're born to a gypsy family, and don't have any amazing talents. Are you saying you have even the remotest chance at getting rich? Because if so, you're kidding yourself pretty hard.

Sorry if I'm introducing too much hard philosophy in a gaming forum, but it wasn't my idea to start a politics thread.

Yes, having a natural talent for something means that you are going to be good at it, theres nothing new there. Neither is having good contacts to get you started off, the basis on your continuing success (or not, as the case may be) is down to your own performance however (so long as you are in the private sector, dont even get me started on the public sector...), not what you are born with. Yes, there are many places where this isnt true, sue to favouratism etc., but there are also many places where it is true.

Does hard work count as a talent? What about being thrifty? Because using the two together can, and has, netted many people vast sums just because they work hard at a reasonable job, and spend their money wisely.

Back on point, i specifically mentined money, which is what you did as well. How can money (or a lack thereof) be in any way linked to either:
What you personal worth is (you said CN was calling people worthless becaus ethey were poor)
Or, a persons sexual orientation?

I dont see how you are drawing a parallel here...

And actually, judging by todays standards in banking, ANYONE can get a job as a banker . also, please dont bring gypsies into this, there are some INCREDIBLY rich gypsies all over the country (some of whom have been on MY Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, but i cant remember their names, darn).

Dont apologies, discussions are fun and exactly what the OT forum is for

Revenent Reiko wrote:Yes, having a natural talent for something means that you are going to be good at it, theres nothing new there. Neither is having good contacts to get you started off, the basis on your continuing success (or not, as the case may be) is down to your own performance however (so long as you are in the private sector, dont even get me started on the public sector...), not what you are born with. Yes, there are many places where this isnt true, sue to favouratism etc., but there are also many places where it is true.

Does hard work count as a talent? What about being thrifty? Because using the two together can, and has, netted many people vast sums just because they work hard at a reasonable job, and spend their money wisely.

Back on point, i specifically mentined money, which is what you did as well. How can money (or a lack thereof) be in any way linked to either:
What you personal worth is (you said CN was calling people worthless becaus ethey were poor)
Or, a persons sexual orientation?

I dont see how you are drawing a parallel here...

And actually, judging by todays standards in banking, ANYONE can get a job as a banker . also, please dont bring gypsies into this, there are some INCREDIBLY rich gypsies all over the country (some of whom have been on MY Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, but i cant remember their names, darn).

Dont apologies, discussions are fun and exactly what the OT forum is for

Ok, I was linking in money to say how Norris was wrong on another level as well, in that he is far right. Perhaps it doesn't have a lot to do with the thread, ok.
Hard work, of course, doesn't count as talent. It is, in fact, caused by something that is luck, however: Strong will. You won't believe me to start with, no-one ever does, so let me go off on a tangent to explain. Of the people that go to top-level universities, almost all are first-born. Want to know why? Because naturally, and I'm not sure why nor how, but naturally first-born children have stronger willpower than those born after them. Perhaps it's the belief that it's down to them to carry the family forwards. I don't know. It's just the way it is. But looking at this, can you say that hard work is purely a person's choice, when first-born children put in so much more effort than those that come after them? Perhaps they all happen to make that choice, but it must be something to do with when they were born, yes? It can't be one massive coinsidence that happent to affect hundreds of thousands of people. Therefore there is chance involved: Those born second or after naturally have a disadvantage and are less likely to do well or make a lot of money.


Ok, that's one small example. "I want more examples," I hear you say. "Ok," I reply. "More examples you shall get."


I hope you trust the guardian as a reliable source? Because here is another sign that it's pure chance. This isn't being sexist, it's just the way it is. We may start off equal, but girls put in more effort. You can't say that's simply a fair choice. Perhaps they have more to inspire them? I don't know, as before. It's just that it comes down to a 50/50 chance whether you'll be in the "naturally going to do better" group, or the "naturally going to do worse" group. And if you're a boy, tough. Getting it changed can only happen after most/all your education is finished, so by then it'll be too late. Don't argue with that much evidence.


So you see, yes, you can decide to work hard. Yes, that decision's all yours, except... if you're a girl, you're more likely to make one decision. Oh, and if you're first born, you're more likely to make that same decision. So of course, it's not chance at all, is it?

*Sigh*

Someone needs to tell these idiots running the BSA that it's the 21st century.

p_gray99 wrote:Ok, I was linking in money to say how Norris was wrong on another level as well, in that he is far right. Perhaps it doesn't have a lot to do with the thread, ok.
Hard work, of course, doesn't count as talent. It is, in fact, caused by something that is luck, however: Strong will. You won't believe me to start with, no-one ever does, so let me go off on a tangent to explain. Of the people that go to top-level universities, almost all are first-born. Want to know why? Because naturally, and I'm not sure why nor how, but naturally first-born children have stronger willpower than those born after them. Perhaps it's the belief that it's down to them to carry the family forwards. I don't know. It's just the way it is. But looking at this, can you say that hard work is purely a person's choice, when first-born children put in so much more effort than those that come after them? Perhaps they all happen to make that choice, but it must be something to do with when they were born, yes? It can't be one massive coinsidence that happent to affect hundreds of thousands of people. Therefore there is chance involved: Those born second or after naturally have a disadvantage and are less likely to do well or make a lot of money.

Totally disagree.
Strong Will is not the same as Hard Work. I work hard at my job, but that is due to Pride more than anything else (not saying i dont have a strong will as well, but its no the same thing).
Also, as to your example, how many children in the UK are single-children? ie, have no siblings? Because that scews your data. Also, you are missing peer pressure, parental pressure, loyalty (to family for example, knowing that a degree should get you a better job, therefore more money to help your parents later on in life...), along with a multitude of other factors that affect university attendance. I am the first born, i know. MY little sister is also at uni, and in fact, decided she wanted to go before i did...

Ok, that's one small example. "I want more examples," I hear you say. "Ok," I reply. "More examples you shall get."

I hope you trust the guardian as a reliable source? Because here is another sign that it's pure chance. This isn't being sexist, it's just the way it is. We may start off equal, but girls put in more effort. You can't say that's simply a fair choice. Perhaps they have more to inspire them? I don't know, as before. It's just that it comes down to a 50/50 chance whether you'll be in the "naturally going to do better" group, or the "naturally going to do worse" group. And if you're a boy, tough. Getting it changed can only happen after most/all your education is finished, so by then it'll be too late. Don't argue with that much evidence.

Yes, the Guardian is a reliable source. However, its a non-issue. Its been known for many years that girls have the same, if not greater, aptitude as boys when it comes to academics. Its not even about effort, i know plenty of extremely clever girls who put bugger all effort in to their work. At least a part of it is down to how boys and girls mature as far as im aware....(correct me if im wrong of course, im always happier knowing the truth). i also dont really agree with the exam systme in this country, its not about whether you uderstand anything anymore, its how well you can memorise the exact words and phrases that are spouted at you and then regurgitate them back onto the page....thats a memory test, not a test of knowledge.

So you see, yes, you can decide to work hard. Yes, that decision's all yours, except... if you're a girl, you're more likely to make one decision. Oh, and if you're first born, you're more likely to make that same decision. So of course, it's not chance at all, is it?

We are on a differnet subject after all of this btw
I do agree that some people are smarter than others, are more dedicated, or [insert characteristic here] than others from birth. But i also believe that being a girl, or first born makes little to no difference.

Revenent Reiko wrote:
Strong Will is not the same as Hard Work. I work hard at my job, but that is due to Pride more than anything else (not saying i dont have a strong will as well, but its no the same thing).
Also, as to your example, how many children in the UK are single-children? ie, have no siblings? Because that scews your data. Also, you are missing peer pressure, parental pressure, loyalty (to family for example, knowing that a degree should get you a better job, therefore more money to help your parents later on in life...), along with a multitude of other factors that affect university attendance. I am the first born, i know. MY little sister is also at uni, and in fact, decided she wanted to go before i did...

Strong will is what leads to hard work. If you have no will, you will inevitably not work hard, as you can't be bothered. If you have strong will, you will inevitably work hard, as you know it will be better for you in the long run. And I never said that all first-born get to university while no second-born get to university. It's just a general trend, of course there will be exceptions.

Its been known for many years that girls have the same, if not greater, aptitude as boys when it comes to academics. Its not even about effort, i know plenty of extremely clever girls who put bugger all effort in to their work. At least a part of it is down to how boys and girls mature as far as im aware....(correct me if im wrong of course, im always happier knowing the truth). i also dont really agree with the exam systme in this country, its not about whether you uderstand anything anymore, its how well you can memorise the exact words and phrases that are spouted at you and then regurgitate them back onto the page....thats a memory test, not a test of knowledge.

As far as I care, it doesn't matter what causes them to do better. It's just that girls are doing better than boys, meaning that there must be some inequality in what's causing them to do well, meaning that half the population starts with a better chance than the other half before they're even born. Hell, they've got a better chance before they're even recognised by most people as humans!

We are on a differnet subject after all of this btw
I do agree that some people are smarter than others, are more dedicated, or [insert characteristic here] than others from birth. But i also believe that being a girl, or first born makes little to no difference.

Perhaps it makes little difference. It cannot make no difference; if that were the case then boys would be exactly equal to girls. But all this is simply boiling down to one thing: People won't have an equal chance, whatever you do. Some people will have better chances of becoming rich than others and there's nothing we can do other than treat everyone equally, because wherever someone is, it's probably not their fault that they are there.

In fact, I think you're ready enough to read a piece of philosophy I created and have only shown to 3 other people. Enjoy, it's due to you that this is open to the web
This is written in all seriousness; if you disagree with it simply PM me or whatever. I'll be happy to hear it.

p_gray99 wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:
Strong Will is not the same as Hard Work. I work hard at my job, but that is due to Pride more than anything else (not saying i dont have a strong will as well, but its no the same thing).
Also, as to your example, how many children in the UK are single-children? ie, have no siblings? Because that scews your data. Also, you are missing peer pressure, parental pressure, loyalty (to family for example, knowing that a degree should get you a better job, therefore more money to help your parents later on in life...), along with a multitude of other factors that affect university attendance. I am the first born, i know. MY little sister is also at uni, and in fact, decided she wanted to go before i did...

Strong will is what leads to hard work. If you have no will, you will inevitably not work hard, as you can't be bothered. If you have strong will, you will inevitably work hard, as you know it will be better for you in the long run. And I never said that all first-born get to university while no second-born get to university. It's just a general trend, of course there will be exceptions.

Not true, having a strong will [i[can[/i] lead to hard work, but it is much more easily engendered by interest. Being interested in something has nothing to do with your willpower, but makes a HUGE differnce to whether or not you put effort into it. Having a strong will will also not necessarily affect your ambition, which is what will cause you to have that forethought to be able to be better in the future by putting the effort in now.
I know, that wasnt what i meant, i was simply saying that my sister decided she wanted to go to Uni before i did, therefore bucking the trend. I was also saying that your belief that more first borns go to Uni is/could be biased due to there being parents who only have one child.

Its been known for many years that girls have the same, if not greater, aptitude as boys when it comes to academics. Its not even about effort, i know plenty of extremely clever girls who put bugger all effort in to their work. At least a part of it is down to how boys and girls mature as far as im aware....(correct me if im wrong of course, im always happier knowing the truth). i also dont really agree with the exam systme in this country, its not about whether you uderstand anything anymore, its how well you can memorise the exact words and phrases that are spouted at you and then regurgitate them back onto the page....thats a memory test, not a test of knowledge.

As far as I care, it doesn't matter what causes them to do better. It's just that girls are doing better than boys, meaning that there must be some inequality in what's causing them to do well, meaning that half the population starts with a better chance than the other half before they're even born. Hell, they've got a better chance before they're even recognised by most people as humans!

That will bias your view. Not caring about one of the factors that affects the data is a serious mistake, and could cause you to make incorrect conclusions based upon that data. The cause is often the more telling thing than the effect i find. GCSE's are also not the most effective data set to look at, as they are less important to the job market than, say, A-levels, or Degrees. Not saying they arent important at all, just less so.
you will also find a lot of people (not myself) who disagree that women have a greater chance

We are on a differnet subject after all of this btw
I do agree that some people are smarter than others, are more dedicated, or [insert characteristic here] than others from birth. But i also believe that being a girl, or first born makes little to no difference.

Perhaps it makes little difference. It cannot make no difference; if that were the case then boys would be exactly equal to girls. But all this is simply boiling down to one thing: People won't have an equal chance, whatever you do. Some people will have better chances of becoming rich than others and there's nothing we can do other than treat everyone equally, because wherever someone is, it's probably not their fault that they are there.

Agreed, it cannot make no difference, that is simply a turn of phrase. I do think that that difference is largely mitigated by an individuals approach to life/work/whatever. Agreed, not everyone has the same chances, but its those differences, those different chances, and the differint decisions that each person makes that make life what it is. If everyone had the same chances, made the same decisions, led the same life, then we wouldnt be human...
I am also in the 'treat everyone the same' camp, but that is mainly due to being Christian, and firmly believing in 'treat others as you yourself would be treated'

In fact, I think you're ready enough to read a piece of philosophy I created and have only shown to 3 other people. Enjoy, it's due to you that this is open to the web
This is written in all seriousness; if you disagree with it simply PM me or whatever. I'll be happy to hear it.

Thank You. I am humbled.

I will give this a read tonight. I am very much looking forward to it

The Boy Scouts still don't allow gay kids?

EPIC FAIL.

The other thing about this thread, the title is misleading. There are no gay rights when it comes to a private club like the boy scouts, churches, the local needlepoint and anarchy group, whatever.

A private and or religous organization has the right by law, and by the consitution to discriminate in its membership any way they want.

If a group says "no gays", "no women", "no whites", "no blacks" "no jews" this is within thier right to do so.

What I am amazed at, is that no one for the last 30 some odd years since the boyscout thing became a hot button issue, tried to start up a group to compete with said boy scouts.

Because in the real world its NOT a hot button issue, that no one really cares besides people who have an ax to grind?

they kicked out a Lesbian from the BSA

a lesbian?

a person who has no sexual interest in little boys whatsoever?

*throws hands up in the air in frustration*

Bakerofish wrote:they kicked out a Lesbian from the BSA

a lesbian?

a person who has no sexual interest in little boys whatsoever?

*throws hands up in the air in frustration*

Are you a scout? Why do you care?
The whole issue doesn't have squat to do with rope knots, proper fire making, or the incredibly uber competitive nature of the soap box derbies. (I mean seriously. You're going to tell me that 7 year old snot nosed rat behind you built this aerodynamic wonder that you had tested in a wind tunnel...)

On the positive you can get scuba certified as a badge at camp in girl scouts. GC's next goal. I have promised that if she and SWMBO can get me a whole rack of shotgun shell bang sticks I can carry, that I'll go scuba diving with them.

Divemaster: Did I just see a diver go by in hockey mask, machete, and escorted by two wiener dogs with their own tiny dive gear? Did his tank really say "BRING IT SHARK MOFOS!"? I've got to check the air regulator when I get out. . .

Boy Scouts of the Philippines actually.

Squigsquasher wrote:The Boy Scouts still don't allow gay kids?

EPIC FAIL.

In America. Here in the UK everyone is welcome.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:The Boy Scouts still don't allow gay kids?

EPIC FAIL.

In America. Here in the UK everyone is welcome.

And thats why your Empire fell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bakerofish wrote:Boy Scouts of the Philippines actually.

So no. Again, why do you care?

Frazzled wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:Boy Scouts of the Philippines actually.

So no. Again, why do you care?

He is a member of the World Scout Association. He is a Scout.

It is in the Scout law that a Scout is a brother to all Scouts, so Bakerofish has every right to speak on this subject as an American Scout does.

lets just put it this way.

I am comfortable dealing with known gay people in the Boyscouts. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with tying ropes and digging holes in dirt for shelter like you said.

the problem I have here is that the BSA has had problems with "predators" of one form or another.

im just saying that the scout master being lesbian leaves one less thing to worry about.

@malus: Thanks for the defend but he missed it the first time. I dont think repeating it would help.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:Boy Scouts of the Philippines actually.

So no. Again, why do you care?

He is a member of the World Scout Association. He is a Scout.

It is in the Scout law that a Scout is a brother to all Scouts, so Bakerofish has every right to speak on this subject as an American Scout does.

Not a US boy scout.
He has the right under Dakka rules to speak. But he's not a US scout. Its their issue.

A Town Called Malus wrote:*Sigh*

Someone needs to tell these idiots running the BSA that it's the 21st century.

Matters on the council Really. NEI Allows gay and lesibans. I don't know about the southern councils. The National Council I don't know if they have an input on this. Its funny because these guys aren't following the scout law or scout oath. AT ALL. /reasoning

so if you're not a US Boy Scout stfu?

really fraz?

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:Boy Scouts of the Philippines actually.

So no. Again, why do you care?

He is a member of the World Scout Association. He is a Scout.

It is in the Scout law that a Scout is a brother to all Scouts, so Bakerofish has every right to speak on this subject as an American Scout does.

Like I do. I can talk about this issue openly. The Councils need to improve. They need to make a better environment for scouts, but also expose them to other types of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bakerofish wrote:so if you're not a US Boy Scout stfu?

really fraz?

All scouts are welcome to discuss.
If your a scout, your a scout.
Kinda like being a marine, once a Boy Scout/Eagle Scout/Queen Scout always a Boy Scout/Eagle Scout/Queen Scout

Bakerofish wrote:so if you're not a US Boy Scout stfu?

really fraz?

Obviously Fraz wasn't in the Scouts. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of brotherhood with all scouts regardless of nationality, gender, religion, sexuality etc.

Bakerofish wrote:so if you're not a US Boy Scout stfu?

really fraz?

I just said per Dakka you're free to speak. I am just constantly mazed that people have opinions on matters that don't especially concenr them, especially when they cut a holier than thou attitude (not you, in general) or its about some bs only tangentially related to the organization itself.

Frankly I'm sick of the whole gay this or gay that or gays are evil or gays aren't evil. Its like the whole MSM culture has gotten obsessed when none of it matters as much as a cup of coffee to most people.

1. They're here. They're queer. Get used to it.
2 (95% of America) duh!!! we got used to it 10 years ago. The whole issue is so 2002. More importantly whats for supper?

Frazzled wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:so if you're not a US Boy Scout stfu?

really fraz?

I just said per Dakka you're free to speak. I am just constantly mazed that people have opinions on matters that don't especially concenr them, especially when they cut a holier than thou attitude (not you, in general) or its about some bs only tangentially related to the organization itself.

Frankly I'm sick of the whole gay this or gay that or gays are evil or gays aren't evil. Its like the whole MSM culture has gotten obsessed when none of it matters as much as a cup of coffee to most people.

1. They're here. They're queer. Get used to it.
2 (95% of America) duh!!! we got used to it 10 years ago. The whole issue is so 2002. More importantly whats for supper?

I didn't realise they had the same legal partnership rights throughout America. Excellent!

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:so if you're not a US Boy Scout stfu?

really fraz?

Obviously Fraz wasn't in the Scouts. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of brotherhood with all scouts regardless of nationality, gender, religion, sexuality etc.

Correct. Dad of a boy scout. Official DAWG as well. Girl scouts takes the position that we welcome everyone...as long as they can sell cookies. "Want to buy some cookies?" (pulls axe from behind back) "So that was fifteen boxes then?"

Brotherhood is different, I'm a firm believer in brotherhood... of canines. Bortherhood with people? No way... Dogs rule people drool!

tell me again how this doesnt concern me Fraz.

and tell me how it concerns you.

I'd like to see ya type that down.

Make me understand