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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
By "exhausted" do you mean you were running out of logical fallacies to use?

Those words don't mean what you think they that they mean.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
By "exhausted" do you mean you were running out of logical fallacies to use?

Those words don't mean what you think they that they mean.

You mean;
- appeal to relative privation
- false equivalence
- strawmen
- shifting the goalposts
- demanding impossible perfection
- non sequitur
- double standards
Are not logical fallacies?

How many of those did you use to take the argument that "gays shouldn't be targeted" and pretend it means "gays shouldn't be affected" and then pretend that we are all hypocrites because of your weird logic?

 d-usa wrote:
How many of those did you use to take the argument that "gays shouldn't be targeted" and pretend it means "gays shouldn't be affected" and then pretend that we are all hypocrites because of your weird logic?

That would be my argument... if you mis-read what was posted and attempted to strawman what I said.


Weird logic? Is that what we call it now when we point out someone holding two conflicting points of view?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/300/604288.page#7019072

 d-usa wrote:
If your service is putting messages on cakes that you sell and you refuse to put that message on the cake you sell then it's not free speech, it's discrimination.

So someone being refused access to their account must also be discriminatory. Right?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/604288.page#7015467

 d-usa wrote:
If he refused to serve the cake with the message, even though he makes lots of cakes with lots of messages, then he refused to serve he customer.

Decorating the cake is part of the service, but people still somehow try to separate the two.

Like FB refusing to allow LGBT to use pseudo names. Putting a name of your choosing on the account is all part of the service, so clearly they too refused service and must be equally worthy of derision. Right?


Guess not
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/615664.page#7213171

 d-usa wrote:
It's their playground, it's their rules. Some of the rules might have good reasons and also stupid reasons.

My stance is pretty consistent, as my arguments in the cake thread and this thread make pretty clear:

The cake guy cannot TARGET certain populations. He either puts decorations and messages for EVERYONE or he does it for NOBODY. If he doesn't do decorations then it doesn't matter if gays get their feelings hurt because nobody gets decorations.

Facebook cannot TARGET certain populations. They either allow fake accounts for EVERYONE or for NOBODY. It nobody gets fake names then it doesn't matter if gays get their feelings hurt because nobody gets fake names.

You are too intelligent to pretend not to get the difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the thread that you quoted me from to pretend that my message is different:

 d-usa wrote:
When your job is to put messages requested by customers on an edible product and you refuse to put some messages on some cakes then you discriminated because you don't offer your service equally.

 d-usa wrote:
When your job is to put messages requested by customers on an edible product and you refuse to put some messages on some cakes then you discriminated because you don't offer your service equally.

If that were true, then why is it acceptable to have ladies night at the pub?

Double standards. I'm sure there is some "we don't charge dudes more, we charge ladies less" argument that makes sense to some people.

Also #whataboutism.

Personally I've always found facebook stupid . Mostly due to how people act on there.

 d-usa wrote:
My stance is pretty consistent, as my arguments in the cake thread and this thread make pretty clear:

The cake guy cannot TARGET certain populations. He either puts decorations and messages for EVERYONE or he does it for NOBODY. If he doesn't do decorations then it doesn't matter if gays get their feelings hurt because nobody gets decorations.

Facebook cannot TARGET certain populations. They either allow fake accounts for EVERYONE or for NOBODY. It nobody gets fake names then it doesn't matter if gays get their feelings hurt because nobody gets fake names.

You are too intelligent to pretend not to get the difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the thread that you quoted me from to pretend that my message is different:

 d-usa wrote:
When your job is to put messages requested by customers on an edible product and you refuse to put some messages on some cakes then you discriminated because you don't offer your service equally.

And yet when people bring up voter registration etc. that applies equally we get told that it is racist because minorities are disproportionately affected. Here we have a similar disproportionate effect and people who usually decry it are justifying it.

So when discussing alleged discrimination do we look at intent, equal affect, targeting? Because it looks like it depends very much on what way the wind is blowing

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And yet when people bring up voter registration etc. that applies equally we get told that it is racist because minorities are disproportionately affected. Here we have a similar disproportionate effect and people who usually decry it are justifying it

You do realize that there are slight, very minor, some people would even call them minuscule, differences between a private company providing a service and the government making sure that people can freely a equitably exercise their rights?

When it is obvious that certain policies and laws are enacted to target certain populations then I will bitch about it.

Again. The key it targeting. Are you just arguing for the same of arguing or do you actually believe what you are typing?

PhantomViper wrote:
You do realize that there are slight, very minor, some people would even call them minuscule, differences between a private company providing a service and the government making sure that people can freely a equitably exercise their rights?

Thank you for missing the point

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
You do realize that there are slight, very minor, some people would even call them minuscule, differences between a private company providing a service and the government making sure that people can freely a equitably exercise their rights?

Thank you for missing the point

Look at your posts in this thread and the replies that you got, I'm not the one that is missing the point.

 d-usa wrote:
When it is obvious that certain policies and laws are enacted to target certain populations then I will bitch about it.

Again. The key it targeting. Are you just arguing for the same of arguing or do you actually believe what you are typing?

So equality before the law (applies to all equally) is targeting and discriminatory when there is actually no evidence that there is any disproportionate effect
A company applying their policy (their own law) where one community is disproportionately affected, has been told such, the evidence supports such, has met with the individuals concerned, proceeded with their policy regardless is not discriminatory




Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
Look at your posts in this thread and the replies that you got, I'm not the one that is missing the point.

Strange you chose to only comment on the voting comparison, and nothing else.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When it is obvious that certain policies and laws are enacted to target certain populations then I will bitch about it.

Again. The key it targeting. Are you just arguing for the same of arguing or do you actually believe what you are typing?

So equality before the law (applies to all equally) is targeting and discriminatory when there is actually no evidence that there is any disproportionate effect
A company applying their policy (their own law) where one community is disproportionately affected, has been told such, the evidence supports such, has met with the individuals concerned, proceeded with their policy regardless is not discriminatory

You can pretend there is no evidence, more power to you. To argue the point, again,would be a whole other thread.

At this point it is painfully obvious, to everyone, that you couldn't care less about the actual topic and that your only goal is to catch others in some sort of perceived contradiction and you won't stop until you think you have done so.

So go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your pretend victory, I'm out.

 d-usa wrote:
You can pretend there is no evidence, more power to you. To argue the point, again,would be a whole other thread.

At this point it is painfully obvious, to everyone, that you couldn't care less about the actual topic and that your only goal is to catch others in some sort of perceived contradiction and you won't stop until you think you have done so.

So go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your pretend victory, I'm out.

We have gone over it several times in the past. The result - no evidence of voter disenfranchisement, no evidence of a plot to prevent people from voting. In fact last time links were provided that showed minority turn out increased.

The topic was trying to determine what Dakka considers to be discrimination as the definition seems to vary depending on whether it is a sympathetic case or not. As far as the contradictions, accusations were cited and quoted.