Lurker > Guns_of_Verdun

StealthRock posted...

Hush

So why is coming out of the closet a thing if people can tell your gay just by a glance??

you still havent told me how this is the same as someone SEEING you black SKIN

This is such a dumb point.

Nobody said gay people have gay skin. It's just they have been and still are discriminated against and that is a bad thing.

Going "Don't compare immoral discrimination to other immoral discrimination because I don't like those guys but I do like these guys!" is stupid. Discrimination is wrong period
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Theiconkid posted...

In other words LGBT once again feel the deserve special treatment because "I was born this"

"Special treatment" being the exact same equal treatment everyone else gets that businsesses agree to abide by when they open because its basic common sense and morality?


Yeah there's a reason why they "once again feel they deserve that." it's because they and everyone else does deserve that.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

StealthRock posted...

you can't even tell someone is gay unless they show you or tell you. So even in places where it is punishable by death, they wouldn't even know if they never outed themselves

You're kidding right?

Men have been executed and castrated for being gay for thousands of years. In many countries they still are.

"Well if you hid in the closet there's a chance people might not found out!" is such a horrible dismissal of that suffering
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

joe40001 posted...

But you are wrong about "discrimination". Business can totally discriminate, you can discriminate against people without shoes or shirt, you can discriminate against people who don't have a reservation or a membership, there are loads of types of discrimination that are a-ok.

No you can't. Because that's not discrimination.

IF the bakery said "We don't serve wedding cakes" or "We don't serve people with no shoes." and gays came in to buy cakes and were turned down.

But a guy going into a bakery to buy cakes they sell, wearing shoes and they go "Sorry we don't serve black freaks like you." is discrimination.

Think about it this way: Would you require a business make a KKK cake even if they didn't want to? No? Then similarly you can't require them make a gay cake if they don't want to. Gay people may be a protected class but gay cakes are not. More bluntly, production or distribution of gay accouterments is not something a business is legally obligated to do.

Again false equvilence. This is not the same thing.

Going "You wouldn't allow the bakery to make a cake that has your son being killed by terrorists! So it's okay to not serve women." is just pure nonsense. Nothing more.

Denying service because you want to be a bigot and discriminate is not the same as not doing a service that is fucking stupid.

Once the bakery says "We've opened a bakery, we've as such agreed to comply with the government and sell these cakes we made." they can't then discriminate on customers.

Do you actually have a single argument that is NOT just saying something really stupid and then going "It's like that!"

fenderbender321 posted...

First of all, it's time to throw the whole taxes and infrastructure argument out the window. Everyone benefits from the infrastructure. Businesses aren't the only ones getting the benefit.

Nobody said that they were but this is why they still have to follow basic government rules such as "You're not allowed to discriminate, you must have a fire exit." etc etc

No we don't "Throw that away" just because you want to discriminate against people you don't like. That's stupid.

joe40001 posted...

But you aren't refusing based on their orientation, you are refusing to provide based on what the cake is in service of.

There is no difference. It is still discrimination.

Replace "Gay" with black and you will discover this.

"We don't break the law and discriminate you because you're black, we do it because you'd use the cake at a black wedding or a party with black people and we don't support that because you're black."
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

MaverickXeo posted...

Antifar posted...

Sir Will posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

What I find odd is how he has apparently been doing this for years, yet only recently people came out stating it happened.

Some have been saying it for years.

Right; we first heard allegations about Cosby in like, 2000.

And why was nothing done about it then?

Because no one believed them + a cover up.

You think one or two girls in the 90s would have success when in 2017 and 50 girls, people still deny it?
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Because he confesses to drugging girls in his biography before this scenario even went public. And it's been rumored for decades. 30+ women don't just make this stuff up for no reason and Cosby himself admits to drugging women in his youth.

Also there's that very strange Fox News incident where he was being interviewed and insisted that all the young women who worked in the building be called into the room he was in and made to watch him eat ceral or else he wouldn't do the interview.

Again that's not the kind of thing people make up.

I don't believe in coincidences.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

fenderbender321 posted...

Violence is how we force businesses to comply with not refusing services. If you discriminate, you get fined. If you don't pay the the fine, the police will arrest you. There is your violence.

That's not violence.

fenderbender321 posted...

And there you have it. I'm against violence. I hope you can at least understand that while you may disagree with how I want things to be, that my intentions are good, and well reasoned.

You're literally defending discrimination and attempted to defend it by arguing that's not okay to rob houses.

No your intentions are not well reasoned at all.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

fenderbender321 posted...

This is irrelevant. If you moved to a neighborhood where some guy goes around and robs houses, would it be okay for him to say you consented to having your possessions taken by choosing to live there?

No that's irrelevant.

However the infastructure, roads, public transport, tax breaks, emergency services, education etc that America gave you from the taxpayer to allow your businsess to exist and thrive demands a few very basic obvious stances when you open said businsess.

One of them is that you refuse to discriminate. IF you cannot do that basic prinicpal then you cannot open a business in the US. This is a choice you make when you choose to open a businsess. You do not have the freedom to discriminate.

And if the guys were discriminated against for being black or female you would not be pretending that you don't understand this

Which is basic stuff. Bringing up idiots robbing houses just demonstrates how childish you are.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Nomadic View posted...

Antifar posted...

Nomadic View posted...

I don't know much about UK or who is even running, but a blind prediction would be the person is has a harder view on immigration and terrorism will win.

That person is the one under whom these attacks have happened.

What is the opposition's solution to terrorist attacks?

Open the boarders , pull out of foreign countries and increase benefits.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

fenderbender321 posted...

Only a very tiny fraction of a percent of bigots would turn away customers.

So slavery is okay so long as we don't do much of it? What are you on about?

"It's discrimination but only a small amount of it." doesn't make discrimination okay dude. What's wrong with you/

Money talks. And we should embrace that reality instead of using violence

Who said anything about violence? What planet do you live on? Is it the Nonsense planet that is populated by giant baboons?
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

ThyCorndog posted...

Feathery posted...

Balrog0 posted...

yeah but when they called the election they were up and now they arent as up

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Opinion_polling_UK_2020_election_short_axis.png

Also note the tanking of UKIP, indicated in purple.

beautiful

UKIP wanted Brexit and got it. Of course they are tanking. They were a one policy party and their policy won.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Mr Sandbag posted...

They have a 1st amendment right to religious freedom and shouldn't be Forced To participate in something that goes against their religious beliefs.

And nobody forced them to open a bakery

Once they did they agreed not to discriminate.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

EdwardoMario16 posted...

Choice in sexual orientation is not the same as being born with a skin color.

Discrimination is still discrimination.

"Racism is not the same thing as homophobia!" is a moot point.

Who doesn't want customers?

Bigots.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

EdwardoMario16 posted...

They refused service because the cake displays a message that supports gay marriage, which they do no agree with.

Same thing.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Conservatives will win or else they wouldn't have called the election.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

59% oppose is bafflingly low

---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

philsov posted...

Go_Totodile posted...

Let the market decide who is right and wrong.

Don't forget the "No Dogs, No ******, No Jews." signs


Discrimination is not okay

You don't have the freedom to discriminate. That's contradictory. you can't refuse to serve women or black people or gay people just because you hate them. And if you don't agree to that basic logical moral prinicpal then you cannot open a businsess in the US and as everyone else has mentioned take advantage of the society you're trying to destroy that aided you in acquiring wealth.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Should Christian bakeries be allowed to refuse to make cake for black people?


Well there's your answer.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Zack_Attackv1 posted...

Kevin Bacon is the only correct answer.

Creepy commercial is creepy
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

If only people had the same level of energy/outrage for terrorism or saving the enviroment that they have for this.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

This topic is both facinating and depressing

Why do humans suck so much? v_V
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Go_Totodile posted...

No, it's over. Fuck this shit. I'm not going to be in the movie.

Well no you're not, that's why an actor will play you
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Baneposting posted...

Danny DeVito.
I'd look handsome for once.

Isn't he old now
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

I'd like to be played by Chris Hemsworth or The Rock or Samuel L Jackson
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

JE19426 posted...

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

Also while I'm asking what about Thor? Because he hangs around with enviromentalist liberals a lot too. I mean I guess they have to be if they fight alongsie Wonder Woman sometimes but has it ever actually come up?

Is this a joke? Or do you seriously think Marvel owns Wonder Woman?

There's crossovers and stuff.

MakoReizei posted...

I don't think militaristic is part of the American ideal.

In 2017? Maybe not But in 1940? Following WW1 and America's rise to world supremecy? Where shops had signs that said "No dogs or Jews"?

I mean Capn literally goes to other countries and punches people all day.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

pegusus123456 posted...

SomeGuyUO posted...

What if John Connor goes back in time instead to save his mother?

Then he's not much help against the robots, but he'll be a godsend against those giant evil brain aliens.

I get it
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Kelystic posted...

pegusus123456 posted...

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

Although that sounds like a good comic idea actually The doctor is "super-powered" but not a superhero. If anything he is a supervillain.

I know pretty much nothing about it...but DC might be doing this right now <_<

it's pretty cool but it doesn't make any sense having Dr Manhattan as a villain.

I meant the US Government asking Superman to fight in wars.

I think bringing back Dr Manhattan in any capcity is a mistake. He's tailor made for Watchmen and nothing else.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Yes. He confesses to drugging girls in his biography before this scenario even went public. And it's been rumored for decades. 30+ women don't just make this stuff up for no reason and Cosby himself admits to drugging women in his youth.

Also there's that very strange Fox News incident where he was being interviewed and insisted that all the young women who worked in the building be called into the room he was in and made to watch him eat ceral or else he wouldn't do the interview.

Again that's not the kind of thing people make up.

I don't believe in coincidences.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

I mean he's super into freedom and liberty but he's into the 1940s American ideal. God fearing and proper, very right-wing and militaristic.

I don't follow comics since Marvel got all weird years ago but has it ever come up? Sounds like an interesting plot point to explore if you paired with modern day liberal superheros who were gay or least pro it.

Also while I'm asking what about Thor? Because he hangs around with enviromentalist liberals a lot too. I mean I guess they have to be if they fight alongsie Wonder Woman sometimes but has it ever actually come up?
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Kelystic posted...

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

Shadowplay posted...

Strongest is probably Dr. Manhattan.

Is he a superhero?

I thought he was just a tool of the US Government. Didn't he fight in Vietnam?

Nixon asked him to.

I don't think Superman would kill people in Iraq if Trump asked him to. He's a hero, not a killer.
Although that sounds like a good comic idea actually The doctor is "super-powered" but not a superhero. If anything he is a supervillain.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

shnangyboos posted...

I can't be the only one who just doesn't get these arguments. All it takes is a couple of blocks and suddenly Flash is faster than teleportation. If whoever is writing whatever particular comic decides that Superman blinking has enough energy to destroy the universe, space and time, then he's that powerful.

Well yes but there is a status quo don't you think? A canon?

There's a Batman comic where it turns out the mastermind behind The Joker and Batman's enemies was Twiddledumb. Because the writer liked it.


But it's fair to say there is an accepted common ground. For example how Kryptonite effects Superman depends on the writer but we can all agree it harms him.

We can all agree for example that Superman would destroy Wolverine with ease. Even though I am sure a writer could and probably already has written stories where a Wolverine incarnation could beat a Superman incarnation
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Shadowplay posted...

Strongest is probably Dr. Manhattan.

Is he a superhero?

I thought he was just a tool of the US Government. Didn't he fight in Vietnam?
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Hello.

It seems like other than Kryptonite he has no weaknesses and all the powers in the world. Seems a bit OP for a hero.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Cocytus posted...

The newest Doom game.

I played that. it was good
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Hello!

What are the best video games ever?

I'm looking for some new things to play.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv

Some people say Super Mario 64 for it's revolutionary 3D world that games copied to this day,

Others say GTA3 due to creating the sandbox Genre as it is today.

A lot of people say System Shock 2 for popularising background storytelling, lack of cut-scenes, atmosphere, actually having a good plot and the fact it spawned a list of "successors" owing inspiration towards it. Such as Bioshock, Deus Ex, Prey, etc.

And some say Pacman, Space Invaders or Tetris for obvious reasons.
---

http://i.imgur.com/VwJsmAR.gifv