Miss California: Pro-Opposite Marriage view cost crown

[Axis Kast]

Then perhaps you could offer some actual explanation as to what else it could possibly mean when someone says "I think marriage should be between one man and one woman" except that they think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed?

There's a difference between what some people think ought to be done, and what they think ought to be permitted by law.

I presume that the contestant in question did support Proposition 8. However, I have no proof that she was not simply offering a personal opinion.

The attitude is much more familiar with respect to marriage across racial or ethnic lines. Many people have no interest in constructing legal barriers against intermarriage, but would be horrified if their children married "one of them." This doesn't mean they're not bigots, just that they're not necessarily interested in legislating their preference.

[Themightytom]

ArmorPierce:

Yes they are. That meets the definition of racism and I don't see who you could argue otherwise. Only people I see that argue otherwise are closet racists themselves

You are taking this to an extreme, if you don't recognize the continuom of possibility between two absolutes you don't have the capacity to be accurate. Racism is a doctrine not a single discriminatory behavior or preference.

A discrimanatory practice does not meet the definition of being "a" racist. There is a difference between being racist and being "a" racist. One is a noun, the other is an adjective. One is meant to be an absolute, the other suggestive of tendencies. Really its rediculous that you and Zod aren't grasping the concept. I assume you are not implying I am a racist because I "can argue otherwise", so guess what, the people you see, aren't everyone in the whole of existence and your personal experience is not all inclusive. Now you know someone who can do so which I hope violates your "one or the other" conception and introduces you to the wonderful world of both nuance and accuracy.


ArmorPierce:

Not all whites are racists, most whites are somewhat racist even if they are not aware of it or try to rationalize it away (applies to people of other races as well).

Rather than a broad, unspported, and essentially ironic generalization, I would like you to provide evidence of that.

ZOD:

Because it's a phrase commonly associated with bigots who want to repress gay rights. This isn't rocket science.

Your statements don't reflect ANY science. A common association isn't conclusive evidence, at best its a starting point.

ZOD:

So if a guy I've never met before says he thinks all Muslims are terrorists and should be shot or deported he's not a racist because it's just one statement?

You propose that you can immediately asess an individual's behaviors and beliefs based on one statement no matter how bad it is? How is that different from ascribing characteristics to a group in the manner of a racist? As horrible a statement that would be, and, as bad a first impression it would make, it should not be enough for you to assign someone an absolute moniker.

I realize that critical reasoning represents a lot of extra time an effort but it has the benefit of not being hypoccritical with regards to asessing people with prejudices. How are you different than them if your behavior is identical, though applied to different concepts? you discriminate just as much as a racist or bigot, you just happen to be in vogue at the moment.

An alternative is if you don'tt want to analyze patterns of behavior in order to assign accurate labels, than maybe you should refrain from doing so, and try not to flip out whenever someone makes an innapropriate statement.

ZOD:

There is no room for misinterpretation here unless you're defending a phrase well known for its use by bigots or being a pedantic twat

That wasn't any more illuminating, hey Lassie if you have something to say, just lead me to the well and stop barking.

[General Zod]

A discrimanatory practice does not meet the definition of being "a" racist. There is a difference between being racist and being "a" racist. One is a noun, the other is an adjective. One is meant to be an absolute, the other suggestive of tendencies. Really its rediculous that you and Zod aren't grasping the concept. I assume you are not implying I am a racist because I "can argue otherwise", so guess what, the people you see, aren't everyone in the whole of existence and your personal experience is not all inclusive. Now you know someone who can do so which I hope violates your "one or the other" conception and introduces you to the wonderful world of both nuance and accuracy.

There are degrees of racism. Just because it's not an extreme degree does not make it not racist. But hey, since you're hung up on definitions I'll pull one of my own out.

Main Entry:
rac·ism Listen to the pronunciation of racism
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Your statements don't reflect ANY science. A common association isn't conclusive evidence, at best its a starting point.

And? So? therefore?

You propose that you can immediately asess an individual's behaviors and beliefs based on one statement no matter how bad it is? How is that different from ascribing characteristics to a group in the manner of a racist? As horrible a statement that would be, and, as bad a first impression it would make, it should not be enough for you to assign someone an absolute moniker.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .

I realize that critical reasoning represents a lot of extra time an effort but it has the benefit of not being hypoccritical with regards to asessing people with prejudices. How are you different than them if your behavior is identical, though applied to different concepts? you discriminate just as much as a racist or bigot, you just happen to be in vogue at the moment.

Holy shit you're stupid. You really ascribe to the idiotic belief that discriminating against racists is just as bad as racism? Guess what shitstick, racism is not something someone has no choice over. It's a fucking idea that's inevitably harmful. Saying discriminating against a concept is equal to discriminating against a skin color is a fantastic example of being a dishonest mindless middle sycophant.

An alternative is if you don'tt want to analyze patterns of behavior in order to assign accurate labels, than maybe you should refrain from doing so, and try not to flip out whenever someone makes an innapropriate statement.

The only one flipping out is idiots like you who don't think a cigar should be called a cigar.

That wasn't any more illuminating, hey Lassie if you have something to say, just lead me to the well and stop barking.

Cry me a river. While you're at it learn to use the quote function properly.

[Lord Pounder]

In my opinion what the real annoying part for myself is, is her justification, "that's just how I was raised". That is a bullshit lame excuse.

People are entitled to be bigoted little fucks under free speech laws and I welcome them being open about it as it lets everyone know who everyone else really is. Nothing is worse than a closet bigot who smiles at you to your face then calls you whatever behind you back, I know from experience.

[Themightytom]

There are degrees of racism. Just because it's not an extreme degree does not make it not racist. But hey, since you're hung up on definitions I'll pull one of my own out.

Main Entry:
rac·ism Listen to the pronunciation of racism
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Well your frigging halfway there! You are now acknowledging that there are degrees to Racism, eventually it will occur to you that I have been saying that all along along, and that the noun form of Racist is what I have been arguing about. her statement has racist qualities. She demonstrates racist tendencies (As evidenced by Covenants additional quotes) and now that you are acknowledging degrees of Racism you can possibly see at this point that I have been arguing that term "Racist" is a superlative form and by definition must include a sysematic or overarching schema of racism.

Your statements don't reflect ANY science. A common association isn't conclusive evidence, at best its a starting point.

And? So? therefore?

So, you stated "This isn't rocket science" which carries the implication that it is not a complicated science but rather a rudimentary, easily understood science. Except it wasn't it was basweless opinion based on yoiur personal opinion vague phrasiology and your personal preassociations and rainbows and unicorn dung.

So therefore, if your going to mock people for not sharing your personal opinion, don't be dissappointed when they prefer to form one with some logic behind it.

You propose that you can immediately asess an individual's behaviors and beliefs based on one statement no matter how bad it is? How is that different from ascribing characteristics to a group in the manner of a racist? As horrible a statement that would be, and, as bad a first impression it would make, it should not be enough for you to assign someone an absolute moniker.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .

Then you lack the ability to categorize more specifically because you don't know there are different kinds of ducks.

Holy shit you're stupid. You really ascribe to the idiotic belief that discriminating against racists is just as bad as racism? Guess what shitstick, racism is not something someone has no choice over. It's a fucking idea that's inevitably harmful. Saying discriminating against a concept is equal to discriminating against a skin color is a fantastic example of being a dishonest mindless middle sycophant.

discrimianting against a concept is the root of discriminating against skin color. It's still discrimination. Think about it jackass, historically we have had social revolutions because of discrimination against social class, discrimination against gender discrimination against race discrimination against sexual preference. its not just the indivvidual issues that need to be addressed its the overall tendency to make stupid assumptions based on faulty evidence and treat people accordingly.

Do blind people feel discriminated against because their parents make them wear glasses? They are being treated differently. ultimately they accept it because its actually a rational form of discriminatory treatment. They WOULDN't accept it if optometrists subscribed to the "Walks like a duck talks like a duck" approach because that allows for no differentiation among categories and thus no diffferentiation in approach. If you're near sighted, you don't get the same glasses as a far sighted person, but both the near and far sighted people may fall under the overall definition of blind.

On the other hand with the same sex marriage debate, nobody can come up with a rational reason gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. The issues are frequent symptoms of a maladaptive tendency in society to act on faulty evidence often recieved second hadn througgh socialization factors. Our miss california runner up states "I'm sorry but its just the way I was brought up"

She doesn't lack the ability to think for herself, she lacks the will to do so, even after it caught her a (cough cough) prestigious position.

The only one flipping out is idiots like you who don't think a cigar should be called a cigar.

Go to a cigar shop and order a cigar without being more specific. And good luck to you.

Cry me a river. While you're at it learn to use the quote function properly

I used the quote function, now you want me to do it "properly"? Funny how you can identify the difference between quoting with an author, and quoting without one, thats a degree of specificity you're "walks like a duck" "call it a cigar" mentality wouldn't permit, i mean i was "Quoting" wasn't I?
Er but yes I'll work on that.

[General Zod]

Well your frigging halfway there! You are now acknowledging that there are degrees to Racism, eventually it will occur to you that I have been saying that all along along, and that the noun form of Racist is what I have been arguing about. her statement has racist qualities. She demonstrates racist tendencies (As evidenced by Covenants additional quotes) and now that you are acknowledging degrees of Racism you can possibly see at this point that I have been arguing that term "Racist" is a superlative form and by definition must include a sysematic or overarching schema of racism.

I see someone doesn't know how to actually use a dictionary or know why definitions are divided into numbers.

So, you stated "This isn't rocket science" which carries the implication that it is not a complicated science but rather a rudimentary, easily understood science. Except it wasn't it was basweless opinion based on yoiur personal opinion vague phrasiology and your personal preassociations and rainbows and unicorn dung.

So you're splitting hairs because I used a descriptive way of calling you stupid? Jesus Christ you're thicker than pig shit.

discrimianting against a concept is the root of discriminating against skin color. It's still discrimination. Think about it jackass, historically we have had social revolutions because of discrimination against social class, discrimination against gender discrimination against race discrimination against sexual preference. its not just the indivvidual issues that need to be addressed its the overall tendency to make stupid assumptions based on faulty evidence and treat people accordingly.

You're a fucking moron. Do I have to post the definition of discrimination as well? Or are you simply incapable of grasping the fact that not all forms of discrimination are harmful? Racism is harmful discrimination. Skill based discrimination is not. Do I need to write this in crayon? On second thought, fuck it, because you're going to nitpick away regardless.

Main Entry:
dis·crim·i·na·tion Listen to the pronunciation of discrimination
Pronunciation:
\dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1648

1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination

[Darth Wong]

There is a difference between being racist and being "a" racist. One is a noun, the other is an adjective. One is meant to be an absolute, the other suggestive of tendencies.

You have absolutely no idea how much of a hair-splitting douchebag you sound like when you say things like this, do you? This ranks right up there with Clinton's famous "that depends on what your definition of is is" line.

"Oh, that person is not a racist; he just tends to be racist! That's, like, totally different!"

[Themightytom]

Well your frigging halfway there! You are now acknowledging that there are degrees to Racism, eventually it will occur to you that I have been saying that all along along, and that the noun form of Racist is what I have been arguing about. her statement has racist qualities. She demonstrates racist tendencies (As evidenced by Covenants additional quotes) and now that you are acknowledging degrees of Racism you can possibly see at this point that I have been arguing that term "Racist" is a superlative form and by definition must include a sysematic or overarching schema of racism.

I see someone doesn't know how to actually use a dictionary or know why definitions are divided into numbers.

I see someone is in the habit of selecting convenient definitions and excluding other rather than recognizing the multiple definitions are there to define sophisticated concepts. perhaps inconveniently for you, all the definitions of "racist" do in fact include reference to a systematic tendency.

Racist: noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

So you're splitting hairs because I used a descriptive way of calling you stupid? Jesus Christ you're thicker than pig shit.

Well it was OBVIOUS what you were trying to do, but by pointing out examples in which you use copy/paste insultts in an inaccurate and ineffectual manner I build the case that if you can't effectively apply ONE label, you can't effectively apply others. You imitate hostile behavior in a knee- jerk reaction that is neither specific nor accurate.

discrimianting against a concept is the root of discriminating against skin color. It's still discrimination. Think about it jackass, historically we have had social revolutions because of discrimination against social class, discrimination against gender discrimination against race discrimination against sexual preference. its not just the indivvidual issues that need to be addressed its the overall tendency to make stupid assumptions based on faulty evidence and treat people accordingly.

You're a fucking moron. Do I have to post the definition of discrimination as well? Or are you simply incapable of grasping the fact that not all forms of discrimination are harmful? Racism is harmful discrimination. Skill based discrimination is not. Do I need to write this in crayon? On second thought, fuck it, because you're going to nitpick away regardless.

Main Entry:
dis·crim·i·na·tion Listen to the pronunciation of discrimination
Pronunciation:
\dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1648

1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination

I will not make the case that all forms of discrimination are negative, I considered posting a clarification that some forms of discrimination are neccesary in order to differentiate and categorize. I suspected if I did so you would immediately accuse me of defending category 3b rather than definition 2.

That is not really releveant however since the original comment was a reply to your comment that

Holy shit you're stupid. You really ascribe to the idiotic belief that discriminating against racists is just as bad as racism? Guess what shitstick, racism is not something someone has no choice over. It's a fucking idea that's inevitably harmful. Saying discriminating against a concept is equal to discriminating against a skin color is a fantastic example of being a dishonest mindless middle sycophant

...and my reply was to propose that yes, discrimination, in the context of your comment is "just as bad" whether it is applied against skin color or racists, and I outlined why in my previous post. Rather than address my argument you took my quotes out of context and swapped meanings of "discrimination" for your own convenience.

You have absolutely no idea how much of a hair-splitting douchebag you sound like when you say things like this, do you? This ranks right up there with Clinton's famous "that depends on what your definition of is is" line.

"Oh, that person is not a racist; he just tends to be racist! That's, like, totally different!"

I never said it was totally different, I have consistently proposed they are on a continuom and have advocated for a reasonable response as opposed to the emotional carpet bomb approach. What is the logical outcome of considering the same? Are we going to declare war on racism next?

[Darth Wong]

I never said it was totally different, I have consistently proposed they are on a continuom and have advocated for a reasonable response as opposed to the emotional carpet bomb approach.

Your entire argument is emotional. It has no basis in objective reality. You are characterizing descriptions as inaccurate or accurate based on your personal emotional reaction to them.

[General Zod]

I see someone is in the habit of selecting convenient definitions and excluding other rather than recognizing the multiple definitions are there to define sophisticated concepts. perhaps inconveniently for you, all the definitions of "racist" do in fact include reference to a systematic tendency.

Here's a hint dimwit. It doesn't have to meet the criteria for all of the definitions listed. It only has to match one of them.

Well it was OBVIOUS what you were trying to do, but by pointing out examples in which you use copy/paste insultts in an inaccurate and ineffectual manner I build the case that if you can't effectively apply ONE label, you can't effectively apply others. You imitate hostile behavior in a knee- jerk reaction that is neither specific nor accurate.

If someone uses racist or homophobic remarks, guess what? That makes them racist or homophobic. There isn't that much room for error. Sure, they might not be calling for the extermination of an entire race or do it frequently, but that doesn't mean the label doesn't apply.

I will not make the case that all forms of discrimination are negative, I considered posting a clarification that some forms of discrimination are neccesary in order to differentiate and categorize. I suspected if I did so you would immediately accuse me of defending category 3b rather than definition 2.

Do I have to quote what you said back at you? You were explicitly equivocating all forms of discrimination as equally bad.

...and my reply was to propose that yes, discrimination, in the context of your comment is "just as bad" whether it is applied against skin color or racists, and I outlined why in my previous post. Rather than address my argument you took my quotes out of context and swapped meanings of "discrimination" for your own convenience.

Backpedal faster.

[Themightytom]

Here's a hint dimwit. It doesn't have to meet the criteria for all of the definitions listed. It only has to match one of them.

it has greater validity the more definitions it fits otherwise you could just find a shitty dictionary that doesn't ahve a good definition.

If someone uses racist or homophobic remarks, guess what? That makes them racist or homophobic. There isn't that much room for error. Sure, they might not be calling for the extermination of an entire race or do it frequently, but that doesn't mean the label doesn't apply.

nice circular reasoning. Racist and homophobic are both terms that apply to tendencies and are apropriate, "A Racist" and "A homophobe" do not. Which is what I have been saying...

Do I have to quote what you said back at you? You were explicitly equivocating all forms of discrimination as equally bad.

Nope, don't visit my intentions, I specifically addressed this misinterpretation in the next quote you post. i made a contextual statement and you substituted definitions either intentionally or not.

Mike I know I sound like a Douchebag but I have to point out Zod, you just accused me of "explicitely equivocating" I know you probably meant to type "intentionally equivocating" but that is still hilarious to me.

...and my reply was to propose that yes, discrimination, in the context of your comment is "just as bad" whether it is applied against skin color or racists, and I outlined why in my previous post. Rather than address my argument you took my quotes out of context and swapped meanings of "discrimination" for your own convenience.

Backpedal faster.[/quote]

Strawman faster.

[General Zod]

it has greater validity the more definitions it fits otherwise you could just find a shitty dictionary that doesn't ahve a good definition.

It means it's more specific. It does not mean it's invalid. Try again.

Nope, don't visit my intentions, I specifically addressed this misinterpretation in the next quote you post. i made a contextual statement and you substituted definitions either intentionally or not.

There was no such context implied. Don't blame me because you can't communicate properly.

...and my reply was to propose that yes, discrimination, in the context of your comment is "just as bad" whether it is applied against skin color or racists, and I outlined why in my previous post. Rather than address my argument you took my quotes out of context and swapped meanings of "discrimination" for your own convenience.

Strawman faster.

Apparently I do have to throw your own words back at you.

discrimianting against a concept is the root of discriminating against skin color. It's still discrimination. Think about it jackass, historically we have had social revolutions because of discrimination against social class, discrimination against gender discrimination against race discrimination against sexual preference. its not just the indivvidual issues that need to be addressed its the overall tendency to make stupid assumptions based on faulty evidence and treat people accordingly.

You just called discriminating against skin color and concepts the same fucking thing. What context am I missing that you keep whining about? Why is it unreasonable to assume that someone making homophobic or racist remarks is homophobic or racist? I can't help but get the itchy feeling you tend to do this yourself and your panties are in a twist over the thought these labels might apply to you.

[Darth Wong]

Here's a hint dimwit. It doesn't have to meet the criteria for all of the definitions listed. It only has to match one of them.

it has greater validity the more definitions it fits otherwise you could just find a shitty dictionary that doesn't ahve a good definition.

Bullshit. When several definitions of a word are listed in the dictionary, there is no sliding scale of validity of word usage based on how many of those definitions it fits simultaneously. For example, the word "expand" has many dictionary definitions. Any one of them is equally valid, and many of them are mutually incompatible. There is no rule about trying to encompass many of them at once in order to get a valid definition.

You simply invented this rule in order to justify your overblown hair-splitting distinction between "acting racist" and "being a racist".

[Themightytom]

It means it's more specific. It does not mean it's invalid. Try again.

A statement can be called valid, i.e. logical truth, if it is true in all interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

The more interpretations that support my argument the more valid it is, and as you are arguing the opposite position, the less valid yours is. I don't see how you can claim "it" is more specific, you can't substitute one term for the other in this case, that would mean your rebuttal is "It's more specific the more definitions it fits." which seems to suggest the opposite of specific.

Bullshit. When several definitions of a word are listed in the dictionary, there is no sliding scale of validity of word usage based on how many of those definitions it fits simultaneously. For example, the word "expand" has many dictionary definitions. Any one of them is equally valid, and many of them are mutually incompatible. There is no rule about trying to encompass many of them at once in order to get a valid definition.

You simply invented this rule in order to justify your overblown hair-splitting distinction between "acting racist" and "being a racist".

We weren't arguing a single interpretation of the noun form of Racist, we both offered competing sources with different definitions. I was defending the ARGUMENT that the noun form of "Racist" has a systematic component in its meaning. When Zod found a dictionary with a definition that did include this, and I found oen with all definitions that did, I pointed out that my argument is more valid than his, because both our sources included the component I argue for, while mine did not feature the absence of it that he argued for.

Nope, don't visit my intentions, I specifically addressed this misinterpretation in the next quote you post. i made a contextual statement and you substituted definitions either intentionally or not.

There was no such context implied. Don't blame me because you can't communicate properly.

Holy shit you're stupid. You really ascribe to the idiotic belief that discriminating against racists is just as bad as racism? Guess what shitstick, racism is not something someone has no choice over. It's a fucking idea that's inevitably harmful. Saying discriminating

against a concept

is equal to discriminating against a skin color is a fantastic example of being a dishonest mindless middle sycophant.

discrimianting against a concept is the root of discriminating against skin color. It's still discrimination. Think about it jackass, historically we have had social revolutions because of discrimination against social class, discrimination against gender discrimination against race discrimination against sexual preference. its not just the indivvidual issues that need to be addressed its the overall tendency to make stupid assumptions based on faulty evidence and treat people accordingly.

There are 10 oppositional qualifiers in our initial exchange regarding discrimination. how can you maintain that you were talking about discrimination in terms of impartial categorization as opposed to the term carrying the negative implication of unfair treatment. I replied with regards to discrimination in its prejudicial context. in the example below you had ALREADY established the intial context which i consistently replied to. you have outlined the point at which you chose to alter your interpretation from discrimination as prejudice to discrimination as categorization. you clearly inferred in your original statement that discrimination was bad and not objective.

You just called discriminating against skin color and concepts the same fucking thing. What context am I missing that you keep whining about? Why is it unreasonable to assume that someone making homophobic or racist remarks is homophobic or racist? I can't help but get the itchy feeling you tend to do this yourself and your panties are in a twist over the thought these labels might apply to you.

Are you reading your own submission? You highlighted the quote and didn't even read it!

I said

discrimianting against a concept is the root of discriminating against skin color. It's still discrimination.

social value based in skin quality, is a concept the act of discrimination (prejudicial context) is at the root of it. I'm not drawing you a diagram damnit just read the words.

I KNOW you can't help but make assumptions, you have already said as much. You WOULD assume I would get upset that labels "might" apply to me because they are absolute values for you rather than descriptive terms. You utilize phraseology that carries emotional context for you but no strict relevance because you are projecting your own conflicting ideologies onto me.

if this is not so Tell me why you chose to use the phrase "your panties are in a twist". How is that relevant to this discussion, and what exactly were you trying to convey. Earlier you pointed out that prejean used phraseology identical to proposition 8 supporters, what is the phrase you just used consistent with?

if you even acknowledge that that remark could be construed as prejudicial, I am curious as to whether you will label yourself in the extreme form or whether you will acknowledge the continuom of tendencies I have proposed.

[General Zod]

The more interpretations that support my argument the more valid it is, and as you are arguing the opposite position, the less valid yours is. I don't see how you can claim "it" is more specific, you can't substitute one term for the other in this case, that would mean your rebuttal is "It's more specific the more definitions it fits." which seems to suggest the opposite of specific.

You're using Wikipedia to support your claims? Are you smoking crack?

We weren't arguing a single interpretation of the noun form of Racist, we both offered competing sources with different definitions. I was defending the ARGUMENT that the noun form of "Racist" has a systematic component in its meaning. When Zod found a dictionary with a definition that did include this, and I found oen with all definitions that did, I pointed out that my argument is more valid than his, because both our sources included the component I argue for, while mine did not feature the absence of it that he argued for.

Tell ya what, why don't I go onto Wikipedia and change their definition to match what Merriam Webster says?

There are 10 oppositional qualifiers in our initial exchange regarding discrimination. how can you maintain that you were talking about discrimination in terms of impartial categorization as opposed to the term carrying the negative implication of unfair treatment. I replied with regards to discrimination in its prejudicial context. in the example below you had ALREADY established the intial context which i consistently replied to. you have outlined the point at which you chose to alter your interpretation from discrimination as prejudice to discrimination as categorization. you clearly inferred in your original statement that discrimination was bad and not objective.

So now you're just making shit up? Awesome.

Are you reading your own submission? You highlighted the quote and didn't even read it!

You mean the part where you said all discrimination is equal?

social value based in skin quality, is a concept the act of discrimination (prejudicial context) is at the root of it. I'm not drawing you a diagram damnit just read the words.

That's a lot of mental gymnastics right there.

I KNOW you can't help but make assumptions, you have already said as much. You WOULD assume I would get upset that labels "might" apply to me because they are absolute values for you rather than descriptive terms. You utilize phraseology that carries emotional context for you but no strict relevance because you are projecting your own conflicting ideologies onto me.

I'm the one projecting? That's pretty hilarious coming from someone who thinks using homophobic terms doesn't make someone a homophobe.

if this is not so Tell me why you chose to use the phrase "your panties are in a twist". How is that relevant to this discussion, and what exactly were you trying to convey. Earlier you pointed out that prejean used phraseology identical to proposition 8 supporters, what is the phrase you just used consistent with?

Nitpick inane points because you're too stupid to recognize an insult more. Please.

[Mayabird]

In my opinion what the real annoying part for myself is, is her justification, "that's just how I was raised". That is a bullshit lame excuse.

I call it the "Redneck Appeal to Authority," along with the "Mama always said," folksy 'common sense wisdom' that often isn't. Whenever I say or type something like, "My mama always said, 'Humans are so stupid,'" it's me making fun of it (although Mom does say that a lot). Similar way how I'd excuse my old band's kleptomania, drunken antics, and ensuing hilarity by saying, "It's traditional!"

Now back to your regularly unscheduled flamewar.

[Themightytom]

You're using Wikipedia to support your claims? Are you smoking crack?

Zod your one source was a dictionary and I didn't use it to support my claims, it was just to answer Mike's question. I'm not the first person on the site to use wikipedia your grasping at straws.

Tell ya what, why don't I go onto Wikipedia and change their definition to match what Merriam Webster says?

that wouldn't be inconsistent with what you've done so far....

So now you're just making shit up? Awesome.

I counted it and bolded it right in front of you. nothing was made up.

You mean the part where you said all discrimination is equal?

you are repeating the same argument and producing nothing new, your wasting my time.

That's a lot of mental gymnastics right there.

That was not a rebuttal.

I'm the one projecting? That's pretty hilarious coming from someone who thinks using homophobic terms doesn't make someone a homophobe.

You're still repeating arguments with nothing new.

Nitpick inane points because you're too stupid to recognize an insult more. Please.

And you can't answer. Great insights Zod but I will retain my current of undertanding of diversity terms.