• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

American Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
I’m convinced Nikki Fried is running for Governor of Florida next year. Not sure if she can beat DeSantis, but she might be the Democrats’ best chance.
Aulos said:
All this does is harm transgender childrens' mental health and safety.
Click to expand...
The cruelty is the point. GOP economic policies are broadly unpopular, so these stupid culture wars are all they have left.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Speaking of LGBT hate and hypocrisy, one of the really big claims I see that the LGBT community is opposing religious rights are cases where say a baker might refuse to serve gay customers cause religion with some treating a Christian baker as a martyr.

I don't know though. Say a Hindu or Vegetarian baker refused to serve a customer who mentions that they eat meat. Would such a case be given the same level of respect or ridicule?
 
SpinyShell said:
I'd argue there is a difference between a marginalized minority who cannot change who they are being denied a service vs. someone who makes a conscious dietary choice. If we're dealing with hypotheticals here, would you be making this same argument if it was a religious baker denying to bake a cake for a couple of a certain race based on religious grounds? I'd say that's a more similar comparison to the idea of denying a homosexual couple a cake.
Click to expand...

Honestly even as a Christian I'd don't really care for doing things like that simply for religious purposes. Heck even if sexuality was a choice I'd still question why it's an issue (especially taking Bisexuals into consideration).

As for my choice well some people additionally oppose being gay on the grounds of not wanting to see a same see pair hold hands or kiss.

But if that was something to take serious then shouldn't we show that same courtesy to those who think meant consumption is wrong? You know keep distribution/purchase/consumption behind closed doors.
 
Antiyonder said:
But if that was something to take serious then shouldn't we show that same courtesy to those who think meant consumption is wrong? You know keep distribution/purchase/consumption behind closed doors.
Click to expand...
To reiterate my point, there is a stark difference between a conscious dietary choice and a part of someone that they cannot change. As stated before, a far better comparison is between sexuality and race. Anyone who suggests that, say, Native Americans keep their identity and culture behind closed doors because it is offensive based on religious grounds would be labeled a bigot and a racist; is that any different from saying that a homosexual should keep their homosexuality behind closed doors? I'm inclined to say no.
 
Last edited:
SpinyShell said:
As stated before, which you conveniently avoided acknowledging,
Click to expand...

I agree with your comparison being sound. Just that the basis on my comparison is based on one thing being treated as taboo without proof that it's harmful vs a dietary choice you can at least understand why others would object.
 
Antiyonder said:
Speaking of LGBT hate and hypocrisy, one of the really big claims I see that the LGBT community is opposing religious rights are cases where say a baker might refuse to serve gay customers cause religion with some treating a Christian baker as a martyr.

I don't know though. Say a Hindu or Vegetarian baker refused to serve a customer who mentions that they eat meat. Would such a case be given the same level of respect or ridicule?
Click to expand...

(ahaha long side comment: I happen to have talked with two people in the last two days who presented notes and sought to convince me to go vegan on grounds of morality. And I can't fully reject the notion, but I'm still much further back on that. I suppose it may be hypocritical to be ok with eating beings of lower sentience and preferring not to be eaten by hypothetical beings of higher sentience. But still.

On a side note of a side note, I believe oxen and pigs/hogs have somewhat higher sentience than dogs or even cats. Seems hypocritically species-ist. I'd rather not eat dog or cat. Anyway.
__

I am perfectly with them on grounds of animal agriculture emissions and nitrogen impact on environment (which the one more focused on (human) rights actually brought up).

For one thing, I support choices to eat less meat. (Also hope that meat substitutes that taste properly like meat and are resource-friendly and affordable become more available soon.)
I definitely support wasting less food. A UN report this month
estimated that over 1/3 of food goes uneaten; 17% is simply straight-up discarded.
"More than 930 million tonnes of food sold in 2019 landed in waste bins"
news.un.org

Wasting food just feeds climate change, new UN environment report warns

More than 930 million tonnes of food sold in 2019 landed in waste bins, according to new UN research, released on Thursday, in support of global efforts to halve food waste by 2030.
news.un.org news.un.org

I also fully agree that the process, of raising and how some slaughterhouses operate, need to be raised to more humane standards. (Am I knowledgeable of details and do I engage in activism on this end? No...) Anyway (again).)
___

I have to say, I'm not 100% following exactly what you're trying to say here. (I have even more trouble following your subsequent posts. I have an idea, but can't be sure). This is certainly not a challenge exclusive to you: I have plenty of personal trouble both with (1) interpreting words and (2) communicating clearly to others.

Without thinking too hard on this, I'm going to offer a tentative thought comparison prompted by this.
__

You offered Cases A and B. I add two thought cases.

Case A:
A Christian baker refusing to serve gay customers due to customers' orientation not aligning with baker's Christian faith.

Case B:
A Hindu AND/OR vegetarian baker refusing to serve a customer who happens to (and says that they) eat meat.

Case C:
A vegetarian baker refusing to serve a customer who demands that the baker bake meat products for said customer to purchase.

Case D:
A Christian baker refusing to serve gay customers due to customers' demands that the baker (become &) identify as gay during the time they are creating the baked goods for said customers.
__

I would venture to say that both Case A and Case B constitute discrimination on the part of the seller. (Which is directly related to your question.)

I would say that it would be improper to force the sellers to follow the demands in Cases C and D.

I think what sometimes happens is that some people may conflate Case A and Case D. Not always, of course!
But notice how C and D appear, vs A and B.
__

Outside of this thought experiment, I agree with the concept that SpinyShell outlined (that you quoted).
SpinyShell said:
I'd argue there is a difference between a marginalized minority who cannot change who they are being denied a service vs. someone who makes a conscious dietary choice. If we're dealing with hypotheticals here, would you be making this same argument if it was a religious baker denying to bake a cake for a couple of a certain race based on religious grounds? I'd say that's a more similar comparison to the idea of denying a homosexual couple a cake.
 
Rainfall said:
I have to say, I'm not 100% following exactly what you're trying to say here. (I have even more trouble following your subsequent posts. I have an idea, but can't be sure).

__

You offered Cases A and B. I add two thought cases.

Case A:
A Christian baker refusing to serve gay customers due to customers' orientation not aligning with baker's Christian faith.

Case B:
A Hindu AND/OR vegetarian baker refusing to serve a customer who happens to (and says that they) eat meat.
Click to expand...

No reading it over I can see that I did under explain it. It wasn't really asking a poster's personal stance on Case B, but rather if you think they'd get the same martyr treatment you sometimes see in Case A.

Going with a yes myself though. For the most part some taboos are agreed to be wrong to the point of being laws even without religion like incest, theft, murder, assault, abuse, rape (barring people who insist the victim had it coming for being too sexy:rolleyes:).

Others like say holidays, foods (made of or made from animals), even currently drinking or smoking.

I'm sure you might have people who are strongly opposed to celebrating holidays and might try to discourage celebrations of them.

Mormons opposed or use to oppose drinking various unhealthy beverages like coffee, tea or soda.

And I definitely am aware that some vegans, vegetarians and such might try to force their rights on others.


Just that I don’t know:

A. I might disagree with those stances, but I at least understand why one would live by them.

B. They still are more widely accepted taboos to the point where you don't see say a Prop 8 type approach to coffee, burgers or Christmas celebrations.


Any logic in this inconsistency or just a demonstration again that opposition to gay/trans rights aren't really founded on moral reasons?
 
SpinyShell said:
To reiterate my point, there is a stark difference between a conscious dietary choice and a part of someone that they cannot change. As stated before, a far better comparison is between sexuality and race. Anyone who suggests that, say, Native Americans keep their identity and culture behind closed doors because it is offensive based on religious grounds would be labeled a bigot and a racist; is that any different from saying that a homosexual should keep their homosexuality behind closed doors? I'm inclined to say no.
Click to expand...
While I do agree with this point, I don't think it's harmful for Antiyonder to make the comparison. I'm personally not the biggest fan of the "It can't be changed" argument for defending LGBT rights, because, while true, it feels like it bases the argument more around "You can't change it, so you have to deal with it". But even if sexuality was a choice people could make, there still wouldn't be any moral justification for discrimination, because being gay isn't something that causes harm to others.

Of course, neither argument wins over people like this, who will respond to Antiyonder's case that "If it's a lifestyle choice, then it's not discrimination", and will respond to your case that "Well, they can't control their temptations, but they can control whether they act on them", or, even worse, point to "conversion therapy" as the solution. But the moral philosophizing is fun all the same.
 
www.al.com

Tuberville amendment fails, Dems call it anti-trans

The amendment would bar schools from receiving federal Title IX funding if they allow students born as biological males to compete against students born as biological women in sports programs designed for women.
www.al.com www.al.com

We’re not sending our best here in Alabama. Also, I don’t get the anti-trans onslaught. I realize the GOP has to rely on culture wars to survive, but why have they chosen this hill to die on?
 
TechSkylander1518 said:
While I do agree with this point, I don't think it's harmful for Antiyonder to make the comparison. I'm personally not the biggest fan of the "It can't be changed" argument for defending LGBT rights, because, while true, it feels like it bases the argument more around "You can't change it, so you have to deal with it". But even if sexuality was a choice people could make, there still wouldn't be any moral justification for discrimination, because being gay isn't something that causes harm to others.
Click to expand...

That and I tend to factor bisexuality in the equation as some might try to argue that if they still like the opposite set then they should stick with that.
 
swiftfox said:
www.al.com

Tuberville amendment fails, Dems call it anti-trans

The amendment would bar schools from receiving federal Title IX funding if they allow students born as biological males to compete against students born as biological women in sports programs designed for women.
www.al.com www.al.com

We’re not sending our best here in Alabama. Also, I don’t get the anti-trans onslaught. I realize the GOP has to rely on culture wars to survive, but why have they chosen this hill to die on?
Click to expand...
Democrats do the same thing, but they play in the other team. Alabama is a conservative state, and the natives did chose their own politicians.
 
ShieldFan said:
Democrats do the same thing, but they play in the other team.
Click to expand...
I mean, in this case, it is accurate to say that Democrats are opposed to legislation to discriminate against trans people. (At least, the more progressive ones) But the motivations and consequences of the bill aren't really similar when you compare them. For people against the bill, the issue is that they don't want trans people to be discriminated against in any way. For people for the bill, their reasoning is either some flimsy excuse about women's sports, or outright saying that they dislike trans people and don't want them participating. And no matter how you slice it, "I don't like people with this particular trait and don't want them around" doesn't have the same weight to it as "I don't want people to be discriminated against".
ShieldFan said:
Alabama is a conservative state, and the natives did chose their own politicians.
Click to expand...
Even assuming that everyone was given a fair chance to vote, they're really only given the option of Jones or Tuberville. They chose between those two, yes, but being able to run for election at the federal level typically involves a lot of money and connections, barriers that might prevent other candidates people would have preferred. And voting for someone isn't a tacit endorsement of every action they take- plenty of people voted for someone and didn't like the actions they took.

But even if we accept that the majority in Alabama genuinely wants Tuberville as their Senator and genuinely wants him to make this bill, that doesn't give mean they have the right to discriminate against trans people across the whole state, and especially not the whole country.
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dorothy
  • Locked
International Politics Thread
9 10 11
Replies
218
Views
11K
pokemoll
pokemoll
coordinator lissi
RP Everyone Role play? (Sign ups open)
Replies
18
Views
261
coordinator lissi
coordinator lissi
Sheep
Notice Outside the Box moderator applications are open! [EDIT: 10/28/2023 CLOSED]
Replies
0
Views
489
Sheep
Sheep
LightningTopaz
The Power/Spell Name Idea Thread 3.0
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
2K
Greninjaman
Greninjaman
coordinator lissi
Boutiqueshipping thread!
Replies
6
Views
172
LukeHobbies
LukeHobbies
Back
Top Bottom