Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<Maybe seeing sleazy ads like that ticked off a few US citizens with Japanese ties and blacks who were neutral prior to the campaign. >>> And yet using childern and spreading lies on the yes side was not sleazy?
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains Both sides had ads that were not great - but making an issue out of them is rediculous. Many people interviewed have said they had issue more with it being forced onto their churches and in the schools - This was put out there by the yes side and both were lies.
Originally Posted By barboy ///And yet using childern and spreading lies on the yes side was not sleazy?/// Where did you get that? You incorrectly assumed I did not find that stunt sleazy as well didn't you? Ads on both sides disgusted me.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Both sides had ads that were not great - but making an issue out of them is rediculous./// I was just challenging or adding to one of SinglePark's statments about playing on emotions in the 8 ads. He brought up it and I responded. So you find it riduculous now to address what another poster says?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But those confined by the 1942 executive order lost just about everything---- stores, homes, cars, family treasures--- including personal freedoms. To equate losing marital status with mandatory relocation in the desert is beyond ludicrous." I would suggest that all discrimination based on an inherent human trait is equally wrong. Once we start measuring the levels of discrimination we open the door to possibly forgiving some types based upon this, and as a society we have to stop doing that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I would suggest that all discrimination based on an inherent human trait is equally wrong.> Is it wrong for the government to discriminate in employment hiring based on intelligence?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Is it wrong for the government to discriminate in employment hiring based on intelligence?" Are you seriously equating race, sexual orientation and gender with intelligence?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Are you seriously equating race, sexual orientation and gender with intelligence?> It seems a lot less silly than equating recognition of same sex marriage with internment or Jim Crow laws. The idea that all discrimination is equally wrong seems absurd to me.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It seems a lot less silly than equating recognition of same sex marriage with internment or Jim Crow laws. The idea that all discrimination is equally wrong seems absurd to me." But you're not normal. We expect that from you.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Is it wrong for the government to discriminate in employment hiring based on intelligence? >> I'd say that it is wrong. Intelligence speaks nothing of a person's ability to perform a particular job or how well they can perform it. There are plenty of intelligent people who do terrible jobs, and there are plenty of hard-working people with limited cognitive skills who do just fine.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Furthermore, invoking a black voice to narrate parallels between the struggles of blacks over the years to same genered couples losing marital status is also offensive to blacks." Can you explain why was it sleazy to do this? Why would blacks be offended? Are you black? I just don't understand your point.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<Furthermore, invoking a black voice to narrate>> Just curious - did someone see the guy who narrates? If not...How does anyone know he was black?
Originally Posted By barboy ///I would suggest that all discrimination based on an inherent human trait is equally wrong./// I doubt that you really, truly, 100% believe what you wrote...... because if you do believe it all the way then by all fairness to your own edict you would or should find the mandatory draft registration for males to be equally unfair/wrong as any other forms of discrimination, no? I disagree with you and others on this board...... there are degrees of discrimination---- some is more egregious than others: To me clearly discriminating against males for the draft registry is less egregious than denying same genders marital status... ... which in turn is less egregious than being abruptly removed from scociety and placed in a desert in B.F..E... ...which in turn is less egregious than being enslaved, whipped and murdered in cotton fields or sold down the river. I conclude that: forcing males to register is not 'equally wrong' as sending blacks down the river to disease ridden swamps.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Just curious - did someone see the guy who narrates? If not...How does anyone know he was black?/// ///I was wondering the same thing/// LOL, you two crack me up on this. Ok smarties I'll one up you: Just curious-- did someone see the one who narrates? If not how does anyone know if the speaker was a **'he'**. Maybe it's high time that all 3 of us put an end to the silliness; what do you say?
Originally Posted By barboy LOL!! Please forgive me.... it's just that I can't resist my own suggestion; I'm too weak. Maybe the narrater was a 12 year old Chinese girl because after all we didn't see the speaker right?
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains Now that I would doubt - but there are plenty of men out there depending on where they were raised that could sound black or white...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I doubt that you really, truly, 100% believe what you wrote...... because if you do believe it all the way then by all fairness to your own edict you would or should find the mandatory draft registration for males to be equally unfair/wrong as any other forms of discrimination, no?" Actually, I would.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "LOL, you two crack me up on this." Yeah, real funny. After all, you did refer to Japanese Americans as Japs earlier.
Originally Posted By barboy Thank you Single, I think you have guts to take that stance and it's amirable--- staying philosophically congruent can be a tough thing to do for many. And not to give you a hard time here..... but if something like the draft registration for males is an equally wrong form of discrimination to you then why haven't you been as outraged(at least on this board) about it as the denial of same gender marriage? The two issues that I see you take very strong stances on around here are abortion and same gender marriage.
