Hodad

Spoken like someone who believes in moral and ethical frameworks? Not meant to be an analogy to Iran specifically. Just seeing how far down a philosophically untenable path someone will travel in order to hand-wave this thing. Pretty far apparently! To the point that there is no right or wrong and nothing matters. Why not right to solipsism? 🤷‍♀️

Let's see how far you'll go with this. A rapist beating a woman into submission to achieve his aims is no different that a rescuer who beats the rapist to save the victim? Force is force? Same same? Might makes right? No action more or less just?

Like I said, an odd sort of nihlism. Not sure why anyone would want to live in a world without right and wrong, justice and injustice. Not sure I see the point, just another animal in the food chain.

Again, why are you contorting yourself? You don't believe that LGTBQ+ people should be proud of who they are. They should be shamed and ashamed. We get it. The dumb and dishonest part is where you try to pretend that it's not divisive and offensive to tell someone that they should be ashamed of who they are. That's bullshit. Someone building a worldview around philosophy, rather than a 2000 year-old pamphlet would ask why anyone should be ashamed of a state of being that's not harmful, but not everyone's prepared to think.🤷‍♂️ Team cohesion is a business goal. Performance is a business goal. Asses in the seats is a business goal. Ad revenue is a business goal. Etc. Etc. Etc. Nobody--zero people--are getting fired for what they believe. They can be fired for what they say and do.

Completely dishonest, and you know it. Pride is literally a celebration of pride in one's state of being. He spouted off about celebrating pride. You're defending it. All while twisting yourself in knots trying to pretend that it's not offensive to tell people they should be ashamed of who they are. Again, you're free to have those backward beliefs, but spare us all the contortionist act. It was offensive and meant to be offensive. The fact that his beliefs may be deeply held doesn't absolve them of being offensive nor shield him from social consequence of such expression. No he's not. Again, you're being wildly dishonest. He was in no way, shape or form discriminated against because he was Christian. A large number of people working for the NBA are Christian, likely a significant majority. He faced consequences because he was conducting himself in a way that was incompatible with his employer's business goals--in a way that will alienate employees and customers. His priorities are at odds with theirs. Their interests have diverged. Irreconcilable differences. They split. That's what adults do.

Glad you can finally admit that the your argument is that LGBTQ+ individuals are shameful and sinful simply because of who they are rather than because they harm anyone. That facade was heavy any not with toting around. You can agree with his unhinged ranting, but it's wildly dishonest to pretend that he didn't say anything disrespectful or offensive. And the word is "tenet." As before, he's allowed to believe whatever kooky bullshit he wants. He has a literal right to shout his kookiness to the world. But he doesn't have a right to do so without social consequences. Free speech is not consequence free speech. It's only free from government reprisal. That's it.

This is a bizarre ruling and a hollow rationale. And the vote split is even more bizarre. In essence, what this does is to say that professional speech (as opposed to private conversations) cannot be regulated. That professionals, licensed and given a mantle of authority by state licensing boards (which is meant to endorse to patients a standard of care and inspire trust) have no obligation to actually apply evidence-based professional standards of care. As long as the conversation is voluntary, a professional can lie, can lie, can promote nonsense, and can even "prescribe" known harmful behaviors. I need to read in detail to see if the are any carve outs in the logic, but that's the thrust of Gorsuch"s argument: if it's "voluntary" and it's speech, anything goes. Professionals have no higher standard of responsibility for advice than any random person on the street. Not to mention that for most minor patients, conversion therapy (known for decades to be incredibly harmful) is not voluntary. Most minor patients are forced or coerced into this harmful environment.

What you're arguing here is that there is no difference between a cop, a vigilante, and a street thug because force is force. That it doesn't matter how our why someone employs violence, because violence is violence, all the same, unmoored from ethical and legal frameworks. That's a strange flavor of nihilism. Consequentialism isn't very compelling because it isn't very useful. Most people believe that why a person acts and how a person acts are as important or more important than the abstracted physical consequences of those actions.

Ah, that old chestnut. It's complete nonsense, of course. Just religious nuts trying to reconcile their irrational hatred with the whole Jesus thing. Pride is a celebration of one's self as they are, in contrast to the shame and abuse that were once the norm in this society. It really couldn't be any plainer. If you're telling someone that they can't be proud of who they are--that they should feel shame instead--then you are indeed criticizing that person's very existence.

Of course Starbucks had that right. Not even a question. Now, it takes a real special kind of a-hole to be offended by "Black Lives Matter," but of course Starbucks is weeeeell within their rights to set a dress code. The nice thing about having actual principles is that I don't have to spin like a weathervane every time some jackass FOX news host gives Trump an on-air reach around on whatever issue will be the distraction of the week. -- You should try it. I honestly have no idea what news item this was it when it occurred. (I'm sure it's somewhere on you list of copy/paste grievances.) But if I were betting I'd say that you're conflating criticism of Starbucks' decision rather than any claim that they don't have a right to make such a decision.

You wrote some words, but unfortunately couldn't manage an argument.

I didn't say that they were pacificists or non-interventionists. I said that they weren't bullies. Consider the contrast between self defense, community policing and an unilateral hegemony. Surely you see the differences, no? Striking a terrorist who strikes us? Justified. Joining with a broad coalition to strike a regime committing atrocities against it's people? Justified. Waging a (functionally) unilateral war against a country because we don't think they should build what we already have? Good luck justifying that. You can make the realpolitik argument. That's fine. But there's no need to dress it up and pretend that it's something it's not. Trump IS, without question, a bully, and in ways that are STARKLY different than any POTUS in history. TR may have had a bully pulpit to sway public opinion, but Trump will use the full force of his office to attack anyone from a lowly civilan to an international ally, to a bad actor like Iran. He's not worried about whether something is justified or not. Indeed, he appears to be constitutionally incapable of thinking of anything in a context beyond his own wants and desires.

🙄Except that skin color and sexual orientation are EXACTLY analogous. They are both intrinsic, immutable characteristics of an individual which are incapable of harming others. No, it's not federally protected speech, aside from the fact that governments (including federal) are constitutionally prohibited from curbing it. As always, free speech does not mean speech free of consequences. Again, welcome to America. I think you'll have a good time learning about our laws, culture and customs. You're being obtuse. The charitable interpretation is deliberately obtuse, but who can say? It is certainly disrespectful to say that the simple fact of someone's existence is a sin--and apparently one of which they are meant to feel ashamed. And if you don't think that's disrespectful enough, you should see what he said about Catholics. BTW, I'm looking forward to your full-throated condemnation of the NFL for their treatment of Colin Kaepernick would. Which, in contrast, was legitimate and principled political speech rather than crazy homophobic rants.🙄

Wow, it's like I'm psychic! (Or, you know, just live in reality.) Bulls coach Billy Donovan talked about the decision to waive Ivey before Chicago’s game against the San Antonio Spurs on Monday. “I think there’s a certain level of standards and expectations that are here,” Donovan said. “I mean, we have people from all different walks of life working in the building and players from all different walks of life, right? So, the first thing is, everybody comes with their own personal experiences. But one is, we’ve got to all be professional. I think there’s got to be a high level of respect for one another, and we got to help each other and then be accountable to those standards.”

You want to make up your mind there? lol -- That's like saying that the fact of a person being Black is a sin, but pretending it's not racist to say that. 🙄 Your pretzel-tastic semantic argument aside it doesn't matter how you want to spin it, the employer was celebrating Pride and he went out of the way to send the opposite message as publicly as he can. If his nutball beliefs are not compatible with with the stated objectives of his employer, the valid options are to keep his mouth shut on that issue or to resign. That's what grown ups do. Though "conservatives" are typically saying "Shut up and dribble" I'm all for athletes being citizens who can speak out on political issues. They are entitled to free speech like everyone else. But, also like everyone else, when they cross the line and start saying shit that can cost the employer money, it's fair play to pull the plug.

I'll wait patiently for you to quote me on any of that BS you're trying to attribute to me. But you're a shameless liar, and you know full well that you made it up, so I won't hold my breath. You lack the smarts to make a legitimate argument and the integrity to own up to lying.

Dumb thread, dumb take. Standards of behavior--especially public-facing behavior--exist at every company in the world. Employers can establish consequences for violation of those standards. Again, every business. People are allowed to believe whatever dumb shit they want, but if they start spouting off in ways that don't align with the corporate standards they can be penalized according to the employment agreement or even fired. Welcome to America.

This thread is a case study in arrested development, as if your conception of what it means to be a man was frozen and fixed around grade seven: beer, punching and sex = man. lol And even more comical is that within this paradigm, utter subservience to another man (or a bloated orange vaguely man-shaped skin sack) is definitely the manliest thing any man can do. It's honestly just too much--too rich a gift--to wish it were anything different. Chef's kiss, boys, chef's kiss.

Neither Obama nor Biden were bullies. And plenty more if you look back. I think you know that Trump is a different kind of animal altogether. The basest of because. He occupies the same office, but he has different aims altogether.. No ethics, no morality, no empathy.. We've worn out the word "unprecedented."

Lol. I know you've been mainlining fear porn on Fox, (where they are happy to amplify all of Trump's smokescreens) but Iran wasn't that close last year (when Trump totally eliminated the threat!) or this year when he's "totally eliminating the threat" ...again. And they don't have any way of targeting North America. Not a threat to us. That's a lie. That does NOT mean that I want a nuclear Iran. I'm glad that's forestalled. It simply means that I don't buy Trump's lies about an imminent threat. Joe Kent (who is a conspiracy nutter like you) excited himself from MAGA over this latest fiasco. Reliable mouthpieces like Tucker Carlson have splintered on this issue. Because it was a bullshit excuse to justify doing the exact opposite of what Trump promised. There was ample AMPLE time to engage the rest of the world in being world police. Unfortunately, Trump is a boor and a bully who knows nothing of how to build consensus or conduct diplomacy. Oh, and by the way Pakistan had had nukes for almost 30 years, but your blanket bigotry is noted. You're really the last person in a position to talk on an adult level. Babbling babytalk is your go-to move.

They are already doing so. Under the Trump insanity we are a fickle and faithless partner. China is proving the steadier choice of the two competitive economies. We are literally forcing any responsibly self-interested partner to consider diversifying--growing China relationships. We simply can't be relied upon any longer.

You're not even talking about making America great. You're talking about trying to sabotage somebody else. As before, instead of spending a fortune to destroy infrastructure half a world away, we could be rebuilding infrastructure at home.

He reversed a period of warming relations and in his second term has dramatically escalated the attack. As for why, frankly, the core issue is that trump is a bully and a narcissist. Little Cuba has defied the US (primarily by existing as a communist state despite our pressure) and he is personally offended by disobedience. It will get a sloppy veneer of geopolitical urgency (liberating the people of Iran, anyone?) but it's always about Trump with Trump. I'd say this is a window to the soul, except he hasn't got one. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You know, all my life, I've been hearing about the United States and Cuba. You know, when will the United States do it? I do believe I'll be the honor of - having the honor of taking Cuba. That'd be a good honor. That's a big honor. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Taking Cuba? TRUMP: Taking Cuba in some form, yeah. Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it, think I can do anything I want with it, you want to know the truth. They're a very weakened nation right now.

Are you registered as Nancy Pelosi? Do you know her voting precinct? Can you match her signature? Do you know that she hasn't already voted? Are you willing to risk years in prison to cast one vote? In short, you're a clown.

No, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mueller did either of those things, you kook. You're libeling a good man and a patriot because you are in the weirdest conspiracy-fueled reality bubble imaginable.