|
Ceciltron posted:Wave-road, I thought. From beowulf, right? Google says whale-road, but let's never let that be the last authority, right?
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:11 |
|
|
Beowulf uses both actually in addition to swan-road. SAILING ON THE SEA-STALLION OF THE WHALE-ROAD yeah kennings just make you sound like you're way too into going to Renaissance Faires.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Beowulf uses both actually in addition to swan-road. the fact that many of them no longer work culturally or linguistically is just more proof that french is a degenerate influence, you see
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:SAILING ON THE SEA-STALLION OF THE WHALE-ROAD yeah kennings just make you sound like you're way too into going to Renaissance Faires. Shut your cake hole, you pencil-pushing bookworm. There's loads of modern kennings, from chickenhead to marching powder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Shut your cake hole, you pencil-pushing bookworm.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TxYwpCOkUk
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i like that as far as tuxedo catfish is concerned, old english is in all caps From what I understand the baker who got sued for not providing cake to a lesbian wedding said that he would generally provide cake for a gay person's birthday, graduation or whatever, just not to a gay marriage, because he feels like that shouldn't be a thing. That seems like a reasonable boundary to draw? Like, if that same baker said "I only provide cakes for weddings if the wedding is Christian", could he get sued? What if he refused to make cake for any wedding period? Isn't it up to him what events he wants to bake cakes for?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:the fact that many of them no longer work culturally or linguistically is just more proof that french is a degenerate influence, you see Shut your filthy, filthy mouth. The Franco-Gallic cultures have been trying to civilize the inbred island barbarians of the north for nigh on a thousand years now. It's not our fault you guys love bad food and dress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Anybody can get sued. Getting sued just means having legal proceedings filed against you. Whether the accuser has a valid case is what the court system determines. There are at least two famous US legal cases regarding a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, one in Oregon and one in Colorado. Both were found in favor of the customers who were denied their wedding cake. The rational behind the decision is that civil rights laws in those states make it illegal for business that provide public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. So a baker can chose not to sell wedding cakes, but if it is in the business of selling wedding cakes to the public, it cannot refuse to sell a wedding cake based on the sexual orientation of the recipients. The same civil rights laws also prevent discrimination on the basis of religion. If you sell wedding cakes to the public, the same law suggests you cannot refuse to sell to only Christian weddings and expect to win a lawsuit. Now the law does specify that it applies only to "public" accomodation/services and not "private" ones. At least in the Colorado case, the bakery did not contest that they were a shop that sells to the general public. How the courts might rule if the bakery claimed they were not in the business of providing a public accomodation, I don't know. That's a legal argument, but I suspect there is a more important spiritual argument to be made about why Christian bakers should not refuse to bake cakes that will be used in a same-sex wedding service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
pidan posted:Like, if that same baker said "I only provide cakes for weddings if the wedding is Christian", could he get sued? Yes. pidan posted:What if he refused to make cake for any wedding period? No. pidan posted:Isn't it up to him what events he wants to bake cakes for? Events sure, but there are very good historical reasons as to why a store can't refuse a customer for whatever reason it wants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
I know only 16 of the 200+ names of Odin, a shameful pagan   
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:Yes. It's weird that your government would make laws about who you have to serve as a business, but I guess it makes sense due to the history of race segregation. I still think a dude should be able to make his own rules about whose weddings he will and will not bake for without being hassled. I really don't have an opinion about whether Christians should bake for gay weddings in general. Maybe you could fit it under the give unto Cesar clause. Since the majority of people seem to be in favour of gay marriage anyway, it shouldn't be too hard to find a baker who will give you that cake even if one won't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
do you really think a private business should be allowed to say no black people cause that's what i'm hearing is a private business has the right to discriminate without government interference
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
pidan posted:It's weird that your government would make laws about who you have to serve as a business, but I guess it makes sense due to the history of race segregation. I still think a dude should be able to make his own rules about whose weddings he will and will not bake for without being hassled. Discrimination is perfectly legal, provided it is for valid reasons. Businesses can discriminate in hiring based on skill and appropriateness for the job. They can refuse to sell to customers for valid reasons, as well - like if someone is a known shoplifter or deadbeat, they have every right to refuse service. The problem comes with a public business that wants to discriminate for random reasons. Refusing to serve a class of people for non-business related reasons leads to them being socially marginalized, violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Basically, if you're going to open a business, you have to serve everyone equally unless you have a good reason not to - and those reasons have to apply to individuals, not categories.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Private businesses get restricted because we don't live in the perfectly spherical libertarian world, but one with a very specific history of what happened when we didn't have those kinds of rules. Like to analogize there's no reason being wrong about history in general should be criminal, but Germany has laws saying you can't deny the Holocaust because their past requires making that an exception.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
I'd be more forgiving to the bakers in this case if they'd done any of the usual runaround bullshit "Oh sorry we're all booked, we can help you find another bakery that will make a cake for you." They're not doing that. They're refusing to make cakes for gay people because they want the couple to know that they're refusing to make a cake because they're gay, and they want to be seen refusing to make cakes for gay people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I'd be more forgiving to the bakers in this case if they'd done any of the usual runaround bullshit "Oh sorry we're all booked, we can help you find another bakery that will make a cake for you." In one case the baker did say "Oh, I'm sorry, we can't do that cake for you, how about So-and-So's Substitutionary Sweets?" and the couple who'd asked for the cake didn't consider that sufficient. I (very reluctantly) have to agree that that's not legally sufficient - it means a town with one $business that does $thing can completely exclude $protected_class, and certainly a town with two equally-unwilling $businesses could collaborate ("I just got an e-mail from $protected_class and I'm going to refer them to you, so that you know you're totally booked"). [Edit: It may not have been a bakery, but a florist? Google isn't turning up the case, though the bakery in Oregon that shut down after paying the court-ordered damages is 90% of the results and that makes it hard for me to tell if I'm misremembering or not searching correctly.) zonohedron fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
It also leads to a situation where the cake shop that does sell the cake gets boycotted by bigots in favor of the one that doesn't. Plenty of Southern lunch counter owners would have gladly served black customers and taken their money, but it would have cost them their white clientele. Coercion comes in other flavors than governmental, and leaving the decision to individuals doesn't necessarily mean making that decision a freer one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Private businesses get restricted because we don't live in the perfectly spherical libertarian world, but one with a very specific history of what happened when we didn't have those kinds of rules. Yeah, pretty much this. Remember that anti-miscegenation laws were found unconstitutional in the US only fifty years ago. We don't exactly have the best track record when it comes to protecting the rights of minorities, and in this case I think that violating the rights (in a libertarian sense) of a public business in order to protect a marginalized class is fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:They're not doing that. They're refusing to make cakes for gay people because they want the couple to know that they're refusing to make a cake because they're gay, and they want to be seen refusing to make cakes for gay people. DING DING DING! yep this is exactly it. they knew there was publicity in it and there might even be money if they went down for the cause: the american right has a huge ecosystem of media gigs and nonprofits that can keep their martyrs well cared for after they bravely defy nondiscrimination laws and incur the wrath of global homo fascism
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Yeah, pretty much this. Remember that anti-miscegenation laws were found unconstitutional in the US only fifty years ago. While it was long unenforceable due to Loving , Alabama's constitutional prohibition of interracial marriage wasn't removed until 2000. In a referendum opposed by 41% of voters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
so apparently steve bannon is plotting inside the vatican with the current pope's enemies. i mean on the one hand i find this horrifying but on the other hand, i feel like trying to out-scheme a jesuit pope in the heart of vatican city is not going to end well for him
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Not to drag politics into this thread, but gently caress Steve Bannon, in all charity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Not to drag politics into this thread, but gently caress Steve Bannon, in all charity. for the non-catholics in the thread, "in all charity" is the catholic equivalent of "bless her heart"
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:so apparently steve bannon is plotting inside the vatican with the current pope's enemies. i mean on the one hand i find this horrifying but on the other hand, i feel like trying to out-scheme a jesuit pope in the heart of vatican city is not going to end well for him quote:In one of the cardinal’s antechambers, amid religious statues and book-lined walls, Cardinal Burke and Mr. Bannon — who is now President Trump’s anti-establishment eminence — bonded over their shared worldview. They saw Islam as threatening to overrun a prostrate West weakened by the erosion of traditional Christian values, and viewed themselves as unjustly ostracized by out-of-touch political elites. Oh Raymond Cardinal Burke No.  quote:And another person with knowledge of Mr. Bannon’s current outreach said the White House official is personally calling his contacts in Rome for thoughts on who should be the Trump administration’s ambassador to the Holy See.  quote:João Braz de Aviz, a powerful cardinal close to the pope, walked around in simple cleric clothes, the equivalent of civilian dress among all the flowing cassocks. what? no no it isn't or maybe it is and then he's out of uniform at a formal event? isn't that bad, if you're in the military?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:so apparently steve bannon is plotting inside the vatican with the current pope's enemies. i mean on the one hand i find this horrifying but on the other hand, i feel like trying to out-scheme a jesuit pope in the heart of vatican city is not going to end well for him holy poo poo zonohedron posted:Oh Raymond Cardinal Burke No. Worthleast posted:Not to drag politics into this thread, but gently caress Steve Bannon, in all charity. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:why? he shares your beliefs on human rights.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
http://catholic-resources.org/JesuitJokes.htm
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:what? no Someone on r/Catholicism managed to dig up a source that said all clergy should be fully vested at all times according to their stature, even outside of Mass, but now I can't find it again. It's obviously not enforced since I know some of the priests in my parish don't even wear the collar on their days off. I think that was also the thread that said if you give the Pope a new zuchetto he's obliged to give you his current one. Someone needs to go get the Pope's hat for our funny hats thread. e: Also in all fairness Podesta was trying to play Vatican politics too. I assume they just laugh at Americans and think it's cute. Aww, little Americans wanna try to swim in the big kids' end of the pool? Lemme tell you what we did to the Knights Templar, bitch. The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
I am confused by what this means, clarification? Bel_Canto posted:so apparently steve bannon is plotting inside the vatican with the current pope's enemies. i mean on the one hand i find this horrifying but on the other hand, i feel like trying to out-scheme a jesuit pope in the heart of vatican city is not going to end well for him Also, is this guy a complete idiot? I mean sure, go right for the pope, see how that goes down you mud slinging rat corpse in a suit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Also, is this guy a complete idiot? I mean sure, go right for the pope, see how that goes down you mud slinging rat corpse in a suit. there is literally no way that the papal secretaries don't have a burner phone with a phone number that connects them with a well-dressed sicilian gentleman who makes problems go away
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:there is literally no way that the papal secretaries don't have a burner phone with a phone number that connects them with a well-dressed sicilian gentleman who makes problems go away some of them are neapolitan
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:so apparently steve bannon is plotting inside the vatican with the current pope's enemies. i mean on the one hand i find this horrifying but on the other hand, i feel like trying to out-scheme a jesuit pope in the heart of vatican city is not going to end well for him dayummm that guy has some balls, I'll give him that. no fear lol thats a powerplay if I've ever seen one. imagine if he somehow succeeded? dude PUTS the loving chips on the table lol I'm excited to see how long he lives. I really like this Pope, but this will surely test his faith. thou shalt not kill mothafuckazzz
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Maybe he'll send the ex officio pope round and just have him force lightning Bannon to death. Also, it is sad that someone as unremittingly foul as Bannon has gotten this much power with so little oversight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
okay ill play devils advocate here. why do you guys hate this guy so much? do you really believe he wants to ruin the world? I personally respect his 'not-afraid-to-run-into-the-beehive-and-start-playing-chess-with-the-queen' attitude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:okay ill play devils advocate here. Because he's vile in the purest sense he represents nothing but his own fatuous urges. He wants to make the world less by diminishing the people within it. Any human impulse towards kindness crushed under the guise of "Those people are different and need to be contained". Every single time he proposes something it is to the net detriment of kindness, charity and justice. Take for instance, him gathering power by getting himself appointed head of the chiefs of staff, making up stories about terror attacks where there are enough of them already, helping to right the travel ban with no forward planning and running a business designed to spread hatred of people based on their race. He's the sort of person a cockroach would have to kneel down to spit on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:okay ill play devils advocate here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:okay ill play devils advocate here. he's a nazi
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:why? he shares your beliefs on human rights. I beg your pardon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
does the prophet Mohammed not directly threaten Christ? Jesus did the Holy Crusades, after all. I personally think Jesus is a gangsta. and that this earth was made to settle a great alien war. Instead of war, God came down and built this Earth to see what alien race was the best at playing God. There are 1000s of players. Egyptians, mayans, native americans, they are all correct. Every religion is "right". You, as a free willed human being made in the image of God, gets to determine yourself who you choose to follow. In x00000 years When the last human dies, the scores will be tallied up, and the best "God of Earth" gets to be the new king of the galaxy. Jesus is the best player. Dude never did a single thing wrong. Also I'm not sure about this, but Jesus may actually be the one who created our universe, because if he wins the game, he doesnt become king, every alien race in the galaxy gets freedom. Jesus is a cool dude. So before you are so quick to judge others, maybe put yourself in their shoes and try to understand their mindset. talk is cheap, tbh. Peoples actions are what you should observe when throwing stones
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:11 |
|
|
"Guys, sure, he's a nazi. But come on, give him a chance to ENACT his nazi policies before judging him!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:08
|
|