Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) Wat? Rex was alleging that dogs can be gay. They don't have the social structure to be gay. They're pack animals.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:18 PM) There's a reason people are pelting you on this though...it's your word choice. You're defining heterosexual to be "Normal", which in one sense it is, because it's more common...but you're implicitly (and almost explicitly) defining homosexual to be abnormal. If you wanted to just say that "a large majority of the population is heterosexual", you'd be accurate and you'd be choosing words that are sterile enough that no one would take offense. However, you're not doing so...you're using words that give a different connotation, getting an emotional reaction in response, but then falling back on trying to defend the sterile statement, while ignoring the connotation that everyone else is justly taking from your words. Calling someone part of a minority is one thing and it's not going to get a reaction if it's not a smear and it's also true. Calling someone "not normal" is going to provoke an angry response. I see what you're saying. But I think that simply saying "part of a minority" isn't the same as "it's a rarity and shouldn't be expressed as the norm," which is what I'm trying to say, but without any moral connotation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) The same way it's possible in humans. Did you really not know that homosexuality is present through nature? Dogs hook up in one on one relationships? What kind of dog do you own?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:05 PM) You've contradicted yourself, and you've exposed your bias here. If it occurs in nature, it is, by definition, natural. Even if it is rare, even if it doesn't propagate the species, it can still be natural. Childhood leukemia is rare and if everyone had it the species would cease to exist, but that doesn't mean it is unnatural. Of course being homosexual isn't the norm, and it never will be. You're arguing against a strawman here. Generally speaking, I think the gay community would like it if sexuality was simply a non-issue and they were judged as evil degenerates who people need to protect children from. That's a far cry from something more than equal or preferential status. I think you're stretching the definition of natural. I guess it's also natural for human beings to murder people because it happens, albeit rarely. What's the strawman? A loud segment of the gay community, mostly in the entertainment industry, throw it out like being gay is 100% normal. I'm suggesting by definition it's not. Just like a month ago that guy Drex (Drex in the morning) was arguing that every man has had a gay experience in college. And OBVIOUSLY it's not everyone. It's a small minority who say these things. But it exists, which is all i'm saying.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:48 PM) Well, that's because homosexuality is natural. I don't think my neighbors dogs learned being gay from the TV machines. As to normal? That's kind of a loaded word, its not normal because most people aren't gay. But neither are redheads normal either. Are we supposed to treat them differently because they have fair skin and red hair? No. And there's a difference between a social political agenda and a policy political agenda. Do gay people want to be treated like regular members of society and not thought of differently (abnormal or unnatural) because they are gay? Absolutely. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I don't think that's being more than equal. I'm sorry that you see it differently. Dogs can be gay? How is that possible?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:28 PM) Then what connection are you trying to make? Your statement seems to imply that you feel it's not normal or natural. That something that occurs in the small minority of situations isn't normal? 5% of the population in the US is gay. Say that number is really 10%. That still means 9 out of 10 times it's not the norm. That's my point. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or that one way is preferred or not preferred, i'm just saying that's how it is. By definition it's not normal. Same with evidence of homosexuality in nature. It's rare. It's not natural. In fact it's unnatural for a species to be homosexual as they would cease to exist.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:45 AM) They can still be sued, sometimes successfuly, as noted earlier. There are members of orientation, religion, or racial classes of all kinds that want special treatment. But most don't. So honestly, this is a non-issue to me, as its a level playing field across those protected classes. And level playing field is something the law can and does strive for. As long as we're all being blunt here... if you are choosing to characterize all gay people by the behavior of some minority of them, but choosing NOT to do so for other groups, then not only are you unfairly stereotyping, but you are being hypocritical and that is obviously motivated by some sort of bias. That bias might be created by your own personal experiences, I do not know, but its still bias. I'm perfectly OK with gays being a protected class in these cases, because they meet the two conditions I feel make it appropriate. One, the property of that class is not related to job performance, and therefore is an invalid reason for altering employment. Two, they are a class of people historically, and to some degree currently, unfairly and repugnantly treated poorly for purely that reason. Therefore, they deserve protection for equality (not being persecuted professionally or otherwise) - not special treatment (i.e. affirmative action, which I am firmly against). I don't really have a bias, i'm just curious how far people are willing to extend these "protections." And i'm not characterizing ALL gay people as that. I'm sure the vast majority are content living their lives and not being outspoken about how they think people should feel about them. But you can't deny that there's a pretty loud segment that appear to want more than just equality. They want to be treated equal (totally valid and fair and I agree), but they also want people to view their lifestyle as normal and natural. That's where I disagree. I'm 100% for people's rights to do whatever they want in life in this respect, and the government shouldn't play any part in it. But I just can't go that far. Nor do I think that government should be involved in that either. Sometimes I think these protections do that. Colorado a few years back had a state vote on legislation which basically said equality laws ok, but preferential laws are not ok. The Supreme Court said they couldn't do that. Edit: and I don't mean to say "normal" or "natural" with any sort of right/wrong or moral connection

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:30 AM) Just looking back at the last page or so of this thread for specific examples...the physical or mental traits that you've cited, as far as I can tell, are: being overweight, or appearance issues like being red-haired or bald. First of all...when people are fired for being overweight, by my understanding it winds up being quite a complicated issue as-is. When an airline wants to require an overweight person to buy 2 tickets, it tends to wind up on the news/in court, and that's a place where that person's condition directly affects the ability of the plane to do its job. If a person is failing to get jobs because they have red hair, or are bald, etc., then that probably should be a case where they can sue the employer, unless that specifically impacts the person's ability to perform that job. Do you have better examples? Why aren't those enough? Forcing someone to buy 2 plane tickets isn't applicable here. And it's not a complicated issue as-is. I'm an employer. You're either an applicant or an existing employee. You're overweight, bald, or simply unattractive, and I decide I don't like that. It doesn't affect your performance. It doesn't affect how you could possible do the job. I just don't like it. Legally I can fire you and/or decide not to hire you for that very reason, and there's nothing you can do about it. No laws protect you. But if you're gay, I cannot. What's the difference exactly? IMO both are physical and/or mental traits that you cannot control. I'm asking why society decided to legally designate one group a special class, and force people to act a certain way towards that class, but not for the others. Is it simply the history of discrimination? If so I think "unattractive" people have a pretty good claim of being screwed over. Same with the obese.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:23 AM) Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of "protected class." Am I really not being very clear here? I'm asking why aren't there other protected classes for what I consider to be similarly situated people - classes of people that have a physical or mental trait that they cannot control. What sets a gay person apart in that respect, IGNORING the legal distinction that society created?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:12 AM) You are seriously delusional. Dude, you JUST did this to me. I just stated that gays should be provided equal protection and that DADT repeal was a good move. That's clearly not enough for you though, because when I ask how this situation differs from other classes of people, you call me a bigot. Clearly it's not enough that I think equal protection is sufficient. I need to believe something more.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:07 AM) That's not true. Civil courts have ruled against businesses who claimed it was different reasons. I practice some in discrimination suits. It's difficult to prove this. The law is a joke most of the time, both for protecting and overprotecting certain classes of people.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:55 AM) You are forgetting half the law here. The law for at-will employment says you can be fired for any reason OTHER THAN conditions solely related to status in a protected class. In other words, you can fire someone for dressing poorly, but you can't fire them becase they are race/religion/orientation/nationality/gender. So the only "special" protection being asked for here within the military is for the military to be subject to the SAME rules that private business is subject to. In other words, not special at all. In fact, equal. Right, and I'm saying that somehow sexuality got thrown in there despite being nothing more than a physical and/or mental trait that's no different than being genetically prone to being overweight, or having red hair or being bald or whatever. It's something beyond your control. I want to know why it's different. I get that gays as a group have been discriminated against, and that's why they were thrown into EE protection, but so are fat people. Where's the outcry for that? And Bigsqwert, you can call me a bigot all you want, but you're blind if you don't think members of the gay community want more than just equality. They want people to not only accept the fact that they're gay, but like it and agree with it. By calling me a bigot and my opinions stupid you've just proven that point.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:39 AM) *shakes head* I know right, God forbid people have differing opinions. So stupid!

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 08:36 AM) Maybe you feel that heterosexual soldiers need to have their rights protected by law as well. I would support such a law, but something tells me that you and I both know that its unnecessary. But I know that today, 29 states say that an employer can legally terminate or deny you employment based on what they suspect your sexual orientation to be. Close to 40 states offer no protection for transgender individuals. You can be legally denied housing based on the same thing in these states. Maybe you can point out where this is a problem for heterosexuals? If it is, I would be happy to support your fight to bring equal rights to all people, heterosexuals included. This is probably going to receive a good amount of backlash, but oh well, it's how I feel. In 50 states an employer can legally terminate or deny your employment based on the fact you're unattractive, have small boobs, are fat, have red hair, have moles on your face, wear glasses, grow up being a Cubs fan, etc etc etc. What's the difference? These are physical and biological things that are beyond your control, yet we allow that, but make an exception to protect 5% of the population. I think it's a great step that the military cannot discharge you for being gay or deny you the opportunity to serve. God knows if you sign up you deserve much more than that. I just don't understand why you should receive special treatment because you're gay. I get it, you've been discriminated in the past. But so have a lot of other people for a variety of things. I'm all for equal protection. I'm all for government getting out of people's personal business. I feel though that too often the gay community wants to force people to accept them and their lifestyle more than just being equal with them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:14 PM) Maybe, but again that misses the reasons why Social Security is not an investment and not directly comparable to investment products since it is a social insurance program. I'm not saying their comparable, i'm just saying in effect, it is an investment. And simply because it's zero risk doesn't mean it's not an investment. Buying a bond is zero risk (absent insolvency), but it's still investing money today for a greater return tomorrow.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:15 PM) Outliers? Whose retirement accounts didn't drop dramatically in the last several years? Based on fraud from unique situations like Enron/Worldcom/Madoff/etc?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:10 PM) Tell that to the thousands that invested in Enron's 401k, or Worldcom's. Or Madoff. Or GM. I can keep going. Point is, in the face of those losses, those people would all GLADLY accept that safe 2% now, in hindsight. Again, you're picking outliers.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 01:48 PM) The CBA doesn't expire until early July, so yeah, there would still be a draft. I would imagine a fair number of guys would still declare. The guys that are still top-5 locks, the guys that are too dumb to keep their eligibility for an extra two semesters, the guys that are desperate to get whatever money they can as soon as possible, and a handful of guys that aren't likely to see their stock increase for some reason (lack of ideal size or athleticism mostly). But are they going to get paid? Seems dumb for the NBA to hold the draft, start the lockout and then be on the hook for the millions-a-year rookie contracts.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 03:28 PM) Even "safe" investments have lost a ton of value in this recession, and if you're at or past retirement age, you don't have the luxury of waiting around and hoping there's not another 'lost decade' to recover. Hell, this past year, the bond fund in my IRA is the worst-performing fund. It's lost money while the rest are up about 20%. I'm sure that if you were to take your SS contributions to date at a 2% rate of return, and compare it to your private investments you'd still be better off with the loss.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) It's an investment the same way life insurance or collision insurance is an investment--not really an investment at all. Do you contribute to SS with the expectation that you'll be paid the same amount in 50 years? Or more? Is there not a rate of return? Pretty sure by definition contributing money with a 2% rate of return is an investment. Edit: obviously it's not a TRUE investment, but for all practical purposes that's what it is, just in a different form.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) You again take into account the value of time. I call this the Dr. Evil concept of investing. Translation: A highly elaborate situation in which everything just goes according to plan. Hypothetical: What if you die tomorrow and your daughter needs to start collecting this money for basic child support needs during this same recession? Ahhh...and therein lies the rub. Now you're just being ridiculous about this. We can play any number of whatif scenarios to fit our arguments can't we? Look, if you're at or near retirement age, and you've done ANY sort of thinking towards your investments, you know (and your advisor knows) that putting your money in risky instruments is beyond stupid. You switch your mutual fund investments into bonds or the like precisely because of the risk of losing a significant chunk to a drop in the market. Over the long term, even if I lost a ton of money because of the recession, i'm going to make that money back over the long term, which is exactly the type of "security" investment a SS replacement would be: long term with low risk the closer you get to retirement.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) ^^ This. And it's NOT a 401k system, so let's not make it that. But you can't ignore the reality that in some sense it IS an investment into your future. It's not "security" as if it sits in a vault only if you need it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:26 AM) You keep assuming that everyone who doesn't have a bunch of money (or loses it) is stupid or dumb. That is simply untrue, especially when their are so many dishonest financial "investments" and advisers and garbage products out there. SS isn't an investment, it's security. It's meant to provide some amount of fall back so that people aren't left destitute if their investments don't pan out or they have the bad luck of retiring during a prolonged economic downturn (like, uh, right now). I thought the assumption was that if you gave everyone a choice they'd (rightly) choose to save/invest on their own and then lose it all, costing society a great deal down the road? If that's not the assumption, and the assumption is that the majority of people would be fine and wouldn't lose it all, then that makes my argument stronger. What's the median salary in America? 25k? 30k? There's a lot of people that would benefit from a reduced limit.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:19 AM) I didn't assume a majority. I don't know where the tipping point it, but like any other insurance product, I'm sure it's much less than 50%+1. This is an older article from 2005, when Republicans were pushing to privatize SS, but it lays out the basic problems with the Republican rhetoric and conceptions of Social Security. There was absolutely zero analysis in that article, other than "don't trust what the evil Republicans tell you."

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:13 AM) You just answered your own question. You and I wouldn't be the only two people taking our money out. MOST people would, especially when convinced they could be and should be making more money elsewhere. The con artists would come out of the woodwork with bad investment advice for the plethora of people who trust them, and most would wind up losing money, and a lot of it. They'd collectively collapse the entire system, and the last safety net they have to rely on for retirement would be gone. As bad as it is now because its underfunded, imagine if they wound up with nothing, which would happen to a lot more than you think...it'd create an entire era of welfare recipients that have no other choice since their SS is gone the way of the dodo. Well, there are idiots everywhere, in every facet of our society, but that doesn't mean we should preclude people from having the choice. By your logic the government should be in charge of EVERYTHING because there's ALWAYS the potential for risk and loss. And my answer would be to put some requirements on this. You have to make X amount before being able to opt out. You have show proof that you're putting that money in long term instruments. If you take an X% hit in that investment, you have to opt back in, etc etc.