(04-22-2015 11:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:10 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  ERC, that pizza joint receiving almost a million dollars for some silly opinion on this issue isn't justice. You might like it because you agree with them and disagree with those who disagreed with them, but you're being silly to act like this was some beautifully karmic event.

The fact that that amount of money raised demonstrates the injustice that was done to the pizza shop owners. The fact that the injustice done to the owners raised them 800k is perfect justice.

No it doesn't? Since when has the distribution of wealth had any connection to justice? Popular opinion among a large minority group of people is not some act of god or transcendent moral certainty, it was a bunch of people sending money to show their support for a cause that was far larger than this single pizza shop. Stop acting like "oooo, take that liberals!" as if it means "the universe says we're right!" when in reality it just means "a lot of ignorant people sent a few bucks here and there."

There are far worthier causes to be donating to, btw.

Distribution of wealth? Lmao. No, buddy... your side does that. Christians DONATE.

And big surprise! A liberal suggesting that he knows better what to do with our money than we do.

(04-22-2015 11:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:10 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  ERC, that pizza joint receiving almost a million dollars for some silly opinion on this issue isn't justice. You might like it because you agree with them and disagree with those who disagreed with them, but you're being silly to act like this was some beautifully karmic event.

The fact that that amount of money raised demonstrates the injustice that was done to the pizza shop owners. The fact that the injustice done to the owners raised them 800k is perfect justice.

No it doesn't? Since when has the distribution of wealth had any connection to justice?

Does that apply to economic theory as well?

(04-22-2015 09:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  ERC, that pizza joint receiving almost a million dollars for some silly opinion on this issue isn't justice. You might like it because you agree with them and disagree with those who disagreed with them, but you're being silly to act like this was some beautifully karmic event.

If threatening to destroy one's means of earning a living over a "silly opinion" on and issue and then losing one's own means of making a living over said threat isn't karma then maybe you don't know what that word means.

(04-22-2015 11:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:10 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  ERC, that pizza joint receiving almost a million dollars for some silly opinion on this issue isn't justice. You might like it because you agree with them and disagree with those who disagreed with them, but you're being silly to act like this was some beautifully karmic event.

The fact that that amount of money raised demonstrates the injustice that was done to the pizza shop owners. The fact that the injustice done to the owners raised them 800k is perfect justice.

No it doesn't? Since when has the distribution of wealth had any connection to justice? Popular opinion among a large minority group of people is not some act of god or transcendent moral certainty, it was a bunch of people sending money to show their support for a cause that was far larger than this single pizza shop. Stop acting like "oooo, take that liberals!" as if it means "the universe says we're right!" when in reality it just means "a lot of ignorant people sent a few bucks here and there."

There are far worthier causes to be donating to, btw.

So now those that support someone who's livelihood was threatened are ignorant? That's low, even for someone like you who enjoys belittling others on a pretty regular basis if they don't agree with your opinion. All those that donated did was help to ensure that a woman who freely spoke her mind and violated no laws nor discriminated against anybody didn't lose her business because a bunch of insecure bleeding-hearts got their panties in a wad and then threatened to burn her shop down and also threatened her life.

I need to go back and find the article about this when I was banned.. There were several in the gay community that donated to them, because while they disagreed with the practice of refusing to cater a gay wedding, they agreed that it was their right and nobody should take away their means of making a living.

(04-23-2015 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I need to go back and find the article about this when I was banned.. There were several in the gay community that donated to them, because while they disagreed with the practice of refusing to cater a gay wedding, they agreed that it was their right and nobody should take away their means of making a living.

Gay Woman Apologizes To Owners Of Indiana Pizzeria For “Level of Hate And Intolerance Directed You” By LGBT Community…

(04-22-2015 11:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:10 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  ERC, that pizza joint receiving almost a million dollars for some silly opinion on this issue isn't justice. You might like it because you agree with them and disagree with those who disagreed with them, but you're being silly to act like this was some beautifully karmic event.

The fact that that amount of money raised demonstrates the injustice that was done to the pizza shop owners. The fact that the injustice done to the owners raised them 800k is perfect justice.

No it doesn't? Since when has the distribution of wealth had any connection to justice? Popular opinion among a large minority group of people is not some act of god or transcendent moral certainty, it was a bunch of people sending money to show their support for a cause that was far larger than this single pizza shop. Stop acting like "oooo, take that liberals!" as if it means "the universe says we're right!" when in reality it just means "a lot of ignorant people sent a few bucks here and there."

There are far worthier causes to be donating to, btw.

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

did you know you where a marxist or is this a moment of clarity for you?

(04-22-2015 11:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No it doesn't? Since when has the distribution of wealth had any connection to justice?

What does this have to do with "distribution of wealth"?

And wealth isn't distributed, it is earned.

(04-23-2015 11:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No it doesn't? Since when has the distribution of wealth had any connection to justice?

What does this have to do with "distribution of wealth"?

And wealth isn't distributed, it is earned.

I mean the literal distribution of wealth. Giving someone a gift changes that distribution inherently. Jesus you guys are touchy about a few key words, but step off the anti-socialist throttle because what I said is absolutely what I meant.

And again, when has the amount of wealth someone has, otherwise accurately described as the distribution of wealth, at all related to their morality or justice? This is no different, acting like her receiving that money is some objective opinion on morality is as absurd as pointing to a starving child and saying the same.

(04-24-2015 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And again, when has the amount of wealth someone has, otherwise accurately described as the distribution of wealth, at all related to their morality or justice? This is no different, acting like her receiving that money is some objective opinion on morality is as absurd as pointing to a starving child and saying the same.

That definition is so brad as to be meaningless unless you intend it as a dog whistle.

That would make *every* transaction a "redistribution" of wealth.

(04-24-2015 01:15 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And again, when has the amount of wealth someone has, otherwise accurately described as the distribution of wealth, at all related to their morality or justice? This is no different, acting like her receiving that money is some objective opinion on morality is as absurd as pointing to a starving child and saying the same.

That definition is so brad as to be meaningless unless you intend it as a dog whistle.

That would make *every* transaction a "redistribution" of wealth.

It would, but in this case I thought it was really sort of fitting since it was a lot of people giving small sums of money to a singular cause they supported. But seeing as how we now know what my intended meaning was, do you disagree with my statement about wealth vs morality?

(04-24-2015 02:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:15 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  That definition is so broad as to be meaningless unless you intend it as a dog whistle.

That would make *every* transaction a "redistribution" of wealth.

It would

Thank you for confirming..

(04-24-2015 02:25 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 02:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:15 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  That definition is so broad as to be meaningless unless you intend it as a dog whistle.

That would make *every* transaction a "redistribution" of wealth.

It would

Thank you for confirming..

So your contribution to this thread is confirming the words I said are what I meant? You're doing gods work here Bull.

I can respond in a different way to not give you an easy quote to act like you've won some argument that never existed? Would that be better for you?

(04-24-2015 02:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I can respond in a different way to not give you an easy quote to act like you've won some argument that never existed? Would that be better for you?

over....your....head....

in other words, we know exactly what you mean, but you dont understand that not only do we know what you mean, we know what you believe....and what you believe is silly....

(04-24-2015 02:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 02:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I can respond in a different way to not give you an easy quote to act like you've won some argument that never existed? Would that be better for you?

over....your....head....

in other words, we know exactly what you mean, but you dont understand that not only do we know what you mean, we know what you believe....and what you believe is silly....

This to the nth degree.

(04-24-2015 02:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 02:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I can respond in a different way to not give you an easy quote to act like you've won some argument that never existed? Would that be better for you?

over....your....head....

in other words, we know exactly what you mean, but you dont understand that not only do we know what you mean, we know what you believe....and what you believe is silly....

(04-24-2015 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And again, when has the amount of wealth someone has, otherwise accurately described as the distribution of wealth, at all related to their morality or justice? This is no different, acting like her receiving that money is some objective opinion on morality is as absurd as pointing to a starving child and saying the same.

Technically distribution of wealth is the comparison of wealth between different members or groups of society, not strictly one individual. The amount of money or wealth of one individual is not reflective of any group in and of itself. I would assume that the majority of individuals that gave money would come from the same demographic groups (conservatives, small business owners, etc.) that the owner of Memories belongs to, therefore the wealth would remain in the same groups for the most part.

It is morally wrong to do nothing when a child is starving, just as it is morally wrong to allow irrational threats against an innocent person to threaten to destroy their means of earning a living. People choosing to donate money to what they feel is a just or moral cause is their own business and I don't see how you can claim it doesn't represent an opinion on morality if their moral beliefs are a driving factor behind their donation.

Oh, it's absolutely an statement on someones opinion of morality, but that doesn't make it objectively so.

(04-24-2015 02:54 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 02:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 02:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I can respond in a different way to not give you an easy quote to act like you've won some argument that never existed? Would that be better for you?

over....your....head....

in other words, we know exactly what you mean, but you dont understand that not only do we know what you mean, we know what you believe....and what you believe is silly....

This to the nth degree.

That's just not true.