(July 4, 2016 at 1:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Very respectful, and that is appreciated

People trip though...

Then you should pick up your Lego, shouldn't you?

(June 30, 2016 at 10:15 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: In fact, a better metaphor would be if you were to tell people in your house that if they're going to be racist, they had better include racism against white people as well. I do not agree that equality is served in any way by entrapping more people in what is a shitty system to begin with.

^^^This^^^

Having an equal amount of unfairness for everyone isn't "equal" in the sense of "fair" to anyone. Equally unfair to everyone is simply unfair to everyone.

If 9 people are suffering and 1 person isn't. Having the remainder 1 person suffer so all 10 people suffer isn't going from unfair to 90% to fair to all by making 100% suffer. It's going from unfair to 90% to unfair to all by making 100% suffer.

(July 3, 2016 at 5:28 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(July 3, 2016 at 5:23 pm)0000 Wrote: Its robs nips we are talking about!

Careful.  He draws you in with nips and then flashes other parts when you least expect it!

I know! He nearly poked my eye out once with his sharp shooter phallacy!

I aim to please!

(July 4, 2016 at 1:20 am)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(July 4, 2016 at 1:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Very respectful, and that is appreciated

People trip though...

Then you should pick up your Lego, shouldn't you?

Did you know there are different genders of Lego bricks?

The females are called Legolas

Okay, I'll tidy them away.

(June 27, 2016 at 10:55 pm)vorlon13 Wrote:

(July 4, 2016 at 3:25 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 10:15 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: In fact, a better metaphor would be if you were to tell people in your house that if they're going to be racist, they had better include racism against white people as well. I do not agree that equality is served in any way by entrapping more people in what is a shitty system to begin with.

^^^This^^^

Having an equal amount of unfairness for everyone isn't "equal" in the sense of "fair" to anyone. Equally unfair to everyone is simply unfair to everyone.

If 9 people are suffering and 1 person isn't. Having the remainder 1 person suffer so all 10 people suffer isn't going from unfair to 90% to fair to all by making 100% suffer. It's going from unfair to 90% to unfair to all by making 100% suffer.

But asking the last person to deliberately forgo something in order show solidarity should not be so offensive ... yet it clearly is.

It isn't offensive at all. And that person choosing to reject said request should also not be offensive.

Asking =/= requiring.

I get that it's about solidarity but I personally think not limiting the freedoms of twice as many people and making the same mistake to both sexes as made to 1 sex is not worth that solidarity. Especially when I don't think it's an effective way to achieve anything and I think the issue needs addressing somewhere else other than an atheist forum. That's hardly going to achieve much. And expecting us to change our rules based on this idea is going beyond ineffective to the point of silly.

Even if I'm wrong about it being ineffective and silly and achieving nothing, I still think not limiting freedoms for anyone is more important than limiting twice as many people to express solidarity.

I personally value freedom and minimisation of suffering above solidarity. And I think limiting freedoms for more people increases suffering as well as obviously decreasing freedom.

(July 4, 2016 at 1:51 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Asking =/= requiring.

I'm not "requiring" anything. I obviously don't have that authority here.