Anima, I must apologies in assuming that the both of us where possible being ousted for our not so majority position in our responses. However, it seems that it was never us but more of me. As it seems more are engaging and acknowledging your post.

Oh well such is life :-)

I do thank you for your mutual respect for addressing and wiliness to discuss my posts. Truly, It is greatly appreciated.


Change of subject.

See if I am understanding the end conclusion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's recent ruling of homosexuality in the work force.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, under title 7 has stated that the prohibiting of employment, promotion, and firing on the ground of an individual’s sexual orientation as discriminatory.
Ok, got it. Agree.


However, homosexual discrimination is under S. E. X. discrimination, not a new anti-discrimination section but, a current one. In doing this the protected statues of another minority is extinguished, (i.e. WOMEN).

Sex discrimination, birthed from the women’s liberation movement of the 60’s & 70’s, is meant to aid/create an equal treatment and opportunity in the work force for women who were overlooked for men in employment. In that time, before and even today, men dominate in employment, managerial positions, and payed higher than women.

Contrary to assumed knowledge, S.E.X. discrimination allocation is only WOMEN in the work force, not men! The team S. E. X. is in references to the sex one is born as , NOT what you are fucking!

The term Homosexuality argued to the commission, consist of both Lesbians (WOMEN) and Gay’s (MEN).In the EEOC ruling the term homosexuality is what the commission placed under the protection of sex discrimination. Now that men (gay or not) have been given a protected position under sex discrimination, women’s protected classes under Title 7 and sex discrimination has now just be eliminated!

Because now men can use sex discrimination to protect their position and dominates in the work force. In other words ones sex is obsolete in any consideration in the workforce. Now both sex’s are defined to be equal this nether need for any protection from the strong presents of the other in the workforce, because now there is no one sex dominate the other.

(But we know this is not even remotely true!!!)

(July 17, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: You are still missing the point.  When you use one example of extinction to justify your position, all I need to do is use another example of extinction to justify mine.  This is very basic.  Your original point was based on the principle of the matter, and not on the utility of it.  If you want to change your argument that is fine.  But we need to drop this ridiculous notion that potential extinction is a viable reason to undermine the social utility of an entire group of people, and recognize instead that a number of factors are at work.

The IVF argument and the under population argument are in fact different.  I am not accusing you solely of committing a fallacy of composition, I am accusing you of presenting a false narrative.  The IVF argument is also not a fallacy of composition argument.

I see. You are endeavoring to argue I made a causal fallacy. So I will respond to your specific fallacy and two other ones which I think comprise your single:

1. The fallacy you identify appears to state an argument in one of two ways (please correct this if it is wrong) first it seem to say if there is more than one cause which may lead to a given outcome than we may not "undermine" a particular cause in regards to its tendency to a negative outcome do to the myriad of alternative causes. By this argument we may not undermine guns in regards to them being used to kill people because people are also choked, stabbed, beaten, burned, starved, skinned, infected, drowned, electrocuted, and so forth. Nor may we undermine any of the listed (or not listed) means by which people are killed because there is always another means. Naturally I do not think this argument is tenable since it serves no other purpose than to say we may not identify any particular cause as negative in regards to its objective consequence. Such ignores both the objective consequence of the cause as well as the subjective intention of the agent engaging in the action as a cause. This would subsequently limit determination of the cause to a purely subjective valuation, whereby the particular is not discussed as a cause but as an act in itself to be determined as good or bad by the actor regardless of the impact it has or the intent the actor had. (I would strongly caution going down this route of argument. If you want to I would direct you to read http://atheistforums.org/thread-33523.html where we have already discussed it at length).

Second, if I am to take your argument as not meaning a myriad of causes, but rather as an issue of a sequence of actual or proximate cause than it would appear your argument is saying one may not undermine any particular cause unless that cause is the direct actual or immediate proximate cause of the negative outcome. By this argument we may not undermine any initial cause resulting in the negative outcome of death because the initiating cause is not the direct actual or immediate proximate cause. Once again such an argument is untenable as it would limit discourse to say the cause of death is dying, the cause of cancer is cancerous cells, the cause of rape is being raped, and so forth. In short the argument becomes a continuum fallacy by which we must determine the exact moment the sequence of causes becomes the final consequence; the action just before the final consequence is then the only direct actual or immediate proximate cause which may be referenced as any other cause is only a initiate of another cause in a sequence of causes.

2. Fallacy of a Single Cause: Similar to the first interpretation of the fallacy you point out it may be said that we never contended homosexuality was the single cause of extinction. Rather it was the cause to which the focus of our inquiry was directed. It may readily be said that any number of causes of extinction exists and that we would "undermine" all such causes due to the negative consequence that follows from them. Thus, choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving, skinning, infecting, drowning, electrocuting, and so forth as various causes of killing of people are denigrated due to the negative consequence. It is further recognized the "undermining" of the causes is not limited to the agent, but most definitively in terms of its negative objective consequence. Choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving... is bad whether caused by an inanimate object or as the volitional act of an animate object if it results in the death of a person. Thus, The existence of many causes does not invalidate the negative of a particular cause. We may readily admit over-consumption leading to extinction is bad, while still maintain it is not the focus of our discussion and its impact as an alternative cause of extinction does not serve to eliminate recognition of other causes of extinction that are the focus of discussion.

3. Third Cause Fallacy: Similar to the second interpretation of the fallacy you point out it may be said death is the direct actual or immediate proximate cause of extinction if and only if the rate of death exceeds the rate of procreation (I think we may agree on this). From here the focus of my argument was upon the procreative side of the equation. Holding all else equal (this is to say the rate of death remains constant) if we were to go along with Pyrrho and say homosexual intimacy is superior to heterosexual intimacy, such that the former is permitted and the latter prohibited, will we have a situation where the rate of procreation will exceed the rate of death? The answer is no; in which case we may say homosexual intimacy (while not being the only cause) is a cause of extinction.

Argument to over-consumption serves to take the death side of the equation. Holding all else equal (this is to say the rate of procreation remains constant) if we say over-consumption is superior to under-consumption, such that we permit the former and prohibit the latter, do we have situation where the rate of death exceeds the rate of procreation? The answer becomes not necessarily; simply because it depends on what we over-consume. Over-consumption of a competitor will decrease the death rate, of a luxury will not increase nor decrease the death rate, while over-consumption of a necessity will increase the death rate. As such we may say we should over-consume our competition for resources, it does not matter if we over-consume luxury resources, and we should not over-consume necessary resources as such will end in extinction. Should we not wish to make distinction between competition, luxury, and necessity than we may say over-consumption as a whole leads to extinction based on the assumption we would over-consume all resources including necessary.

(July 19, 2015 at 10:16 pm)Ace Wrote: Anima, I must apologies in assuming that the both of us where possible being ousted for our not so majority position in our responses. However, it seems that it was never us but more of me. As it seems more are engaging and acknowledging your post.  

Oh well such is life :-)

I do thank you for your mutual respect for addressing and wiliness to discuss my posts. Truly, It is greatly appreciated.  


Change of subject.

See if I am understanding the end conclusion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's recent ruling of homosexuality in the work force.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, under title 7 has stated that the prohibiting of employment, promotion, and firing on the ground of an individual’s sexual orientation as discriminatory.
Ok, got it. Agree.


However, homosexual discrimination is under S. E. X. discrimination, not a new anti-discrimination section but, a current one.  In doing this the protected statues of another minority is extinguished, (i.e. WOMEN).

Sex discrimination, birthed from the women’s liberation movement of the 60’s & 70’s, is meant to aid/create an equal treatment and opportunity in the work force for women who were overlooked for men in employment. In that time, before and even today, men dominate in employment, managerial positions, and payed higher than women.

Contrary to assumed knowledge, S.E.X.  discrimination allocation is only WOMEN in the work force, not men! The team S. E. X. is in references to the sex one is born as , NOT what you are fucking!

The term Homosexuality argued to the commission, consist of both Lesbians (WOMEN) and Gay’s (MEN).In the EEOC ruling the term homosexuality is what the commission placed under the protection of sex discrimination. Now that men (gay or not) have been given a protected position under sex discrimination, women’s protected classes under Title 7 and sex discrimination has now just be eliminated!

Because now men can use sex discrimination to protect their position and dominates in the work force. In other words ones sex is obsolete in any consideration in the workforce. Now both sex’s are defined to be equal this nether need for any protection from the strong presents of the other in the workforce, because now there is no one sex dominate the other.

(But we know this is not even remotely true!!!)

Whoa! When did this happen? I have not heard about this? How in the heck did they extend sex protections to men? The whole point of sex protections where in regards to gender to establish fairness for women in the work force.

I need to look this up? If what you are saying is right and gay men qualify for protections than it is discriminatory to deny hetero men the same protections. This subsequently deprives women and minorities of the protections intended to make the playing field fair for disadvantaged groups as the ruling incorporates all groups.

“If you look at our movement’s success, we are a lot better at litigating than we are at lobbying,” Mr. Almeida said. “We should take the E.E.O.C. decision and run with it by turning to the federal courts to win workplace protections in all 50 states.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/busine....html?_r=0

So it would appear we are giving up on democracy.

“Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is premised on sex-based preferences, assumptions, expectations, stereotypes or norms,” the document stated. “‘Sexual orientation’ as a concept cannot be defined or understood without reference to sex.”

Interesting argument. Though I wonder how it is not applicable to all sex based preferences including heterosexuals?

Link to the decision:

http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120133080.pdf

"Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is premised on sex-based preferences,
assumptions, expectations, stereotypes, or norms. “Sexual orientation” as a concept cannot be
defined or understood without reference to sex. A man is referred to as “gay” if he is
physically and/or emotionally attracted to other men. A woman is referred to as “lesbian” if
she is physically and/or emotionally attracted to other women. Someone is referred to as
“heterosexual” or “straight” if he or she is physically and/or emotionally attracted to someone
of the opposite-sex."

I believe this is in stark contrast to what same sex and trans persons argue. I also suspect they are not going to dispute this as it serves their interests not to.

"Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an
employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex. For example, assume that an
employer suspends a lesbian employee for displaying a photo of her female spouse on her
desk, but does not suspend a male employee for displaying a photo of his female spouse on his
desk. The lesbian employee in that example can allege that her employer took an adverse
action against her that the employer would not have taken had she been male. That is a
legitimate claim under Title VII that sex was unlawfully taken into account in the adverse
employment action. See Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711
(1978) (“Such a practice does not pass the simple test of whether the evidence shows
‘treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person’s sex would be different.’”). The
same result holds true if the person discriminated against is straight. Assume a woman is
suspended because she has placed a picture of her husband on her desk but her gay colleague is
not suspended after he places a picture of his husband on his desk. The straight female
employee could bring a cognizable Title VII claim of disparate treatment because of sex."

Ace. This is what you are talking about. I am still reading but this portion right here is now extending the same protection of sex to heteros as well as homos. So if they go on to confer it to gay men than it becomes available to straight men as well.

"Sexual orientation discrimination is also sex discrimination because it is associational
discrimination on the basis of sex. That is, an employee alleging discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation is alleging that his or her employer took his or her sex into account by
treating him or her differently for associating with a person of the same sex. For example, a
gay man who alleges that his employer took an adverse employment action against him because
he associated with or dated men states a claim of sex discrimination under Title VII; the fact
that the employee is a man instead of a woman motivated the employer’s discrimination against
him. Similarly, a heterosexual man who alleges a gay supervisor denied him a promotion
because he dates women instead of men states an actionable Title VII claim of discrimination
because of his sex"

Holy shit! They did extend the gender discrimination category to heterosexual men as well. Wow! So whatever protections were being received by women to bring about fairness in the work place are effectively rendered void. He may now claim just as she does that him not getting the job is due to sex discrimination.

"Therefore, Title VII similarly prohibits employers from treating an employee or applicant
differently than other employees or applicants based on the fact that such individuals are in a
same-sex marriage or because the employee has a personal association with someone of a
particular sex. Adverse action on that basis is, “by definition,” discrimination because of the
employee or applicant’s sex. Cf. Parr v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 888,
892 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Where a plaintiff claims discrimination based upon an interracial
marriage or association, he alleges, by definition, that he has been discriminated against
because of his race [in violation of Title VII].”); Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293,
307 n.8 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Discrimination because of race has never been limited only to
discrimination for being one race or another. Instead, courts have recognized that Title VII’s
prohibition against race discrimination protects employees from being discriminated against
because of an interracial marriage, or . . . friendships.”).

Interesting. So one does not even have to be LGBTQ... to enact the protections afforded by EEOC. They need only raise a claim they were fired or denied a promotion because they associated with someone who is or may not be considered to conform to the norms of heterosexual genders. Hmm? No possible way that can be abused.

Expressly stated even.

"An employee could show that the sexual orientation
discrimination he or she experienced was sex discrimination because it involved treatment that
would not have occurred but for the individual’s sex; because it was based on the sex of the
person(s) the individual associates with; and/or because it was premised on the fundamental
sex stereotype, norm, or expectation that individuals should be attracted only to those of the
opposite sex."