Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.

[furie]

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff;_ylt=AuYnKTOEIMByKDHGcROOXCp H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTJvZ3BoaHFjBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDE 1L3VzX2ludGVycmFjaWFsX3JlYnVmZgRjcG9zAzYEcG9zAzYEc 2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNpbnRlcnJhY2lhbGM-)

[instrument]

Fuck yeah! Look at Obama! And jeter! Those poor half breed bastards are suffering!

That is crazy, as far as I can tell people love them li'l half breed curly haired babies.

[Dan 'Hampton]

I'd say most people from Louisiana don't turn out well so he's half right.

[KnoxHarrington]

Guess what, douchebag -- if you don't believe in "mixing the races", you're a fucking racist.

Black people who don't believe in it are racists too.

Just because you apparently let some black guy drop a deuce in your john doesn't let you off the hook either.

[Marc with a c]

mixing races and sexes? that relationship was headed for disaster, this man is a hero.

[TooLowBrow]

mixing races is like mixing jack daniels and cocacola

[IMSlacker]

mixing races is like mixing jack daniels and cocacola

delicious?

[TooLowBrow]

delicious?

yeah

[Chigworthy]

Who gives a fuck about this? Right now someone in Australia is applying black makeup to his face.

[HBox]

I bet he does have "piles and piles" of black "friends," all right in the shadow of a tree in his backyard.

[GregoryJoseph]

I salute this man for standing up for what he believes in, despite what everyone else says.

[Hottub]

Caucasian hater.

[IamFogHat]

Is he trying to get fired on purpose?

[SatCam]

What a fucking idiot. I'd never let a black man use my toilet

[Judge Smails]

Everybody cut the fucking guy some slack. He seems like a good guy. C'mon, he even lets the blacks use his bathroom and everything.

[Marc with a c]

What a fucking idiot. I'd never let a black man use my toilet

i did once. once.

bitch used my fancy soap.

[SatCam]

i did once. once.

bitch used my fancy soap.

He might as well have just taken it. What good is it now?

[IamFogHat]

Everybody cut the fucking guy some slack. He seems like a good guy. C'mon, he even lets the blacks use his bathroom and everything.

You're Blade Twilight sig pic made me believe in god.

[Dude!]

mixing races and sexes? that relationship was headed for disaster, this man is a hero.

nothing good ever comes
of mixed marriages

just today, the balloon boy fiasco...
the mongrel has a white father
and a japochinese mother

these mixed marriages just go
against nature

[KnoxHarrington]

Just to show my disapproval of this guy, I'm going to jack it to a video in the "Ebony" section of Pornhub tonight.

[keithy_19]

Just to show my disapproval of this guy, I'm going to jack it to a video in the "Ebony" section of Pornhub tonight.

As opposed to getting a black hooker.

Reluctant biggot.

[sailor]

Fuck yeah! Look at Obama! And jeter! Those poor half breed bastards are suffering!

well, the jeter marriage defied the odds.

[smiler grogan]

Da Judge is right, look at the ridicule Prime Time Sam Roberts on a daily basis.

[TheMojoPin]

Wow. It's almost kind of refreshing to see someone so stupidly racist spouting off like that. That's, like, Racism Classic.

When I control everything I'm going to allow only interracial marriages. It'll be for the greater good. All the kids will grow up to be President, brilliant, a kickass musician, an athlete or just generally really good-looking. Utopia, here we come.

[burrben]

they can still have kids if theyre not married

[razorboy]

they can still have kids if theyre not married

Please, let's keep that a secret.

[topless_mike]

i dont know how i feel about this one.

one hand says good for him. he stood up for what he believed, knowing well that the fucktards will go after him for this.

the other hand says who gives a shit? as long as they were legal, marry them. if you think its a bad idea, let them find out the hard way. they are not paying you for your opinion.

edit: for some reason, i read this the wrong way. who the fuck is he to judge what the kids' outcome will be? while i'm sure he has lots of evidence and experience from sitting on the bench presiding over these kinds of cases, he is not rendering a judgement.

can he have his opinion? sure. can he express it outloud? sure, might not be the best, but he can. in the end, if its legal, its legal. do your fucking job as a public servant.

[PapaBear]

I don't understand the people who say it's good he stood up for his beliefs. What if a doctor believed it was wrong to save the life a particular type of person? Or a cop not helping some one who they didn't believe they should help?

[TheGameHHH]

I don't understand the people who say it's good he stood up for his beliefs. What if a doctor believed it was wrong to save the life a particular type of person? Or a cop not helping some one who they didn't believe they should help?

dont u take oaths as doctors and cops that disregard those personal belief things?

[TheMojoPin]

i dont know how i feel about this one.

one hand says good for him. he stood up for what he believed, knowing well that the fucktards will go after him for this.

Wait...what?

HE'S THE FUCKTARD.

[PapaBear]

dont u take oaths as doctors and cops that disregard those personal belief things?
I'm pretty sure a JOP takes an oath to uphold the law. It's against the law to deny a public service based on race.

[TheGameHHH]

I'm pretty sure a JOP takes an oath to uphold the law. It's against the law to deny a public service based on race.

i have no idea what oath a JOP takes.....thats why i was saying that

[GregoryJoseph]

I knew a girl from a very religious Baptist family. Her parents encouraged their children to marry different races because they believe it's God's will that all mankind shall one day be one race.

All of her sisters and her brother married different races, but she didn't.

She stuck with plain vanilla.

[sailor]

I'm pretty sure a JOP takes an oath to uphold the law. It's against the law to deny a public service based on race.

i don't think he'd have had an issue with it if it was just "race"

[A.J.]

"I have piles and piles of black friends."

Where? In shallow graves?

[underdog]

Wait...what?

HE'S THE FUCKTARD.

I don't think you understand. We're fucktards because we are against this guy being a racist. He's standing up for what he believes, so that makes him a great guy.

[topless_mike]

Wait...what?

HE'S THE FUCKTARD.

no, you silly goose.
the media, the aclu, reverend al...

you know, the people that stick their nose into it and turn it into a circus.

[underdog]

no, you silly goose.
the media, the aclu, reverend al...

you know, the people that stick their nose into it and turn it into a circus.

Exactly.

[topless_mike]

actually, i'd love to know how this story broke.
what, did they go to the press as soon as they got rejected, rather than work this out?

[sailor]

I don't think you understand. We're fucktards because we are against this guy being a racist. He's standing up for what he believes, so that makes him a great guy.

you just hate white folk.

[Aggie]

HA! Score one for me and my husband. He couldn't stop us and we will be unleashing our biracial children on the world as soon as possible. :smoke:

[JerseyRich]

HA! Score one for me and my husband. He couldn't stop us and we will be unleashing our biracial children on the world as soon as possible. :smoke:

If it's a boy, name him Scotty Too Hottie.

[TjM]

I wonder if he would turn away Dave and Casey. Not because she's Jewish but because he's a ginger

[TjM]

actually, i'd love to know how this story broke.
what, did they go to the press as soon as they got rejected, rather than work this out?

Seems like they got married somewhere else and wanted this guy exposed

[underdog]

actually, i'd love to know how this story broke.
what, did they go to the press as soon as they got rejected, rather than work this out?

Exactly.

[TheMojoPin]

no, you silly goose.
the media, the aclu, reverend al...

you know, the people that stick their nose into it and turn it into a circus.

Yeah, how dare anyone "stick their nose" into the story of a public servant allowing racism to dictate how they perform their job.

[Aggie]

If it's a boy, name him Scotty Too Hottie.

Actually we're leaning toward Vin Diesel.

[TheMojoPin]

Actually we're leaning toward Vin Diesel.

Mix it up. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D27WtFZ-aaI)

[IMSlacker]

Yeah, how dare anyone "stick their nose" into the story of a public servant allowing racism to dictate how they perform their job.

He's not a racist. He's let black people use his toilet! Piles of 'em.

[pennington]

actually, i'd love to know how this story broke.
what, did they go to the press as soon as they got rejected, rather than work this out?

Interracial marriage is legal. All they had to do was go to someone else to marry them and not go running to the newspapers. I'm sure these "victims" will soon be hitting the talk show circuit.

[brettmojo]

Interracial marriage is legal. All they had to do was go to someone else to marry them and not go running to the newspapers. I'm sure these "victims" will soon be hitting the talk show circuit.
The Today Show will pay for their wedding in Hawaii.

[A.J.]

The Today Show will pay for their wedding in Hawaii.

Just make sure that the kids' birth certificates are legit. You don't want any birther problems in 40 years.

http://www.blackcelebkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/obamamomanddad1.jpg

[brettmojo]

Just make sure that the kids' birth certificates are legit. You don't want any birther problems in 40 years.

http://www.blackcelebkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/obamamomanddad1.jpg
That looks like one of those "YOU'LL SHIT BRICKS" pictures... :lol:

[Dude!]

That looks like one of those "YOU'LL SHIT BRICKS" pictures... :lol:

i wish he would change the contrast
on that picture

you can't tell where his suit ends
and his head begins

[Aggie]

Interracial marriage is legal. All they had to do was go to someone else to marry them and not go running to the newspapers. I'm sure these "victims" will soon be hitting the talk show circuit.

You really think they're crying victim? They went to someone else and got married.

They should shed light on this as it's illegal. That's the issue. Or maybe they should have just shut up so people like you won't call them media whores.

[underdog]

Interracial marriage is legal. All they had to do was go to someone else to marry them and not go running to the newspapers. I'm sure these "victims" will soon be hitting the talk show circuit.

Exactly.

[Freitag]

You really think they're crying victim? They went to someone else and got married.

They should shed light on this as it's illegal. That's the issue. Or maybe they should have just shut up so people like you won't call them media whores.

I can see both sides of the situation. They are attention-seeking, but the Justice of the Peace should have some heat put on him for his views. At least people know to avoid him.

[Charlie_Don't_Surf]

I can see both sides of the situation. They are attention-seeking, but the Justice of the Peace should have some heat put on him for his views. At least people know to avoid him.

You think it's attention seeking when a gov't official won't marry you because your spouse has whiter or darker skin than you? Sure, ok.

[TripleSkeet]

Just make sure that the kids' birth certificates are legit. You don't want any birther problems in 40 years.

http://www.blackcelebkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/obamamomanddad1.jpg

Wow. Thats dudes blacker then the Ace of spades. Looking at the chick Im betting her daddy is THRILLED.

[underdog]

You think it's attention seeking when a gov't official won't marry you because your spouse has whiter or darker skin than you? Sure, ok.

That's what I've learned from this thread.

A government official deciding not to marry two people because they are different races is a good thing and it's just someone standing up for their rights.

The couple who were discriminated against and wanted to bring this disgusting action to the public are attention seekers.

And who the hell doesn't want mixed race children? They're fucking adorable.

[TheGameHHH]

Actually we're leaning toward Vin Diesel.

wait a second, youre NOT naming him Derek Jeter???

[foodcourtdruide]

That's what I've learned from this thread.

A government official deciding not to marry two people because they are different races is a good thing and it's just someone standing up for their rights.

The couple who were discriminated against and wanted to bring this disgusting action to the public are attention seekers.

And who the hell doesn't want mixed race children? They're fucking adorable.

This thread is making me dizzy.

[Dude!]

Wow. Thats dudes blacker then the Ace of spades. Looking at the chick Im betting her daddy is THRILLED.

you know that's Obama's parents,
right?

[JohnCharles]

you know that's Obama's parents,
right?

If that judge had his way, I bet he would travel back in time to prevent that too.

[Dude!]

If that judge had his way, I bet he would travel back in time to prevent that too.

wow...if only

[TripleSkeet]

you know that's Obama's parents,
right?

LOL Nope. I thought it was the couple from the story. Maybe thats why I thought the chick looked so old fashioned.

[sailor]

That's what I've learned from this thread.

A government official deciding not to marry two people because they are different races is a good thing and it's just someone standing up for their rights.

The couple who were discriminated against and wanted to bring this disgusting action to the public are attention seekers.

And who the hell doesn't want mixed race children? They're fucking adorable.

exactly.

[WampusCrandle]

That's what I've learned from this thread.

A government official deciding not to marry two people because they are different races is a good thing and it's just someone standing up for their rights.

The couple who were discriminated against and wanted to bring this disgusting action to the public are attention seekers.

And who the hell doesn't want mixed race children? They're fucking adorable.

mixed couples are SO gross. :happy:

[sailor]

Miss lleeder.

[pennington]

You really think they're crying victim? They went to someone else and got married.

They should shed light on this as it's illegal. That's the issue. Or maybe they should have just shut up so people like you won't call them media whores.

C'mon. This just mysteriously wound up in the news on it's own?

[KatPw]

C'mon. This just mysteriously wound up in the news on it's own?

Do any news stories just "mysteriously wind up" in the news? IT ends up as news because someone reports it.
Interracial marriage is legal, this Justice of the Peace denied these people because he does not believe in Interracial marriage. That is news, and needs to be reported.

[HBox]

When a story like this comes along and some people have to strain so badly to blame the married couple it exposes what they really think even if they are too cowardly to ever say it in public.

[KatPw]

When a story like this comes along and some people have to strain so badly to blame the married couple it exposes what they really think even if they are too cowardly to ever say it in public.

Ding ding ding! Give this man a prize.

[underdog]

When a story like this comes along and some people have to strain so badly to blame the married couple it exposes what they really think even if they are too cowardly to ever say it in public.

I don't think you understand. The couple are attention seekers. The racists guy is doing what he believes is right, so that makes him good and them bad.

[GregoryJoseph]

Interracial marriage is legal.

It is? :ohmy:

[Crispy_Mobile]

uppity ends are worse than racist beginnings.

[Dougie Brootal]

Wow. Thats dudes blacker then the Ace of spades. Looking at the chick Im betting her daddy is THRILLED.

actually he wasnt to upset... :wink:

[TheMojoPin]

The amount of defense for this POS here is appalling and sadly predictable.

[SonOfSmeagol]

I don’t know what’s more disturbing: the original story, or some of these responses if some of you guys are actually serious.

I'm in a Mojo mind-meld - now THAT's disturbing :)

[jauble]

Ha, I have employees in LA and I was trying to guess the parish before I read this thread. First guess was Jefferson Davis, but this one didn`t shock me too much.

[Suspect Chin]

What if he was a pastor who refused to perform the ceremony? Would that be ok?

[TheMojoPin]

What if he was a pastor who refused to perform the ceremony? Would that be ok?

How could it possibly ever be OK?

[Suspect Chin]

How could it possibly ever be OK?

Aren't individuals who haven't taken oaths of office allowed personal opinions anymore?

[IMSlacker]

Aren't individuals who haven't taken oaths of office allowed personal opinions anymore?

He can have whatever personal opinion he wants, but part of his job is marrying people. He can't just decide not to marry couples who have every legal right to get married because of his personal opinion.

[Suspect Chin]

He can have whatever personal opinion he wants, but part of his job is marrying people, he can't decide not to marry couples who have every legal right to get married.

A pastor isn't bound by any law to marry everyone who comes to him.

The JOP is and clearly broke the law in this instance. I'm just throwing out a hypothetical.

[IMSlacker]

A pastor isn't bound by any law to marry anyone who comes to him.

The JOP is and clearly broke the law in this instance. I'm just throwing out a hypothetical.

Yeah, a pastor could get away with this since he's not legally bound to do anything. He'd still be a POS though.

[Suspect Chin]

Yeah, a pastor could get away with this since he's not legally bound to do anything. He'd still be a POS though.

Why can't he just be a guy who believes differently than you do? Why does he have to be a POS? It's not like he's out committing hate crimes.

For being so progressive and open minded as a lot of people on here like to believe they are, it's too bad that open mindedness only applies to those who think like you.

[TheMojoPin]

Why can't he just be a guy who believes differently than you do? Why does he have to be a POS? It's not like he's out committing hate crimes.

For being so progressive and open minded as a lot of people on here like to believe they are, it's too bad that open mindedness only applies to those who think like you.

Just because something is someone's personal opinion doesn't mean it's OK. There's really no justifiable context to think that people of different races should be kept from marrying. That's a reprehensible opinion regardless of whether it's public or private. It's horseshit to decalre that being "open minded" means tolerating people who are so willfully ignorant and bigoted. You don't have to "accept" the opinion of someone who is blatantly wrong with that opinion.

[Suspect Chin]

Just because something is someone's personal opinion doesn't mean it's OK. There's really no justifiable context to think that people of different races should be kept from marrying.

Wait, so his personal opinion is so clearly wrong, but your personal opinion is universally correct?

[TheMojoPin]

Wait, so his personal opinion is so clearly wrong, but your personal opinion is universally correct?

In this case, yes. There's no defense for his opinion whatsoever. None.

[Suspect Chin]

In this case, yes. There's no defense for his opinion whatsoever. None.

I'm not going to try to give you a defense of his opinion, because I don't agree with him. But stop acting like there is a golden rule on this subject that everyone must agree with. This isn't the equivalent of murder or rape, where indeed everyone can agree those are wrong.

[jauble]

In this case, yes. There's no defense for his opinion whatsoever. None.

Here comes slippery slope. Why cant someone marry their horse. Blah blah anyone know what town this was in?

[KatPw]

Why can't he just be a guy who believes differently than you do? Why does he have to be a POS? It's not like he's out committing hate crimes.

For being so progressive and open minded as a lot of people on here like to believe they are, it's too bad that open mindedness only applies to those who think like you.

So bigotry is something that we should tolerate, gotcha.

[SonOfSmeagol]

As soon as it’s “legal” to marry your horse, some jackass will come along and want to marry TWO horses, for Christ’s sake.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm not going to try to give you a defense of his opinion, because I don't agree with him. But stop acting like there is a golden rule on this subject that everyone must agree with. This isn't the equivalent of murder or rape, where indeed everyone can agree those are wrong.

Who the hell isn't going to agree that this is wrong except for other bigots?

[IMSlacker]

Why can't he just be a guy who believes differently than you do? Why does he have to be a POS? It's not like he's out committing hate crimes.

Ok, maybe POS is a little strong. How about backwards hillbilly?

[Suspect Chin]

Who the hell isn't going to agree that this is wrong except for other bigots?

Probably right. But last time I checked, bigotry wasn't illegal.

[Suspect Chin]

Ok, maybe POS is a little strong. How about backwards hillbilly?

Call him whatever you want.

This is something that Ron addressed on the show the other day and I happen to agree with him. People have so convinced themselves that their moral compass should be the standard in this country, that the idea that someone may disagree with them is absurd and borderline criminal. Why can't we just let people live their own lives without trying to impose our beliefs on them? Unless someone is breaking the law, who are we to say how they should or shouldn't feel?

[IMSlacker]

Here comes slippery slope. Why cant someone marry their horse. Blah blah anyone know what town this was in?

Hammond, LA.

[TheMojoPin]

Probably right. But last time I checked, bigotry wasn't illegal.

Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be universally reprehensible. It's not illegal for someone to say "all women should be raped," too, but someone would invariably find a statement like that reprehensible unless they share the same twisted opinion.

[jauble]

So bigotry is something that we should tolerate, gotcha.

Yes you have to tolerate protected speech. As a JoP he is wrong, but biggots have rights too. Disagree and call them out because you can, but they have to tolerate your speech as well.

[TheMojoPin]

Call him whatever you want.

This is something that Ron addressed on the show the other day and I happen to agree with him. People have so convinced themselves that their moral compass should be the standard in this country, that the idea that someone may disagree with them is absurd and borderline criminal. Why can't we just let people live their own lives without trying to impose our beliefs on them? Unless someone is breaking the law, who are we to say how they should or shouldn't feel?

We're not talking about a basic difference opinion on a debatable issue here. This is someone clearly in the wrong.

[TheMojoPin]

Yes you have to tolerate protected speech. As a JoP he is wrong, but biggots have rights too. Disagree and call them out because you can, but they have to tolerate your speech as well.

Right, I'm not calling for harm to this guy or anything. I'm just exercising my right to call him out for being a stupid racist shithead just as much as he exercised his right to say stupid, racist shithead things.

He should, however, definitely be removed from office given the nature of his job. He can go be the racist paint mixer instead of the racist justice of the peace.

[Suspect Chin]

Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be universally reprehensible. It's not illegal for someone to say "all women should be raped," too, but someone would invariably find a statement like that reprehensible unless they share the same twisted opinion.

I'd hardly compare rape to be against interracial marriage.

[TheMojoPin]

I'd hardly compare rape to be against interracial marriage.

I'm not comparing them. I'm giving you an example of another opinion that would be "universally wrong."

[Suspect Chin]

We're not talking about a basic difference opinion on a debatable issue here. This is someone clearly in the wrong.

This is my exact point. Your imposed moral compass has moved this issue into non-debatable territory.

The only reason this guy is 'clearly in the wrong' is because he is a government employee not because of any personal opinion he holds.

[KatPw]

Yes you have to tolerate protected speech. As a JoP he is wrong, but biggots have rights too. Disagree and call them out because you can, but they have to tolerate your speech as well.

He can spout whatever he likes on his own personal free time, but in the confines of his position of JOP? That is completely different.

[TheMojoPin]

This is my exact point. Your imposed moral compass has moved this issue into non-debatable territory.

The only reason this guy is 'clearly in the wrong' is because he is a government employee not because of any personal opinion he holds.

No, he is clearly in the wrong because of his personal opinion.

Some things are just wrong. You honestly believe that there are NO opinions that are completely "bad" or unacceptable or reprehensible?

[SonOfSmeagol]

People can have all the personal beliefs and opinions they want, but I think we’re talking about an elected official here with influence on the lives of others and a responsibility to uphold the law.

[jauble]

Right, I'm not calling for harm to this guy or anything. I'm just exercising my right to call him out for being a stupid racist shithead just as much as he exercised his right to say stupid, racist shithead things.

He should, however, definitely be removed from office given the nature of his job. He can go be the racist paint mixer instead of the racist justice of the peace.

Back to public notary for him. As far as paint goes he is fine with various colors of brown but he refused to make anything thats grey.

[KatPw]

People can have all the personal beliefs and opinions they want, but I think we’re talking about an elected official here with influence on the lives of others and a responsibility to uphold the law.

Exactly.

[Suspect Chin]

No, he is clearly in the wrong because of his personal opinion.

Some things are just wrong. You honestly believe that there are NO opinions that are completely "bad" or unacceptable or reprehensible?

It is impossible for any opinion to be universally right or wrong. The very definition says that an opinion is a personal thing that only the individual can decide on. Therefore unless 100% of the people feel a certain way, then no opinion is universal.

If not supporting interracial marriage is 'universally wrong', then why wasn't it universally wrong 100 years ago? If something is 'universal', then shouldn't it be that way over all time? 100 years from now, what is popular opinion will likely be far different from what it is today.

[TheMojoPin]

It is impossible for any opinion to be universally right or wrong. The very definition says that an opinion is a personal thing that only the individual can decide on. Therefore unless 100% of the people feel a certain way, then no opinion is universal.

That's why I put it in quotes for lack of a better term. Of course it's impossible for everyone to agree the same way on this because there are people that agree with him. They're without a doubt wrong as well.

If not supporting interracial marriage is 'universally wrong', then why wasn't it universally wrong 100 years ago? If something is 'universal', then shouldn't it be that way over all time? 100 years from now, what is popular opinion will likely be far different from what it is today.

You're really scrambling to defend this guy and I have no idea why. He's clearly in the wrong. People believed the Earth was the center of the Universe in the past. They believed that sun actually rotated around our planet. Something doesn't have to have been an acceptable opinion for all of history for us to know that it's wrong RIGHT NOW. There's no excuse for his opinion. He can hold it to his heart's content, but he's always going to be wrong no matter what the situation. We've evolved, thankfully, to the point that we can recognize an opinion like this as being completely and totally incorrect.

[Suspect Chin]

You're really scrambling to defend this guy and I have no idea why. He's clearly in the wrong. People believed the Earth was the center of the Universe in the past. They believed that sun actually rotated around our planet. Something doesn't have to have been an acceptable opinion for all of history for us to know that it's wrong RIGHT NOW. There's no excuse for his opinion. He can hold it to his heart's content, but he's always going to be wrong no matter what the situation. We've evolved, thankfully, to the point that we can recognize an opinion like this as being completely and totally incorrect.

You've missed every point I've made as usual. I'm not defending this guy's opinion. I'm defending his right to an opinion. I'm defending against your arrogant universal morality. I'm defending every individual's ability to choose for themselves what is right and wrong and not have to go along with the mainstream and be politically correct.

This really has nothing to do with interracial marriage at this point. It is about whether or not any one person or group can say what is universally right or wrong. They can't.

[underdog]

If not supporting interracial marriage is 'universally wrong', then why wasn't it universally wrong 100 years ago? If something is 'universal', then shouldn't it be that way over all time? 100 years from now, what is popular opinion will likely be far different from what it is today.

You're right. Slavery is awesome, too. I mean, it was not universally wrong at one point, so that means it can't be wrong now. Got it.

[Suspect Chin]

You're right. Slavery is awesome, too. I mean, it was not universally wrong at one point, so that means it can't be wrong now. Got it.

OK I shouldn't have used interracial marriage in this example. My point was that what is popular to call right and wrong changes over the years therefore making it impossible for any universal opinion to exist.

[jauble]

Hammond, LA.

Ah ha now this is all coming together.

[underdog]

OK I shouldn't have used interracial marriage in this example. My point was that what is popular to call right and wrong changes over the years therefore making it impossible for any universal opinion to exist.

Anyone stuck in the ancient mindset that races shouldn't mix is universally (and scientifically) wrong. We've progressed too far to still be arguing this.

[TheMojoPin]

You've missed every point I've made as usual. I'm not defending this guy's opinion. I'm defending his right to an opinion. I'm defending against your arrogant universal morality. I'm defending every individual's ability to choose for themselves what is right and wrong and not have to go along with the mainstream and be politically correct.

Where have I denied his right to be an idiot?

[Suspect Chin]

Anyone stuck in the ancient mindset that races shouldn't mix is universally (and scientifically) wrong. We've progressed too far to still be arguing this.

Why don't you and Mojo just come out and say that anyone who disagrees with you is universally (and scientifically) wrong?

[Ritalin]

You've missed every point I've made as usual. I'm not defending this guy's opinion. I'm defending his right to an opinion. I'm defending against your arrogant universal morality. I'm defending every individual's ability to choose for themselves what is right and wrong and not have to go along with the mainstream and be politically correct.

This really has nothing to do with interracial marriage at this point. It is about whether or not any one person or group can say what is universally right or wrong. They can't.

Arrogant...mainstream...politically correct. I see where you're coming from

It's the Rush Limbaugh gambit. "I have the right to say whatever I want, but I don't want to take any responsibility for it. When a large group of people speak out against what I'm saying, they're just mainstream arrogant elitists cramming that politically correctness down everyone else's throat."

[TheMojoPin]

OK I shouldn't have used interracial marriage in this example. My point was that what is popular to call right and wrong changes over the years therefore making it impossible for any universal opinion to exist.

You're getting hung up on the "universal opinion" term. If it makes you feel better, throw it out. Look at it this way: opinions that everyone knows and realizes are wrong except for those that share that same opinion.

[TheMojoPin]

Why don't you and Mojo just come out and say that anyone who disagrees with you is universally (and scientifically) wrong?

Because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying on THIS particular issue anyone who shares this guy's opinion is completely wrong.

[Suspect Chin]

You're getting hung up on the "universal opinion" term. If it makes you feel better, throw it out. Look at it this way: opinions that everyone knows and realizes are wrong except for those that share that same opinion.

You basically just said: "Everyone agrees except those who don't". I agree.

[TheMojoPin]

You basically just said: "Everyone agrees except those who don't". I agree.

Which is not true for every opinion. Many opinions people simply tolerate or ignore or whatever because they're opinions where that can be done. This one is so divisive and is so, no pun intended, black and white that there's pretty much only choosing to be right or wrong. It's that basic. There's only right or wrong and no in between.

[Suspect Chin]

Arrogant...mainstream...politically correct. I see where you're coming from

It's the Rush Limbaugh gambit. "I have the right to say whatever I want, but I don't want to take any responsibility for it. When a large group of people speak out against what I'm saying, they're just mainstream arrogant elitists cramming that politically correctness down everyone else's throat."

Is that what Rush Limbaugh says? I wouldn't know. I imagine he is the type of guy who tries to sell his opinions as universally right, so I would disagree with him too.

[TheMojoPin]

Is that what Rush Limbaugh says? I wouldn't know. I imagine he is the type of guy who tries to sell his opinions as universally right, so I would disagree with him too.

Nobody is "selling" ALL of their opinions as universally right.

Good Lord, you cannot get over that term.

[Suspect Chin]

Which is not true for every opinion. Many opinions people simply tolerate or ignore or whatever because they're opinions where that can be done. This one is so divisive and is so, no pun intended, black and white that there's pretty much only choosing to be right or wrong. It's that basic. There's only right or wrong and no in between.

This JOtP obviously disagrees and would probably argue just as vehemently as you are that he is right. Therefore this is clearly not as basic as you like to believe. It is just a matter of perspective.

[Suspect Chin]

Nobody is "selling" ALL of their opinions as universally right.

Good Lord, you cannot get over that term.

That is the only way to describe it. You are so sure that you are right that your opinion must be the only way.

[TheMojoPin]

That is the only way to describe it. You are so sure that you are right that your opinion must be the only way.

In THIS specific instance, not in general. I can be wrong all the time. I am often wrong. I am not wrong here. Anyone who isn't a bigot knows this and would agree.

[Suspect Chin]

In THIS specific instance, not in general. I can be wrong all the time. I am often wrong. I am not wrong here. Anyone who isn't a bigot knows this and would agree.

You really can't see beyond your own little sphere can you?

[TheMojoPin]

This JOtP obviously disagrees and would probably argue just as vehemently as you are that he is right. Therefore this is clearly not as basic as you like to believe. It is just a matter of perspective.

How is it not basic? With what perspective can it be argued that he has a valid or arguable point unless someone agrees with him?

[TheMojoPin]

You really can't see beyond your own little sphere can you?

Please, feel free to explain how his perspective can be justified as right by someone that doesn't share his opinion. If you can do that then I'm wrong.

[Suspect Chin]

How is it not basic? With what perspective can it be argued that he has a valid or arguable point unless someone agrees with him?

Stop trying to bait me into defending this guy. It's not going to happen. And your allusions that I am a bigot are getting a little strong.

[underdog]

You really can't see beyond your own little sphere can you?

We get it. You agree with the guy. You're a bigot. Stop trying to defend his reprehensible behavior.

[TheMojoPin]

Stop trying to bait me into defending this guy. It's not going to happen. And your allusions that I am a bigot are getting a little strong.

I'm not saying you're a bigot. I'm going with your argument and asking how his perspective can be argued by someone who doesn't share his opinion, because it is only an opinion that can looked at objectively like that that can be argued for. I'm saying it's impossible to look at this objectively. You either think it's wrong or right. There's no middle with this opinion. If you think there is a middle, please explain what it is.

[Suspect Chin]

Please, feel free to explain how his perspective can be justified as right by someone that doesn't share his opinion. If you can do that then I'm wrong.

No one has to think he is right but him, even if that makes him a bigot. That is not the point. Again, this conversation has moved beyond the issue of interracial marriage. We are talking about whether or not a person or group of people can determine what is an absolute right or wrong. It is not possible.

[Suspect Chin]

We get it. You agree with the guy. You're a bigot. Stop trying to defend his reprehensible behavior.

Re-read my posts and try again.

[TheMojoPin]

No one has to think he is right but him, even if that makes him a bigot. That is not the point. Again, this conversation has moved beyond the issue of interracial marriage. We are talking about whether or not a person or group of people can determine what is an absolute right or wrong. It is not possible.

It is possible. Just because some people personally hold the view that something is OK doesn't mean it's not an absolute wrong.

[underdog]

Re-read my posts and try again.

I actually posted my post before I even saw yours.

[Suspect Chin]

It is possible. Just because some people personally hold the view that something is OK doesn't mean it's not an absolute wrong.

The fact that anyone has a differing opinion from the rest of the crowd immediately indicates that something is not an absolute wrong or right. Rights and wrongs are determined by the individual, not society. Of course, we are all subject to society's laws, so there may be consequences for acting on an opinion, but just having that opinion is not illegal, right, or wrong.

[Suspect Chin]

I actually posted my post before I even saw yours.

So you just attacked me then for no reason?

[HBox]

I think it's totally awesome when people spend all of their time defending something except for the one or two sentences when they claim they aren't. In fact, I think I will try it:

Raisins are dry, taste like ass, feel like a piece of tar in my mouth. The person who came up with the idea of drying out delicious grapes should have to watch each of their children anally raped by a bi-racial pederast and anyone who likes them is undoubtedly a pederast as well. But I love raisins.

[Suspect Chin]

I think it's totally awesome when people spend all of their time defending something except for the one or two sentences when they claim they aren't. In fact, I think I will try it:

Raisins are dry, taste like ass, feel like a piece of tar in my mouth. The person who came up with the idea of drying out delicious grapes should have to watch each of their children anally raped by a bi-racial pederast and anyone who likes them is undoubtedly a pederast as well. But I love raisins.

This actually makes less sense than Mojo's argument. Never once here did I come close to agreeing with this guy, in fact I made several attempts to say that I do not agree with him. I can say that I support this man's right to an opinion without agreeing with the opinion.

Your passive aggression is gutsy though.

[HBox]

This actually makes less sense than Mojo's argument. Never once here did I come close to agreeing with this guy, in fact I made several attempts to say that I do not agree with him.

Just because you say things does not make them true. Anytime you weren't saying you were defending the guy you were defending the guy. Show some fucking balls and just come out and say what it is clearly obvious you feel. This dance you are doing is becoming more and more pathetic.

[GregoryJoseph]

Defending someone's right to an opinion is what America is supposed to be about.

The Justice in question stated he has no hatred for different races, just a belief about interracial marriage.

Who is anyone to label his beliefs "idiotic" or any other belittling term?

I posted several pages ago about a friend of mine whose religious family encouraged their children to marry different races.

I also know other religions that forbid their children from marrying another religion, let alone another race.

I don't think either of them are "dumb" or "bigoted" in any way.

[TheMojoPin]

The fact that anyone has a differing opinion from the rest of the crowd immediately indicates that something is not an absolute wrong or right.

Opinions do not necessarily have any bearing on whether or not something is wrong or right.

Rights and wrongs are determined by the individual, not society.

That's inherrently false since too many individuals have "moral flexibiities" that allow them to convince themselves that what they do or think is right or correct no matter what the morality or conventions of society at large.

Of course, we are all subject to society's laws, so there may be consequences for acting on an opinion, but just having that opinion is not illegal, right, or wrong.

Actually, his opinion is arguably illegal in the context of his employment, but beyond that I'm not personally saying that his opinion in general is illegal or anything along those lines. Something being right or wrong is not necessarily hinged on laws.

[IMSlacker]

As a society, we can decide that certain things are "universally" right or wrong within our society.

We, as a society, have decided that it is wrong to discriminate based on race, and that extends to interracial couples who want to get married. Anyone can have whatever personal opinion on interracial marriage they want. But, if you're against interracial marriage, you are only allowed to apply that belief to your own life and maybe the lives of your children. You are not allowed to decide what other people can do.

When you take a job where one of your responsibilities is to perform marriage ceremonies, you have to get licensed by the state in order to make those marriages legal. If you cannot personally follow the laws of the state, you should not be allowed to remain in that job.

[Suspect Chin]

Just because you say things does not make them true. Anytime you weren't saying you were defending the guy you were defending the guy. Show some fucking balls and just come out and say what it is clearly obvious you feel. This dance you are doing is becoming more and more pathetic.

No I did not defend him and I do not agree with him. I am saying that he is just as 'right' in his own mind as you are in yours. And that is the only place where right and wrong matters -- in our own heads.

[TheMojoPin]

Defending someone's right to an opinion is what America is supposed to be about.

Who is saying he doesn't have the right to have his opinion? All we're doing is airing OUR opinions. Our opinions don't somehow magically cancel out the ability to voice is.

The key here is that he used his opinions to actively quash the rights of others, and arguably broke the law doing so.

The Justice in question stated he has no hatred for different races, just a belief about interracial marriage.

He's not allowed to let that particular belief dictate who he will and will not marry because it infringes on the civil rights of others.

Who is anyone to label his beliefs "idiotic" or any other belittling term?

People with common sense? What is a rational argument that supports his opinion?

I posted several pages ago about a friend of mine whose religious family encouraged their children to marry different races.

I also know other religions that forbid their children from marrying another religion, let alone another race.

I don't think either of them are "dumb" or "bigoted" in any way.

Expressly forbidding or preventing someone from marrying someone else due to their religion or race or nationality is inherrently bigoted. There's absolutely no way around it.

[TheMojoPin]

No I did not defend him and I do not agree with him. I am saying that he is just as 'right' in his own mind as you are in yours. And that is the only place where right and wrong matters -- in our own heads.

"Right and wrong" are not defined solely by personal opinions and values.

[GregoryJoseph]

Expressly forbidding or preventing someone from marrying someone else due to their religion or race or nationality is inherrently bigoted. There's absolutely no way around it.

So Jews are bigoted?

[epo]

Defending someone's right to an opinion is what America is supposed to be about.

The Justice in question stated he has no hatred for different races, just a belief about interracial marriage.

Who is anyone to label his beliefs "idiotic" or any other belittling term?

I posted several pages ago about a friend of mine whose religious family encouraged their children to marry different races.

I also know other religions that forbid their children from marrying another religion, let alone another race.

I don't think either of them are "dumb" or "bigoted" in any way.

Which is fine. But this Justice of the Peace's belief is on the wrong side of these people's civil rights.

Any argument beyond that point is just stupid.

[epo]

So Jews are bigoted?

Of course, silly.

[Suspect Chin]

Opinions do not necessarily have any bearing on whether or not something is wrong or right.

If right vs. wrong isn't based on opinions, then what else is there to decide? Opinions are all we have.


Actually, his opinion is arguably illegal in the context of his employment, but beyond that I'm not personally saying that his opinion in general is illegal or anything along those lines. Something being right or wrong is not necessarily hinged on laws.

Yeah we've been over the fact that he violated the terms of his job.

Now we are arguing whether morality in universally defined. You are taking Chomsky's approach that there is a moral code we all must adhere to. But who defines this code? I believe moral objectivism is impossible--we all must decide what is right and wrong for ourselves.

[GregoryJoseph]

Which is fine. But this Justice of the Peace's belief is on the wrong side of these people's civil rights.

Any argument beyond that point is just stupid.

I never brought up whether he was performing his duties correctly or not, merely that he has a right to his opinions.

[TheMojoPin]

So Jews are bigoted?

By the definition of the idea, those that follow the tenet you described are, yes.

[TheMojoPin]

I never brought up whether he was performing his duties correctly or not, merely that he has a right to his opinions.

Who has said he doesn't have a right to his opinions?

[Suspect Chin]

"Right and wrong" are not defined solely by personal opinions and values.

Yes they are. What else do we have? Until there is a Moral Constitution, personal opinion will be the sole determining factor in deciding right and wrong.

[GregoryJoseph]

By the definition of the idea, those that follow the tenet you described are, yes.

That's absurd.

Their tradition dictates that Jews should only marry other Jews.

It's a tradition that's been a part of their belief system for THOUSANDS of years.

Just because you have a different, more "modern" sensibility doesn't make theirs any less valid.

[epo]

I never brought up whether he was performing his duties correctly or not, merely that he has a right to his opinions.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, of which yours are obviously in bad taste. However when those opinions interfere with your lawful duties as a public official, then we all have a problem.

[HBox]

Nobody does what they themselves think is wrong. They do what they think is right, no matter how objectively horrible it is. In history the people responsible some of the most horrible death and destruction did it because they thought they were doing the right thing. But we don't judge them on their own twisted perspectives.

[HBox]

That's absurd.

Their tradition dictates that Jews should only marry other Jews.

It's a tradition that's been a part of their belief system for THOUSANDS of years.

Just because you have a different, more "modern" sensibility doesn't make theirs any less valid.

How long was human slavery around? And human sacrifice?

"Because that's how things have been" is the worst and laziest excuse. There's not even an attempt at justification.

[TheMojoPin]

If right vs. wrong isn't based on opinions, then what else is there to decide? Opinions are all we have.

But personal opinions do not constantly dictate what society at large what is right or wrong. If that was the case right and wrong would be nebulous to the point of almost daily change.

Yeah we've been over the fact that he violated the terms of his job.

Now we are arguing whether morality in universally defined. You are taking Chomsky's approach that there is a moral code we all must adhere to. But who defines this code? I believe moral objectivism is impossible--we all must decide what is right and wrong for ourselves.

But just because he has decided that something is right doesn't actually make it right. Just because I have decided this is wrong doesn't make it wrong, but the general consensus of "decent society" certainly helps back it up. Again, if his point could be argued objectively his position would deserve the allowances you're giving it, but it can't be. It's hinged on the idea that certain people are inherrently inferior due to the color of their skin. There's no other basis for his opinion. It's an indefensible position in terms of someone being able to objectively argue for it without resorting to philisphical abstracts as you have been. His specific opinion cannot be defended.

[underdog]

So you just attacked me then for no reason?

Pretty much.

You really come off like you're defending the guy, no matter how much you keep saying you're not.

Defending someone's right to an opinion is what America is supposed to be about.

The Justice in question stated he has no hatred for different races, just a belief about interracial marriage.

Who is anyone to label his beliefs "idiotic" or any other belittling term?

I posted several pages ago about a friend of mine whose religious family encouraged their children to marry different races.

I also know other religions that forbid their children from marrying another religion, let alone another race.

I don't think either of them are "dumb" or "bigoted" in any way.

Exactly.

[underdog]

"Because that's how things have been" is the worst and laziest excuse. There's not even an attempt at justification.

Gvac is turning into Blowhard.

[Suspect Chin]

How long was human slavery around? And human sacrifice?

"Because that's how things have been" is the worst and laziest excuse. There's not even an attempt at justification.

Then how is "We are a subset of Americans and our ideas are better" a more valid justification?

[brettmojo]

That's absurd.

Their tradition dictates that Jews should only marry other Jews.

It's a tradition that's been a part of their belief system for THOUSANDS of years.

Just because you have a different, more "modern" sensibility doesn't make theirs any less valid.
Bigotry and religion often go hand in hand.

[underdog]

Bigotry and religion often go hand in hand.

That's actually a pretty damn good point.

[TheMojoPin]

That's absurd.

Their tradition dictates that Jews should only marry other Jews.

It's a tradition that's been a part of their belief system for THOUSANDS of years.

Just because you have a different, more "modern" sensibility doesn't make theirs any less valid.

Yes it does. History is riddled with man's inhumanity to man and this is just another, albeit less dramatic, exmaple of that trend. Longevity does automatically justify a behavior, especially when it comes to the major religions.

Their belief that they need to marry within their faith is based on the idea that other religions are inferior or lesser.

[HBox]

Then how is "We are a subset of Americans and our ideas are better" a more valid justification?

In the case of this thread's story because it's nobody's business who other people choose to marry and the opposition to inter-racial marriage is historically rooted in beliefs in black people's genetics being inferior and sullying white genes, of which there is obviously no scientific justification.

[GregoryJoseph]

Yes it does. History is riddled with man's inhumanity to man and this is just another, albeit less dramatic, exmaple of that trend. Longevity does automatically justify a behavior, especially when it comes to the major religions.

Their belief that they need to marry within their faith is based on the idea that other religions are inferior or lesser.

No it's not.

It's based on the belief that to raise a child in the religion correctly, both parents should be of that faith.

Why can't you grasp that?

[SonOfSmeagol]

How long was human slavery around? And human sacrifice?Comparing arranged marriages - on a cultural or religious basis - to slavery or human sacrifice might be a bit of a stretch.

[TheMojoPin]

No it's not.

It's based on the belief that to raise a child in the religion correctly, both parents should be of that faith.

Why can't you grasp that?

Because that would require completely ignoring both the larger historical context of the tradition as well as many of the current orthodox attitudes that continue to encourage/enforce it.

Even so, it's still based out of the idea that the marriage is lesser if someone who isn't Jewish isn't involved (which automatically is degrading the non-Jewish person in the marriage) and that the family and the child are lesser because they're not "correct." It's not simply a matter of looking at someone as not being a "good Jew:" look how many people, Jewish or otherwise, effectively disown themselves from relatives simply because they married outside of their raised faith. That goes well beyond what you're describing. That's acting like something is wrong with the "outsider" that was married or that there was something wrong with the marriage itself simply for being interfaith. The backbone of these traditions is intolerance.

[HBox]

Comparing arranged marriages - on a cultural or religious basis - to slavery or human sacrifice might be a bit of a stretch.


Not trying to equivocate, just pointing out that there is nothing to that particular argument. "Just because that's how things have always been" isn't even an argument. It's more of an excuse.

[GregoryJoseph]

Do any of you see how ironic it is that you're the first ones to jump up and down and scream about prejudice and bigotry and yet you display those very same attributes when it comes to people of faith?

Think about it.

[IMSlacker]

You cannot force any religion to recognize or perform a marriage that doesn't follow whatever rules that religion has set up for itself, however wacky those rules might be. I don't have any problem with that.

I don't know for sure, but I would bet that this extends to interracial marriage as well. Although, it would be fairly unlikely that an interracial couple would belong to a church that disallowed interracial marriage.

[TheMojoPin]

Do any of you see how ironic it is that you're the first ones to jump up and down and scream about prejudice and bigotry and yet you display those very same attributes when it comes to people of faith?

Think about it.

It's not ironic at all. I readily recognize how intolerant I am of intolerance.

[underdog]

Do any of you see how ironic it is that you're the first ones to jump up and down and scream about prejudice and bigotry and yet you display those very same attributes when it comes to people of faith?

Think about it.

I don't think it's ironic because I'm completely honest about my bigotry of people of faith.

I don't make up bullshit excuses like "I have lots of religious friends!"

[GregoryJoseph]

I don't think it's ironic because I'm completely honest about my bigotry of people of faith.

I don't make up bullshit excuses like "I have lots of religious friends!"

Yet you feel superior to people who are bigoted for other reasons?

[underdog]

Yet you feel superior to people who are bigoted for other reasons?

Yes.

[TheMojoPin]

Yet you feel superior to people who are bigoted for other reasons?

Yes, because my reasons are based out of allowing people more personal choices as opposed to restricting or forbidding them.

I'm not "anti-religion" in general: I disagree with a number of tenets of the major faiths that are outdated and encourage forms of intolerance, segregation, seperation and hatred.

[IMSlacker]

I don't make up bullshit excuses like "I have lots of religious friends!"

I let religious people come to my house and use the shitter all the time.

[TheMojoPin]

I have piles of religious friends.











































That's a lie. I don't have any friends.

[epo]

Yet you feel superior to people who are bigoted for other reasons?

I'm totally bigotted against animals with sausage fingers.

HEY AREN'T YOU GVAC!

[brettmojo]

Do any of you see how ironic it is that you're the first ones to jump up and down and scream about prejudice and bigotry and yet you display those very same attributes when it comes to people of faith?

Think about it.
If one's faith is causing them to regard people for what they are and not who they are it isn't any better than any other form of prejudice or bigotry.

[Suspect Chin]

Yes, because my reasons are based out of allowing people more personal choices as opposed to restricting or forbidding them.

I'm not "anti-religion" in general: I disagree with a number of tenets of the major faiths that are outdated and encourage forms of intolerance, segregation, seperation and hatred.

Personal choices as long as they coincide with yours? You argue for the freedom to have the opinion that agrees with yours but attempt to silence the opinion that does not. How is that "allowing people more personal choices"?

[IMSlacker]

Personal choices as long as they coincide with yours? You argue for the freedom to have the opinion that agrees with yours but attempt to silence the opinion that does not. How is that "allowing people more personal choices"?

When did he attempt to silence opinions that don't agree with his?

[Misteriosa]

He can go be the racist paint mixer instead of the racist justice of the peace.

all i could think about when i read this was:

If It’s Optic White, It’s the Right White

carry on..

[TheMojoPin]

Personal choices as long as they coincide with yours? You argue for the freedom to have the opinion that agrees with yours but attempt to silence the opinion that does not. How is that "allowing people more personal choices"?

Slacker already asked it, but I will again: where did I attempt to silence him or anyone else?

But here, I'll play along...hmmm, what involves allowing more personal choices? People being able to marry who they want regardless of race or the opinion that interracial marriages are unacceptable? Gee, let me ponder that one real hard.

[weekapaugjz]

can't we just agree that everyone is an asshole?

[GregoryJoseph]

can't we just agree that everyone is an asshole?

add "except me" to the end of your quote and you'd have Mojo's philosophy on life.

[topless_mike]

Yeah, how dare anyone "stick their nose" into the story of a public servant allowing racism to dictate how they perform their job.

i wasnt referring to this exact story, larry literal.

[Suspect Chin]

Slacker already asked it, but I will again: where did I attempt to silence him or anyone else?

But here, I'll play along...hmmm, what involves allowing more personal choices? People being able to marry who they want regardless of race or the opinion that interracial marriages are unacceptable? Gee, let me ponder that one real hard.

What would provide the most personal choice would be to allow people to marry who they want and to allow people to disagree with it if they want.

[TheMojoPin]

What would provide the most personal choice would be to allow people to marry who they want and to allow people to disagree with it if they want.

Again, how am I denying anyone their opinion? I think I've asked this like 4 or 5 times and you've yet to answer. All I'm doing is presenting contrary opinions. I don't have the ability to cancel out other people's opinions that way.

[jauble]

I had a real opinion on this thing but it is impossible to type out on a phone. Will one of you pricks call me to make sure I haven`t choked and died.

[TheMojoPin]

add "except me" to the end of your quote and you'd have Mojo's philosophy on life.

Oh, the delicious irony.

[Suspect Chin]

Again, how am I denying anyone their opinion? I think I've asked this like 4 or 5 times and you've yet to answer. All I'm doing is presenting contrary opinions. I don't have the ability to cancel out other people's opinions that way.

OK so you aren't denying anyone their opinion, thankfully, no one has that power. You are saying your opinion is unquestionably right and anyone who disagrees is unquestionably wrong.

[underdog]

can't we just agree that everyone is an asshole?

I think that's something that we can universally agree on.

[TheMojoPin]

OK so you aren't denying anyone their opinion, thankfully, no one has that power. You are saying your opinion is unquestionably right and anyone who disagrees is unquestionably wrong.

No, I'm not. Again, I'm saying that IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE my opinion is on the unquestionably right side. I'm not always right. I'm often very, very wrong and have zero problem admitting so.

If you disagree, the invitation still stands for you to provide an objective argument in favor of his specific opinion. That in no way somehow "proves" you're a bigot. If his opinion isn't unquestionably wrong by the standards of a decent and rational society then it should be possible to objectively argue how his opinion isn't wrong beyond the realm of "well, it's just his opinion."

[underdog]

I'm often very, very wrong

He really is.

[Suspect Chin]

No, I'm not. Again, I'm saying that IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE my opinion is on the unquestionably right side. I'm not always right. I'm often very, very wrong and have zero problem admitting so.

To say it in any instance is as bad as saying it in every instance.

If you disagree, the invitation still stands for you to provide an objective argument in favor of his specific opinion. That in no way somehow "proves" you're a bigot. If his opinion isn't unquestionably wrong by the standards of a decent and rational society then it should be possible to objectively argue how his opinion isn't wrong beyond the realm of "well, it's just his opinion."

I couldn't tell you why he feels the way he does and its not my job to do so. The only truth is that he obviously feels that way and therefore his version of right/wrong is just as valid as yours.

[topless_mike]

"Because that's how things have been" is the worst and laziest excuse. There's not even an attempt at justification.

i gave up on baseball in '94 because they changed the playoff format from top east/west teams play, winner goes to world series to this newfnagled wildcard bullshit.
my excuse for this was "because this is how baseball's been, dont change it"

i feel like a fuck now.

[weekapaugjz]

I think that's something that we can universally agree on.

exactly.

[weekapaugjz]

I couldn't tell you why he feels the way he does and its not my job to do so. The only truth is that he obviously feels that way and therefore his version of right/wrong is just as valid as yours.

hitler had his own version of what is right and wrong. so his opinion must be valid too.

[TheMojoPin]

To say it in any instance is as bad as saying it in every instance.

The only truth is that he obviously feels that way and therefore his version of right/wrong is just as valid as yours.

Everything you just said here is unquestionably wrong.

BAM!!!

Though seriously, that latter point is simply not realistic at all. You refuse to acknowledge that there are some opinions in this world that are just wrong no matter what the individual justification is. Personal opinion does not automaticlaly provide vindication for something that is inherrently morally or ethically wrong as deemed by the general public. Someone running around thinking they're justified in thinking "I believe that it's OK for grown men to have child sex slaves" doesn't actually make them right. They may THINK that they're right, but their individual belief doesn't actually make the idea right in any context.

[TheMojoPin]

i gave up on baseball in '94 because they changed the playoff format from top east/west teams play, winner goes to world series to this newfnagled wildcard bullshit.
my excuse for this was "because this is how baseball's been, dont change it"

i feel like a fuck now.

You should. The Wild Card rules. It's a universal fact.

[GregoryJoseph]

You should. The Wild Card rules. It's a universal fact.

Except that the World Series will go into November this year.

It's absurd.

They have to figure out a way to shorten the length of the season.

Fuck the Players Association; we're going to have to go back to SCHEDULED double headers.

[brettmojo]

Except that the World Series will go into November this year.

It's absurd.

They have to figure out a way to shorten the length of the season.

Fuck the Players Association; we're going to have to go back to SCHEDULED double headers.
They need more flexibility to move up playoffs series when like this year when there were three sweeps.

Too many off days during the season too.

[TheMojoPin]

Fuck the Players Association; we're going to have to go back to SCHEDULED double headers.

Agreed.

[Suspect Chin]

Everything you just said here is unquestionably wrong.

BAM!!!

Though seriously, that latter point is simply not realistic at all. You refuse to acknowledge that there are some opinions in this world that are just wrong no matter what the individual justification is. Personal opinion does not automaticlaly provide vindication for something that is inherrently morally or ethically wrong as deemed by the general public. Someone running around thinking they're justified in thinking "I believe that it's OK for grown men to have child sex slaves" doesn't actually make them right. They may THINK that they're right, but their individual belief doesn't actually make the idea right in any context.

When you start talking about breaking in the law in pursuit of a personal right/wrong, I agree with you--criminals should be punished according to the law. I'm talking about personal opinions that lay within the law (obviously in this case, the JOtP broke the law, but generally speaking, being against interracial marriage isn't illegal). We don't have a responsibility to even the greatest societal majority to adhere to their version of right/wrong. We are only accountable to ourselves (or god if you believe in him) when it comes to right/wrong.

[brettmojo]

Agreed.
4th of July, Labor Day and Memorial Day.

[TheMojoPin]

We don't have a responsibility to even the greatest societal majority to adhere to their version of right/wrong.

Not always, but we usually are. That's an automatic aspect of being a functional part of a civilized society.

We are only accountable to ourselves (or god if you believe in him) when it comes to right/wrong.

Again, not realistic. Someone who honestly lives by this in regards to whatever crazy idea pops into their head will end up being a pariah or worse.

[Suspect Chin]

They need more flexibility to move up playoffs series when like this year when there were three sweeps.

Too many off days during the season too.

The season is 178 days long and they play 162 games. Could you imagine only having 16 days off in 6 months?

[brettmojo]

The season is 178 days long and they play 162 games. Could you imagine only having 16 days off in 6 months?
That's why you have a bench and a minor league system.

[Suspect Chin]

Not always, but we usually are. That's an automatic aspect of being a functional part of a civilized society.



Again, not realistic. Someone who honestly lives by this in regards to whatever crazy idea pops into their head will end up being a pariah or worse.

Who decides then when an issue gets big enough that it becomes a society approved right/wrong? You might say that it is right for all Americans to get health insurance but at least 50% of the country disagrees (not trying to start a new argument here, just an example).

[jauble]

Everything you just said here is unquestionably wrong.

BAM!!!

Though seriously, that latter point is simply not realistic at all. You refuse to acknowledge that there are some opinions in this world that are just wrong no matter what the individual justification is. Personal opinion does not automaticlaly provide vindication for something that is inherrently morally or ethically wrong as deemed by the general public. Someone running around thinking they're justified in thinking "I believe that it's OK for grown men to have child sex slaves" doesn't actually make them right. They may THINK that they're right, but their individual belief doesn't actually make the idea right in any context.

you really think this is wrong on a universal scale. Much of our world will not mix look at Rawanda with the Hutus and the Tutsis or look at India and Pakistan or the city of Jerusalem with all its backgrounds. You feel superior to these people because you think that this should all be overlooked. On a complete side note do you think we can get rid of that bum bradley for anyone worthwile?

[Suspect Chin]

That's why you have a bench and a minor league system.

So MLB teams should play their bench players so their stars can rest? Isn't that why we have minor league teams, so we can watch up and comers strive for the bigs?

[IMSlacker]

On a complete side note do you think we can get rid of that bum bradley for anyone worthwile?

No. That's why we should keep him and make the best of it.

[Suspect Chin]

So MLB teams should play their bench players so their stars can rest? Isn't that why we have minor league teams, so we can watch up and comers strive for the bigs?

Only a truly universal right like baseball could bring us together on this issue. Thank you jauble.

[brettmojo]

So MLB teams should play their bench players so their stars can rest? Isn't that why we have minor league teams, so we can watch up and comers strive for the bigs?
It really kills two birds with one stone. Star players get rest/minor league talent gets the chance to play at the major league level more.

[Suspect Chin]

It really kills two birds with one stone. Star players get rest/minor league talent gets the chance to play at the major league level more.

No one wants to watch minor leaguers play. That is why they are still in the minors.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Let women (of all races) into MLB, and let them and only them take the bat with them when running bases. Now that's a sport, fellas.

[IMSlacker]

Could you imagine only having 16 days off in 6 months?

Could you imagine working for 8 months and then taking 4 months off?

[Suspect Chin]

Let women (of all races) into MLB, and let them and only them take the bat with them when running bases. Now that's a sport, fellas.

Can they then use the bat to break up double plays, knock out the catcher instead of running him over, and hit the ball out of the air on pick off plays?

[weekapaugjz]

Could you imagine only having 16 days off in 6 months?

Could you imagine working for 8 months and then taking 4 months off?

or getting paid obscene amounts of money to play baseball?

[Suspect Chin]

Could you imagine working for 8 months and then taking 4 months off?

Isn't that what teachers do?

It would be great wouldn't it? And to get paid millions of dollars at the same time?

[TheMojoPin]

Who decides then when an issue gets big enough that it becomes a society approved right/wrong? You might say that it is right for all Americans to get health insurance but at least 50% of the country disagrees (not trying to start a new argument here, just an example).

A "right" as we understand them requires actual laws to be passed and such. We're not talking about that here. We're talking about our senses of morality and which moralities can be seen as generally or even unquestionably right or wrong. Thinking that two people cannot be married due to having different skin colors would seemingly should fall under that latter distinction since nobody can provide a defense for that opinion that society at large would accept or approve of.

[jauble]

Only a truly universal right like baseball could bring us together on this issue. Thank you jauble.

Based on my President`s award I expect at least a nod next year from the swedes.

[TripleSkeet]

Heres my two cents...

The guy is wrong because of his position. His refusal to marry these people because of race is the equivalent of shopkeepers refusing to serve black customers.

That being said he is wrong, but his opinion is not wrong. Because it is just that....an opinion. And like it or not the very definition of the word opinion makes it impossible for it to be either right or wrong.

[IMSlacker]

Isn't that what teachers do?

It would be great wouldn't it? And to get paid millions of dollars at the same time?

Well, teachers don't get the obscene amounts of money, and a lot of them teach summer school or take part-time jobs over the summer.

It was always so uncomfortable running into one of my teachers working a kiosk at the mall.

[TheMojoPin]

No. That's why we should keep him and make the best of it.

Especially since it looks like they're hiring the Rangers' hitting coach, who Bradley got along with really well and, perhaps not coincidentally, had his best offensive season working with.

If Hendry and the Cubs had any sense they'd meet with Bradley and his agent and talk him into some kind of press conference when Hendry and Bradley and Lou basically squash what went down and move forward. At the very least it perhaps gives Hendry a bit more leverage if he's still determined to trade him. Nothing is served right now acting like he's public enemy #1.

[Suspect Chin]

Heres my two cents...

The guy is wrong because of his position. His refusal to marry these people because of race is the equivalent of shopkeepers refusing to serve black customers.

That being said he is wrong, but his opinion is not wrong. Because it is just that....an opinion. And like it or not the very definition of the word opinion makes it impossible for it to be either right or wrong.

Thank you. Where were you 2 hours ago?

[TheMojoPin]

That being said he is wrong, but his opinion is not wrong. Because it is just that....an opinion. And like it or not the very definition of the word opinion makes it impossible for it to be either right or wrong.

What if it's someone's opinion that they should be able to kidnap your children for their own? Isn't that opinion wrong? Even if they don't act upon it, isn't that idea wrong on their part?

[Suspect Chin]

Especially since it looks like they're hiring the Rangers' hitting coach, who Bradley got along with really well and, perhaps not coincidentally, had his best offensive season working with.

If Hendry and the Cubs had any sense they'd mett with Bradley and his agent and talk him into some kind of press conference when Hendry and Bradley and Lou basically squash what went down and move forward. At the very least it perhaps gives Hendry a bit more leverage if he's still determined to trade him. Nothing is served right now acting like he's public enemy #1.

Exactly. We can't trade him and we can't go on as enemies. Squashing it and moving forward is the only option. The guy has talent, he just lets his emotions run his game. The Cubs should act like they care about him and maybe he will start to perform. The game isn't about being friends, it's about doing what it takes to win.

[TheMojoPin]

you really think this is wrong on a universal scale. Much of our world will not mix look at Rawanda with the Hutus and the Tutsis or look at India and Pakistan or the city of Jerusalem with all its backgrounds. You feel superior to these people because you think that this should all be overlooked.

Wait, what? How am I "overlooking" any of that?

[IMSlacker]

What if it's someone's opinion that they should be able to kidnap your children for their own? Isn't that opinion wrong? Even if they don't act upon it, isn't that idea wrong on their part?

But, look how happy they are. How could it be wrong?

http://blogs.glam.com/glambuzz/files/2009/05/raisingarizona.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

But, look how happy they are. How could it be wrong?

http://blogs.glam.com/glambuzz/files/2009/05/raisingarizona.jpg

Well, his dad does run around with a panty on his head.

[Suspect Chin]

Looks like the governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is calling for this guy's dismissal now (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/16/louisiana.interracial.marriage/index.html).

[jauble]

Wait, what? How am I "overlooking" any of that?

I got caught up in the term universal and I am posting from a phone. The point was that as a specie we will never get along because we always find a way to make ourselves different from ourselves.

[IMSlacker]

I got caught up in the term universal and I am posting from a phone. The point was that as a specie we will never get along because we always find a way to make ourselves different from ourselves.

Are you drunk?

[Suspect Chin]

I got caught up in the term universal and I am posting from a phone. The point was that as a specie we will never get along because we always find a way to make ourselves different from ourselves.

We need a mobile page.

[jauble]

Are you drunk?

people draw lines wherever they can to be comfortable

[A.J.]

can't we just agree that everyone is an asshole?

THANK you for interjecting some sanity here.