Trump admits separating families is a political stunt

[uncboy10]

Its a great tautology though.

Step one: Do something offensive like separating children at the border.

Then If the people who oppose you talk about how offensive that policy is, then just call them "holier than thou" snowflakesw.

If they actually take action and kick you out of their restaurant, then call them intolerant fascists.

Good stuff.

 

[strummingram]

And asking someone to leave a privately owned restaurant is equivalent to getting in front of a microphone and shouting **** white people and then hanging a racist?

This is about as mild as the consequences can get it. Definitely better than just shouting at them and disrupting dinner for all of the other patrons. Maybe they were just tired of acting like "snowflakes."

I think it's a pretty immature thing to do, period. To be so uptight about politics that you won't serve trump's press secretary? I personally have an enormous dislike for Sanders and Trump, but I would never deny them patronage to my business establishment, or refuse them a seat at my table, or ignore them if they were distressed on the road, or anything else.

 

[uncboy10]

You can judge whomever you wish! We all do it. We have created all manner of refined ways to judge and condemn and punish people for everything imaginable. It's happening all the time.

In this line of discussion, for example; It's now considered okay, or acceptable, to deny a woman who is the press secretary for the US President service at a business establishment. From what I can gather, you are claiming that she "deserves it." But, when another business person has intolerance for a customer's sexual behavior, that is unacceptable intolerance. Now, I think BOTH businesses should provide service to the people in question.

If Sanders had to be admitted to the ER/hospital, and the hospital administrator, or even ER doctor hated her politics, they'd still have to give her medical attention. I hope they would, anyway.

Being gay isn't a choice. Its an essential and usually immutable component of someone's individual identity. That's not even remotely comparable to choosing to work for an administration like this, and enabling it by lying to the press on a daily basis.

Doctors are legally required to provide care to patients regardless of their personal feelings towards them. Chefs are not.

You have a bad habit of doing everything you can to ignore relevant variables and then apply your overly simplistic philosophy to situations that aren't even remotely analogous. Refusing to serve someone because their gay, and refusing to support someone for unethical behavior are two completely different situations. Refusing to serve someone food, and refusing to provide medical care are completely different situations. They aren't logically comparable. But I know you just think of logic as a "mental hoop to jump through" whenever it gets in the way of your feelings.

 

[strummingram]

Its a great tautology though.

Step one: Do something offensive like separating children at the border.

Then If the people who oppose you talk about how offensive that policy is, then just call them "holier than thou" snowflakesw.

If they actually take action and kick you out of their restaurant, then call them intolerant fascists.

Good stuff.

Do you think kicking her out of the restaurant is going to help the children at the border? I have a hunch that it will make the situation worse. Most people who are rigid in their beliefs tend to dig-in deeper when you piss them off.

 

[uncboy10]

I think it's a pretty immature thing to do, period. To be so uptight about politics that you won't serve trump's press secretary? I personally have an enormous dislike for Sanders and Trump, but I would never deny them patronage to my business establishment, or refuse them a seat at my table, or ignore them if they were distressed on the road, or anything else.

I think it's pretty immature, not to mention arrogant, to assume someone is "so uptight about politics" just because they took action in a way that you don't like.

I have no doubt you wouldn't do anything about it. You'd smile and feed them or even someone worse, and gladly take a knife in the back. That doesn't make you enlightened, it makes you naive.

 

[uncboy10]

Do you think kicking her out of the restaurant is going to help the children at the border? I have a hunch that it will make the situation worse. Most people who are rigid in their beliefs tend to dig-in deeper when you piss them off.

It proves to people that if you act like a racist asshole that thinks they can take people kid's just for trying to cross the border, then you will have to pay the consequences. Again, this is how social norms work. Don't like it? Maybe try the Hardees. No doubt you'll find plenty of trump supporters eating there that will be glad to welcome you.

 

[strummingram]

Being gay isn't a choice. Its an essential and usually immutable component of someone's individual identity. That's not even remotely comparable to choosing to work for an administration like this, and enabling it by lying to the press on a daily basis.

Doctors are legally required to provide care to patients regardless of their personal feelings towards them. Chefs are not.

You have a bad habit of doing everything you can to ignore relevant variables and then apply your overly simplistic philosophy to situations that aren't even remotely analogous. Refusing to serve someone because their gay, and refusing to support someone for unethical behavior are two completely different situations. Refusing to serve someone food, and refusing to provide medical care are completely different situations. They aren't logically comparable. But I know you just think of logic as a "mental hoop to jump through" whenever it gets in the way of your feelings.

I'm fully aware of the homosexual component and it not being the same situation as choosing a political philosophy.

"Legally required" is where you're getting stuck. Until people are compelled to do what is "right" because it "feels right", then they're just going through the motions and it's disingenuous anyway.

All you're doing through this entire exchange is showing how it is okay to be intolerant to people who deserve it (those who do things you don't like, politically), and then when they act just like you did, you call them bigots, or prejudiced, or intolerant, or whatever the proper adjective. The root of the action- the causation- is the exact same.

I'm frankly surprised to see you be so politically partisan with this. Refusing people service at a restaurant is exactly what got black people in the 50's and 60's ridiculed and had food thrown on them and then forced out by the local police. If you don't want to see the similarity and hypocrisy, be my guest. And, this excuse of "well, they had no choice in being black, but Sanders chose to be Republican and try to enforce immigration laws as they understood them" is bullshit, on your part. You're spinning it so you can support the shitty way she was treated because you dislike her politics, too.

 

[strummingram]

It proves to people that if you act like a racist asshole that thinks they can take people kid's just for trying to cross the border, then you will have to pay the consequences. Again, this is how social norms work. Don't like it? Maybe try the Hardees. No doubt you'll find plenty of trump supporters eating there that will be glad to welcome you.

I would avoid acting like you have no partisan bias in the future.

 

[tarheel0910]

It proves to people that if you act like a racist asshole that thinks they can take people kid's just for trying to cross the border, then you will have to pay the consequences. Again, this is how social norms work. Don't like it? Maybe try the Hardees. No doubt you'll find plenty of trump supporters eating there that will be glad to welcome you.

It would have made more of an impact for the owner to go talk to her about their position on the issue. Worst case scenario she doesn't listen. By kicking her out you're just going to make people dig in deeper. The owner accomplished nothing by doing this. She didn't change anyone's mind by kicking her out.

 

[BillyL]

She didn't change anyone's mind by kicking her out.

What makes you think that was her objective . . ?

 

[strummingram]

I think it's pretty immature, not to mention arrogant, to assume someone is "so uptight about politics" just because they took action in a way that you don't like.

I have no doubt you wouldn't do anything about it. You'd smile and feed them or even someone worse, and gladly take a knife in the back. That doesn't make you enlightened, it makes you naive.

Whatever it makes me, it's making you pissed off because you know it's hypocritical and just as wrong as the indiscretions that "the left" bitches about. They make themselves to be hypocrites.

I "wouldn't do anything about it?" Well, I wouldn't mimic them, if that's what you mean, no. Doing what they do makes me like them. It's kind of foolish for me to judge them, and condemn them for behavior that I'm perfectly content to do the same thing under similar circumstances myself.

 

[strummingram]

It would have made more of an impact for the owner to go talk to her about their position on the issue. Worst case scenario she doesn't listen. By kicking her out you're just going to make people dig in deeper. The owner accomplished nothing by doing this. She didn't change anyone's mind by kicking her out.

Excellent choice.

 

[uncboy10]

I'm fully aware of the homosexual component and it not being the same situation as choosing a political philosophy.

"Legally required" is where you're getting stuck. Until people are compelled to do what is "right" because it "feels right", then they're just going through the motions and it's disingenuous anyway.

All you're doing through this entire exchange is showing how it is okay to be intolerant to people who deserve it (those who do things you don't like, politically), and then when they act just like you did, you call them bigots, or prejudiced, or intolerant, or whatever the proper adjective. The root of the action- the causation- is the exact same.

I'm frankly surprised to see you be so politically partisan with this. Refusing people service at a restaurant is exactly what got black people in the 50's and 60's ridiculed and had food thrown on them and then forced out by the local police. If you don't want to see the similarity and hypocrisy, be my guest. And, this excuse of "well, they had no choice in being black, but Sanders chose to be Republican and try to enforce immigration laws as they understood them" is bullshit, on your part. You're spinning it so you can support the shitty way she was treated because you dislike her politics, too.

I'm not saying that "legally required" is the cornerstone of my argument, but it 100% completely undercuts your medical treatment argument.

Saying that "they act just like you did" is idiotic. They decided to kidnap children at the border BEFORE this happened. This was a response to their shitty policy. Kicking them out of your restaurant is not treating them the same way that they treated the children.

Are we acting the same way as a kidnapper when we lock one up in prison? Obviously not. People have to be punished for undesirable behavior or there will be no disincentive.

If you seriously don't see the difference in refusing to serve someone for being black, and refusing to serve Sanders in this case, then you're an idiot. Those aren't even remotely comparable.

If you can't tell the difference between being racist, and the consequences of being racist, there is no point in us having this discussion.

 

[tarheel0910]

What makes you think that was her objective . . ?

I'm assuming it was. There are only two reasons to do it. Because she wants to help get Trump out of office/change his policies or she wants to be an ass. I don't know her so I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she's not an asshole.

 

[uncboy10]

Whatever it makes me, it's making you pissed off because you know it's hypocritical and just as wrong as the indiscretions that "the left" bitches about. They make themselves to be hypocrites.

I "wouldn't do anything about it?" Well, I wouldn't mimic them, if that's what you mean, no. Doing what they do makes me like them. It's kind of foolish for me to judge them, and condemn them for behavior that I'm perfectly content to do the same thing under similar circumstances myself.

There's nothing even remotely hypocritical about refusing to serve people who mistreat minorities. Gladly serving them and taking their money, then turning around and criticizing them would be a lot more hypocritical than refusing to serve them.

 

[BillyL]

I'm assuming it was. There are only two reasons to do it. Because she wants to help get Trump out of office/change his policies or she wants to be an ass. I don't know her so I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she's not an asshole.

Maybe, you assume too much. You know what they say about those that 'assume' . .

Just a thought . . maybe, she voted for tRump, but, not his arrogance, he did promise to be more Presidential IIRC, what happened to that false promise . . ?
Prop him up all you want, Eddie . . he will go down as the worst POTUS that we've ever had, I can promise you that.

 

[uncboy10]

If you spank a child for terrorizing people out in public, you aren't acting like the child. You're showing the child that his/her actions have consequences. That doesn't make you just as terrifying, it makes you the stopgap.

The idea that you should just sit there and let the child terrorize everyone else because you don't want to "sink to the child's level" by disciplining them, is wrong.

 

[strummingram]

Saying that "they act just like you did" is idiotic. They decided to kidnap children at the border BEFORE this happened. This was a response to their shitty policy. Kicking them out of your restaurant is not treating them the same way that they treated the children.

Are we acting the same way as a kidnapper when we lock one up in prison? Obviously not. People have to be punished for undesirable behavior or there will be no disincentive.

The impetus is the exact same. You don't have to physically react with identical behavior. You don't have to put Sanders in a chained cell for the impetus to be the same.

If you seriously don't see the difference in refusing to serve someone for being black, and refusing to serve Sanders in this case, then you're an idiot. Those aren't even remotely comparable.

I don't see the difference, no. And, I think you're being intentionally stubborn for trying to insist that one is better or worse than the other, when they're both shameful and rude.

 

[tarheel0910]

Maybe, you assume too much. You know what they say about those that 'assume' . .

Sorry, I just like to assume that people are inherently good. Especially when I don't know them.

Prop him up all you want, Eddie . .

I don't think I've ever seen @strummingram prop up any politician.

 

[strummingram]

Sorry, I just like to assume that people are inherently good. Especially when I don't know them.


I don't think I've ever seen @strummingram prop up any politician.

I propped-up Ron Paul plenty. Guilty as charged, there.

 

[tarheel0910]

I propped-up Ron Paul plenty. Guilty as charged, there.

Guess I should have said relevant politician.

 

[uncboy10]

The impetus is the exact same. You don't have to physically react with identical behavior. You don't have to put Sanders in a chained cell for the impetus to be the same.


I don't see the difference, no. And, I think you're being intentionally stubborn for trying to insist that one is better or worse than the other, when they're both shameful and rude.

If you spank a child for terrorizing people out in public, you aren't acting like the child. You're showing the child that his/her actions have consequences. That doesn't make you just as terrifying, it makes you the stopgap.

The idea that you should just sit there and let the child terrorize everyone else because you don't want to "sink to the child's level" by disciplining them, is wrong.

TBH I don't really care what you think I'm trying to do. If you can't have the debate without prescribing intentions and motives to me then that's your own fault. Maybe you're just trying to be intentionally stubborn to keep propping up this hippy philosophy of being nice to assholes.

 

[strummingram]

TBH I don't really care what you think I'm trying to do. If you can't have the debate without prescribing intentions and motives to me then that's your own fault. Maybe you're just trying to be intentionally stubborn to keep propping up this hippy philosophy of being nice to assholes.

"Assholes" is such a juvenile, and indistinct characterization. I dunno why we use that term.

However, just so I'm clear...

You want me to debate you without being critical of your motives and taking notice of them, and your intentions, and using that awareness to illustrate how I think your approach is not going to work... but... you get to do exactly that to me- as well as denigrate me for my preference of treating people as I wish to be treated, and encouraging others to do the same, and call me an idiot and having a "hippy" philosophy of being nice to assholes? Which isn't what I am suggesting, either. But, to be clear; I absolutely believe that being rude and being an asshole BACK TO the asshole, only makes me an asshole- whatever an asshole is, of course. Regardless of my race, gender, religion, sexual preference, height, weight, or any other aesthetic factor, it's still being an asshole.

I'll pass... You win.

 

[uncboy10]

"Assholes" is such a juvenile, and indistinct characterization. I dunno why we use that term.

However, just so I'm clear...

You want me to debate you without being critical of your motives and taking notice of them, and your intentions, and using that awareness to illustrate how I think your approach is not going to work... but... you get to do exactly that to me- as well as denigrate me for my preference of treating people as I wish to be treated, and encouraging others to do the same, and call me an idiot and having a "hippy" philosophy of being nice to assholes? Which isn't what I am suggesting, either. But, to be clear; I absolutely believe that being rude and being an asshole BACK TO the asshole, only makes me an asshole- whatever an asshole is, of course. Regardless of my race, gender, religion, sexual preference, height, weight, or any other aesthetic factor, it's still being an asshole.

I'll pass... You win.

If someone comes into my house and acts like a dick, it doesn’t make me a dick to tell them to leave.

You’ve tried to equate this situation to refusing to serve black people in the Jim Crow era. That’s pretty idiotic. Idk how I’m supposed to not call you out for that.

It’s too bad that the federal government sunk to their level by forcing them to serve the black folks. They should’ve just tried to have a polite conversation and asked nicely... /s

 

[strummingram]

If someone comes into my house and acts like a dick, it doesn’t make me a dick to tell them to leave.

You're not trying to use that scenario as being equivalent to anything we're discussing here, are you? Because... that's nothing at all like coming into a restaurant. And, if you want to get technical, what you just described is more like an immigrant coming into the USA and the USA didn't allow them to come in and has asked them to leave.

You’ve tried to equate this situation to refusing to serve black people in the Jim Crow era. That’s pretty idiotic. Idk how I’m supposed to not call you out for that.

Please do "call me out" for it. I enjoy showing you how you can exhibit rude, shameful and intolerant behavior toward people and it's just as bad as the Jim Crow South. It's simply wrong to treat others as inferior to you based on aesthetic notions. It's just as wrong if they're black as it is if they have different religions and political beliefs or anything else.

I gave you a "You win..." but that wasn't good enough.

 

[uncboy10]

You're not trying to use that scenario as being equivalent to anything we're discussing here, are you? Because... that's nothing at all like coming into a restaurant. And, if you want to get technical, what you just described is more like an immigrant coming into the USA and the USA didn't allow them to come in and has asked them to leave.


Please do "call me out" for it. I enjoy showing you how you can exhibit rude, shameful and intolerant behavior toward people and it's just as bad as the Jim Crow South. It's simply wrong to treat others as inferior to you based on aesthetic notions. It's just as wrong if they're black as it is if they have different religions and political beliefs or anything else.

I gave you a "You win..." but that wasn't good enough.

Wow. I’m sorry but I don’t consider kidnapping children to be an “aesthetic notion.” This isn’t about having different political beliefs. I never said they should refuse service to mitt Romney.

Refusing sanders is as bad as the Jim Crow south... Wow dude you just went full retard on that one.

 

[uncboy10]

Even if it were rude to not serve kidnappers, claiming that it’s equally as rude as not serving black people for the color of their skin is a new level...

The only variable that is similar is refusing to serve someone. I guess if you stick to a single variable then yeah it’s pretty much the same.

 

[tarheel0910]

Even if it were rude to not serve kidnappers, claiming that it’s equally as rude as not serving black people for the color of their skin is a new level...

The only variable that is similar is refusing to serve someone. I guess if you stick to a single variable then yeah it’s pretty much the same.

Who did she kidnap?

 

[uncboy10]

Who did she kidnap?

The administration that she represents kidnapped thousands of Mexican children. Enabling that by lying to the press and the American people makes her complicit in those actions.

 

[strummingram]

Wow. I’m sorry but I don’t consider kidnapping children to be an “aesthetic notion.” This isn’t about having different political beliefs. I never said they should refuse service to mitt Romney.

Refusing sanders is as bad as the Jim Crow south... Wow dude you just went full retard on that one.

You just said it was okay to refuse service based on their dislike of her political philosophy.

I'm sorry that you can be perfectly okay with people being rude and intolerant in one context (even defending their intolerance), and finding it reprehensible in another. Especially when BOTH are reprehensible.

 

[strummingram]

Even if it were rude to not serve kidnappers, claiming that it’s equally as rude as not serving black people for the color of their skin is a new level...

There's nothing new about it at all. You're simply talking about matters of degree. You're showing that you will accept and encourage people to refuse service to those who differ politically, but if it's racial, then they are scum. I'm saying that BOTH are improper. If that's "full retard", that's fine with me. I love it when you resort to childish name-calling.

 

[uncboy10]

You just said it was okay to refuse service based on their dislike of her political philosophy.

I'm sorry that you can be perfectly okay with people being rude and intolerant in one context (even defending their intolerance), and finding it reprehensible in another. Especially when BOTH are reprehensible.

Do you know how to read? What I literally just said was...

This isn’t about having different political beliefs. I never said they should refuse service to mitt Romney.

 

[uncboy10]

There's nothing new about it at all. You're simply talking about matters of degree. You're showing that you will accept and encourage people to refuse service to those who differ politically, but if it's racial, then they are scum. I'm saying that BOTH are improper. If that's "full retard", that's fine with me. I love it when you resort to childish name-calling.

You're only capable of analyzing one variable at a time. Since they both got refused dinner, it's different "degrees" of the same thing.

If I refuse to serve a racist at my restaurant, that is in no way shape or form morally or ethically equivalent to refusing to serve black people because I'm a racist. One is a direct repudiation of the other.

Idk why this is so hard for you to grasp. But if you keep misrepresenting my arguments then I will keep insulting you for not being able to understand them.

 

[tarheel0910]

The administration that she represents kidnapped thousands of Mexican children. Enabling that by lying to the press and the American people makes her complicit in those actions.

I don't think her being press secretary and saying something untrue is enabling that policy. Even if you assume it is I don't see how kicking her out helps.

 

[uncboy10]

I don't think her being press secretary and saying something untrue is enabling that policy. Even if you assume it is I don't see how kicking her out helps.

It enforces the social norm that policies like these are morally unacceptable. If there are no consequences for violating social norms, then they aren't norms.

 

[strummingram]

You're only capable of analyzing one variable at a time. Since they both got refused dinner, it's different "degrees" of the same thing.

If I refuse to serve a racist at my restaurant, that is in no way shape or form morally or ethically equivalent to refusing to serve black people because I'm a racist. One is a direct repudiation of the other.

Idk why this is so hard for you to grasp. But if you keep misrepresenting my arguments then I will keep insulting you for not being able to understand them.

You keep refusing people service (or being okay with it when they do) and then, when people call you a hypocrite, you can keep on wondering why. I'm fine with that.

These different scenarios being "equivalent" or not, to you, doesn't make any difference whatsoever. I'm sorry, but it really doesn't.

You keep insulting me because... that is working great. Look at how much more I agree with you now than I did at the beginning of this

 

[strummingram]

It enforces the social norm that policies like these are morally unacceptable. If there are no consequences for violating social norms, then they aren't norms.

No, it's not accomplishing that at all. It's actually creating more chaos and disruption. I don't agree with how Trump and Co. are dealing with the border and immigration problems. But, I also don't think what happened to Sanders is enforcing any social norm that I want to be a part of, either.

 

[uncboy10]

No, it's not accomplishing that at all. It's actually creating more chaos and disruption. I don't agree with how Trump and Co. are dealing with the border and immigration problems. But, I also don't think what happened to Sanders is enforcing any social norm that I want to be a part of, either.

That's fine. You keep playing Switzerland, and other people will actually fight back. There are better approaches, but if you're a restaurant owner, and this is your only chance to make a statement against this administration, then I'm certainly not going to knock you for trying.

At worst this was a mild inconvenience for their party. They could easily drive to half a dozen establishments within a 30 minute radius that would gladly serve them and possibly even comp them their meals, or at the very least a few rounds of drinks. Yet you're willing to compare this to the experience of black folks in the Jim Crow era south. This reminds me of the Trump vs Hitler comparison...

 

[tarheel0910]

There are better approaches, but if you're a restaurant owner, and this is your only chance to make a statement against this administration, then I'm certainly not going to knock you for trying.

So why not try the better approach when it's your only chance? Seems like she wasted a good opportunity.

 

[uncboy10]

So why not try the better approach when it's your only chance? Seems like she wasted a good opportunity.

I'm saying there are better approaches in general. I'm saying this isn't the pinnacle of political opposition lol

But I don't know that she had a better opportunity. They wouldn't have given a shit about anything she had to say and we both know it.