• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

HB2 Strikes Again

PhDeac said:
There's always been a small segment of straight men who cared about their looks. I'm not denying that. But you can't look at Gen Xers and say "Man, those dudes know how to dress." On the flip side, most millennials I know beyond just seeing them in class are very stylish dressers. David Stern had to make a dress code for Gen X NBA players. Millennial NBA players are fashion icons.

I think the metrosexual trend that started as teen millennials started dressing themselves changed expectations for how men are supposed to dress.
Click to expand...

Funny, that article doesn't mention any teens doing it.
 
PhDeac said:
There's always been a small segment of straight men who cared about their looks. I'm not denying that. But you can't look at Gen Xers and say "Man, those dudes know how to dress." On the flip side, most millennials I know beyond just seeing them in class are very stylish dressers. David Stern had to make a dress code for Gen X NBA players. Millennial NBA players are fashion icons.

I think the metrosexual trend that started as teen millennials started dressing themselves changed expectations for how men are supposed to dress.
Click to expand...

You know the world existed before Generation X, right?

Not too long ago, men regularly wore three piece suits and top hats to work every day.
 
oldmandeac said:
Amazing that a true observation is insensitive in your mind. You don't know the conversations which preceded it nor do you appreciate it was a means to sum up the difference in perspective to which there is no middle ground. As a non-gay man I have no personal point of reference which allows me to truly understand the gay perspective. My comment is one of assessing sexual attraction which I believe is still a major consideration in dating options. That being said, I have an opinion that states if you randomly have a panel of a 100 men (which would include gays, enlightened liberals and the only other class recognized by many on the left, homophobic Christian conservatives alike), and have them judge a group of women based solely on looks and then a group of men based on looks, the results would be fairly consistent for women and several more standard deviations for men. Women on the other hand would rank the two groups far more similarly. Women tend to recognize other attractive women (our pop culture and marketing tends to ensure this) but I don't think non gay men spend a lot of their focus on what makes up a good looking guy.

I still think I have the right as an older male to pee wherever and whenever the urge hits me. I think the legal merits are as strong as any regarding the issues surrounding HB2.
Click to expand...

"Lifestyle choice" = Insensitive.
 
I don't know. Let's get it back on track:

Braden+Holtby+Washington+Capitals+v+New+York+J0McsnkJ0_Jl.jpg
 
DistrictDeacon said:
You know the world existed before Generation X, right?

Not too long ago, men regularly wore three piece suits and top hats to work every day.
Click to expand...

See my earlier post about type of dress.

Whoever posted about Jheri curls has a point thought.
 
PhDeac said:
I think most men, especially men late 30s and above, don't really "evaluate their personal experience." They dress how they're supposed to dress (casual, business wear, formal, etc) and dress how women in their lives think they should dress.

Junebug is right. Men taking more than a superficial interest in fashion and how their peers dress really started with Millennials.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about how you dress or put yourself together, I'm talking about combing your hair and brushing your teeth. Is that really millennial bullshit?
 
"You're a pathetic, old, insufferable fuckass..."

Someone took the time to send me a notification quoted above. The poster went on to say how I had no experience with sexual orientation or gender identity. Someone else claimed I was not tolerant.

The above is a microcosm of all that is wrong in our society today and the gridlock we are forced to endure as there is no such thing as debate. Let me explain...

While I stated a fact that I don't relate to gay issues because I have no point of reference, the enlightened poster accuses me of not having any experience on the issues. Duh!

The poster then labels me a fuckass despite my non-gay status. Proof positive that irony is a lost art.

Tolerance is now defined as whether one party totally agrees with the beliefs of the tolerant determining party. If you don't embrace their agenda then, they in their wisdom, deem you intolerant. Somehow, someway the flow never goes the other way. Somehow, those who determine the tolerant views have assumed a moral high ground in their own way of thinking. Again, the irony is lost as they are quick to attack as intolerant conservative Christians who base their point of views on moral arguments.

When all else fails, when a point can't be made or opinions changed or anything of value to offer, the new debate etiquette is that you resort to personal attacks and name calling such as you're a pathetic, old, insufferable fuckass...

And you paid how much for your Wake education to provide you the ability to offer such a scholarly assessment?
 
Oldman, I want ask you directly - do you think LGBTQ Americans deserve equal right with straight Americans?

Do you believe that it should legal for business owners to discriminate against LGBTQ citizens?
 
oldmandeac said:
"You're a pathetic, old, insufferable fuckass..."

Someone took the time to send me a notification quoted above. The poster went on to say how I had no experience with sexual orientation or gender identity. Someone else claimed I was not tolerant.

The above is a microcosm of all that is wrong in our society today and the gridlock we are forced to endure as there is no such thing as debate. Let me explain...

While I stated a fact that I don't relate to gay issues because I have no point of reference, the enlightened poster accuses me of not having any experience on the issues. Duh!

The poster then labels me a fuckass despite my non-gay status. Proof positive that irony is a lost art.

Tolerance is now defined as whether one party totally agrees with the beliefs of the tolerant determining party. If you don't embrace their agenda then, they in their wisdom, deem you intolerant. Somehow, someway the flow never goes the other way. Somehow, those who determine the tolerant views have assumed a moral high ground in their own way of thinking. Again, the irony is lost as they are quick to attack as intolerant conservative Christians who base their point of views on moral arguments.

When all else fails, when a point can't be made or opinions changed or anything of value to offer, the new debate etiquette is that you resort to personal attacks and name calling such as you're a pathetic, old, insufferable fuckass...

And you paid how much for your Wake education to provide you the ability to offer such a scholarly assessment?
Click to expand...

you and i have a very different viewpoint on what is moral. mine does not involve demeaning and taking away inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) from american citizens (and human beings).
 
RJKarl said:
Oldman, I want ask you directly - do you think LGBTQ Americans deserve equal right with straight Americans?

Do you believe that it should legal for business owners to discriminate against LGBTQ citizens?
Click to expand...

Question for you rj;

There's a band that plays weddings and their members could be Christian or Muslim or Jewish - doesn't matter, but they hold beliefs that are not in line with gay marriage. Assuming they are available for that date, should they be forced to play that wedding?
 
EagleDeac said:
Question for you rj;

There's a band that plays weddings and their members could be Christian or Muslim or Jewish - doesn't matter, but they hold beliefs that are not in line with gay marriage. Assuming they are available for that date, should they be forced to play that wedding?
Click to expand...

Do they believe in capitalism?
 
EagleDeac said:
Question for you rj;

There's a band that plays weddings and their members could be Christian or Muslim or Jewish - doesn't matter, but they hold beliefs that are not in line with gay marriage. Assuming they are available for that date, should they be forced to play that wedding?
Click to expand...

how are they forced? they can decline the gig.
 
EagleDeac said:
Question for you rj;

There's a band that plays weddings and their members could be Christian or Muslim or Jewish - doesn't matter, but they hold beliefs that are not in line with gay marriage. Assuming they are available for that date, should they be forced to play that wedding?
Click to expand...

If they sign a contract to play that gig, damn right they should forced to play.

If they didn't sign a contract and turned the gay couple down,I'd make sure everyone knew they were discriminating against gays.

But this is apples and oranges. Bands don't have stores or places of business. They aren't protected on a daily basis by the police or fire departments at their offices. You can't compare a band to a place of public accommodation.

If a business is open to the public, it must serve the entire public that is legally allowed in the establishment.
 
Eagle, for the sake of argument(obviously I don't believe this), let's say being gay is a choice. There's no doubt being a Christian is a choice. Why should the government allow the choice of being Christian to be protected but not the choice of being gay?

Also, if it's OK to deny service to gays on religious grounds, why isn't legal for a Muslim owned business allowed to deny service to infidel Christians? It's the EXACT same principle.
 
RJKarl said:
Eagle, for the sake of argument(obviously I don't believe this), let's say being gay is a choice. There's no doubt being a Christian is a choice. Why should the government allow the choice of being Christian to be protected but not the choice of being gay?

Also, if it's OK to deny service to gays on religious grounds, why isn't legal for a Muslim owned business allowed to deny service to infidel Christians? It's the EXACT same principle.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, businesses at a location should be open to all and provide to all whatever they provide normally. Do you believe a bakery (that believes otherwise) should have to provide a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top