Which is more evil, meat, soy, gluten, or southpaws?

[freebeard]

We're assuming any of those are evil.

We're not assuming any of those are evil. We are being challenged to champion one over the others.

Un-fermented soy is an estrogen mimic.

People who eat with their right hand and don't wash their left are... *sinister*

Meat is what we are made of: Meat*

Isn't gluten a Biblical sin?

*

"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."

[Xist]

Wait, left-handed people are not necessarily evil? Since when?!

Good story

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by freebeard

We're not assuming any of those are evil. We are being challenged to champion one over the others.

Un-fermented soy is an estrogen mimic.

People who eat with their right hand and don't wash their left are... *sinister*

Meat is what we are made of: Meat*

Isn't gluten a Biblical sin?

*

Title suggested all are evil; which is the most

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Perhaps if you care about how awkward/slow someone is, a better measure would be to measure how awkward/slow they are, rather than weight?

The military does measure and set standards for speed. Weight is generally relevant to health, performance and safety. While performance is the most important consideration, projecting an image of strength and fitness is also important. If the US military looked like the average American, nobody would take us seriously.

Originally Posted by freebeard

I thought discrimination is only possible for things you have no control over (sub-species, sex, age).

I'm not fond of how the word discrimination is commonly used. To discriminate is to observe and understand differences. It's a necessary skill. Someone who treats someone else unjustly is just an a-hole.

... and this is brings up another complaint of mine. What's the deal with "hate crimes"? What does motivation for a crime have to do with consequences? Isn't murder normally motivated by hatred? Does it matter if the killer hated Bob in particular, or red-heads in general?

[Natalya]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

... and this is brings up another complaint of mine. What's the deal with "hate crimes"? What does motivation for a crime have to do with consequences? Isn't murder normally motivated by hatred? Does it matter if the killer hated Bob in particular, or red-heads in general?

Hate crimes are a type of act of terror against a community. So the victim suffers//dies, but the victim's community also suffers.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Natalya

Hate crimes are a type of act of terror against a community. So the victim suffers//dies, but the victim's community also suffers.

Sure, but Bob's family and community is terrorized and suffers too. That's why murder is illegal.

That brings up another thought; isn't all unexpected violence terrifying? Wouldn't a wealthy person be terrified if they were mugged? Couldn't it be considered a hate crime since the assailant "hates" the wealthy person by violently depriving them of property?

The law should only be concerned with punishing bad behavior, not bad thought.

[freebeard]

Hate crimes become micro aggressions and the entire community dis-integrates.

[redpoint5]

Does classifying a crime as one of hate reduce the hatred or acts thereof?

[Xist]

The term "micro aggressions" has never been self-explanatory to me, nor has my curiosity been roused, while I look up other terms and ideas all day.

How is a hate crime a micro aggression? I kill you because you do not capitalize your username, but it is only a micro aggression!

It always sounded like a small mean thing that could be ignored, if there were not hundreds of other mean things.

Then I need a safe space.

Are love crimes better than hate crimes?

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Un-fermented soy is an estrogen mimic.

So is broccoli. Those countries which eat a lot of soy have some of the longest-lived men in the world. What's the problem?

Originally Posted by freebeard

People who eat with their right hand and don't wash their left are... *sinister*

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm not fond of how the word discrimination is commonly used. To discriminate is to observe and understand differences. It's a necessary skill. Someone who treats someone else unjustly is just an a-hole.

I'm glad you pointed out that, at its most simple, discrimination is practically a definition of life. There are, however, specific kinds of discrimination which act as feedback loops and perpetuate social problems.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

... and this is brings up another complaint of mine. What's the deal with "hate crimes"? What does motivation for a crime have to do with consequences? Isn't murder normally motivated by hatred? Does it matter if the killer hated Bob in particular, or red-heads in general?

I'm not actually certain regarding the consequences of a "hate crime" vs one of passion (for instance). I can understand why "the law" may be tempted to discriminate against certain belief systems and behavioral patterns which cause systematic (as opposed to isolated) increases in violence. Or, in other words, draw clear lines about what is considered socially acceptable behavior by classifying certain ways of thinking as "wrong". Whether this is good or right or the law's place, I'm not sure, but I can see it being effective.

Originally Posted by Xist

The term "micro aggressions" has never been self-explanatory to me, nor has my curiosity been roused, while I look up other terms and ideas all day.

How is a hate crime a micro aggression? I kill you because you do not capitalize your username, but it is only a micro aggression!

It always sounded like a small mean thing that could be ignored, if there were not hundreds of other mean things.

Then I need a safe space.

Are love crimes better than hate crimes?

A hate crime isn't necessarily a microaggression. However, people who harbor belief systems which are unfairly discriminatory (or even fairly discriminatory) will often pick at those they discriminate against, even if it never comes to a crime. Or, less than that, just the way you behave toward someone is rarely isolated from how you think about them.


~

I'm a firm believer that "fair" is not always "equal".

Yes, maybe many blacks are more likely to sue a company over being fired on a discrimination basis. Do I envy the unfair protection they have by law enforcement and the judicial system? Do I wake up each morning thinking, "darn, I wish I had been born black in America 30 years ago"?

Is it right for a company to not hire someone for being black, under the basis that they're part of a group which has had widespread severe, systematic, unfair discrimination until very recently*? Because they might still be sensitive about issues they've seen in their own lifetimes? And still exist, at the very least, in pockets around the country?


*I'm ceding this point for the sake of attempting to establish some common ground

EDIT: I suppose it's hard to come to a consensus on what's fair, if you're not going to insist on equal treatment for everyone.