Posts by rapidmaker77

I am requesting a logical, thorough, and fair explanation
regarding the closure of my discussion thread:

If you were faced with a referendum to redefine marriage, but it came with a mandatory $33 fee,
would you cast your vote?
http://www.example.com/thread/805701

Furthermore, I ask the administrator to "uncensor" my engaging topic 🙂
.

Amanda Jackson5 As stated by:
Well, if you really insist on having it this way:

The Elegant Universe
The Elegant Universe Global Catastrophic
Risks here be Dragons_The Scientific quest for Extraterrestrial Life
Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition
Cognition Earth sciences Demystified Key Contemporary Concepts9rom Abjection
Key Contemporary Concepts_From Abjection to Zeno's Paradox
Paradox Key Thinkers fra Critical Theory to Post-Marxism Lost Histories
Post-Marxism Lost Histories~ Exploring The World's most Famous Mysteries
Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History
Cosmos and history Mystery of America_Enigmatic Mysteries and Anomalous Artifacts Neanderthals and Modern Humans Neurophilosophy
Neanderthals and Modern Humans
Neurophilosophy, by Patricia Churchland
on Deep history and The Brain Origins and Revolutions_Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory baš ti hvala uljepšati biti ja dan
on Deep history and The Brain Origins and Revolutions_Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory

Much appreciated.
You’ve truly made my day.🙂 I have always found a certain fascination in observing what people choose to read, what captures their curiosity, and which specific books they hold closest to their hearts.
I’ve only managed to get through The Elegant Universe from your list.
The rest of the items on this list fail to hold my interest entirely.

I'm heading out on a trip tomorrow, which involves at least five or six hours stuck on a bus. I'm currently weighing my options on which book to pack, primarily because I've decided against bringing my Amazon; there are just too many practical and security-related headaches involved with carrying it.😢

On my waiting list are...

Paolo Zelina’s *a brief history of infinity*. Italo Calvino was a huge fan of his work; he practically lived inside those pages.
The mystery of Aleph by Amir Aczel Word made flesh by ramsey dukes
Word made flesh by ramsey dukes—a work I highly recommend.
The Book of Lies.

If you want my absolute top recommendation—the one book that seems to hold the answers to every question ever asked since the dawn of time—look no further. It was written by a street vendor who used to sell cigarettes and trinkets in Mumbai. 😲 Yes.

Nisargadatta Maharaj's "I Am That." 🙏 🙏 🙏
(translated here as It’s me. One could easily track it down via torrents or through various other alternative channels.

There is a profound sense of liberation that comes from finally possessing the answers to life's most pressing questions. Reading *I Am That* provides a clarity that is hard to articulate; it’s an experience that fundamentally shifts one's perspective. While reading this work, it becomes increasingly evident that while giants like Hegel, Kant, and Heidegger were undoubtedly monumental philosophical figures, they never truly experienced the very realities they spent their lives attempting to intuit, grasp, and express through pure intellect.
If you find yourself wandering through the labyrinthine corridors of spiritual inquiry, you might eventually stumble upon Nisargadatta Maharaj. His work, specifically "I Am That," available on Amazon, serves as a profound anchor for those attempting to navigate the turbulent waters of self-realization. It isn't merely a book; it's more of a direct confrontation with the ego, stripped of all its usual pretenses and distractions. For anyone looking to peel back the layers of perceived identity, this remains an essential waypoint. (Noting the 208 five-star reviews)

There was this one vendor in Mumbai who sold nothing but cigarettes and trinkets, yet he wasn't just a philosopher on par with the greats; he actually managed to catch a glimpse into "the other dimension." 😉 (Which you would likely argue doesn't even exist) 🙂 He resided within her, and through her, he spoke.

There is something else coming—something you will undoubtedly dismiss with that trademark philosophical disdain of yours—but I feel compelled to say it, if only to shake you out of your classic philosophical slumber. Words, words, words. 🙂

If we are discussing the only truly enlightened Western philosopher—someone actually operating on the level of Nisargadatta—we are talking about Plotin. Period.

By the way, how do you usually consume these texts? Are you reading physical copies, or are you strictly a PDF or Amazon reader?

👋

Amanda Jackson5 said:Given the mountain of books already sitting on my nightstand waiting for attention, I can't imagine wasting any precious time on intellectual junk like that. It’s not even worth the effort since I can more or less guess what the content entails. If you actually have a substantive argument to present, go ahead and lay it out. But please, spare me the "exciting, well-grounded, and witty" pitch—that sounds more like a fever dream than reality.

Please, either send me a DM or just post them here—I’m begging you—tell me which 5 or 6 books are next on your list.
I have a massive soft spot for seeing what people are reading and what they actually recommend.🙂

Do you have a specific argument in favor of the existence of God in mind, or perhaps a particular
argument pulled directly from one of the books?

Amanda Jackson5 said:Since God most likely doesn't exist, there’s really no point in wasting breath asking why He chooses to permit certain things or withhold others.

You should definitely pick up this book:

Why there is almost certainly 😲God
(A rebuttal to Dawkins 😁)

written by Keith Ward, a philosopher from Oxford
-----------------------------------------

This is an engaging, well-grounded, and witty response to Richard Dawkins' bestseller, the illusion of God. It was penned by his colleague from Oxford, the philosopher and theologian Keith Ward, who plays with Dawkins' own chapter titles—essentially flipping his "no" into a "yes." In his introduction, the now-retired professor notes, "In recent years, Alister McGrath, a theologian with a PhD in molecular biology, and John Lennox, an associate professor of mathematics at Oxford, have authored an excellent volume addressing Dawkins' arguments. Now, it is my turn to rejoin the Oxford debate regarding God." This serves as yet another rebuttal to Dawkins from one of those believers whom Dawkins describes as perhaps "the most convincingly unpleasant character in all of fiction."

Gregory Turner71 said:Simply because it’s off-topic.

In this particular thread—arguably the most active and widely read discussion on religion on this entire platform, where we actually engage in meaningful debate and learn from one another—anything can be labeled "off-topic" if someone finds it inconvenient.
When you have participants engaged in a heated, fast-moving exchange, digressions are an inevitable byproduct of the process.

However, claiming that a moderator's standard post regarding intolerance
—specifically concerning those who were tearing down booths during a recently concluded local ballot initiative—was off-topic
is nothing short of self-delusion, as blue-bird's comments were directly relevant to the subject at hand.

It seems clear that you took issue with blue-bird's post, or perhaps my response to it, and decided you didn't want to deal with it any longer..😉

Technically, one could argue it falls outside the strict parameters of the topic, but anyone engaging in any degree of deep thought knows the true motivation behind that label.😉 I will leave it to the readers
to draw their own conclusions; which is precisely why I felt the need to "reincarnate" the dialogue between blue-bird and myself from memory.

This is roughly how I responded (recounting from memory and general sentiment)

''
This is a significant and honest insight, one certainly worthy of its own thread.

The core issue here is whether, just as there are hypocritical believers, there might also exist such a thing as a FALSE ATHEIST.😲
(I don't mean someone who secretly believes in God while claiming to be an atheist, but rather someone whose
underlying motivations fall far short of the actual ideals of atheism.)
------

There are two perspectives from two great thinkers regarding your post.

Karl Marx once observed, with profound wisdom,

that a true atheist is one who is entirely liberated from both religion and God.
---

And regarding that struggle for freedom you mentioned in relation to atheism, G.K. Chesterton wrote:

-"People who begin fighting against the Church in the name of liberty and humanity end up discarding both liberty and humanity just so they can continue their fight against the Church. Their enemies will wield every weapon imaginable against her—swords that cut their own fingers and torches that burn down their own homes...
They burned their own grain just to set fire to the Church; they destroyed their own resources just to destroy her. Any scrap would serve as a club to strike at the Church, even if it were merely the last splinter of wood left from their own shattered furniture."''

In the interest of full transparency, I will attempt to reconstruct these posts for those of you reading along, though it would be far more efficient if someone simply uploaded the complete threads:

Based on my memory and the general gist of the content:
Blue bird wrote something along these lines:

--------------------------------------------------

-- "I am increasingly finding myself believing in a kind of non-believer fundamentalism.😢
I am nearly at the point where I might start believing in militant atheism—something I used to find horrifying and assumed was non-existent.

-- In this thread, believers are being pilloried and smeared quite easily, all under the guise of fighting for freedom and progress. I am genuinely embarrassed by some of you.😲

A peculiar situation unfolded this morning regarding the discussion thread titled "Social and Religious Perspectives on Homosexuality."

Initially, the moderator, blue-bird, shared a rather insightful and profound observation
which I subsequently quoted in its entirety within my own response to create a new post.

However, by this afternoon, I noticed that both the moderator’s original standalone post
and my follow-up response😕
have vanished entirely.
🤷 I haven't received any notifications or disciplinary notices via DM, so I am quite perplexed by the lack of clarity.

Does anyone know who removed the posts, including the moderator's own contribution?🤷
Was it her own doing😲 or was someone else behind it?
And more importantly, what was the rationale for the deletion?
It struck me that her initial thought and my subsequent reaction😍 offered a truly excellent exchange of ideas and perspectives.🙂

In the interest of transparency and maintaining the public record of this forum, would it be possible for someone to restore both of our posts so we can see the context of the discussion?🙂

Grace Kim80 said:Yeah, it was moved.

Here is the thread you're looking for, rapidmaker77.

Fine, but

1) I still haven't received an answer as to why the entire thread was deleted and then eventually buried under an endless sea of posts in some massive discussion about homosexuality and religion, especially AFTER I explicitly asked the moderators not to do that. 🤷

Because Stanković and Željka Markić deserve their own dedicated space.😁

2) On top of that, what used to be a standalone topic has been reduced to a single minor post that was pushed back two days into a thread that's already 400 posts deep, effectively ensuring no one will ever see or comment on it.😢

Am I allowed to just copy my original post and republish it as a fresh opening thread without facing any disciplinary action?.🤷

I have a few questions and would appreciate some guidance from the moderators and site administration:

1) I’m looking for a reasoned explanation as to who decided to delete my thread—which, frankly, required a significant amount of effort—and what the specific reasoning was behind such an abrupt removal without any context provided. 🤷

2) Is it possible for me to revise the topic? Furthermore, what specific elements should I prune or expand upon to ensure the discussion remains substantive and sustains engagement over the long term?🙂

3) Would it be permissible to repost the entirety of my introductory text over in the Religion section, provided it is submitted as a single reply within an existing thread rather than a standalone topic?

Questions regarding homosexuality from both sociological and theological perspectives—a comprehensive discussion topic.

My thread and poll regarding religion were deleted without explanation or penalty, despite the significant effort I put into them. Here was the original topic:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, I would ask the moderators not to bury this discussion within the existing threads concerning homosexuality.

I believe this subject warrants its own dedicated space and specific inquiries, given that it concerns a highly watched Sunday afternoon program featuring a very topical guest, Željka Markić.

We can evaluate and discuss what kind of impression Željka Markić left on you, and specifically: do you feel Željka Markić successfully argued the positions held by the "Family Values" initiative during the broadcast?

1) Can we use this thread to discuss the impact of watching a dialogue between a host and a Catholic who possess entirely different worldviews?

2) Was the dialogue constructive and characterized by mutual respect?

3) What is your impression of a Catholic who holds a university degree, speaks five languages, and lacks the traits many forum users
claim all Catholics possess—such as being narrow-minded, regressive, stuck in the Middle Ages, or possessing the education level of a fourth grader?

4) Is she a member of Opus Dei? If so, does that factor into her perspective; if not, does it matter?

The full broadcast can be found here:

The link to the article in the New York Post is here:

If I were to play the psychic, I would predict that the results of a poll here would be diametrically opposed to the findings in the New York Post.

Specifically, in the paper, as many as 78% of people😲voted that ŽM argued the positions of the Family Values initiative effectively.

By the way,it is interesting to observe how the majority of forum poll results fail to correlate with and remain irrelevant to real-world sentiment or mainstream news coverage.😲

In other words, on this forum, both the Family Values initiative and Željka Markić would likely lose.

In your opinion, who emerged victorious in the debate between Ace and Željka Markić??
------------------------------------------------

Some forums are reporting it this way:

-"Ace was completely overwhelmed. It was obvious. He went up against someone significantly more intelligent than himself. If I were in his shoes, I’d ask: what was I thinking?
Perhaps he isn't the right person to host these types of programs at all. He seemed somewhat incompetent. Maybe he should stick to hosting children's shows."

----
-"Our friend Željka dominated the puffed-up Ace. Even though we differ greatly ideologically, I fully support the association led by Željka."

silentviper19 said:... because most people were still quite narrow-minded and if they had required the AP to settle things via a vote, wouldn't that just pressure people into shifting their views slightly to appear "normal"
? Yet, from what I can see, that hasn't changed things much today either.

Hold on, do you honestly believe that three thousand eight hundred psychiatrists voting
to label homosexuality a disorder was simply due to being backward😲

and that through a majority vote, one can establish an absolute TRUTH regarding
worldviews and opinions that we are all forced to adhere to under threat of sanction?

Do you truly think that if someone views homosexuality as a disorder, they are "backward"😲 ,while you, by disagreeing, represent the cutting edge of humanity😲?

How is it not obvious to you that there is no objective truth when it comes to ideas that cannot be "objectified" or settled by a show of hands?

If psychiatrists voted that God does not exist, would you then go around swinging a police baton on the streets or using a moderator's mouse on a forum to erase anyone who dares to question a vote concerning God, or rather, HUMAN IDEAS AND BELIEFS?😲

Ryan Vaughn7 said:As I recently mentioned to a colleague over at the FBI—and I’ll say it again—this political subforum does not tolerate homosexuality being treated as a psychiatric diagnosis. If you want to argue that it should be, why shouldn't we discuss similar connotations? This is a well-established stance from the moderators and isn't anything new. Try moving to a different subforum; maybe you'll get away with it there, who knows. But here on Politics, that kind of rhetoric gets you a rule violation, regardless of what TIME was reporting forty years ago.

Good grief, man, where in that TIME article does it actually state that homosexuality is a psychiatric diagnosis? You can't just go around accusing news outlets and forum members of implying "connotations" based on historical facts and actual data!

By your logic, every man is a potential rapist simply because he has a penis and all those other CONNOTATIONS SURROUNDING THE PENIS 🙄, and because of those connotations, he connotatively threatens innocent women nearby, so men should just be banned from approaching women altogether.🙄

The text you deleted provided a nuanced historical analysis and various perspectives.🤷

Why delete someone else's hard work and research?
Have you considered punishing the post🙄 while leaving it up, since it provides valuable data for anyone writing or researching this topic?

I would love to hear the administrator's stance on this specific moderator POLICY
where the POLICY is that a legitimate thesis regarding homosexuality being a disorder cannot be hermeneutically analyzed or even questioned.🤷

How is such one-sidedness even permitted on a PUBLIC forum for discussion?🤷

Is it also unacceptable to say that nearsightedness is a visual impairment because it might "offend"
people who wear glasses?🙄

Yet, at the same time, it's perfectly fine to say the most vitriolic things imaginable about initiatives or worldviews that the moderator simply doesn't like.🤷

I find it fascinating that the people censoring others' work and opinions truly believe they are being fair and democratic, while everyone else is just there to be proudly censored by them.

Congratulations on a masterclass in public self-delusion! 👏

rustydrifter10 said:A poll like this has no business being on the FBI forum because its results lack any real relevance here; anyone can vote however they please, making any appeal to such data completely futile. Generally speaking, polls aren't tools for establishing facts—certainly not on a PDF like this—and they are rarely permitted, let alone in grievance threads.

But the intention behind a poll isn't to be Mandatory for the administration.😉

Isn't it a rather creative way to gauge the "vox populi"—the voice of the users and the rest of the
moderators?😉

Furthermore, why do you assume the forum members are just "anyone"?
Their opinion regarding a moderator's conduct is just as significant as
the public's opinion on how the government governs.

If it is understood that a poll is not Mandatory for the administration,
I believe prudent leadership could utilize such a creative mechanism to see what the people think about specific ministers, or in this case, moderators.😉

Therefore, I request that the wise leadership restore the poll to this thread and allow forum members elsewhere on the FBI forum
to vote on moderator actions during a dispute, provided there is a clause stating that the result is merely advisory and not mandatory. 🙂

I would like to formally notify both the community and the administration
that, alongside this thread, I have launched a poll to gauge whether the general membership,
the moderators, and the administration agree with the recent actions taken by the moderator
the edge.

I am requesting that the administration provide a reasoned explanation as to why my poll was deleted. Furthermore, I invite all members to look past the technicalities and the various justifications used to dismiss it, and instead😁...
within this discussion, express your actual thoughts regarding the moderator's decision to
delete content deemed inappropriate concerning the Newsweek article.

I’d like to offer my take on why the moderator decided to censor the Newsweek piece.

It boils down to a very simple motivation: he didn't like what was written in😉
. He took issue with it because the content clashes with his own worldview, leaving him without a substantive way to counter the argument.
Since it is notoriously difficult to argue against stubborn facts, he fell back on the only tactic left in the historical playbook:

Censorship is merely the logical extension of political moderation—it serves as an incredibly efficient tool whenever a preferred theory fails to align with reality.

It brings to mind that famous sentiment attributed to Stalin:

''If there is no man, there is no text—and if there is no text, there is no problem.''

Here is the text that was deleted—a move that cost me 30 points without even a single shred of explanation.
-----------------------------------------------------

Let’s inject a little actual "science" into our "roughly speaking" conversations.
It is frequently asserted that "scientific truth" dictates that homosexuality is no longer classified as a psychological disorder.
Do those people actually understand the process by which this supposed "truth" was manufactured?

Back in the 1970s, the psychiatric establishment actually classified homosexuality as a psychological disorder..

Back then, radical gay activists led by Frank Kameny were launching public assaults against various psychiatrists, just as he documented at the time. Newsweek: "

But even more than the government, it was the psychiatrists who bore the brunt of the activists' fury. Over the last two years, gay rights activists have been relentlessly disrupting psychiatric sessions—and just three months ago... A group of thirty gay activists forced their way into an American Psychiatric Association meeting in Washington, D.C.Bolstered by media figures and journalists like Andrew Sullivan and Mark Thompson—who were themselves active in gay rights circles—they maintained relentless political pressure until 1973, when the APA finally relented and made their decision. To cast a vote. 😲 The decision to strip homosexuality from the DSM was a watershed moment in clinical history, though many still struggle to grasp its significance. It wasn't merely a clerical update; it was a fundamental shift in how the medical establishment views human identity. For years, we operated under a framework that pathologized basic existence, treating orientation as a dysfunction to be cured rather than a variation to be understood. When the American Psychiatric Association finally took that step, they weren't just changing a manual—they were acknowledging that science had been wrong, and that the "disorder" lived more in our societal prejudices than in any biological pathology.

April 9, 1974. The election results have been released. Only 10,555 out of 17,905. Members of the American Psychiatric Association have cast their votes. The results are in:

The total number of voting members within the American Psychiatric Association stands at 17,905.
The actual turnout among APA members who cast their votes stands at 10,555.
Total count of those being held: 367.
The number of people who voted to keep homosexuality listed as a psychological disorder in the DSM stands at 3,810.
The number of individuals who cast their votes in favor of removing homosexuality from the DSM as a psychological disorder stands at 5,854.

It is telling that only 32% of the American Psychiatric Association membership actually voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM.

I'm looking for someone to walk me through this.

Since when did we decide that a popularity contest qualifies as a scientific method?

How would that vote play out in today's climate?🤷
What if, a century from now, the ballot box yields entirely different results?🤷
Does a consensus reached by psychiatrists from Japan, Russia, India, China, or Germany actually constitute some objective "truth" regarding homosexuality?

Did we really stumble upon the truths of mathematics, physics, and chemistry simply by raising our hands?
Is it all just a result of relentless lobbying and activist pressure?

Since when did shouting matches become a legitimate scientific method? 😲

Are we, as a society, obligated to respect these kinds of manufactured "truths"?
One should respect those who find comfort in the rule of the majority, provided that such a preference remains consistent.
Suddenly, seven hundred thousand people decide to "outvote" the truth all at once.
To claim that this constitutes discrimination is a stretch.

Last night, I posted an analysis regarding the topic of same-sex marriage—a piece that required significant research and effort.
Essentially, my post was a compilation of reporting from Newsweek combined with several key historical facts, along with some personal inquiries I had regarding the matter.

However, my post was deleted, and I was slapped with a 30-point penalty without any specific explanation provided.
The only justification given was a vague claim of "violating subforum rules."
I attempted to reach out to the moderator via private message to understand why the content was removed, but I have received no response.

I am now calling upon the administration and the community at large to review whether the moderator acted appropriately by deleting a text that simply relays information published by Newsweek.

I respectfully request that the administration permit the citation of reputable American news outlets, reinstate my original post,🙂 and rescind this unnecessary 30-point penalty.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Dear rapidmaker77,
it escapes me how someone who can clearly read and write fails to grasp the context in which something is defined as discrimination. Therefore, I shall assume—given your characteristically playful writing style—that you are merely "playing" to grab the readers' attention and provoke thought, which is a positive thing.

So... what you are suggesting isn't discrimination. A prohibition isn't inherently discriminatory if that prohibition applies to everyone equally. Not every law is discriminatory. However, for instance, the racial laws enacted during the Nazi era were undeniably discriminatory.

A truly discriminatory law would be one that places a specific racial, national, or religious group in a different position regarding rights and obligations compared to all other groups.
Or, personally speaking, if I were to follow the letter of the law and fulfill all my obligations just like everyone else, yet found myself denied the rights afforded to others, then I would be discriminated against. Or, conversely, if everyone else were permitted to bypass their legal duties while I alone was forced to comply—that would also constitute discrimination.

It seems the heart of your question lies within this rabbit hole, so go ahead and shake out whatever you're holding...
Are you trying to say that everyone feels discriminated against when they aren't, just so they can claim rights they don't actually possess?

I truly cannot say.🤷
Look, if you want my help navigating this current mess, I need you to be direct. Give me the facts, lay them out clearly, and once everything is perfectly transparent, I’ll provide you with an assessment that is both concrete and fair.
Is the legal definition of marriage—stating it is a union between a man and a woman—actually a positive or constructive piece of legislation?
Even a simple pairing of a man and a woman could be viewed as discriminatory.😉 And would you personally opt to replace him?
This law? It’s a total joke. It just jumps right over the mark!

That is why I assume—and considering your signaturely whimsical way of putting things—that you deliberately grab the reader's attention and stir up the forum just to provoke some actual thought, which I find to be a positive thing.

I didn't intend to go quite that deep; I simply wanted to gain some clarity for myself, with a bit of your help.
If I were ever appointed to the Supreme Court, I would develop a rigorous methodology and a sharp intuitive sense to identify discrimination the moment it crossed my bench. 😍

What would constitute a discriminatory law? It would be any legislation that places a specific racial, national, or religious group in a different position regarding rights and obligations compared to everyone else.
Personally, if I were to strictly adhere to the letter of the law like everyone else, yet find myself being denied my basic rights in the process, that would constitute discrimination. Conversely, if the law were applied such that anyone could bypass their legal obligations while I alone was held to account, that would be just as much a violation of equality.

You tend to gravitate toward simplistic racial archetypes and broad generalizations, yet reality is far more nuanced than those surface-level principles suggest.
After all, life inherently possesses two fundamental dimensions: goodness and quality.

It’s quite simple, really: everyone has their own particular brand of indulgence. Some people find solace in a glass of bourbon, while others prefer to lose themselves in a thick novel or head out for a long trek through the Rockies.
It is common knowledge that the government supports literacy by funding public libraries, which allows us to borrow books at little to no cost.

The government offers absolutely zero support when it comes to fostering the growth of local breweries or making affordable beer more accessible to the public.
Is there an inherent bias in our society against those who enjoy a drink, compared to the supposed moral superiority of readers and hikers?🤷 Just let me know when everything finally clicks for you.

It seems your question is hiding somewhere deep within this rabbit hole, so go ahead—shake it out and let's see what you've actually got.
Are you suggesting that everyone is simply manufacturing a sense of victimhood? It seems as though people are desperate to claim they’ve been discriminated against—even when they haven't—just so they can leverage the Civil Rights Act to grab entitlements they haven't actually earned.

Of course, the logic seems perfectly clear to me, though I suspect most people are struggling to grasp it. My intention was simply to inject some clarity into the discussion and see if anyone could point out where my own reasoning might be flawed.🤷
I’ll be the first to admit I lack any real knack for philosophical definitions or playing semantic games, but I have an immediate—intuitive, visceral, let’s call it "humanist" 😍 sense of the situation...

It wouldn't make any sense within the framework of discrimination laws to whine that regulations regarding public libraries or marriage laws are discriminatory toward people who just want to drink all day, or men who prefer certain sexual acts with other men.
The question is, why aren't those specific groups considered discriminated against?

It’s because the state—society at large—functions much like any major employer would. It has DECIDED and EVALUATED what its priorities should be; it has ESTABLISHED STANDARDS BASED ON what serves the collective interest and the greater good of the country, such as supporting readers or traditional family structures. 😍

So, when we ask whether such standards constitute discrimination, should we turn to Socrates or Plato for an answer? 😉
Or is it already obvious to us philosophers that anything serving the common good and maintaining high societal standards is, by definition, justified? 🙂

👋

Jonathan Brooks8 said:

I haven't been able to find any information regarding that specific term... I'm afraid I might be missing some context here. kaže:
Go ahead—name just one single law, in any country on this planet, that doesn't discriminate against someone...

The Civil Rights Act...
The Anti-Discrimination Act...
The Anti-Discrimination Act (published in the official federal register)...

Discrimination is essentially the systematic stripping away of equal rights—a process that leads directly to social division and segregation... It’s more than just an unfair act; it is the fundamental mechanism used to isolate individuals and dismantle the very concept of equality within our society.

Consider this: if you have a catalog listing 100 books from your library, and that catalog sits on a shelf alongside those same 100 books, does the catalog belong in the category of "books," or does it occupy some special niche? 🤷 😉
Do you then possess 100 books, or 101?

Is an act regulating anti-discrimination laws itself a law?
Technically, yes, but your response misses the essence of my inquiry, which was

Name me a single practical—not merely formalistic—law that no one finds discriminatory.

You will find that such a law simply does not exist. 😲

In other words:

To enact any law is, by its very nature, to limit certain rights or opportunities for some.😲

Therefore, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it is both absurd and pedantic to point a finger at the state, claiming it overlooked or "discriminated" against some minor entity, and then demand that absolutely no one be disadvantaged and that everyone receives their specific "rights" and every whim fulfilled.

I wanted to share my observation that we have birthed a modern chimera known as the IDOLATRY OF RIGHTS.
Driven by this selfish idolatry, people expect all their desires to be met,
cloaking these wants in the language of "rights" and scrutinizing every microscopic detail for any perceived slight against their interests.

As Marshall and the Party long ago noted—"the state is not a milk cow." 😲 😁