Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[untermensche]

My standard says a cake with no words is not a message.

I meant your other standard, namely the one I was quoting, namely the one that says "A message is something where the receiver of the message can understand the message."

By your standard, it seems my reply "Estás mandando cualquiera." is not a message because you can't understand it.

If I don't understand Spanish you can speak it all day and none of it will be a message to me.

But a cake with no words is not a message at all.

It is not a message to anyone.

 

[Emily Lake]

By the company you keep in this forum. Your less than full throated endorsement leads me to believe that I was correct in my assessment that you do not "fully support #BLM". Also the above is a very good reason not to imagine you have won an argument on the internet because you think you have more brown and/ or gay posters on your side. You don't know who you are talking to due to the nature of the forum.

Lol, okay. So I agree with Metaphor and TomC and *gasp* Derek on a few topics, mostly focused on the conflict between trans activism and women's rights. I also disagree with Metaphor rather loudly on women's right and safety. I also argue against Loren Pechtel's "women's differences in outcome are totally just because of their own choices" narrative. And I disagree with Derek on the topic of almost every single race-related incident.

But because I agree with some of them on this one topic, you've got me all figured out? I'm one-dimensional, and there's no need to actually engage me in discussion when you can just cast aspersion by association instead?

Or maybe you missed the point that it wasn't even about #BLM, but rather it was about your wholly asinine comments that indicate you think the side with more brown and/or gay people on it in this discussion gets to win the internet.

Hmm. That's an interesting framing. Noting that there is a general tendency for the discriminated against to hold the first amendment in higher overall value than the discriminated for is "winning the internet"? I don't think this discussion is anywhere near being "won", I just think it's interesting to note that the handful of people who are arguing for the first amendment right of the baker all share a common type of experience - one which the majority of people happy to sacrifice the baker's rights to the desires of a customer don't generally experience.

 

[Emily Lake]

The fantastical apologetics in the above post are worse than I've seen with creationism.

Would you care to be a bit more specific about what you consider to be "apologetics" that makes it akin to creationism?

Yeah, it was a bunch of bullshit before. Now, you've created ad hoc hypotheses counter to facts and studies, just like creationists and other fundamentalists do. You've made the bullshit worse by doubling down and adding even more complex bullshit to it.

Got it. The rights of women, lesbians and gay men are unimportant to you.

 

[Emily Lake]

There you go.

No message.

No message because you say so? You have the good fortune to live in a place and time enlightened enough that it's a long-settled issue; nearly everyone who ever saw a suffragette march is dead. If we were having this discussion a hundred years ago you'd be in doubt that the ribbon carried the message "I support women's right to vote."

That ribbon is making a come-back. Across most of the developed world, women's rights are under attack, and a LOT of women are adopting that ribbon again, and protesting the erosion of our rights, our safety, our dignity, and our humanity.

Take a wander through twitter and keep an eye out for the purple-white-green hearts. Those are women's rights activists sending their bat-signal out.

 

[Emily Lake]

No message because I got no message from it.

I could clearly observe it and it had no message.

You say it stood for something.

That is not a message to me.

What about the first and the third image? No message for those too?

 

[untermensche]

Not cakes with no writing or symbols in an ordinary shape.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not cakes with no writing or symbols in an ordinary shape.

What does this mean?

 

[untermensche]

Not cakes with no writing or symbols in an ordinary shape.

What does this mean?

It means my position is that a cake in an ordinary shape with no writing or symbols is not a message.

To anyone.

Even if a person pretends the cake has a message.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not cakes with no writing or symbols in an ordinary shape.

What does this mean?

It means my position is that a cake in an ordinary shape with no writing or symbols is not a message.

To anyone.

Even if a person pretends the cake has a message.

Did the other two images in my prior post have messages?

 

[untermensche]

What could it matter?

Non sequitur.

 

[Emily Lake]

What could it matter?

Non sequitur.

It matters because you're making the argument that because YOU don't comprehend the message, no message exists.

For the three images that I presented, you claimed that there was no message in the second image, but you did not address either of the other two images. You did not recognize the message inherent in the second image, thus you concluded that no message existed.

I infer that you *did* recognize the message inherent in the first and the third images, and that because you recognize the message, you have chosen to pretend they don't exist, so as to not weaken your argument.

In other words, you're dodging.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

My standard says a cake with no words is not a message.

I meant your other standard, namely the one I was quoting, namely the one that says "A message is something where the receiver of the message can understand the message."

By your standard, it seems my reply "Estás mandando cualquiera." is not a message because you can't understand it.

If I don't understand Spanish you can speak it all day and none of it will be a message to me.

But a cake with no words is not a message at all.

It is not a message to anyone.

You said it was not a message, not it was not a message "to me". That was your standard; "A message is something where the receiver of the message can understand the message.". And what do you mean by not a message "to me"? Does it contain a message, or does it not?
As for a cake with no words, of course messages can use symbols other than words, such as swastikas. Or depending on context, color schemes.

 

[untermensche]

What could it matter?

Non sequitur.

It matters because you're making the argument that because YOU don't comprehend the message, no message exists.

For the three images that I presented, you claimed that there was no message in the second image, but you did not address either of the other two images. You did not recognize the message inherent in the second image, thus you concluded that no message existed.

I infer that you *did* recognize the message inherent in the first and the third images, and that because you recognize the message, you have chosen to pretend they don't exist, so as to not weaken your argument.

In other words, you're dodging.

None of that has any meaning to me. Total non sequitur.

This is about a cake with no message.

My argument is not that nothing has a message.

It is that a cake of ordinary shape with no letters or symbols on it has a message.

Talk to me about that if you want to address this issue.

 

[untermensche]

If I don't understand Spanish you can speak it all day and none of it will be a message to me.

But a cake with no words is not a message at all.

It is not a message to anyone.

You said it was not a message, not it was not a message "to me". That was your standard; "A message is something where the receiver of the message can understand the message.". And what do you mean by not a message "to me"? Does it contain a message, or does it not?
As for a cake with no words, of course messages can use symbols other than words, such as swastikas. Or depending on context, color schemes.

I said a cake with no message has no message.

I never said words in Spanish are not a message to some people.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If I don't understand Spanish you can speak it all day and none of it will be a message to me.

But a cake with no words is not a message at all.

It is not a message to anyone.

You said it was not a message, not it was not a message "to me". That was your standard; "A message is something where the receiver of the message can understand the message.". And what do you mean by not a message "to me"? Does it contain a message, or does it not?
As for a cake with no words, of course messages can use symbols other than words, such as swastikas. Or depending on context, color schemes.

I said a cake with no message has no message.

I never said words in Spanish are not a message to some people.

You said "A message is something where the receiver of the message can understand the message."; also, you haven't explained the distinction between being a message, having a message, and and being a message "to some people".

 

[untermensche]

I said a cake with no message has no message.

I never said words in Spanish are not a message to some people.

You said "A message is something where the receiver of the message can understand the message."; also, you haven't explained the distinction between being a message, having a message, and and being a message "to some people".

I stand by that.

^*&^%%$U&^%E

Is that a message to you?

What is the specific message?

If I pretend it is a message does that now make it a message to you?

All messages exist in the mind.

Experience exists in the mind.

If I have the visual experience of an American flag the message is in my mind, not the flag. I have no way to experience the flag. I experience a created representation of the flag.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I said a cake with no message has no message.

I never said words in Spanish are not a message to some people.

You said "A message is something where the receiver of the message can understand the message."; also, you haven't explained the distinction between being a message, having a message, and and being a message "to some people".

I stand by that.

^*&^%%$U&^%E

Is that a message to you?

What is the specific message?

If I pretend it is a message does that now make it a message to you?

All messages exist in the mind.

Experience exists in the mind.

If I have the visual experience of an American flag the message is in my mind, not the flag. I have no way to experience the flag. I experience a created representation of the flag.

By your own standard, my previous "Estás mandando cualquiera" is not a message (and it's not just Spanish by the way; it's local slang that say Google translate would not get). Remember, you said "A message is something where the receiver of the message can understand the message.", but you could not understand it.

Also, you failed to explain the distinction between being a message, having a message, and being a message "to you", etc., so I don't know what you mean by your question.

 

[untermensche]

I stand by that.

^*&^%%$U&^%E

Is that a message to you?

What is the specific message?

If I pretend it is a message does that now make it a message to you?

All messages exist in the mind.

Experience exists in the mind.

If I have the visual experience of an American flag the message is in my mind, not the flag. I have no way to experience the flag. I experience a created representation of the flag.

By your own standard, my previous "Estás mandando cualquiera" is not a message (and it's not just Spanish by the way; it's local slang that say Google translate would not get). Remember, you said "A message is something where the receiver of the message can understand the message.", but you could not understand it.

Also, you failed to explain the distinction between being a message, having a message, and being a message "to you", etc., so I don't know what you mean by your question.

Yes. For something to be a message for me I must understand it.

I know that people can have secret hand gestures.

When they give the gesture it is a message to some and not a message to others.

To be a message the person must understand the message.

But there is also the case of a cake with no message to anyone.

I made it clear. Messages are something in minds. Nothing in the world has the property of being a message. An experience of something in the mind may be understood and therefore a message to that mind.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yeah, it was a bunch of bullshit before. Now, you've created ad hoc hypotheses counter to facts and studies, just like creationists and other fundamentalists do. You've made the bullshit worse by doubling down and adding even more complex bullshit to it.

Got it. The rights of women, lesbians and gay men are unimportant to you.

Wow. I am learning all these interesting things about myself.

First, you claimed I never felt discrimination, prejudice, or mistreatment. Neither did anyone else on "my side"--your division of people.

Then, you made up a bunch of stuff not worth even trying to debunk because it is so nonsensical when you put the puzzle pieces together.

And because I called it bullshit (because you shifted your original claims with apologetics), now suddenly I don't care about lesbians!

If you're going to launch personal attacks, you could at least get the story straight from beginning to end.

 

[KeepTalking]

By the company you keep in this forum. Your less than full throated endorsement leads me to believe that I was correct in my assessment that you do not "fully support #BLM". Also the above is a very good reason not to imagine you have won an argument on the internet because you think you have more brown and/ or gay posters on your side. You don't know who you are talking to due to the nature of the forum.

Lol, okay. So I agree with Metaphor and TomC and *gasp* Derek on a few topics, mostly focused on the conflict between trans activism and women's rights. I also disagree with Metaphor rather loudly on women's right and safety. I also argue against Loren Pechtel's "women's differences in outcome are totally just because of their own choices" narrative. And I disagree with Derek on the topic of almost every single race-related incident.

Maybe the issue is that every time I disagree with you, or you disagree with me, you are taking the same side as those individuals, and that colors my perception of you. Maybe that is another reason to not imagine that you are somehow on the more virtuous side because you think you know who is who in a discussion on the internet.

But because I agree with some of them on this one topic, you've got me all figured out? I'm one-dimensional, and there's no need to actually engage me in discussion when you can just cast aspersion by association instead?

Isn't that exactly what you were trying to do? No need to engage in discussion because you think you have more brown and/or gay people on your side, right? I'm sorry you don't like having your abhorrent attitude reflected back at you.

Or maybe you missed the point that it wasn't even about #BLM, but rather it was about your wholly asinine comments that indicate you think the side with more brown and/or gay people on it in this discussion gets to win the internet.

Hmm. That's an interesting framing. Noting that there is a general tendency for the discriminated against to hold the first amendment in higher overall value than the discriminated for is "winning the internet"?

i tried to use a humorous turn of phrase to inject some levity into the discussion. I won't apologize for it, it is just a thing that I do. Don't worry, I'm not likely to quit my day job.

I don't think this discussion is anywhere near being "won", I just think it's interesting to note that the handful of people who are arguing for the first amendment right of the baker all share a common type of experience - one which the majority of people happy to sacrifice the baker's rights to the desires of a customer don't generally experience.

Why is it interesting? What does it add to the discussion? How can you even be sure that you are correct in your assessment when you are in a discussion with random people on the internet, and you did some pretty damn good cherry picking when deciding who to name as participants in this discussion. Further, you have no idea who among us has faced discrimination, or why.