Yeah, but you brought up an illegal drug-making activity. I didn't want to parse out one legality, within another legality, and take civil liberty laws into the same space as civil rights laws. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Yeah, but you brought up an illegal drug-making activity. I didn't want to parse out one legality, within another legality, and take civil liberty laws into the same space as civil rights laws. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I'm just pointing out that property rights are granted through law (no distinction between categories), not something you're born with. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Oh, duh, now I see what you meant! The distinction between inalienable human rights, civil rights, and property rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I'm still not quite sure I've understood what Enoch meant.....:(
In regards to property rights and people arguing the whole "But but the government has to intervene, has to force itself onto companies, onto the people"
The video is about the 100 year history of IBM (if you can spare 30minutes, well worth watching), but if you fastforward it to 8:39 and watch it til 11:36, you'll see why it's relevant to the discussion. To sum it up, IBM introduced certain policies in regards to discrimination decades before the US government gave itself the right to force them.
Kudos to IBM. Too bad the theory that "set a good example and others will follow" didn't catch on with other corporations of that era, huh. See the Walmart gender discrimination law suit. Today, women (in general) are still being paid less than men for the same work.
I've said, now four times if I've counted correctly, that government services should, by law, not be able to discriminate.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I am not going to say it again.
Methinks you're being an artful dodger, and not answering questions you don't have answers to.Quote:
Methinks you're trying to conflate too many issues just to support your ideology.
Tangential and extreme hypotheticals? Say, like a town that is comprised entirely of racists, from mayor to county recorder, to every business owner and realtor? Because I'd never want to do something like that to support my ideology! :weird:Quote:
See, you're again engaging in tangential and extremist hypotheticals, to support your ideology. But let's break that one down:
Bars and liquor stores are open to the public within limits as well.Quote:
Nevada has legal brothels and legal prostitution open to the public within limits.
That bunny ranch prostitute is not offering a public service, but a private service offered to the public within limits.
Her body is not "open to the public" as the bunny ranch is. There are limits and restrictions made in her favor and protection.
You can make requests as a patron, but your "demands" may not fall within limits.
A bartender is not offering a public service, but a private service offered to the public within limits.
Why shouldn't the bar tender be able to choose who he serves?
Since we established that conservatives are evil and should be discriminated against, can I take it that the people here who think the gay couple shouldn't have been discriminated against also think that it would be ok if a hotel refused to let in guests who were conservative?
I think you might be taking a joke response a bit too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Also, any hotel refusing service to conservatives would be insane, don't you know they all have guns?
I'm being serious. Let's say the hotel owners are "liberal", and the guests come in with a "Obama is a Muslim" sign or something of the sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
If you want, I can argue the usual "opinions are choices, sexuality isn't", but my heart won't be in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
At the moment that they step into the hotel, the guests hardly have a choice to change their ideology. And are you seriously suggesting that people should change their (legal) ideology just so they wouldn't be discriminated again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Or how about black people that can pass for being white? Should they just say they're white if they go to a hotel that doesn't accept blacks?
Sure, but anti-discrimination laws tend to be put into place to help people from discrimination they can't fight against; it costs a lot of money to turn yourself white if you're born black, and we both know how well homosexuality re-programming works, and so on. The people who chose to be assholes should face the consequences of that choice, just like poor people have to face the consequences of choosing to be poor, isn't that what conservatives believe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Again, even superficially changing appearance from black to white is expensive and unless society is willing to subsidize it, it's easier to just tell hotel owners that they have to accept the pigmentationally challenged as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Ah, so now you're supporting thought-crime. Wonderful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I was referring to people with black parents who actually look white (usually as a result of a white grandparent).Quote:
Again, even superficially changing appearance from black to white is expensive and unless society is willing to subsidize it, it's easier to just tell hotel owners that they have to accept the pigmentationally challenged as well.
I wasn't aware being denied lodging at a motel was a part of the judicial system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I know? But so long as there are blacks who require extensive surgery/kidney medication to appear white, they are needlessly hindered economically for things beyond their own volition or control. This is not true for conservatives; at any point in their lives they can choose to research things for themselves and realize that most of what they're being told is a lie. Of course this holds true for religion as well, and it is very problematic to de-program yourself from such a huge cultural load, but as I told you, my heart's not in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You're allowing for immoral acts against people purely on the basis of their thoughts, not their actions. Then again, you do seem to think that anyone who has different political or economic views than you is immoral and irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Immoral is, as evidenced by this discussion, in the eye of the beholder. And I wouldn't think highly of a hotel refusing entry to people believing Nixon was a lizard, but I do think professors should have the right not to take PhD students who are Creationists. Assuming their field has anything to do with biological science. That's discrimination based purely on the thoughts of the poor student, but you can't do serious science and be a creationist. *shrug*Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I suppose Dread will tell me these sentiments in about two months time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Again, discrimination for thoughts, and not actual qualifications. You're also falsely assuming that just because someone has a few "stupid" thoughts, it must mean they're stupid in general. You'd be surprised how well people can divorce their personal views from their research. Almost everyone in my field is opposed to war, yet that doesn't preclude them from doing good research on the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
You honestly don't agree? Coincidentally, I'm fairly sure you believe Dread is immoral and irrational.Quote:
I suppose Dread will tell me these sentiments in about two months time?
Which explains why you insist on discussing things with me :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
How do you propose to separate actual qualifications from "just" thoughts? Can an atheist be a good scholar of religious thought? Can a vegan be a good meat chef?
I'm not quite so obsessed with moral and immoral as you seem to be; Dread's more incomprehensible than immoral or irrational. I can't grasp his thought processes to a sufficient degree so as to determine whether he's irrational. What I meant was, his personal insults towards me tend to follow your thoughts, which was meant as a hint that personal insults aren't very productive to the conversation. I'm a complete hypocrite saying that, but what else is new?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm hoping that you'll come to your senses one day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
The theology college in the University of Chicago is one of the best in the US, and has numerous atheists (in fact, many top "Just War" scholars, which is a field originally created by the Catholic Church, are atheists). I would imagine the same would apply to vegans, as long as they were willing to work with meat.
I fail to see how that was a personal insult. You do look down on people who disagree with you politically/economically. I look at McCain and Obama, and only see that they have different constituencies and different methods of coming to power. You look at McCain and Obama and see one as a good, rational person and the other as an evil moron.Quote:
I'm not quite so obsessed with moral and immoral as you seem to be; Dread's more incomprehensible than immoral or irrational. I can't grasp his thought processes to a sufficient degree so as to determine whether he's irrational. What I meant was, his personal insults towards me tend to follow your thoughts, which was meant as a hint that personal insults aren't very productive to the conversation. I'm a complete hypocrite saying that, but what else is new?
You didn't answer the question!Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
McCain isn't a moron. His behaviour vis a vis faggots in the military does make him somewhat immoral (or rather, amoral) in my eyes, but I don't know much about McCain's other activities so I don't know how immoral he is compared to the average Congressman. (I would suspect most of them are immoral, though). I also don't have unreserved love for Obama, he has failed on several occasions and comes off as a lackluster, timid president. Neither of which are qualities that'd paint him as "good" (inasmuch as I believe in the concept) or rational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
As an aside, I love how you open with "this can't be insulting" and proceed to paint yourself as a neutral, objective observer and me as some kind of Manicheanism-obsessed jackass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Except you have consistently attacked the morality and/or rationality of people you disagreed with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
It's very convenient to make broad, unqualified statements like that, but what worth are they? You've been upset in the past when I've called you Prince of Lies, but how about this? You have consistently lied and omitted information to bolster your own arguments. It's probably true, but a statement like that is virtually meaningless when we're discussing you as a poster. And since when are we discussing you as a poster? Or me? Since you decided to edit in a personal jab?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Also, I'm going to bet dollars to donuts that when I've unfairly attacked someone's rationality I was drunk.
*shrug* If you really don't accept that, fine.
Except you're going to bring it up again within a week. Maybe throw in a bit of how I'm unscientific, if you're feeling particularly down that day. Can we just have a "Nessus sucks" megathread in the silly forum, and discuss the issues on this one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I assume this was an attempted metaphor, so I won't do more than nitpick. You do own property. The local jurisdiction can seize and impound it if you don't follow their rules, but they did not and do not have ownership of the property themselves. They may, in the future, claim abandoned goods to dispose of as they please but they can only do so with property that has been abandoned and on which no one steps forward to claim ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Can we just have "Nessus applies same standards to the social world she applies to the physical world" threads instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I have no problem with whatever you call the thread, just start one already!Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That would be immoral and irrational. :o
It would help the level of conversation in oh over half the threads on the first page