SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

[utbagpiper]

I notice you don't actually respond with what the intent of your post was, but instead divert attention. Does that tell me what I need to know about the intent of your post, Citizen?

1. Your first paragraph is non-sequitur. You didn't attack Nonameisgood in your last post because he was forcing someone to promote a message he disagreed with. He wasn't; and you know it.

I'm sure Nonameisgood is quite capable of defending himself. And given that you disagree with his position even stronger than I do, why are you jumping in other than a severe case of butt hurt over a sig line and the person who posted?

Further, I didn't attack him. I pointed out the fallacy of continuing to compare someone not wanting to promote a message to someone refusing to serve an individual based on some characteristic like skin color or even sexual orientation. I see a clear difference between denying service to an individual, and declining to promote a message. I'd like to discuss that difference with him.

I believe you reject any and all anti-discrimination laws and so I see nothing much to discuss with you in this regard.

To claim at the outset of the next paragraph that there is no common ground for a debate is just further diversion. You're not debating anything, you're dodging debate with a non-sequitur.

When you'd like to engage in honest, mature debate, rather than making snarky posts with clips from the monkey trial, we can try debating. Or even just friendly conversation. Until then, there is no common ground for debate as you are unable and willing to stick to the topic, but instead have a burning desire to go after personalities and sig lines. When you can show me the same respect you demand, when you can treat me as the equal you claim to be, we can talk. Until then, very little common ground. Your choice, my friend.

Demonstrate an ability to discuss topics and I may join you. Until then, no common ground. So get over the sig line and live with it. There a half dozen sig lines on this site I can take offense at for various reasons. I trust the same is true for others. Ignore it if it bothers you so.

I'm not an anarchist. I disagree with your social views. I get to express that in a civil way. Get used to it.

2. Your claim that you can respectfully, frankly, and honestly disagree is belied by the falsehood in your signature line about anarchists imposing their system on you. You know full well that anarchy is about consent, not imposing. There is nothing respectful, frank, or honest in that sig line's comment about imposing anarchy on others. You've been told over and over and over that nobody is stopping you from getting together with like-minded individuals and creating a compulsory government to rule yourselves. Not one anarchist would stop you; not one anarchist would impose anarchy on you.

I reject your characterization of anarchy. You would presume to behave in ways in my community that I and the vast majority of the rest of the community find abhorrent. THAT is imposing anarchy on us. That you do not believe some conduct actually "harms" us doesn't end the debate. We believe it does harm us. And so we limit or ban it.

You are free to go find a deserted patch of the world to practice your social order. That would be free consent as only those who agreed with you would join you and be impacted by your public conduct. Presuming to behave in existing communities, in ways that are grossly offensive to them, to prevent them from limiting conduct that would drive decent people from their public spaces, to prevent enforcement of contracts via legal courts, to prevent existing and established communities from imposing any rules that violate YOUR view of NAP/NIFF is you imposing your view of the proper social order--ie anarchy--on them.

You do not have special dispensation to define words. As I see it, you would impose anarchy on me and my community. And I want no part of that. Since I've now explained this to you, you can get over being hurt by my sig line and deal with the content of posts.

Or, you can continue to make far too much personal and see how that works out for you.

Charles

 

[Dave_pro2a]

You would presume to behave in ways in my community that I and the vast majority of the rest of the community find abhorrent

Keep your religion out out it please.

Most here are NOT part of 'your community,' nor do we want to be forcibly constrained by a religious influenced legal code.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I'm sure Nonameisgood is quite capable of defending himself. And given that you disagree with his position even stronger than I do, why are you jumping in other than a severe case of butt hurt over a sig line and the person who posted?

Says the guy who complained about my sigline, back when it had a link to an article about a Utah politician who wanted to legalize rape.

Hypocrisy is thick with you Utahpiper.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

The market never sorted out equality of _African Americanes_. It took government coercion to force people to do what most people today see as fair. The market was full of people who thought it was ok to discriminate. Even when I was a kid "the n-word" was acceptable. In one generation that has all but been eliminated from the zeitgeist. People know the word but would never say it out loud in the manner used up thru the 70's.
I dislike progressive politics and the PC excess in which we find ourselves. However, there does often come a time when leadership takes us in a better direction instead of leading from the back, as so many politicians prefer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cite the law that prohibited your use of the N word and you might have a point with your anecdote. Otherwise I believe your anecdote supports my point.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

The market never sorted out equality of _African Americanes_. It took government coercion to force people to do what most people today see as fair. The market was full of people who thought it was ok to discriminate. Even when I was a kid "the n-word" was acceptable. In one generation that has all but been eliminated from the zeitgeist. People know the word but would never say it out loud in the manner used up thru the 70's.
I dislike progressive politics and the PC excess in which we find ourselves. However, there does often come a time when leadership takes us in a better direction instead of leading from the back, as so many politicians prefer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just so I have this right. It took government coercion to sort out the inequity problem propagated for years by government laws? THIS is your proof a completely free market would not have fixed it?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Some say that they made the segregation laws to reduce violence associated with "mixing". I think it runs much deeper.
I worked with the first female engineering grad from Prairie View A&M (historically black college) and she told me "my family supplied to all the restaurants in town until the civil right movement started, then I had to go to the back door."

If we go back far enough, Texas outlawed carry of handguns expressly to keep the freedmen and carpetbaggers from carrying here. Our current history of racial discrimination started with black slaves and conquered native tribes. Anyone who wasn't a white European was suspect and treated differently. For gods sake, we counted free African Americanes as 3/5 of a person because of this.
The recognition of injustice is always ripe for relief.
And someone else getting what you've always had doesn't diminish what you have. (An economist might argue since they think there is never a win-win except to the guy who wins more)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some say lots of balderdash.

The truth of the matter was many folks even bigoted ones were just fine serving other ethnicities and the state couldn't have that mixing so they outlawed it.

You don't seem to understand that the 3/5th clause was to limit power in government. Not a statement of personhood.

Your last line makes no sense. First I am for liberty for all....I don't think people who are not like me getting what they want or what I had diminishes anything. Also economist argue no such thing unless they are government socialistic economist. Most economist recognize most voluntary trade is a win win for both sides.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

"During the late 1800s, private streetcar companies in Augusta, Houston, Jacksonville, Mobile, Montgomery and Memphis were not segregated, but by the early 1900s, they were. Why? City ordinances forced them to segregate black and white passengers. Numerous Jim Crow laws ruled the day throughout the South mandating segregation in public accommodations." Walter E Williams.....

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2010/06/02/the_right_to_discriminate/page/full

Yep that pesky free market was so bad so government stepped in to make it white.......

 

[OC for ME]

I reject the notion that refusing to bake a cake is exercise of religion, but I also agree that I probably should not have a say in that. I agree that the content of what a business will deliver is relevant and I don't think a Waffle House should be required to serve pancakes. Or to make any item not on the menu only because it is not on the menu.
I'm not sure if a gay wedding cake is so different from a straight wedding cake, so my analogy might fail. I think the objection might be that there is no inherent difference between the two. That makes me think that the refusal to bake the gay cake is based only on discrimination and not on anything else. Maybe bakers should have that freedom from oppressive baking laws, but under the existing law (which Oregonians adopted) it seems to be that the choice to reject a customer based on their gayness or the gayness of their wedding is not allowed.

Texans adopted no carry of firearms back in the day. This is abhorrent to you, and any other liberty minded citizen, yet the citizens of a state adopted (voted) to define the meaning of marriage and liberals start caterwauling.

You do not have the prerogative to limit, via state sanctioned use of force, the peaceable exercise of a religious conviction vis-à-vis non-participation. Non-participation is not a violation of your rights nor the rights of anyone else.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I'm no anarchist and I'm ok with anti-discrimination laws. (And I'll be called some names by our resident anarchists for that, so be it.) But I draw the line at forcing business owners to promote a message to which they object.

[southern accent]It ain't about you.[/southern accent]

It isn't about what you're ok with, or how you feel about it.

We're talking about objective morality, it is not subject to the whims of mere humans or any grouping thereof.

I used to be fiercely republican. If I thought it was all about me, I would still be. I'm not "anarchist" because I think anarchy will necessarily produce all of my preferred outcomes. How selfish it'd be to advocate the use of force in an effort to produce my preferences. I'm "anarchist" because it is objectively moral and logically consistent.

 

[utbagpiper]

And Islam believes that Muhammad is the real, true prophet, and without faith in him his followers are allowed to kill you.

Some in Islam seem to believe that non-Islams are fair game to murder. It seems bigoted to me to paint an entire religion and all adherents with such a negative and broad brush.

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a real, true prophet (born in 1805) and god gave him magical gold tablets that contain the truth that having a lot of wives is awesometastic.

Actually, Mormons believe it was an angel who gave Joseph Smith the Gold Plates, there was nothing "magical" about those plates, they simply contain inspired writings from peoples who lived in the Americas between about 2000 BC and 400 AD. While the process of translating those plates into English might justly be described as fantastic, miraculous, or "magical", nothing in Mormon theology has ever ascribed any magical powers to the plates themselves. While claiming that ancient writings might be contained on metallic plates was unusual in Smith's day, modern archeology has discovered that such plates were not unusual in ancient times.

Nor do most Mormons believe that having multiple wives is "awesome" (no matter how much of one's inner George W Bush he may channel to spell a newly created word). Most of us with polygamist ancestors honor them for abiding the teachings of God in their day, for enduring horribly persecution as a result, and for staying true to their faith, even as we are grateful that we are not called to similar practice. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka the Mormons) ended the contracting of plural marriages about 1900. Since about 1950, anyone found engaged in the practice of polygamy has been excommunicated from the church for apostasy and adultery.

Isrealis think you are a sinner if you say or write the word God, so they obsessively write G-d, because ya know, that fools God's rulz

Actually, many of us believe it is a sin to take the name of God in vain. One of the "big 10". To minimize the chance of committing that sin, some Jews avoid ever writing or using the name of God at all. Their use of "G-d" is not some trick to fool God or skirt his rules, but a sincere attempt to show respect for the name of the divine. While I do not believe God requires such of me, I see nothing mature or civil in mocking the sincere, peaceful, religious practices of others.

Hmm, while I'm not a secular humanist, I don't believe in the garbage above.

Nor, apparently and demonstrably, do you possess the maturity and civility to express your disagreement in a polite, respectful manner, but instead seem compelled to mock, ridicule, and belittle others' beliefs and practices even as you demonstrate a woeful ignorance of what those practices and beliefs actually are.

There is plenty about my religion (and Islam, Catholicism, Evangelicalism, Judaism, and most every other religion) that is legitimately unusual even within the context of the religion. And every religion has practices or doctrines that can easily be made to appear ridiculous when removed from the larger context of the religion. There is no need to make up or spread blatant or even subtle falsehoods if one is looking to honestly examine peculiarities of religious beliefs and practices. Neither is there any need to be deliberately offensive and disrespectful if one simply wishes to express personal non-belief or disagreement with various religious tenents.

What you and Drake have done in this thread is no less offensive, bigoted, or small minded than what birdman (whathizname) did. You've simply choosen a different target for your hatred, and avoided using profanity. But the sentiments expressed are from the same, rotten tree.

Marriage is a STATE ISSUED LICENSE. The government has no defense for discrimination[/end topic]

Better get used to the idea of State sanctioned polygamy, incest, and every other bizarre relationship someone might decide should be treated as a "marriage." It seems the legal debate is largely over. "Marriage" isn't about society encouraging men and women (mostly men) to take responsibility for raising the next generation. It isn't about whether society has an interest in encouraging certain conduct that is proven to benefit society. Nope, not any more. Marriage is now just about consenting adults all having their chosen relationships treated as the legal, social, moral equivalent as the conjugal union of a man and a wife.

I expect we shall see platonic roommates getting "married" in plural arrangements for tax or health benefits. It is easy to imagine a wealthy man "marrying" his son or daughter so as to avoid inheritance taxes.

If society has no proper power to "discriminate" between socially beneficial relationships and those relationships that primarily benefit only the participants, then there is really no reason for society (ie the government) to take any special notice of any private relationship. Which I suspect was the real goal among many of the more militant members of the homosexual and secular communities all along.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

I'm "anarchist" because it is objectively moral and logically consistent.

And at one time I was a libertarian for the same reasons.

Then I realized that purity of system was of less importance than the results produced by that system. I do not believe a strictly libertarian nor anarchist society will result in nearly as much personal freedom, happiness, productivity, enlightenment, etc as will a society with limited, constitutional government.

Consistency, objectivity, and purity of systems are not my primary goals when it comes to advocating social policy. My goal is to maximize human freedom, real freedom. And I simply don't believe anarchy can come close to doing that.

It's a nice theory. I'm interested in what works in practice.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Says the guy who complained about my sigline, back when it had a link to an article about a Utah politician who wanted to legalize rape.

I don't believe there is any such article to be had. Of course, that won't keep the dishonest from lying. Nor can I think of a single reason why you would have any interest at all in anything to do with Utah except for being butt hurt that a bunch of religious fanatic hicks are doing a far better job of protecting RKBA in their State than you are in yours.

Hypocrisy is thick with you Utahpiper.

Do you intend to make every exchange a personal issue? Or would you like to stick to issues?

Charles

 

[stealthyeliminator]

You would presume to behave in ways in my community that I and the vast majority of the rest of the community find abhorrent. THAT is imposing anarchy on us.

Merely behaving according to any belief contrary to your or your community's preferences or beliefs is imposing that contrary belief on you or your community? How in the world could you possibly reconcile this view with your anti-discrimination views?

The contradiction practically jumps out of the page.

ETA:

You justify a baker's refusal to bake a cake that would promote democracy if he disagrees with democracy, but you'd turn right around and justify that baker being imprisoned for refusing to participate in democracy if the democracy of the community dictated he pay 20% tax on all sales. (that is highly ironic)

You would say that the democrat being a democrat, or the homosexual being a homosexual, and doing democratic or homosexual things, isn't imposing on you, even to a degree that you could deny them service, but the anarchist doing any anarchist things (whatever that means, I guess something like not taxing their neighbors?) is such an imposition that you act as though punitive measures would be justified.

But since consistency isn't important, I guess you don't care how contradictory your views are. As long as you get the results, right? Cause ends justify means, and all that? The immorality makes me queasy.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

And at one time I was a libertarian for the same reasons.

Then I realized that purity of system was of less importance than the results produced by that system. I do not believe a strictly libertarian nor anarchist society will result in nearly as much personal freedom, happiness, productivity, enlightenment, etc as will a society with limited, constitutional government.

Consistency, objectivity, and purity of systems are not my primary goals when it comes to advocating social policy. My goal is to maximize human freedom, real freedom. And I simply don't believe anarchy can come close to doing that.

It's a nice theory. I'm interested in what works in practice.

Charles

Consequentialism I would likely rank one of the most dangerous philosophies that I'm aware of to date.

Also find it interesting that you add consistency to the list of characteristics you find less important. (that explains a lot)

 

[OC for ME]

Consequentialism: First published Tue May 20, 2003; substantive revision Tue Sep 27, 2011

Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. This general approach can be applied at different levels to different normative properties of different kinds of things, but the most prominent example is consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

For those interested.

Kinda-sorta a ends justifies the means thing.

 

[solus]

not to quibble piper, but according to joseph smith's own account: Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet
quote When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! unquote
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

then several years later the angel moroni visited Smith and point him the the golden plates...and as paul harvey used to say...'the rest is history'

ipse

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I don't believe there is any such article to be had. Of course, that won't keep the dishonest from lying. Nor can I think of a single reason why you would have any interest at all in anything to do with Utah except for being butt hurt that a bunch of religious fanatic hicks are doing a far better job of protecting RKBA in their State than you are in yours.

Actually, Charles, simply calling people liars is not a valid argument www.salon.com/2015/02/04/utah_repub..._long_as_that_unconscious_woman_is_your_wife/

 

[utbagpiper]

Actually, Charles, simply calling people liars is not a valid argument

Nor is mis-representing the content of articles that have nothing to do with OC, with this site, nor with this thread.

Do you hate Utah because you hate me? Or do you hate me because you hate Utah? Or is it an anti-Mormon bigotry that has you so hard over that you go out of your way to look for ways to disparage a State that has among the best total gun/self-defense laws in the nation? Did you get offended the first time you posted an off topic anti-religious rant and I called you on it? If so, holding a grudge so long and so deeply would explain why you are so ineffective at even defending, much less advancing RKBA in your State. Effective political activism requires the civility and maturity to work together with a lot of people you would never otherwise want to interact with. If your conduct on this board is any indication of how you behave in real life, one might suspect you have a severe inability to put aside past offenses (perceived or real), to avoid needlessly giving offense so as to work across a diverse coalition of pro-RKBA activists, or to even be civil toward anyone who disagrees with you on any issue, no matter how small or tangential it may be.

I should think a libertarian/anarchist would generally be pleased with a lawmaker asking whether the specific language proposed in a bill is too broad, might be subject to being misapplied, or is casting too wide a net. But it seems some folks hate those they hold as their enemies more than they love their own principles.

The anti-gun, anti-freedom media gives a very one-sided and distorted report of a lawmaker asking some questions about the reach of proposed language during a legislative hearing and because that law making is in Utah, you rush to impart the worst motives possible to him, even to make up lies.

Nobody proposed making "rape legal." Which is what you claimed the Utah legislator did. So you lied. You took a twisted report, stretched it further with hopes of making Utah look bad and/or getting a rise out of me, and posted a LIE.

This legislator questioned whether language about exactly what level of consent is required before sex isn't rape was possibly so broad as to create crimes where none really exist. My wife and I are not even into anything remotely close to kinky and yet upon reading the article my wife's reaction was a sarcastic, "Well I guess we need to start tape recording ourselves giving affirmative consent immediately prior to each time we make love, lest either of us be guilty of rape."

I dare say that in any other case a person with your expressed political and social views would have concerns about new laws being overly broad. But in this case you'd rather try to make Utah look bad (as if there is any State that doesn't have an elected official who hasn't said something stupid at one time or another) than stand by your principles.

There is a reason that the words "small minded" go so naturally with the word "bigot."

Stop making yourself look so pathetic, juvenile, and spiteful. Let go of your need to get even with me for whatever injustice you think you've suffered, and maybe give a little more thought to how to turn around the terrible statutory situation in your home State. The laws of your State that violate RKBA are far more an embarrassment than anything non-binding that any legislator asks in committee hearings. Doubly so when those questions--however in-elegantly expressed--are aimed at avoiding government over-reach.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Consequentialism I would likely rank one of the most dangerous philosophies that I'm aware of to date.

It can be quite dangerous.

On the flip side, ignoring consequences with a slavish devotion to theory is no better.

As a mental exercise, IF, IF by some chance, it were ever demonstrated beyond all dispute that anarchy actually resulted in far less effective freedom, opportunity for individuals to reach their potential, individual happiness, and a peaceful society than some other system that was nearly so neat and clean of a theory, would you prefer to live in a poorly functioning society based on a what looks on paper to be a perfect system? Or would you prefer to live in the better functioning society, with more true liberty, even though that society was based on a system that didn't look as good on paper?

For me, I'm less interested in theory than in results.

I note that the framers of our Constitution quite deliberately picked aspects from several governmental and social theories in their attempt to gain the benefits of each, while avoiding the pitfalls. Our system isn't perfect. But from my observations it results in a lot better society with more true freedom than I've seen available in any location where there is not a functioning government (ie anarchy). Certainly the founders and framers were not ignorant of anarchist theories. Jefferson whom some here have suggested may have been an anarchist included among his indictments of King George the crime of leaving the colonies without functioning government.

Also find it interesting that you add consistency to the list of characteristics you find less important. (that explains a lot)

And what is the benefit of a foolish consistency? What does my ranking of consistency in theory below practical results explain to you? Or was that simply a snarky response to suggest that you are unable to respect in any degree an honestly held view of social theory that differs from your own?

I've not insulted you, your beliefs, your logic, nor anything else in this exchange. I've simply explained my own positions. Why is that offensive to you? Are you able and willing and interested in discussing such things with mutual respect or not?

I understand that you hold consistency as a very high value. That is the very appeal of objectivism and its offspring anarchy and libertarianism. So be it.

I'm simply pointing out, that there are those of us who order values differently than you do. It isn't that I'm thoughtful, ignorant, stupid, evil, etc, etc, etc. I've thought about it. I've observed. And I don't believe anarchy or libertarianism actually result in the greatest degree of true freedom nor the best society.

From where we are today, I think we'd benefit greatly by moving quite a ways toward libertarianism in many aspects of society and government, especially at the federal level. Current government is too large, too intrusive, to expensive, and presuming to control too many areas rightly beyond their purview even as they abdicate too many duties they have been specifically tasked to do.

But--particularly at the State and local level--I do not believe the end game described by most libertarians and virtually all anarchists is the most desirable society. I don't believe it actually results in the greatest degree of true personal liberty.

In other words, I suspect our end goals are very similar and our disagreement is largely over what path most reliably leads to those goals.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Merely behaving according to any belief contrary to your or your community's preferences or beliefs is imposing that contrary belief on you or your community?

No. But there is conduct that is so far beyond what a community determines is acceptable that publicly engaging in that conduct is to impose that conduct on the community.

Words like "any" and "merely" tend to diminish the significance of the extreme cases I'm thinking of. Mocking them when they are brought up does likewise. I'm referring to copulation in public parks or playgrounds, the lying around stoned or intoxicated in similar places, ignoring noise ordinances, and so on.

How in the world could you possibly reconcile this view with your anti-discrimination views?

Which anti-discrimination views? Frankly, I have found my views in this area to be in flux as of late.

You justify a baker's refusal to bake a cake that would promote democracy if he disagrees with democracy, but you'd turn right around and justify that baker being imprisoned for refusing to participate in democracy if the democracy of the community dictated he pay 20% tax on all sales. (that is highly ironic)

I'm sure it seems that way to you. And to be clear, I find a 20% tax rate to be exorbitant.

But I see a difference between a generally applicable law like taxes to support constitutional government services, and having to personally promote a specific candidate, party, or message.

Of course, limiting the areas in which government spends money limits both the amount of taxes required and the extent to which paying taxes is likely to support something that someone finds offensive. That does not mean that going to the very extreme of eliminating government and taxes is the right answer as this is a multi-dimensional question. To eliminate government is to forego the benefits that functioning governments provide. (And to forestall another endless discussion, I am still looking for evidence of where a "free market" without the framework functioning government provides does a very good job of providing some of the services a modern society requires: courts, recording of property ownership, police, military, trusted money supply, etc.)

But since consistency isn't important, I guess you don't care how contradictory your views are. As long as you get the results, right? Cause ends justify means, and all that? The immorality makes me queasy.

If your goal is to prove I'm wrong, or to simply express your disgust that different views of society exist, we can stop discussing now. I'm not interested in any more endless debates where one tries to catch another in some error of words. And accusing me of immorality over holding such views is not the way to encourage civil or useful discussion. Neither is suggesting that consistency has no value to me. I've said it is less important than some other things, not that it has no value at all.

If you're interested in understanding another's point of view, I'm happy to answer sincere questions and have real discussion.

Let me know.

Charles