• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure[W:208]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
No, you are talking about the libertarian fantasy which has no basis in reality. Your "fundamentals" are just more fantasy

What you think is right is just your opinion, and like ass holes, everyone has an opinion.
Click to expand...

And yet you can counter nothing I've said other than through the use of this deflection. Your the one initiating force against rights. It doesn't matter if you think that my libertarian philosophy is achievable, you are still the one holding the gun to another's head.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
The public has ultimate say in what businesses operate through the use of intelligent consumerism. That's not government force, that's just informed buying.
Click to expand...

I know the argument of the invisible hand. I'm talking specifically about corporate charters being granted on specific pre-conditions. If your argument is about an individuals right to control his own property that would only apply to sole proprietorships. Corporations are collectively owned by all share holders, based on a charter granted by the state they operate in. Charters could be denied to any group that doesn't agree to do public business without discrimination. That wouldn't violate the property rights of any individuals. If they didn't like it, they could avoid incorporation. They would miss the benefits that the government bestows on corporate entities, and therefore be free of constraints.

This is a hypothetical, of course.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

TiredOfLife said:
You seem to be having an issue with a very well-established feature of Modern America. I can own a gas station as long as I follow the law. One of those laws is I don't get to put up a sign that says "No Jews". That's all, and it's a reasonable limitation on my Property Rights. I can't just bury my old tires and used oil either. There are rules, like it or not.
Click to expand...

I understand that these laws exist, I am not debating their existence, obviously. I am discussing instead the proper use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. When you wish to discuss on an intellectually honest level, come back, till then I have no time nor patience for these ridiculous asides which are based in such obvious fallacy.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

TiredOfLife said:
You seem to be having an issue with a very well-established feature of Modern America. I can own a gas station as long as I follow the law. One of those laws is I don't get to put up a sign that says "No Jews". That's all, and it's a reasonable limitation on my Property Rights. I can't just bury my old tires and used oil either. There are rules, like it or not.
Click to expand...

What's really funny about Ikari's position is that he argues how it's wrong (according to his own personal moral beliefs) for the govt to use force to enforce a personal moral belief.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
And yet you can counter nothing I've said other than through the use of this deflection. Your the one initiating force against rights. It doesn't matter if you think that my libertarian philosophy is achievable, you are still the one holding the gun to another's head.
Click to expand...

I have completely countered your position and identified the foolishness of believing that it is wrong for the govt to base law on personal moral beliefs because ones' own personal moral beliefs say that is wrong.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
Rape is not a morality law, it's a property and life defense.
Click to expand...

What about the other part of my post... Is the prevention of child porn a morality law? What if that porn is a cartoon? Should the government be able to seize (and access) a computer regarding such things?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Grendel said:
I know the argument of the invisible hand. I'm talking specifically about corporate charters being granted on specific pre-conditions. If your argument is about an individuals right to control his own property that would only apply to sole proprietorships. Corporations are collectively owned by all share holders, based on a charter granted by the state they operate in. Charters could be denied to any group that doesn't agree to do public business without discrimination. That wouldn't violate the property rights of any individuals. If they didn't like it, they could avoid incorporation. They would miss the benefits that the government bestows on corporate entities, and therefore be free of constraints.

This is a hypothetical, of course.
Click to expand...

The practice of contract is oft double edged. But I fear I am no expert in the field you are discussing here, and it can lead to misunderstandings and confusions. In essence if the government owned the property that a corporation was seeking to buy, they could put in certain restrictions and rights to access by the community. Publicly traded and corporations could very well be treated differently than private business given their innate public properties. As I stated earlier, there could be argument that publicaly traded companies follow the same restrictions as government is forced to endure. I'm not sure that answered your question though.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

ecofarm said:
What about the other part of my post... Is the prevention of child porn a morality law? What if that porn is a cartoon? Should the government be able to seize (and access) a computer regarding such things?
Click to expand...

Child porn is contract defense as a child cannot give consent.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
I understand that these laws exist, I am not debating their existence, obviously. I am discussing instead the proper use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. When you wish to discuss on an intellectually honest level, come back, till then I have no time nor patience for these ridiculous asides which are based in such obvious fallacy.
Click to expand...
I am being honest, and there is no fallacy. The laws are sound. It's a trade-off. We allow you to make money here, and you follow our rules. The country protects you and your rights hopefully, but because we are a country and have to get along with each other you do not have complete liberty to do just as you please. It's all about balance. Freedom is walking through the jungle all alone. Being a country means we built a fort to protect ourselves. When you live in the fort you can leave but you are on your own and if you have to do guard duty from time to time and don't have full freedom inside the fort, that is the cost of being protected. You live in a fort and it has rules.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
I have completely countered your position and identified the foolishness of believing that it is wrong for the govt to base law on personal moral beliefs because ones' own personal moral beliefs say that is wrong.
Click to expand...

You've countered nothing and relied solely on appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. You wish to force your personal morals on others through the use of a gun, that much is clear.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
Child porn is contract defense as a child cannot give consent.
Click to expand...

So a parent can't make any contractual decisions regarding (or on behalf of) their child because the child can't give consent? No medical care for the child? No private school?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

TiredOfLife said:
I am being honest, and there is no fallacy. The laws are sound. It's a trade-off. We allow you to make money here, and you follow our rules. The country protects you and your rights hopefully, but because we are a country and have to get along with each other you do not have complete liberty to do just as you please. It's all about balance. Freedom is walking through the jungle all alone. Being a country means we built a fort to protect ourselves. When you live in the fort you can leave but you are on your own and if you have to do guard duty from time to time and don't have full freedom inside the fort, that is the cost of being protected. You live in a fort and it has rules.
Click to expand...

Laws are not always sound. An individual has a property and sells a product, but you don't have right to that product. He could sell it to you if he wishes, but he doesn't have to as it is his. Appeal to authority doesn't mean that you've made proper argument.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
So a parent can't make any contractual decisions regarding (or on behalf of) their child because the child can't give consent? No medical care for the child? No private school?
Click to expand...

Obviously you know that's not the case, try not to fall into the absurd, it just makes your arguments look pathetic.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
You've countered nothing and relied solely on appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. You wish to force your personal morals on others through the use of a gun, that much is clear.
Click to expand...

You are relying on an appeal to authority when you claim that your moral position (it is wrong for the govt to use force to enforce a moral position) is morally right. You wish to force your personal morals on others through the use of a gun, that much is clear
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
Laws are not always sound. An individual has a property and sells a product, but you don't have right to that product. He could sell it to you if he wishes, but he doesn't have to as it is his. Appeal to authority doesn't mean that you've made proper argument.
Click to expand...

An individual is allowed to refuse to sell their personal property to a member of a protected class. A public accommodation is not allowed to do so.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
Laws are not always sound. An individual has a property and sells a product, but you don't have right to that product. He could sell it to you if he wishes, but he doesn't have to as it is his. Appeal to authority doesn't mean that you've made proper argument.
Click to expand...
You should try to actually address what I said. I know your dogma. Do try and move beyond that.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
You are relying on an appeal to authority when you claim that your moral position (it is wrong for the govt to use force to enforce a moral position) is morally right. You wish to force your personal morals on others through the use of a gun, that much is clear
Click to expand...

I didn't say morally right. But the government is restricted in how it may act against our rights and must demonstrate necessity. I'm not using a gun in this case, I am in fact taking the guns away and saying a man is free to sell his wears and you are free to not buy it. That's not a forced situation.

Again, please stay away from the absurd, it makes your arguments look pathetic.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

TiredOfLife said:
You should try to actually address what I said. I know your dogma. Do try and move beyond that.
Click to expand...

I did address it, appeal to authority is logical fallacy.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
Obviously you know that's not the case, try not to fall into the absurd, it just makes your arguments look pathetic.
Click to expand...

I know what the law says, and so do you. But you are arguing that the law is wrong.

Dodging the question won't make it go away. Under your delusional libertarian scheme, can parents enter into contracts on behalf of their children? Yes or no?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
I know what the law says, and so do you. But you are arguing that the law is wrong.

Dodging the question won't make it go away. Under your delusional libertarian scheme, can parents enter into contracts on behalf of their children? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

I'm arguing that the law is not always right, that relying solely on that argument isn't a sound argument in the least.

There are certain contracts allowed to be enacted on behalf of children which oft revolve around right to life. But others are restricted, for instance you may not sell your child into slavery as that is against their life and property rights. A parent is given leeway to aid, and in some historical situations (such as those Christian "Scientists" folk, who I don't feel should be allowed to use scientist in their names) to harm, the rights of the child.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
I know what the law says, and so do you. But you are arguing that the law is wrong.

Dodging the question won't make it go away. Under your delusional libertarian scheme, can parents enter into contracts on behalf of their children? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
Of course they can. But as guarantors or guardians of that childs rights, they may not enter into contracts that violate the rights they are obligated to defend.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
I did address it, appeal to authority is logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
That is a fallacy, but I didn't use it. I don't do fallacies.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
I didn't say morally right.
Click to expand...

You didn't?

Ikari said:
You most certainly can have constructed laws and use the guns of government to force your way, but that doesn't mean it's right nor does it mean you aren't forcing the individual to cede right to property for your moral crusade.
Click to expand...


But the government is restricted in how it may act against our rights and must demonstrate necessity. I'm not using a gun in this case, I am in fact taking the guns away and saying a man is free to sell his wears and you are free to not buy it. That's not a forced situation.
Click to expand...

The govt has demonstrated the necessity (ie thegovernmental interest it has in prohibiting public accommodations from refusing service because someone is a member of a protected class)

Again, please stay away from the absurd, it makes your arguments look pathetic.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

TiredOfLife said:
That is a fallacy, but I didn't use it. I don't do fallacies.
Click to expand...

You did when you appealed to law on no other level than the fact that it's law. That is appeal to authority, and that is logical fallacy.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
I did address it, appeal to authority is logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Both ToL and I have pointed to the way you dodged the question. I'll ask again:

Do parents have the right to enter into contracts on behalf of their children? Yes or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom