• 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

Using the words "proper" and "justice" in place of the word "right" does not hide the fact that you are using a moral argument.

Justice - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Perchance, if you want to start talking of metaphysics on morality and justice there is a bit of overlap. But they're not really the same thing.
No, it is impractical and dangerous to do otherwise, as your belief that parents should be able to force their children to go to school demonstrates

A free Republic requires an educated populace and education serves the betterment of the child; it's not really the same thing as allowing them to die or selling them off to prostitution.
But it's not an individual

Property is never an individual, who would think otherwise? An individual owns the property in the case of private business and its HIS rights and liberties and property you must be concerned about. Not the rights of inanimate objects which innately have no rights. It's entirely absurd to argue otherwise.

They are both public accommodations as is that local bakery

The bakery is private business and private property.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Because kids do not fully understand the ramifications of action and psychological and physical damage can run deep. It takes awhile for humans to develop and in those early stages their rights are protected by others by necessity of biology.

So when people don't understand the ramifications of their actions and the harm it causes, it's OK to use force against them

Hmmmm, wonder if you'll ever understand the ramifications of that and how it applies here
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

So you do know better then? Even if the parents and child consent you won't allow it?

Not if it's shown to be detrimental to the child. I don't even agree with parents allowing their kids to die when simple medicine can save them just because they think their god will save their kid in the end.

But as I said, so long as that one is allowed to exist, all other infringements are pretty well below that.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

So when people don't understand the ramifications of their actions and the harm it causes, it's OK to use force against them

In some situations, namely if they are acting against the rights of others. Of course, we do have classes of people such as the mentally handicapped which are never legally dealt with as being an individual all to themselves, but perpetual children as they cannot understand the ramifications of their actions. And in that case extra force is applied for their wellbeing as they cannot determine it themselves.

Hmmmm, wonder if you'll ever understand the ramifications of that and how it applies here

I think I do quite well, thank you very much. The question is not if I shall understand, but rather if you shall understand.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Why not? It's their own property, no?

It is, but they cannot engage in contract yet

What if the child consents?

They cannot give consent as they do not understand what they are consenting too. This is based on biology.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari believes the govt should not use force to stop individuals from doing what they want as long as they are not infringing on anyone else's right (or making Ikari feel icky)

Lots of people make me feel icky, but I'll allow them their freedom so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others in the process.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Not if it's shown to be detrimental to the child. I don't even agree with parents allowing their kids to die when simple medicine can save them just because they think their god will save their kid in the end.

But as I said, so long as that one is allowed to exist, all other infringements are pretty well below that.
Okay, so let's take the potential bodily part out of it. Now if I require my child to sell the "insert product" I whip up at home after school, but not too late at night or in a dangerous place, and I spank them if they refuse, is that all good?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

The last part is what I'm interested in. His ideology does seem to have some funny limitations on it.

Not limitations

It's simply "I'll adhere to libertarianism when it's convenient, and ignore it when it's not"

There's no limits when you're willing to abandon your principles whenever they are inconvenient
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

It is, but they cannot engage in contract yet



They cannot give consent as they do not understand what they are consenting too. This is based on biology.

Actually it's really not. If it was 18 would still be a minor but we have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere and that's where it is currently.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Okay, so let's take the potential bodily part out of it. Now if I require my child to sell the "insert product" I whip up at home after school, but not too late at night or in a dangerous place, and I spank them if they refuse, is that all good?

Likely yes. So long as the spanking is actually a spanking and not full on assault.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Actually it's really not. If it was 18 would still be a minor but we have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere and that's where it is currently.

Yeah, legally it's a little floppy because essentially you have to draw a line and there's a window in which it's reasonable to draw that line and so other places take varying positions within that window. It's statistics, nothing more.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Likely yes. So long as the spanking is actually a spanking and not full on assault.
Just a plain old spanking. Now, what if my product is drugs, or porno, or adult toys? Still okay?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Perchance, if you want to start talking of metaphysics on morality and justice there is a bit of overlap. But they're not really the same thing.

Justice is rooted in morality. This is fact. There is no "perchance" about that.

A free Republic requires an educated populace and education serves the betterment of the child; it's not really the same thing as allowing them to die or selling them off to prostitution.

Oh, so now people can be forced to do things because it benefits the State? How quickly you abandon your foolish principles when they prove inconvenient

And an argument can be made that in many cases being forced to go to schools is not in the childs best interest. Who gets to decide if something is in the childs best interest? The State? The parents? Or the child?

And what libertarian principle supports your answer?


Property is never an individual, who would think otherwise? An individual owns the property in the case of private business and its HIS rights and liberties and property you must be concerned about. Not the rights of inanimate objects which innately have no rights. It's entirely absurd to argue otherwise.

The public accommodation is a legal entity distinct from the individual. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away.



The bakery is private business and private property.

It is also a public accommodation. Ignoring facts does not make them go away
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Just a plain old spanking. Now, what if my product is drugs, or porno, or adult toys? Still okay?

I'm likely going to be a little bit more lenient on others and in theory would allow it with the understanding that in practice maybe not given the abuse of such which could undergo such a system and lead to direct harm against the child. Fundamentally I wouldn't like it, and wouldn't consume from there, but I would probably allow it given no other violation of life, liberty or property.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Yeah, legally it's a little floppy because essentially you have to draw a line and there's a window in which it's reasonable to draw that line and so other places take varying positions within that window. It's statistics, nothing more.
It's not even that. There really is no science behind it. If there was we would test you and some 12-year-olds would pass and many 22-year-olds wouldn't. The actually science, and there isn't that much, says an adult woman is roughly 26, and an adult man is just under 29.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

In some situations, namely if they are acting against the rights of others.

Which is what the laws being in this thread are based on.

Thanks for demonstrating how these laws are proper

Of course, we do have classes of people such as the mentally handicapped which are never legally dealt with as being an individual all to themselves, but perpetual children as they cannot understand the ramifications of their actions. And in that case extra force is applied for their wellbeing as they cannot determine it themselves.

And the laws being discussed in this thread are based on well being.

Thanks for demonstrating how these laws are proper

I think I do quite well, thank you very much. The question is not if I shall understand, but rather if you shall understand.

Obviously, you don't
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

It is, but they cannot engage in contract yet

What libertarian principle forbids them from engaging in contracts?


They cannot give consent as they do not understand what they are consenting too. This is based on biology.

So you believe that libertarianism allows the State to limit the ability of people to enter into contracts if they can not understand the ramifications of their actions?

:lamo
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Justice is rooted in morality. This is fact. There is no "perchance" about that.

No, justice often relates to proper action of government were as morality is personal belief in right and wrong.

Oh, so now people can be forced to do things because it benefits the State? How quickly you abandon your foolish principles when they prove inconvenient

Actually it's for the betterment of the child and the People on whole. An educated populace is a DETRIMENT to the State. It does not serve the State to have fully educated and thinking individuals. A select group that can be controlled? Sure, but the whole lot? No. I'd give education past undergrad to everyone if possible. Education is actually a check on the State itself.

And an argument can be made that in many cases being forced to go to schools is not in the childs best interest. Who gets to decide if something is in the childs best interest? The State? The parents? Or the child?

Data and statistics bear out the truth.

And what libertarian principle supports your answer?

Proper and necessary limitation of government force.

The public accommodation is a legal entity distinct from the individual. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away.

And pretending that there is no individual does not make him go away. Everything you're doing is to remove the human element; but it's there even if you want to pretend otherwise.





It is also a public accommodation. Ignoring facts does not make them go away[/QUOTE]
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Lots of people make me feel icky, but I'll allow them their freedom so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others in the process.

So you believe that children can model for porn

Thanks again for demonstrating how irrational libertarianism is and why mankind has always rejected libertarianism
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I'm likely going to be a little bit more lenient on others and in theory would allow it with the understanding that in practice maybe not given the abuse of such which could undergo such a system and lead to direct harm against the child. Fundamentally I wouldn't like it, and wouldn't consume from there, but I would probably allow it given no other violation of life, liberty or property.

Okay, so now I want to see how far out the harm goes. If I wish to use my property for a toxic waste dump, and there is no one around for 100 miles, I own all of it, am I good to do so without restriction? Am I good if my containment is good for 100 years but after that we're not sure?

And let's say that I really hate to spank my kids but they are rotten kids. Can I hire someone to do that for me? Can I film that and make a buck or two off of it? It's not sex after all right?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

What libertarian principle forbids them from engaging in contracts?

The lack of capability to understand the actions within. It's biology. You can rail against it all you want, but it's not going to change.

So you believe that libertarianism allows the State to limit the ability of people to enter into contracts if they can not understand the ramifications of their actions?

:lamo

The State does and can, in order to protect the higher rights of life and liberty. You'll nary find a libertarian who would claim an infant can enter into contract; perhaps we're just more well versed in science than you.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Okay, so now I want to see how far out the harm goes. If I wish to use my property for a toxic waste dump, and there is no one around for 100 miles, I own all of it, am I good to do so without restriction? Am I good if my containment is good for 100 years but after that we're not sure?

And let's say that I really hate to spank my kids but they are rotten kids. Can I hire some one to do that for me? Can I film that and make a buck or two off of it? It's not sex after all right?

Actually, libertarianism lines up with environmentalism rather well. So it would really depend on all the conditions of your nuclear dump.

Can you hire someone to spank your kid? Sure, give all the previously stated restriction to such act. I'm not sure who would buy such a tape, but perhaps the sale of such can be considered.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

There is, population control for one. Just because you choose not to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Such a limited mind the anti-SSM crowd have.

Really?

So then when did this occur? What was the world population when this adaptation took place. Feel free to include all your research.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

1.) that fine but be clear theres very little OPINION i actually stated in my post, most of it is fact
2.) well this is false, it depends on whether the discrimination you practice is legal or illegal and if theres evidence proving it.
3.) i wouldnt do any of this if your actually broke the law and i knew it id simply press charges
4.) theres no law that can stop anything so thats just obvious
5.) i agree this is what the SMART business owner does, and i have no problem with it just dont get caught.
6.) doesnt really matter what you hate its just like everything else, as long as you dont get caught breaking the law then you are find, If you break the law i dont care about your blood sweat and tears, you pay the price of breaking the law.
7.) seems you have social issue
8.) nope not at all what i think is you cant get caught breaking the law, thats what i think. See i knew right away one you started talking about opinions that you assumed alot in your head that was never said
9.) i dont care either and as long as you dont get caught you are good if you do you might not have anything to run and that wont bother me one bit, in fact id find it entertaining
10.) nope you are still playing by the rules everybody plys by. If you want to think your not and that makes you feel better fine but the fact is you are not playing buy your rules. You already admitted that. You admit that you lie and make up excuses not to serve or do business with people you dont want, which is fine but thats playing by the rules. You make those excuses to follow the rules, you do it to pay by the rules,not your own sorry to burst your bubble..
11.) well sorry but facts court cases , rights, laws and ordinances all disagree with you and prove you wrong.

im glad you got your rant out, hopefully you dindt punch the keyboard to many times, BUT it changed nothing i said and im happy to clear up your mistakes.

Im fine with you doing what you are doing because you are playing by the rules, hopefully for you if you are doing illegal discrimination you dont get caught or you'll see and you'll learn who the real boss is, it aint you. Good luck.

Excuse are telling me as I just believe you did, that I can discriminate but don't get caught? Yes that makes sense. And you are ok with that. What a hypocrite. In order for me to preserve my freedom of association I have to temporarily suspend my freedom of speech. That makes a lot of sense. Really it does. :roll: Especially in a free country.

All of those laws and ordinances are unconstitutional. The judges who ruled that they were constitutional, are twits and flat wrong. The Constitution is VERY clear on this.

I would prefer not lie. But twits like you push me into that corner so I have to get an attorney and make sure to phase my rejections properly so as not to "appear" discriminatory. That's just sad I have to do that to begin with. I would prefer to just say "I don't like you, now get the **** out." That way we both know were we stand. You push rules that are worthless in all but the most blatant cases. That's persecution via the law over a perceived slight. That is all that is. You can say its about preventing discrimination when all you really are doing is restricting speech and taking revenge for some slight. Last I checked there is no right to not be butt hurt over a perceived slight. How about this, you think the racial groups like say La Raza would be upset if I sued THEM so I could be apart of their racial organization, even though it is blatantly discriminatory one? How about I sue the Black Panthers, think they would enjoy having a white brother amongst themselves? You know what's good for the goose is good for the gander. How about I sue and claim discrimination at the big ag farms and brokerage houses because they will only hire Hispanic trucking firms.

By the way discrimination is NOT a crime, it is a civil matter determined by civil litigation. You CANT press charges. Pray it NEVER becomes a crime. As the Chinese like to say be careful what you wish for.

I believe in freedom. What you believe in is the absolute antithesis of that. We are destined to disagree vigorously.
 
Back
Top Bottom