• 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!

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

ernst barkmann said:
wrong, their is no social contract.
Click to expand...

tech30528 said:
I'd like to see a copy of that contract. Can you produce one?
Click to expand...

Nope, I cant. The contract is a form of common law. Its been written into all human societies. The forms that the contract take and the extent of the contract can vary considerably (from very exacting, to very nominal), but every society has had some form of social contract amongst members.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
Nope, I cant. The contract is a form of common law. Its been written into all human societies. The forms that the contract take and the extent of the contract can vary considerably (from very exacting, to very nominal), but every society has had some form of social contract amongst members.
Click to expand...

A contract has to be an agreement, and if you are going to prove it's existence, it's best that it is a written contract. What you speak of is not even a verbal agreement; in that, there is no way possible that each person of society made an agreement with each other verbally, as they have not even communicated, let alone had the chance to agree with other on something.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
1.)I already provided you the reasons.
2.)Why is it that you can never admit you're wrong?
Click to expand...

1.)no you FACTUALLY havent lol
2.) because i havent been wrong about anything in this thread, if you disagree AFTER you explain to us how one can sue for simply being denied service please point out where i was wrong and factually prove it, id love to read it lol
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:
1.)no you FACTUALLY havent lol
2.) because i havent been wrong about anything in this thread, if you disagree AFTER you explain to us how one can sue for simply being denied service please point out where i was wrong and factually prove it, id love to read it lol
Click to expand...

You have already been shown to be wrong. We are done.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
1.)Lol, how could a gay couple sue for being denied service?
2.) What entity handles lawsuits?
3.)Who passed a law that made it so people could sue for that reason? Wall meet face.
Click to expand...

1.) yes please explain this, how could they, because in that case that is NOT what the sued for, thank you for proving my point and proving me right
2.) law
3.) there is no law that exists that can be used to sue for that reason
4.) correct your face just hit the wall at 100mph and its was hilarious

facts win again
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

clownboy said:
1.)You're playing semantics
2.) rather than admit you got it wring
3.) why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...

1.) nope im sticking to FACTS
sex is not a crime but rape is HUGE difference
just like denying service is not a crime, thanks for further proving me right
2.) at no time was a wrong, none, not one lol if you disagree point out where i was wrong, id love to read it
3.) because when you make stuff up and make dishonest posts and deny facts your posts usually end up destroyed by me this isnt anything new
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
You have already been shown to be wrong. We are done.
Click to expand...

nope NOTHING has shown me to be wrong, not one thing lol
posting a lie wont change that fact
your posts were done pages ago when they were proved wrong and deflection post after deflection post was made

we are still waiting for the example of how one sues for simply being denied service and what law allows them to do so, why do you keep avoiding this question?

because once again your failed posts took on FACTS and lost

facts win again
i accept your concesson
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

More of the my opinions are facts from you. Ah well, wasn't expecting anything different. You're a broken record.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

clownboy said:
More of the my opinions are facts from you. Ah well, wasn't expecting anything different. You're a broken record.
Click to expand...
sorry didnt post my OPINION i posted fact and that was PROVEN by your own link
yep facts win again
let me know when that changes

fact is there is ZERO grounds to sue for being denied service and ZERO laws are broken for being denied service

thanks for posting that link proving me right and self owning your own factually wrong post
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
A contract has to be an agreement, and if you are going to prove it's existence, it's best that it is a written contract. What you speak of is not even a verbal agreement; in that, there is no way possible that each person of society made an agreement with each other verbally, as they have not even communicated, let alone had the chance to agree with other on something.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. The contract has not been signed, nor has it been verbally agreed to by all. The social contract is based on the concept of a mutual interdependence ( the extent of that interdependence can vary considerably). Examples of this contract include:

-Concept is that all societies have some expectation that members will serve in the common defense. A society may give allowance, but none have voided the concept.

- Concept that no property absolutely belongs to any sole individual. Rather, the society as a whole still retains some control over that property. Of course, this societal control can be very extreme (Maoism) to very, very nominal.

- Concept that members can be compeled give recesources for the common good of the society (taxes, provided goods, provided services etc) - even if they dont benefit directly from the provision of those services. As with the other two concepts, the degree that members are compeled can vary considerably.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
Nope, I cant. The contract is a form of common law. Its been written into all human societies. The forms that the contract take and the extent of the contract can vary considerably (from very exacting, to very nominal), but every society has had some form of social contract amongst members.
Click to expand...

people don't have authority over other people which is enforceable.

your contract does not exist......government is here to secure, rights....that is why its created.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

ernst barkmann said:
people don't have authority over other people which is enforceable.

your contract does not exist......
Click to expand...
In the real world, a social contract amongst members of the society does exist (yes, it can take different forms, and be very nominal in some societies). See my reply to Henrin.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
It does exist. See my reply to Henrin.
Click to expand...

wrong!.....your asserting that people can control the actions of other people thru law, based on whether you [dis- like] their actions........this is ridiculous.

if it was so, then the people could dictate... eating, drinking, smoking, looking at porn, abortion, based on what the people------dislike.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

ernst barkmann said:
wrong!.....your asserting that people can control the actions of other people thru law, based on whether you [dis- like] their actions........this is ridiculous.

if it was so, then the people could dictate... eating, drinking, smoking, looking at porn, abortion, based on what the people------dislike.
Click to expand...


Yes, social dislike can serve as a basis for some provisions of some unwritten social contracts in some societies. In our society, however, this basis has been diminished alot in recent generations. Even still, we, like every other society that ever existed has kept the following provisions of the unwritten social contract:

Concept is that all societies have some expectation that members will serve in the common defense. A society may give allowance, but none have voided the concept.

- Concept that no property absolutely belongs to any sole individual. Rather, the society as a whole still retains some control over that property. Of course, this societal control can be very extreme (Maoism) to very, very nominal.

- Concept that members can be compeled give private recesources for the common good of the society (taxes, provided goods, provided services etc) - even if they dont benefit directly from the provision of those services. As with the other two concepts, the degree that members are compeled can vary considerably.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
Yes, social dislike can serve as a basis for some provisions of some unwritten social contracts in some societies. In our society, however, this basis has been diminished alot in recent generations. Even still, we, like every other society that ever existed has kept the following provisions of the unwritten social contract:

Concept is that all societies have some expectation that members will serve in the common defense. A society may give allowance, but none have voided the concept.

- Concept that no property absolutely belongs to any sole individual. Rather, the society as a whole still retains some control over that property. Of course, this societal control can be very extreme (Maoism) to very, very nominal.

- Concept that members can be compeled give recesources for the common good of the society (taxes, provided goods, provided services etc) - even if they dont benefit directly from the provision of those services. As with the other two concepts, the degree that members are compeled can vary considerably.
Click to expand...

wrong.... feelings are not protected by law.

you are asserting democracy, "mob rule", believing because you have a majority of people who think as you do, you can control those in the minority who do things you just don't like..

people do things everyday, and on t.v. and their personal life's i don't like, however that is liberty, ...as long as they do not commit crimes or endanger the public, they are free to do so.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

ernst barkmann said:
...as long as they do not commit crimes or endanger the public, they are free to do so.
Click to expand...

Yes, in a hypothetical world that is an attractive principal. In the real world, however, all societies have placed restrictions on that principal (either numerous of nominal).

In short, all real world societies (fully libertarian societies have never existed- an probably cannot exist) have operated on a permise that unwritten social contracts amongst group members do exist.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
Yes, in a hypothetical world that is an attractive principal. In the real world, however, all societies have placed restrictions on that principal (either numerous of nominal).

In short, all real world societies (fully libertarian societies have never existed- an probably cannot exist) have operated on a permise that unwritten social contracts amongst group members do exist.
Click to expand...

so you believe in "mob rule, the majority's will.

and rights don't mean anything to you, if someone does something you just don't like.

do you think we should apply these to abortion?

whether a person is to fat?

whether you think a person drinks to much.

does a person look at porn ?

smokes?

uses free speech, and says things you don't like?

you have a distorted view of liberty....
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

ernst barkmann said:
so you believe in "mob rule, the majority's will.

and rights don't mean anything to you, if someone does something you just don't like.
Click to expand...

No, I just acknoweldge the following:

- In all societies, there are degrees of forced mutual interdependence (as expressed by the provisions of an unwritten social contract) among group members.
- That a libertarian society has never existed and that libertariansim is not workable in the real world.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
No, I just acknoweldge the following:

- In all societies, there are degrees of forced mutual interdependence (as expressed by the provisions of an unwritten social contract) among group members.
- That a libertarian society has never existed and that libertariansim is not workable in the real world.
Click to expand...

has nothing to do with libertarianism........you fail there.

its about law.....life liberty and pursuit of happiness, ...which is u.s code...law.

all you have never told me is......."you don't like something, therefore it should be stopped"
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

ernst barkmann said:
has nothing to do with libertarianism........you fail there.

its about law.....life liberty and pursuit of happiness, ...which is u.s code...law.

all you have never told me is......."you don't like something, therefore it should be stopped"
Click to expand...

Actually, I never mentioned my own likes or dislikes. As for libertarianism vs the US Declaration of Independence - not US law, yes those concepts are enshrined in that document.

Also enshrined in US society is the unwritten social contract of mutual interdependence and that it is lawful to force this interdependence on somebody against their will. This is in contrast to libertarianism.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
Actually, I never mentioned my own likes or dislikes. As for libertarianism vs the US Declaration of Independence - not US law, yes those concepts are enshrined in that document.

Also enshrined in US society is the unwritten social contract of mutual interdependence and that it is lawful to force this interdependence on somebody against their will. This is in contrast to libertarianism.
Click to expand...

wrong again, the DOI is LAW.........its u.s code, on page 1.

the DOI, THE CONSTITUTION, NORTHWEST ORDNANCE, ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE U.S.

SO ITS CLEAR, YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF U.S. LAW.

AND BASE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE ON "MOB RULE"
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Top Cat said:
Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com

Gotta love the backass republicans who voted for this.

Why anyone would live there is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I knew a couple people who worked at walmart and refused to sell alcohol or tobacco when cheering. They just put the same sign on their register that employees under 18/21 used. It was never an issue that I'm aware of.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

ernst barkmann said:
wrong again, the DOI is LAW.........its u.s code, on page 1.

the DOI, NORTHWEST ORDNANCE, ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE U.S.

SO ITS CLEAR, YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF U.S. LAW.
Click to expand...

Sigh, the Declaration of Independence is not U.S. law. Rather, it is a declaration of political independence pure and simple.

If you dont believe me, point out a component of the Declaration of Independence that establishes a law. The DOI expresses alot of ideals, but does not create law.

In fact, Wikipedia calls it what it is: A declaration (of course, it is a very eloquent declaration that serves as the founding philosophy of our nation, but it is not law- and it sure the heck is not "US code page 1".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

Are you sure that you have enough knowledge on this subject matter to be shouting? Are there libertarians out there who can make cogent arguments?
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
Nope, I cant. The contract is a form of common law. Its been written into all human societies. The forms that the contract take and the extent of the contract can vary considerably (from very exacting, to very nominal), but every society has had some form of social contract amongst members.
Click to expand...

In that case it appears many of our politicians are looking at serious consequences for intentionally dividing society for their own purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom