Page 17 of 68 FirstFirst ... 715161718192767 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 679

Thread: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

  1. #161
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I made up nothing. You offered up an absurd argument and I called you on it. See you next time Agent.
    weird as usual my own quotes and the conversation factually proves you wrong but the we know you don't care about facts as your posts often prove, yep next time ill be happy to prove your posts wrong again, same old same old.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #162
    Sage
    opendebate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,315

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I'm not strawing anything up. Liberty is a human right, and like all other rights can only come into conflict with other rights. When you are arguing to limit the rights of people or to maintain a limitation you have to argue in terms of rights. You can not argue in terms of expense of the community.
    It's an issue of thinking that one rule of thought always applies or accepting the reality that the effectiveness of any application is relative to the context.
    "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
    "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway

  3. #163
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    By what you've stated though, individual liberty should always be sacrificed for "the greater good" but ok, let's talk plausibility. If wedding event planners, bakers, photographers etc. can be told that they have no right to their religious conscience what makes anyone so sure that won't be extended to pastors, ministers etc. who refuse to perform gay marriages?
    If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
    If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

    Liberal activists view honesty in a debate as a temporary tactic to gain advantage. The pledges made always have some expiry bomb embedded in them. We saw the same tactic with the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and with the early homosexual anti-discrimination laws.

  4. #164
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,419

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Why the KKK is most certainly a race based organization. They be all White. Wouldn't they be the flip side of the Black Panthers? So under your rules if the KKK requested a black caterer to service their event he has no right to discriminate against a white supremacy group or ask for special treatment. Brahahahahahahahaha
    So, the KKK counts as a race?

    Not sure if serious.

  5. #165
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,890

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    Modern definitions for modern problems. It makes FAR more sense than trying to enter the minds of men who died 200 years ago to try to figure out how they would interpret 18th century language in the context of 20th and 21st century issues and apply 18th century values which are often in direct conflict with those of modern society. If they wanted us to do that, then they should have said as much. But guess what? They left the application of Constitutional powers and rights up to future generations to interpret instead and designed the Constitution as both a living and incomplete document.
    It's only in conflict because you have allowed the Constitution to be some living breathing document that you can alter at whim. It's a road map! And unless you are learned in its true intent, it will always be incompetent to you. Ignorance has a way of doing that.

    "On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
    time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
    in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
    of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
    which it was passed."

    Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
    Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
    Last edited by vesper; 02-27-14 at 12:47 AM.

  6. #166
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    No, it makes no sense to use a document that was ratified in 1787 and then just ignore what everything means in that document by applying new definitions to the words. To even claim you are defending anything with such an absurd approach is ludicrous. That isn't even considering that your argument also includes adding the word business in the clause as if there is some sort of invisible text that only you can see.
    Do you know why the founders left the Constitution open to interpretation? Because, even then, there was considerable disagreement on what it actually meant. We are not bound by 18th century meanings which not even the founders or the first Congress could gain a consensus for. Especially when 18th century values are in direct conflict with 21st century values. Keep that in mind while you're quote mining the federalist papers.
    Last edited by Napoleon; 02-27-14 at 12:55 AM.

  7. #167
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,890

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    So, the KKK counts as a race?

    Not sure if serious.
    They are all white folk aren't they? Certainly a race based organization that shares in a hatred toward another race.

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by opendebate View Post
    It's an issue of thinking that one rule of thought always applies or accepting the reality that the effectiveness of any application is relative to the context.
    I have a wonderful quote to post for this situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lysander Spooner
    If justice be not a natural principle, then there is no such thing as injustice; and all the crimes of which the world has been the scene, have been no crimes at all; but only simple events, like the falling of the rain, or the setting of the sun; events of which the victims had no more reason to complain than they had to complain of the running of the streams, or the growth of vegetation.

    If justice be not a natural principle, governments (so-called) have no more right or reason to take cognizance of it, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance of it, than they have to take cognizance, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance, of any other nonentity; and all their professions of establishing justice, or of maintaining justice, or of rewarding justice, are simply the mere gibberish of fools, or the frauds of imposters.

    But if justice be a natural principle, then it is necessarily an immutable one; and can no more be changed --- by any power inferior to that which established it --- than can the law of gravitation, the laws of light, the principles of mathematics, or any other natural law or principle whatever; and all attempts or assumptions, on the part of any man or body of men --- whether calling themselves governments, or by any other name --- to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion, in the place of justice, as a rule of conduct for any human being, are as much an absurdity, an usurpation, and a tyranny, as would be their attempts to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion in the place of any and all the physical, mental, and moral laws of the universe.

    Section II.
    If there be any such principle as justice, it is, of necessity, a natural principle; and, as such, it is a matter of science, to be learned and applied like any other science. And to talk of either adding to, or taking from, it, by legislation, is just as false, absurd, and ridiculous as it would be to talk of adding to, or taking from, mathematics, chemistry, or any other science, by legislation.

    Section III.
    If there be in nature such a principle as justice, nothing can be added to, or taken from, its supreme authority by all the legislation of which the entire human race united are capable. And all the attempts of the human race, or of any portion of it, to add to, or take from, the supreme authority of justice, in any case whatever, is of no more obligation upon any single human being than is the idle wind.

    Section IV.
    If there be such a principle as justice, or natural law, it is the principle, or law, that tells us what rights were given to every human being at his birth; what rights are, therefore, inherent in him as a human being, necessarily remain with him during life; and, however capable of being trampled upon, are incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated or eliminated from his nature as a human being, or deprived of their inherent authority or obligation.

    On the other hand, if there be no such principle as justice, or natural law, then every human being came into the world utterly destitute of rights; and coming into the world destitute of rights, he must necessarily forever remain so. For if no one brings any rights with him into the world, clearly no one can ever have any rights of his own, or give any to another. And the consequence would be that mankind could never have any rights; and for them to talk of any such things as their rights, would be to talk of things that never had, never will have, and never can have any existence.
    You have to wonder what the use of something is if it is not based on a sound and consistent principle, because honestly, what could the use be of something that contradicts and violates itself in such absurdities as saying we have a right to our labor, but at the same time saying we don't have a right to our labor; to say, we have a right to our property, but at the same time saying we don't have a right to our property, etc, etc,etc. I could of course go on forever on the absurdity that makes up the liberal ideas of rights, and how they fundamentally show that they don't understand how you protect anything what so ever. In fact, they show they don't understand logic at all. They are claiming we have rights on one hand, but on the other saying we do not, and not even realizing they are doing it. It is astounding to me that anyone believes it.

  9. #169
    Sage
    opendebate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,315

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    By what you've stated though, individual liberty should always be sacrificed for "the greater good" but ok, let's talk plausibility.
    No that is what you read into it. I almost never say ALWAYS, because the reality is that those choices require context. The only somewhat inflexible position I hold is that humans should always be kind to one another. (definition of kind being somewhat subjective)


    If wedding event planners, bakers, photographers etc. can be told that they have no right to their religious conscience what makes anyone so sure that won't be extended to pastors, ministers etc. who refuse to perform gay marriages?
    Okay, so let me draw back for a minute to create a broader context. I try to establish what is fair based on what I could live with.

    If I were a devout Christian (which admittedly I't not) and I wanted to have the freedom to practice my faith without limitations it would require that everyone around me either be of the same faith or submit to my interpretation of the religious doctrine I have chosen. Well, I would not want to have to submit to the doctrine of any other faith so maybe some limitations are necessary.

    I would then most likely chose to draw that back to being able to state my interpretations of my religious doctrines freely rather than force everyone to live by and exhibit devotion to the same.

    So an idea that is more universally applicable and maintains a basis of equality, regardless of who has more power would be, you are free to think, state openly and believe as you chose but not practice acts of exclusion based on those beliefs.
    "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
    "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway

  10. #170
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    So, the KKK counts as a race?

    Not sure if serious.
    yeah didnt you know discriminating again them is discriminating against whites

    you know because the KKK represents all whites <end sarcasm> lol
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 17 of 68 FirstFirst ... 715161718192767 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •