Page 38 of 44 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 439

Thread: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

  1. #371
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    They can make a choice to live in a dance free envir. Join groups that are anti dancing and agree with their views. But I see no reason why my next door neighbor should force anti dancing on me.
    If the pro-dancing neighbor chooses to dance in the street, then the anti-dancing neighbor is being forced to live in a pro-dance environment. What gives you the right to force him to live in a pro-dancing environment?

    If someone is anti-dancing, they have a right to try and promote legislation that dictates that dancing should not be allowed in the environment in which they live. If someone is pro-dancing, they have just as much of a right to try and promote pro-dancing legislation.

    I'm not against forcing morality upon others at the local level, I'm against forcing morality of any sort on the federal level.

    Doing so on the federal level removes the choice form the local person to promote their beliefs through legislation.

    I would never support an anti-dancing law, In fact I would ardently oppose such a law.

    The is that by forcing people to live in an environment that they are morally opposed to, by way of federal legislation, you effectively remove their right to choose. If the nation has a pro-dancing law, then that ther is no place within that nation that allows for people to live in a dance-free environment.

    If a person finds residing in a pro-dancing environment immoral, they are having the opposing morality forced upon them.

    It is not simply a matter of "If you don't like X behavior, then don't engage in X behavior".

    Some people legitimately feel just LIVING in an enviroment that promotes X behavior is immoral.

    by removing their ability to live in an anvironment that is freee form X behavior, you in fact force them to engage in something that they find immoral.

    That is forcing one's own morality upon others.

    By allowing each local area to decide the matter for themselves, we in effect lessen the degree upon which morality is forced upon others.

    By allowing choice, we do NOT force morality upon others, we force CHOICES upon others.

    If your local area decides to ban X behavior, you are now faced with three choices:

    1. Move to an area that allows X behavior.
    2. Choose to say but lobby to get the local ordinances changed to allow X behavior.
    3. Deal with it because you choose NOT to engage in 1 or 2.

    All three are legitimate choices.


    Now, the reverse is also true. If a person wants to ban X behavior, but locally X behavior is allowed they now have three choices to make:

    1. Move to an area that does not allow X behavior
    2. Choose to stay but lobby to get the local ordinance changed to not allow X behavior
    3. Deal with it because they choose NOT to engage in 1 or 2



    If this practice is adopted nationwide, and kept as local as possible, the end effect is that NOBODY, of any stripe, has ANY morality FORCED upon them. They ALL have choices that they can make.

    Even if the three choices are unappealing to the person in question, the fact is that choice does exist.

    To me, forcing things upon people is the removal of the ability to make some sort of choice. Morality cannot be forced upon someone if the country were to adopt, because there would always exist a choice.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #372
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If the pro-dancing neighbor chooses to dance in the street, then the anti-dancing neighbor is being forced to live in a pro-dance environment. What gives you the right to force him to live in a pro-dancing environment?
    I'm sorry I was going on the premise that this was a free country and freedom of expression was allowed

  3. #373
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    I don't think it's legislating morality
    "Its the right thing to do" is a moral position.
    Basing legislation on a moral position is legislating morality.

    I suppose all laws can be interprited to be legislating morality. That isn't what I am talking about though. What my original comment was intended to mean was that legislating victimless behaviors is what I stand against.
    So, as noted, your opposition to legislating morality isn't as wholesale and plenary as your originally stated.

  4. #374
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    I'm sorry I was going on the premise that this was a free country and freedom of expression was allowed
    How is free expression denied if Town X decides to ban dancing? Could not all those who choose to engage in dancing do so in some place other than Town X?

    If so, then free expression is not denied.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #375
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    How is free expression denied if Town X decides to ban dancing? .
    Because they banned dancing which is a form of expression. And if the anti-dancers don't like it they can choose to protest, damn the dancers to hell or just not look.

  6. #376
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:05 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,192

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If the pro-dancing neighbor chooses to dance in the street, then the anti-dancing neighbor is being forced to live in a pro-dance environment. What gives you the right to force him to live in a pro-dancing environment?

    If someone is anti-dancing, they have a right to try and promote legislation that dictates that dancing should not be allowed in the environment in which they live. If someone is pro-dancing, they have just as much of a right to try and promote pro-dancing legislation.

    I'm not against forcing morality upon others at the local level, I'm against forcing morality of any sort on the federal level.

    Doing so on the federal level removes the choice form the local person to promote their beliefs through legislation.

    I would never support an anti-dancing law, In fact I would ardently oppose such a law.

    The is that by forcing people to live in an environment that they are morally opposed to, by way of federal legislation, you effectively remove their right to choose. If the nation has a pro-dancing law, then that ther is no place within that nation that allows for people to live in a dance-free environment.

    If a person finds residing in a pro-dancing environment immoral, they are having the opposing morality forced upon them.

    It is not simply a matter of "If you don't like X behavior, then don't engage in X behavior".

    Some people legitimately feel just LIVING in an enviroment that promotes X behavior is immoral.

    by removing their ability to live in an anvironment that is freee form X behavior, you in fact force them to engage in something that they find immoral.

    That is forcing one's own morality upon others.

    By allowing each local area to decide the matter for themselves, we in effect lessen the degree upon which morality is forced upon others.

    By allowing choice, we do NOT force morality upon others, we force CHOICES upon others.

    If your local area decides to ban X behavior, you are now faced with three choices:

    1. Move to an area that allows X behavior.
    2. Choose to say but lobby to get the local ordinances changed to allow X behavior.
    3. Deal with it because you choose NOT to engage in 1 or 2.

    All three are legitimate choices.


    Now, the reverse is also true. If a person wants to ban X behavior, but locally X behavior is allowed they now have three choices to make:

    1. Move to an area that does not allow X behavior
    2. Choose to stay but lobby to get the local ordinance changed to not allow X behavior
    3. Deal with it because they choose NOT to engage in 1 or 2



    If this practice is adopted nationwide, and kept as local as possible, the end effect is that NOBODY, of any stripe, has ANY morality FORCED upon them. They ALL have choices that they can make.

    Even if the three choices are unappealing to the person in question, the fact is that choice does exist.

    To me, forcing things upon people is the removal of the ability to make some sort of choice. Morality cannot be forced upon someone if the country were to adopt, because there would always exist a choice.
    Freedom is the default. There would be no pro-dancing law. Freedom is what this country was founded on. It's our greatest attribute as a nation.

    If living in a free society hurts people's personal morality, this country may not be the place for them. Our Constitution is set up so the minority doesn't suffer the tyranny of the majority. Freedom is the overriding value. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. If you don't like living in an environment where I swing my fists but hurt no one, that's your problem. If you outlaw me being able to swing my fists, you've punched my nose.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  7. #377
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Because they banned dancing which is a form of expression. And if the anti-dancers don't like it they can choose to protest, damn the dancers to hell or just not look.
    False. They are not banned from dancing. If a local ordinance bans dancing, it only does so locally. Dancers are still free to express themselves where dancing is legal.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #378
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    Our Constitution is set up so the minority doesn't suffer the tyranny of the majority.
    Why doesn't this apply when the minority chooses to live under a certain morality?

    Don't you see how this means that local jurisdiction should have primacy over federal jurisdiction?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #379
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:05 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,192

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Why doesn't this apply when the minority chooses to live under a certain morality?

    Don't you see how this means that local jurisdiction should have primacy over federal jurisdiction?
    The minority can live under their certain morality. They can't force others to live the same lifestyle they choose for themselves. My dancing doesn't doesn't alter their lifestyle. When you say that they don't want to live in a environment, you are essentially saying that they want to control other people's lives. This flies in the face of freedom. My dancing causes them no harm. If they can't explain to their kids why they don't dance, they should rethink their policy.

    I agree with local jurisdictions having primacy over many things. But it shouldn't trample on freedoms insured federally. My position isn't really an black or white either way, it lies in the grey area.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  10. #380
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    My dancing doesn't doesn't alter their lifestyle. When you say that they don't want to live in a environment, you are essentially saying that they want to control other people's lives.
    They are not saying they want to control other people's lives, they are saying that they want to control their own lives. People still have control over their own lives because they can make choices. By removing their ability to live in a dance-free environment, you do in fact control them. You ask them to look askance when they encounter dancing. you force, literally FORCE them to do something that they otherwise would not do by making them live in an environment that allows dancing.

    To do something by force is to remove a person's alternatives. Banning dancing in Town X does not remove the alternatives of a person who wants to engage in the activity. They are still FREE TO DO SO, just not in Town X.

    Saying that passing legislation at the local level to enforce a code of morality is forcing one's morality upon others is erroneous because the alternative still exists, just not within that locality.

    This means that a resident of Town X could still dance the night away to their heart's content. They cannot ban residents of Town X from dancing, they can only prohibit dancing within the confines of Town X.

    In oater words, there is no force. There is no coercion. There is no "force" to prevent a behavior, only a law preventing the behavior within the town limits.

    By making it illegla to pass such legislation, you actually remove the choice of passing that legislation. They cannot go to another locale and try to enforce this legislation. The only situation where choice and freeedom are removed are those situations where the ability to choose is removed.

    If the ability to pass legislation is removed, that choice is removed.

    Teh issue is not simply being able to dance or not. If it can only be decided locally, it becomes literally imposisbel toe ban dance universally. Just as it becomes literally impossible to force everyone to live in a pro-dancing environment.

    The ONLY way to guarantee that freedom is never infringed upon is to allow all localities to dictate what freedoms they allow/disallow by themselves and not at the behest of a larger federal authority.

    Freedom is not just limitted to personal activities. It also includes teh ability to live in certain environments of one's choosing. It is about the ultimate decision of choice.

    Look at things from an objective perspective. If my true desire is to allow liberty to all, then that includes liberties which I disagree with, such as living in an environment that holds teh same morality.

    Whenever one freedom is granted, another is taken away, the opposing view's freedom to live in an environment that doesn't have that freedom.

    All freedoms entail a choice. The choice to engage, and the choice to not engage. This includes freedoms that may not seem like freedoms on the surface.

    Democracy is about allowing people's voices to be heard equally. The only way to oppose oppresion is to not give extra weight to those views which we agree with.

    True freedom only occurs if we allow people to abstain from partaking.

    This means that true freedom comes with a cost.



    For example, I don't dance. I simply do not do it. But I do not want to live in a dance-free environment either. They are two different rights.

    I have the right to dance but I am currently allowed to not partake of that right.

    I have the ability to live in a environment that allows dancing, but I am NOT allowed to NOT partake in that right.

    The choice is removed.

    Thus, freedom has been infringed upon.

    To truly support freedom, you MUST, absolutely MUST, allow those who dissent to NOT partake of that freedom.

    The only way to do this is to allow them a choice.



    Just because one doesn't agree with someone engaging or disengaging from said freedom, does not mean that they should remove that freedom of choice to engage or disengage.

    By keeping it so that these things are only decided at the most local of levels, you never remove freedom of choice.


    If one can truly show how banning a behavior in a local region legitimately removes someone's choice to engage in said behavior, you have an argument, but that cannot exist if the ordinaces are kept strictly local.

    How is the ability to dance removed by a local ordinance banning dance? If said person still has the right to dance elsewhere, do they not still have that right?

    There is no forcing anyone not to dance, there is only prevention of dancing within a a certain boundry, as determined by the people.

    One cannot punish a person who leaves the town in order to dance. That person is simply engaging in their right to dance.

    They are not subjecting the otehr residents to dancing simply because they want to. Instead they are engaging in thier own rights while not removing anyone else's.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 38 of 44 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... 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
  •