Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 87 of 87

Thread: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

  1. #81
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,752

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    That's because you just aren't libertarian enough.
    Depends on who you ask.

    I used to consider myself a conservative with a Libertarian lean, but Iím not so sure anymore. Some of the meanings I associate with certain words may be incorrect.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  2. #82
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Freedom is the ability to do whatever we want as long as we do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Anything beyond that is not freedom.
    So freedom to maim is not freedom?

    You're not a libertarian because you don't seem to like libertarian principals.
    Which are of course defined by you and just you. Nice setup there. You get to define what libertarian principals are and whenever anyone deviates from what you believe to be libertarian principles you declare they aren't a libertarian.

    Once again, I'm not a libertarian because you don't want me to be.

    Oh but it makes perfect sense. Slavery is better than everyone getting killed (how having gay marriage and regular marriage sponsored by the state is better than just having regular marriage sponsored by the state), but slavery is still not a good thing.
    So you want maximum freedom, but more freedoms than the previous state is a no-no?

    Really, do you expect me to buy you're a libertarian when you refuse to accept the next best freedom maximizing option?

    I'll only support getting the state out altogether.
    And when that never happens....?

    You realize your stance is very anti-libertarian no? If you can't get the best option, you accept and even condone anti-libertarian positions?

    You are the vegetarian who dislikes the choices of vegetarian dishes and thus orders a 16 oz steak. Can't have the ideal? Well, then it's okay to go with an anti-thetical idea.

    You can't understand my position until you look at the analogy seriously.
    I can't take your position seriously when you refuse to push for the most freedom maximizing option.

    How's the T-bone steak my fair weathered vegetarian friend?

    I'm not abandoning it. The state should not have any say in marriage, so I'll always vote that way: always. Just because I vote against gay marriage does not mean I am against the right of association or free speech, it means that I'm against government involvement.
    In fact you are abandoning it. Instead of realizing that some things will not go the way you want them and thus accept that we should push for the next best freedom maximizing option, you have an all or nothing take on it. If you can't get state less marriage, then it's okay to bar certain people from marriage and limit their freedoms, which is the antithesis of Libertarianism.

    Just because you don't like the menu does not mean you pick something that is against your diet.

    Don't look at it like I'm voting against gay marriage, look at it like I'm voting against state involvement with marriage.
    But you are voting against gay marriage. Instead of expanding personal freedoms to people, you are for curtailing them. How is that libertarian? Furthermore, your stances end in the most freedom curtailing scenarios. Instead of accepting that somethings are too entrenched to move and thus look for the next most libertarian position, you just throw your hands up and accept anti-libertarian positions.

    The ideal is no state marriage. But since we cannot get that, do we just abandon our ideas and accept freedom limiting measures upon people in our society or do we push for freedom maximizing measures?

    You want the high and mighty, or nothing at all. As we so rarely ever get the high and mighty, under your stance, we get many anti-libertarian laws rather than libertarian leaning laws. Hard to consider you a libertarian when you are complement with that.

    Look at it this way. I don't think gay marriage is really marriage, but with freedom of association, it really doesn't matter.
    When it comes to personal freedom and rights it is marriage. Unless you want to argue that the 1,000 or so rights that come with marriage and not civil rights aren't rights because it's two gay people in the contract.

    How the hell is it freedom of association?

    Hopefully this makes it clearer for you.
    Nope. My position has not changed.

    The difference between you and I is that you only support the high and mighty and have no problems abandoning libertarianism when you run into turbulence. Also, you have no problems accepting anti-libertarian ideas because you can't get the absolute. If all libertarians followed your stance, we'd get very anti-libertarian laws that did not lean towards personal freedom rather than libertarian leaning laws that seek to maximize personal freedom.

    A vegetarian does not order a steak because they do not like the vegetarian options. Similarity, a libertarian does not advocate for anti-libertarian positions because they don't like the options.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #83
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Freedom of association means that if you don't like him then you don't have to have anything to do with him.
    So we should kick people out of the country if we don't like them? The guy down the street pays taxes which go towards communal services. I'm associated with him that way and I don't like him. Should I be free from having to pay taxes for emergency services on the basis of your freedom of association?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #84
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    So we should kick people out of the country if we don't like them? The guy down the street pays taxes which go towards communal services. I'm associated with him that way and I don't like him. Should I be free from having to pay taxes for emergency services on the basis of your freedom of association?
    No. I'm not even going to explain why because you're just trying to me with that post. That's not what I said and you know it.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  5. #85
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    No. I'm not even going to explain why because you're just trying to me with that post. That's not what I said and you know it.
    On the contrary, given your extreme and reckless liberal use of the term "freedom of association" it does qualify. I choose to live here. Therefore I have exercised my freedom to associate.

    Fact of the matter is that your stance leads to anti-libertarian laws because you refuse to accept the most libertarian leaning law due to its failure to be 100% what you want.

    Is gay marriage the best outcome? No. Is it the most libertarian leaning, freedom maximizing option? Yes. So how can you, as an alleged self declared libertarian pretend to call yourself a libertarian when you do not advocate for the most realistic freedom maximizing option but instead jump into bed with anti-libertarian laws?

    One does not order a steak when they are a vegetarian because they dislike the vegetarian menu items. That would be a FAKE vegetarian. Hence you are FAKE libertarian. Or possibly just a delusional one. Delusional in that you think you are a libertarian but in reality you do not support the actual belief in maximizing personal freedoms. Similar to how big government, big spending, big interventionists like Navy Pride think they are Conservatives.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #86
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    ^^Freedom of association does not mean you get to kick people out that you don't like. Your verbosity will not cover up that lie.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  7. #87
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    So freedom to maim is not freedom?
    Anything beyond that is not freedom. Calling something a freedom which necessarily infringes on someone else's rights is a misnomer.

    Which are of course defined by you and just you. Nice setup there. You get to define what libertarian principals are and whenever anyone deviates from what you believe to be libertarian principles you declare they aren't a libertarian.

    Once again, I'm not a libertarian because you don't want me to be.
    Libertarians are people who want to maximize liberty and they generally are against government interventions. That's not my definition and you do not represent that view.

    So you want maximum freedom, but more freedoms than the previous state is a no-no?

    Really, do you expect me to buy you're a libertarian when you refuse to accept the next best freedom maximizing option?



    And when that never happens....?

    You realize your stance is very anti-libertarian no? If you can't get the best option, you accept and even condone anti-libertarian positions?

    You are the vegetarian who dislikes the choices of vegetarian dishes and thus orders a 16 oz steak. Can't have the ideal? Well, then it's okay to go with an anti-thetical idea.



    I can't take your position seriously when you refuse to push for the most freedom maximizing option.

    How's the T-bone steak my fair weathered vegetarian friend?
    You are being intentionally obtuse so as to belittle my position. Again, I'm not falling for it. You know exactly what I'm saying but refuse to engage it.

    In fact you are abandoning it. Instead of realizing that some things will not go the way you want them and thus accept that we should push for the next best freedom maximizing option, you have an all or nothing take on it. If you can't get state less marriage, then it's okay to bar certain people from marriage and limit their freedoms, which is the antithesis of Libertarianism.

    Just because you don't like the menu does not mean you pick something that is against your diet.
    This is what you don't understand. People are not married because the state gives them a license. I'll vote against state involvement in gay marriage and straight marriage. The state should not be involved in marriage, period.

    But you are voting against gay marriage. Instead of expanding personal freedoms to people, you are for curtailing them. How is that libertarian? Furthermore, your stances end in the most freedom curtailing scenarios. Instead of accepting that somethings are too entrenched to move and thus look for the next most libertarian position, you just throw your hands up and accept anti-libertarian positions.

    The ideal is no state marriage. But since we cannot get that, do we just abandon our ideas and accept freedom limiting measures upon people in our society or do we push for freedom maximizing measures?

    You want the high and mighty, or nothing at all. As we so rarely ever get the high and mighty, under your stance, we get many anti-libertarian laws rather than libertarian leaning laws. Hard to consider you a libertarian when you are complement with that.
    Your problem is that you seem to think I accept the status quo. I don't. A settlement on this issue does not go far enough.

    When it comes to personal freedom and rights it is marriage. Unless you want to argue that the 1,000 or so rights that come with marriage and not civil rights aren't rights because it's two gay people in the contract.

    How the hell is it freedom of association?
    Because I don't see it personally as marriage and if they call themselves married that's their business. I don't like it and don't have to call them married. There would be no problem.

    People in civil unions should have the same rights that married people have. Visitation rights and all of the other things, it should be the same.

    Nope. My position has not changed.

    The difference between you and I is that you only support the high and mighty and have no problems abandoning libertarianism when you run into turbulence. Also, you have no problems accepting anti-libertarian ideas because you can't get the absolute. If all libertarians followed your stance, we'd get very anti-libertarian laws that did not lean towards personal freedom rather than libertarian leaning laws that seek to maximize personal freedom.

    A vegetarian does not order a steak because they do not like the vegetarian options. Similarity, a libertarian does not advocate for anti-libertarian positions because they don't like the options.
    You think that a vote against gay marriage is anti-libertarian, when in fact it is the other way around because libertarians are against state marriage altogether.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

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