View Poll Results: If a person smears a Christian as a "homophobe," should that person returh fire?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. If they call you a homophobe you should be able to comment on their morals/etc.

    5 16.67%
  • No, they shouldn't return fire because they deserve it.

    1 3.33%
  • Simply ignore the smears and continue debating.

    3 10.00%
  • How about we show some respect and NOT smear eachother?

    16 53.33%
  • Don't know/Other

    5 16.67%
Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 222

Thread: Slander in Politics

  1. #191
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    What business is it of yours what two people you don't know do in the privacy of their own bedroom? (or any other room)
    I didn't say it was my business. What I said is it is no sort of argument just to state it wasn't someone else's business. If you are defending his assertion then you have to show that is no one else's business with a proper argument. I'm not saying he is wrong necessarily, only that you cannot make these sort of question begging, perfunctory little assertions and treat it as an argument. That is in no sense a less bigoted, unexamined and narrow a way to carry on as the so called 'homphobes' are often accused of.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 01-23-12 at 10:26 PM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  2. #192
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,527

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Who says it isn't your business. The problem with you Teamosil is you can't seem to stop making claims which require support, support you don't give them.

    You may be right it no one else's business, but you have to argue it. Otherwise why can't I just say the opposite back to you with just as much back up, or lack thereof.
    I say it isn't my business...

    Constitutional Law

    Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy

    The U.S Constitution safeguards the rights of Americans to privacy and personal autonomy. Although the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution protect these rights, specifically in the areas of marriage, procreation, abortion, private consensual homosexual activity, and medical treatment.
    State and federal laws may limit some of these rights to privacy, as long as the restrictions meet tests that the Supreme Court has set forth, each involving a balancing of an individual's right to privacy against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include protecting public morality and the health of its citizens and improving the quality of life.

    The Right to Marital Privacy

    In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the State of Connecticut convicted two persons as accessories for giving a married couple information on and a prescription for a birth-control device. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions and found the Connecticut law to be unconstitutional because it violated a right to privacy in the marital relation.
    The Court stated that even though the Constitution did not specifically protect the right of privacy, a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases suggested that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights had penumbras, which covered the marital relationship.

    The Right to Procreation

    In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of sexual privacy rights when it struck down a Massachusetts law banning the sale of contraceptives to unmarried couples. The decision in this case extended constitutional protection to all procreative sexual intercourse, not just sex between married partners.

    The Right to Abortion

    In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court found a fundamental right of privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court interpreted this right to cover women seeking to terminate their pregnancies, but only before a fetus is viable outside the womb. This period is generally the first trimester of a pregnancy. Accordingly, the government must justify any limit it places on abortions by providing a compelling state interest. Once a fetus is viable outside of the womb, the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy.

    While states cannot prohibit abortions during the first trimester, they can regulate abortions within that state as long as the restrictions do not create an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Courts then often have to decide which limitations constitute an undue burden. For example, courts have held that a requirement for a 24-hour waiting period for an abortion is not an undue burden, nor is a requirement that abortions be performed by licensed physicians. Courts have struck down spousal consent and notification laws as unconstitutional, but have permitted some parental notification regulations. Also, courts have ruled that the right to abortion is an individual privacy right, and the government does not have to provide or pay for abortions.

    Right to Private Consensual Homosexual Activity

    The constitutional right to privacy now grants privacy protection to adults who engage in private consensual homosexual activity. In 1986, a Georgia statute that made same-sex sodomy illegal was upheld in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186. But in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, striking down the criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy in Texas. Lawrence v. Texas held that the freedom of adults to engage in consensual sexual acts is a right protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized private homosexual activity between consenting adults.

    Right to Pornography

    The Court has not granted a complete right of personal autonomy in the area of pornography, but some privacy has been allowed. In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the Supreme Court invalidated all state laws that prohibit the private possession of obscene materials, based upon rights granted by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Protection for the private possession of obscene materials is limited to those materials depicting adults over age 18.

    Right to Refuse Medical Treatment

    The Supreme Court has held that adults have the right to personal autonomy in matters relating to their own medical care. Adults, as long as they are competent to understand their decision, have the right to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving medical treatment, though a state may require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment ended before it allows termination. A state may restrict family members from terminating treatment for another, because this right belongs to each individual. The court has not extended this right to allow physician-assisted suicide.

    The above Constitutionally backed laws...make a whole lot of human behaviors NONE OF MY BUSINESS...and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

    Again Wessexman...you constantly play the nuance game. You know what others fundamental arguments are (or should), yet you try to make exchanges of opinions and debate complex because they don't meet your definition of "making an argument".

  3. #193
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Who says? You cannot just make assertions like this without anything else and expect them to be taken as irrefutable or any real sort of argument.
    What kind of sex do you have, Wessexman?

    Anal? Oral? How often? What positions? Do you masturbate? What are your favorite fantasies? Anything kinky?

    If you don't give complete and honest answers to all these questions, tell me why exactly.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  4. #194
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I didn't say it was my business. What I said is it is no sort of argument just to state it wasn't someone else's business. If you are defending his assertion then you have to show that is no one else's business with a proper argument. I'm not saying he is wrong necessarily, only that you cannot make these sort of question begging, perfunctory little assertions and treat it as an argument. That is in no sense a less bigoted, unexamined and narrow a way to carry on as the so called 'homphobes' are often accused of.
    I didn't say it was an argument. I think it's pretty much self-evident and nearly universally accepted, so I think your objection is just bluster. I think you agree with it and just can't think of anything else to say.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  5. #195
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    What kind of sex do you have, Wessexman?
    I'm guessing "Wishful".
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  6. #196
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    I'm guessing "Wishful".


    We can have as much fun as we want speculating about his sex life now, until he comes out and says "my sex life is none of your business." This should be fun!
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  7. #197
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    What kind of sex do you have, Wessexman?

    Anal? Oral? How often? What positions? Do you masturbate? What are your favorite fantasies? Anything kinky?

    If you don't give complete and honest answers to all these questions, tell me why exactly.
    You are not giving an argument. You maintain it is never anyone's business, but you will not provide an argument. That is question begging, that is unexamined and narrow ideological bigotry as much as what the so called 'homophobes' are accused of.

    I'm a traditional Christian who is unmarried. But this doesn't change your question begging approach. You cannot simply state it is never anyone else's business, you must argue it.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  8. #198
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    I say it isn't my business...

    Constitutional Law

    Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy

    The U.S Constitution safeguards the rights of Americans to privacy and personal autonomy. Although the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution protect these rights, specifically in the areas of marriage, procreation, abortion, private consensual homosexual activity, and medical treatment.
    State and federal laws may limit some of these rights to privacy, as long as the restrictions meet tests that the Supreme Court has set forth, each involving a balancing of an individual's right to privacy against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include protecting public morality and the health of its citizens and improving the quality of life.

    The Right to Marital Privacy

    In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the State of Connecticut convicted two persons as accessories for giving a married couple information on and a prescription for a birth-control device. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions and found the Connecticut law to be unconstitutional because it violated a right to privacy in the marital relation.
    The Court stated that even though the Constitution did not specifically protect the right of privacy, a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases suggested that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights had penumbras, which covered the marital relationship.

    The Right to Procreation

    In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of sexual privacy rights when it struck down a Massachusetts law banning the sale of contraceptives to unmarried couples. The decision in this case extended constitutional protection to all procreative sexual intercourse, not just sex between married partners.

    The Right to Abortion

    In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court found a fundamental right of privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court interpreted this right to cover women seeking to terminate their pregnancies, but only before a fetus is viable outside the womb. This period is generally the first trimester of a pregnancy. Accordingly, the government must justify any limit it places on abortions by providing a compelling state interest. Once a fetus is viable outside of the womb, the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy.

    While states cannot prohibit abortions during the first trimester, they can regulate abortions within that state as long as the restrictions do not create an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Courts then often have to decide which limitations constitute an undue burden. For example, courts have held that a requirement for a 24-hour waiting period for an abortion is not an undue burden, nor is a requirement that abortions be performed by licensed physicians. Courts have struck down spousal consent and notification laws as unconstitutional, but have permitted some parental notification regulations. Also, courts have ruled that the right to abortion is an individual privacy right, and the government does not have to provide or pay for abortions.

    Right to Private Consensual Homosexual Activity

    The constitutional right to privacy now grants privacy protection to adults who engage in private consensual homosexual activity. In 1986, a Georgia statute that made same-sex sodomy illegal was upheld in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186. But in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, striking down the criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy in Texas. Lawrence v. Texas held that the freedom of adults to engage in consensual sexual acts is a right protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized private homosexual activity between consenting adults.

    Right to Pornography

    The Court has not granted a complete right of personal autonomy in the area of pornography, but some privacy has been allowed. In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the Supreme Court invalidated all state laws that prohibit the private possession of obscene materials, based upon rights granted by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Protection for the private possession of obscene materials is limited to those materials depicting adults over age 18.

    Right to Refuse Medical Treatment

    The Supreme Court has held that adults have the right to personal autonomy in matters relating to their own medical care. Adults, as long as they are competent to understand their decision, have the right to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving medical treatment, though a state may require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment ended before it allows termination. A state may restrict family members from terminating treatment for another, because this right belongs to each individual. The court has not extended this right to allow physician-assisted suicide.

    The above Constitutionally backed laws...make a whole lot of human behaviors NONE OF MY BUSINESS...and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

    Again Wessexman...you constantly play the nuance game. You know what others fundamental arguments are (or should), yet you try to make exchanges of opinions and debate complex because they don't meet your definition of "making an argument".
    There is nothing nuanced about wishing that people actually give argument instead of just make claims. That is about as nuanced as sledge hammer.

    Anyway the above is a good argument. Can you spot the difference between it and Misterman's post;

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    It's not though.

    The sex lives of strangers is nobody else's business. If you think otherwise, I have alot of nosy questions for you.
    This difference is not nuance, it is the difference between random, unsupported assertions, or bigotry, and your proper argument.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  9. #199
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    There is nothing nuanced about wishing that people actually give argument instead of just make claims. That is about as nuanced as sledge hammer.

    Anyway the above is a good argument. Can you spot the difference between it and Misterman's post;



    This difference is not nuance, it is the difference between random, unsupported assertions, or bigotry, and your proper argument.
    This is very rich coming from Mr Because-I-Say-So. I've yet to see you back up anything you have argued with evidence, citations or data. You constantly resort to, "it's a matter of reasoning", claiming that because this is an internet forum and "this is not a court of law" you have no need to provide evidence. Somehow, when someone challenges you, evidence is suddenly necessary.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  10. #200
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    This is very rich coming from Mr Because-I-Say-So. I've yet to see you back up anything you have argued with evidence, citations or data. You constantly resort to, "it's a matter of reasoning", claiming that because this is an internet forum and "this is not a court of law" you have no need to provide evidence. Somehow, when someone challenges you, evidence is suddenly necessary.
    Who said anything about evidence? I simply said an argument. Reasoning is often valid, as evidence. The problem is Andy, you, like so many, are mesmerised by statistics without realising you have to get your thought right first and use thought to make any sense of them.

    I did not say he has to provide statistics, just more than a bald assertion, so your complaint makes no sense.

    Can you please show me where I asked for evidence? For instance this post talks only of reason and arguments;

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    You are not giving an argument. You maintain it is never anyone's business, but you will not provide an argument. That is question begging, that is unexamined and narrow ideological bigotry as much as what the so called 'homophobes' are accused of.

    I'm a traditional Christian who is unmarried. But this doesn't change your question begging approach. You cannot simply state it is never anyone else's business, you must argue it.
    Next time you try and swoop in to keep up the side, at least make sure you say something that makes sense Andy.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 01-24-12 at 05:36 PM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... 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
  •