• 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!

Do You Agree with John Stossel?

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

  • Total voters
    96
Lakryte said:
Ok, I get that. It doesn't refute my point though.
Click to expand...

But it does. We are not an anarchy. All societies need rules to live by, and not just the big ones like don't murder. We live peacefully because of these laws. We went through a lot to get them. No one just up and threw them out there. Instead, suffering people fought for them, won them, and from people who didn't know how to live civilly.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry that's as they say lame!..........i asked you how i could violate a persons rights....without committing a crime..........and you deflected the question.

becuase again you cant explain, it , and you have no defense.
Click to expand...

No, I just didn't accept your foolish narrow definition here. Your premise is flawed, badly. See history and the court case for the best examples.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I just didn't accept your foolish narrow definition here. Your premise is flawed, badly. See history and the court case for the best examples.
Click to expand...

how does a citizen violate the rights of another citizen,....since the constitution is not written to limit citizens or business..its only written to limit governments........where to you find limits on citizens at in the constitution?

only crimes committed by a citizen, can deny another citizen his rights......and that falls under criminal law.


according to your logic, then if government violates my rights ......i can send government to jail...........and that's plain ridiculous.
 
ernst barkmann said:
how does a citizen violate the rights of another citizen,....since the constitution is not written to limit citizens or business..its only written to limit governments........where to you find limits on citizens at in the constitution?

only crimes committed by a citizen, can deny another citizen his rights......and that falls under criminal law.


according to your logic, then if government violates my rights ......i can send government to jail...........and that's plain ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I understand you don't get it. Your view is too myopic and ignores history and court rulings. But until you open up and look beyond your narrow interpretation, you won't see it.
 
Boo Radley said:
I understand you don't get it. Your view is too myopic and ignores history and court rulings. But until you open up and look beyond your narrow interpretation, you won't see it.
Click to expand...

show me in the U.S. CONSTITUTION WHERE IT SAYS, .........A CITIZEN SHALL NOT!

citizens CANNOT violate the u.s. constitution its impossible!
 
Boo Radley said:
But it does. We are not an anarchy. All societies need rules to live by, and not just the big ones like don't murder. We live peacefully because of these laws. We went through a lot to get them. No one just up and threw them out there. Instead, suffering people fought for them, won them, and from people who didn't know how to live civilly.
Click to expand...
Allowing private property owners to discriminate does not = anarchy. That is an enormous slippery slope fallacy.
 
Lakryte said:
Allowing private property owners to discriminate does not = anarchy. That is an enormous slippery slope fallacy.
Click to expand...

If that's what you read, you missed the point. Rights come with responsibility. We are not free to do anything. there are restrictions, and I explained those. As we grew, more was needed for peaceful co-existence. There is a history behind everything that happened. And it was done with our consent.
 
Boo Radley said:
If that's what you read, you missed the point. Rights come with responsibility. We are not free to do anything. there are restrictions, and I explained those. As we grew, more was needed for peaceful co-existence. There is a history behind everything that happened. And it was done with our consent.
Click to expand...

that is not what is being discussed.....your rights can be infringed by another citizen....BUT it can be ONLY thru criminal action......a citizen cannot violate constitutional law...becuase constitutional law does not apply to u.s. citizens....it applies to governments only.....why is that so hard for you?
 
ernst barkmann said:
that is not what is being discussed.....your rights can be infringed by another citizen....BUT it can be ONLY thru criminal action......a citizen cannot violate constitutional law...becuase constitutional law does not apply to u.s. citizens....it applies to governments only.....why is that so hard for you?
Click to expand...

Simply isn't true. Read history and the court case. You have too narrow an understanding.
 
Boo Radley said:
Simply isn't true. Read history and the court case. You have too narrow an understanding.
Click to expand...

read the constitution, where are citizens addressed in the constitution, how does a document which creates the federal government and delegates duties to that government , equate to limiting the people?

where are the people addressed in the constitution which places limits on them!!!

nothing narrow at all........the constitution does no apply to the american people...at all!

anyone who says it does does not know the basics on the constitution, becuase the founders say its applies to the federal government only , and then the states after the civil war...but never the people..only governments

again your logic sayS that people who violate the rights of other people thru the constitution go to jail................HOW COME THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GO TO JAIL IF IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION?...and it has
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
dont stop at one?.....do you have any more supreme law, besides the constitution, BOR
Click to expand...

We have history. The civil rights movement. The 14th amendment and how the courts see, what its intent was, and what was won during the civil rights movement. You're just not listening well.
 
Boo Radley said:
We have history. The civil rights movement. The 14th amendment and how the courts see, what its intent was, and what was won during the civil rights movement. You're just not listening well.
Click to expand...

the 14th amendment says no state shall .......there is no citizen or business mentioned at all.

how come the government does not go to jail for committing unconditional acts?...........by what you are proposing citizens can be imprisoned.... but government is immune.

your not following constitutional law......
 
ernst barkmann said:
the 14th amendment says no state shall .......there is no citizen or business mentioned at all.

how come the government does not go to jail for committing unconditional acts?...........by what you are composing citizens can be imprisoned.... but government is immune.

your not following constitutional law......
Click to expand...

Again, keep reading. Read about their intent. Read about the civil rights movement. Don't just stop. You miss a lot that way.
 
Boo Radley said:
If that's what you read, you missed the point. Rights come with responsibility. We are not free to do anything. there are restrictions, and I explained those. As we grew, more was needed for peaceful co-existence. There is a history behind everything that happened. And it was done with our consent.
Click to expand...
Ok, but the only restriction we are talking about is discrimination. If you are not arguing that removing those laws creates anarchy, then refuting the idea of "being free to do anything" is an irrelevant strawman.
 
Lakryte said:
Ok, but the only restriction we are talking about is discrimination. If you are not arguing that removing those laws creates anarchy, then refuting the idea of "being free to do anything" is an irrelevant strawman.
Click to expand...

No, it was to highlight the need more than basic laws.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it was to highlight the need more than basic laws.
Click to expand...
Ok, great. But were are not talking about all the other laws that are more than basic. We are just talking about those regarding discrimination on private property. So anything not pertaining to that isn't relevant.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, keep reading. Read about their intent. Read about the civil rights movement. Don't just stop. You miss a lot that way.
Click to expand...

civil rights movement.........:lol:

the u.s. constitution is the law, not federal laws which defy the constitution
 
Lakryte said:
Ok, great. But were are not talking about all the other laws that are more than basic. We are just talking about those regarding discrimination on private property. So anything not pertaining to that isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

It is if I'm trying to get you too how laws evolve. I've tried pointing directly to civil rights and specific court cases. I thought I'd try getting a little more general, as the specific was being paid attention to.
 
ernst barkmann said:
civil rights movement.........:lol:

the u.s. constitution is the law, not federal laws which defy the constitution
Click to expand...

Laws were born out of the civil rights movement. They used the 14th amendment, and courts backed them. You should know this.
 
Boo Radley said:
Laws were born out of the civil rights movement. They used the 14th amendment, and courts backed them. You should know this.
Click to expand...

i know what the 14th amendment says, and it addresses only governments.

the constitution does not limit people at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom