• 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!

Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discrimination?

What's More Important - the "Right" to Discriminate, or Freedom From Discrimination?


  • Total voters
    93
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Are we to believe that Federalist is being held in a imprisoned condition of involuntary servitude and is being forced to drive upon streets, roads and highways built with eminent domain which he uses and benefits from but which he pretends to oppose on principle and is completely and utterly powerless and impotent to do anything else?

Are we to believe that Federalist is being held in a imprisoned condition of involuntary servitude and is being forced to use hospitals and medical care facilities built with eminent domain which he uses and benefits from but which he pretends to oppose on principle and is completely and utterly powerless and impotent to do anything else?

Are we to believe that Federalist is being held in a imprisoned condition of involuntary servitude and is being forced to use airports built with eminent domain which he uses and benefits from but which he pretends to oppose on principle and is completely and utterly powerless and impotent to do anything else?

Are we to believe that Federalist is being held in a imprisoned condition of involuntary servitude and is being forced to use services provided by government employees working in government buildings and facilities built with eminent domain which he uses and benefits from but which he pretends to oppose on principle and is completely and utterly powerless and impotent to do anything else?

Are we to believe that Federalist is being held in a imprisoned condition of involuntary servitude and is being forced to interact with people educated and trained to perform job functions in schools built with eminent domain which he benefits from but which he pretends to oppose on principle and is completely and utterly powerless and impotent to do anything else?

Is it your position that all such facilities or even most are created through the use of eminent domain? Are not all of these uses supposed to first go through a voluntary process where by the previous owner is given a change to sell before eminent domain is invoked?

Additionally, it is not always possible to tell when certain facilities are created through the use of eminent doamin. In such cases, once he knows he can then use other methods by which to facilitate. In other cases, there is no alternative to the use of a facility created by eminent domain. In either situation there is no willful free use of the facility.

So somebody else made them do it and they did not do so "freely" or "willingly" or "they did not want to do it".

If there is indeed a government function that is required of you and the only facility available is one obtained via eminent domain, then there is indeed no choice. When it is unknown then that use is not willingly in the context of knowledge.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Those are interesting assumptions. But, as I'm sure you are aware, in a debate, when one makes accusations, one must then back up those accusations with proof. So put up or shut up, and provide proof.

I just did. You see Federalist - unless you are some hermit living off the grid and isolated from everyone and everything else - it would be impossible for you to live without benefitting from things built from eminent domain. It is simply not possible.


But if I am wrong feel free to tell me which actions of yours I am incorrectly discussing. Here is your chance to clear it up.

I contend that you use and benefit from streets and roads and highways and airports and terminals and services provided for by government employees working out of government buildings and some of these were built using the power of eminent domain. I contend that you benefit from interactions with other Americans educated or trained in schools built with the power of eminent domain. I contend that you have used medical facilities built with the power of eminent domain.

So here is your chance to clear up what you characterize as me knowing nothing. Come clean and tell us about these "assumptions" and why they are wrong. Tell us how an American can live among us in society, have computer access and not do ANY of those things.

See Federalist, the burden of proof has now shifted to you. You want to contend that I am wrong and making false assumptions about you but the only way those assumptions can be false is if you live a life style that is not something that probably 99.99% of Americans do. So you are claiming you are the exception to the rule that nearly everybody else lives by. That is your only way out of the corner you have painted yourself into. And in that corner the burden of proof is solely upon you.

Of course, you WILL NOT DO THIS as the claim itself is absurd and foolish. One cannot simply live in the USA without benefitting from the things I described. It simply cannot be done by the average American living a normal life. But if you are NOT the average American living a normal life and you want to claim you are the exception to the rule - please do step up and prove that.

The very computer you type upon each day got to you using these things and you benefit from that and willingly do so. It is self evident and beyond denial.

Again - this I gotta hear.

But of course, you will not do that as what you are trying to do is walk a very high tightrope claiming you are against the very things that you use and benefit from. In short - you want to find some loophole that lets you out of your own hypocrisy and permits you to continue living a lie while making pretty-sounding personal pontifications of political belief that say otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Is it your position that all such facilities or even most are created through the use of eminent domain? Are not all of these uses supposed to first go through a voluntary process where by the previous owner is given a change to sell before eminent domain is invoked?

Additionally, it is not always possible to tell when certain facilities are created through the use of eminent doamin. In such cases, once he knows he can then use other methods by which to facilitate. In other cases, there is no alternative to the use of a facility created by eminent domain. In either situation there is no willful free use of the facility.



If there is indeed a government function that is required of you and the only facility available is one obtained via eminent domain, then there is indeed no choice. When it is unknown then that use is not willingly in the context of knowledge.

Living in America is the ultimate choice. And Federalist has freely and willingly made that choice. We all have and somebody with his intelligence cannot pretend to know how much of this country was built and the role eminent domain played in it. It simply is a ridiculous assertion that is a shameless attempt to justify ones own personal hypocrisy.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I just did. You see Federalist - unless you are some hermit living off the grid and isolated from everyone and everything else - it would be impossible for you to live without benefitting from things built from eminent domain. It is simply not possible.


But if I am wrong feel free to tell me which actions of yours I am incorrectly discussing. Here is your chance to clear it up.

I contend that you use and benefit from streets and roads and highways and airports and terminals and services provided for by government employees working out of government buildings and some of these were built using the power of eminent domain. I contend that you benefit from interactions with other Americans educated or trained in schools built with the power of eminent domain. I contend that you have used medical facilities built with the power of eminent domain.

So here is your chance to clear up what you characterize as me knowing nothing. Come clean and tell us about these "assumptions" and why they are wrong. Tell us how an American can live among us in society, have computer access and not do ANY of those things.

See Federalist, the burden of proof has now shifted to you. You want to contend that I am wrong and making false assumptions about you but the only way those assumptions can be false is if you live a life style that is not something that probably 99.99% of Americans do. So you are claiming you are the exception to the rule that nearly everybody else lives by. That is your only way out of the corner you have painted yourself into. And in that corner the burden of proof is solely upon you.

Of course, you WILL NOT DO THIS as the claim itself is absurd and foolish. One cannot simply live in the USA without benefitting from the things I described. It simply cannot be done by the average American living a normal life. But if you are NOT the average American living a normal life and you want to claim you are the exception to the rule - please do step up and prove that.

Again - this I gotta hear.

More assumptions. Still no proof. You have no idea where I live or what actions I take. You are merely making up stories.

I don't have to prove that you are wrong. You are wrong until you prove that you're not wrong. That's the way debate works. If you make an assertion, you have to prove it.

But of course, you will not do that as what you are trying to do is walk a very high tightrope claiming you are against the very things that you use and benefit from.

What you assume I use and benefit from, you mean.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Living in America is the ultimate choice. And Federalist has freely and willingly made that choice. We all have and somebody with his intelligence cannot pretend to know how much of this country was built and the role eminent domain played in it. It simply is a ridiculous assertion that is a shameless attempt to justify ones own personal hypocrisy.

Is it the ultimate choice? I know I do not have the financial wherewithal to move to another country. At this point I doubt that I could move to another state.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Living in America is the ultimate choice. And Federalist has freely and willingly made that choice. We all have and somebody with his intelligence cannot pretend to know how much of this country was built and the role eminent domain played in it. It simply is a ridiculous assertion that is a shameless attempt to justify ones own personal hypocrisy.

You assume.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Is it the ultimate choice? I know I do not have the financial wherewithal to move to another country. At this point I doubt that I could move to another state.

It is a good thing that the people who helped start this country had more personal courage of their convictions than that.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You assume.

So clear it up for us. Tell me where my assumption are wrong and why you are not like almost all other Americans. Tell us why that computer you type on did not get to you via anything built or serviced or assisted via the power you rail against.

This should be good.

Of course, you are powerless to do that and you will not.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

So clear it up for us. Tell me where my assumption are wrong and why you are not like almost all other Americans. Tell us why that computer you type on did not get to you via anything built or serviced or assisted via the power you rail against.

This should be good.

Of course, you are powerless to do that and you will not.

I'm not doing your homework for you. You know how debate works. If you make an assertion, you must prove it. Otherwise it's simply an unfounded assertion.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Actually, the fact that you are responding on a computer proves his point.
I'm not doing your homework for you. You know how debate works. If you make an assertion, you must prove it. Otherwise it's simply an unfounded assertion.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I'm not doing your homework for you. You know how debate works. If you make an assertion, you must prove it. Otherwise it's simply an unfounded assertion.

I did my own homework. And if you are claiming that you can exist in a modern American and never benefit from eminent domain it is an absurd and downright ridiculous claim which defies all logic and all experience.

And that absolutely shifts the burden of proof to you demanding that you show why it is you who can live differently that almost every other American.

But again - you persist in this sillyness just to pretend to avoid the consequences of your own hypocrisy.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Actually, the fact that you are responding on a computer proves his point.

Thank you. And I stated that in an earlier post.... #1927.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Sometimes the obvious is difficult to see.
Thank you. And I stated that in an earlier post.... #1927.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I did my own homework. And if you are claiming that you can exist in a modern American and never benefit from eminent domain it is an absurd and downright ridiculous claim which defies all logic and all experience.

And that absolutely shifts the burden of proof to you demanding that you show why it is you who can live differently that almost every other American.

But again - you persist in this sillyness just to pretend to avoid the consequences of your own hypocrisy.

More assumptions and no proof.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

More assumptions and no proof.

You are asking me to prove that you live in a society and benefit from it like almost every other American when your own actions typing on a computer and posting here prove the very thing you are trying to deny? Even other posters can see through that tactic.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You are asking me to prove that you live in a society and benefit from it like almost every other American when your own actions typing on a computer and posting here prove the very thing you are trying to deny? Even other posters can see through that tactic.

If you make an assertion, you need to prove it.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

If you make an assertion, you need to prove it.

As others have noted, you have proven it for me simply by typing those words and posting them here.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

As others have noted, you have proven it for me simply by typing those words and posting them here.

Okay, here's a serious question: Do you consider Lincoln to be a hypocrite because he lived in a country that was built by slave labor? Why or why not?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Sexual harassment requires participation and/or contribution by another person without agreement or consent of that person. This has been explained to you a number of times now why that is totally different that a person's right to his OWN person and property. Discrimination should be illegal ONLY if it requires participation or contribution by another person without that person's consent.

Um, no it doesn't. A person can still be sexually harassed and not have anyone lay a hand on them. That means, NO participation or contribution needed by the victim. Sexual harassment has more to do with power than sex. That is the whole point. The same goes with discrimination. It has to do with power. When someone is running a business, they should treat all humans as humans unless that human decides not to act like a human. At that point, a business owner has every right to kick them off their property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You can believe that, if you want.



No, property owners don't have limitless rights. Nobody's saying that.

However, you are discriminating against a particular group of property owners, and you are taking away a right that from them that all other property owners have. That is the power structure you want to impose.

No, it's not. No power structure in treating humans like humans. That's equality.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

If you make an assertion, you need to prove it.

I did by using your own post and the actions behind it. And others have agreed. You lost your argument.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Okay, here's a serious question: Do you consider Lincoln to be a hypocrite because he lived in a country that was built by slave labor? Why or why not?

Which positions of Lincoln are you using to compare to his living in America and evidencing hypocrisy?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Which positions of Lincoln are you using to compare to his living in America and evidencing hypocrisy?

His anti-slavery position. He said that he opposed slavery, but benefited from a society build upon slavery. Do you consider him a hypocrite for this?

Or perhaps William Wilberforce. He benefited from slavery, yet he opposed slavery and supported its abolition. Do you consider him to be a hypocrite?
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

His anti-slavery position. He said that he opposed slavery, but benefited from a society build upon slavery. Do you consider him a hypocrite for this?

Or perhaps William Wilberforce. He benefited from slavery, yet he opposed slavery and supported its abolition. Do you consider him to be a hypocrite?

That would depend on how he used the benefits of slavery in his life the way you use the benefits of eminent domain in your life. Lincoln live at a time when areas of the nation were apart and isolated and it is possible that the area he lived in had no actual benefit from slavery which he himself benefitted from. I would he happy to explore that with you if you could simply provide

1 - the statements from Lincoln in question
2- the benefits Lincoln gained from slavery despite his words

It could very well be that Lincoln was a hypocrite. I am open to that possibility. You simply need to provide the information.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

That would depend on how he used the benefits of slavery in his life the way you use the benefits of eminent domain in your life. Lincoln live at a time when areas of the nation were apart and isolated and it is possible that the area he lived in had no actual benefit from slavery which he himself benefitted from. I would he happy to explore that with you if you could simply provide

1 - the statements from Lincoln in question
2- the benefits Lincoln gained from slavery despite his words

It could very well be that Lincoln was a hypocrite. I am open to that possibility. You simply need to provide the information.

Okay, so Lincoln may have been a hypocrite. So far I seem to be in good company.

How about the William Wilberforce? Would you also consider him a hypocrite for enjoying the benefits of a society that profited from slavery while all the while "talking the talk but not walking the walk"?

Also, how about a Moscow citizen in the 1950, who gets his bread directly from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. If this citizen believes that food production ought to be privatized, yet he continues to stand in the six hour bread lines to get his bread, is he a hypocrite?

Or how about the anarchists demonstrating at Haymarket Square in Chicago. They benefited from the production that resulted from 10 hour work day. Were they hypocrites for wanting an 8 hour workday, when they themselves were benefiting from the goods produced in sweatshop conditions?
 
Back
Top Bottom