• 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

There is no confusion. Your position is crystal clear and in fact could not be any clearer if you posted it fifty more times today. But you got it wrong. I DO understand your position. Its the typical right libertarian pie-in-the-sky nonsense based on axioms and personal beliefs which are absolutely divorced from the real world the rest of us live in where there are consequences for ones political positions. The right libertarian has no political power so they can take any absurd or inane position they want to take since there are never any consequences for the silly positions they take.

So I do understand your position perfectly.

Good. I'm glad you finally understand.

And your position, if I understand correctly, is that if an individual or group of individuals wants something that belongs to another, it is ethical to simply take it by force.

I'm afraid you'll never convince me to support that position. I don't buy your argument that the ends justify the means.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Good. I'm glad you finally understand.

And your position, if I understand correctly, is that if an individual or group of individuals wants something that belongs to another, it is ethical to simply take it by force.

I'm afraid you'll never convince me to support that position. I don't buy your argument that the ends justify the means.

I always understood. As a libertarian you take positions that our simply out of this world and totally unrealistic because there are no consequences to libertarian pie-in-the-sky nonsense floated as policy ideas. I understand that perfectly.

Again - you invent a position for my argument and then pretend to be disgusted by your own phony position. Why don't you try getting honest in your posts instead of playing Dr. Frankenstein and perverting and twisting what is real into what you want it to be? :roll:
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Again - you invent a position for my argument and then pretend to be disgusted by your own phony position.

I don't think I have inaccurately represented your position at all. You support using government force to take the property of others. This means that a certain group of individuals will decide that they want someone's property, and they will then use force to take this property.

I think that maybe you just don't like thinking about what your position actually means. It is pretty repulsive if you actually think about what's going on.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I don't think I have inaccurately represented your position at all. You support using government force to take the property of others. This means that a certain group of individuals will decide that they want someone's property, and they will then use force to take this property.

I think that maybe you just don't like thinking about what your position actually means. It is pretty repulsive if you actually think about what's going on.

Okay, lets play your silly little game of how bad we can make the normal sound when we want to twist it and pervert it for some personal purpose.

Do you support some people being able to shove a variety of objects into all sorts of parts of the human body of a person who has not given their consent, drugging them and perhaps even inflicting great pain or even cutting off parts of the body including removing vital organs, limbs, eyes and other parts?

See what I did there was the same as you with your silly "taking the property of others using government force". :doh:shock::roll:
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Okay, lets play your silly little game of how bad we can make the normal sound when we want to twist it and pervert it for some personal purpose.

Do you support some people being able to shove a variety of objects into all sorts of parts of the human body of a person who has not given their consent, drugging them and perhaps even inflicting great pain or even cutting off parts of the body including removing vital organs, limbs, eyes and other parts?

If he hasn't given consent, no.

If he has given consent, or if I think he would have given consent if he were able, then yes.

See what I did there was the same as you with your silly "taking the property of others using government force".

Actually you didn't.

You support eminent domain. When eminent domain is exercised, a person's property is taken by force by other people. That's what eminent domain is, by definition. If you don't like the way it sounds, then maybe you should rethink whether you really support it or not.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I asked you this
Okay, lets play your silly little game of how bad we can make the normal sound when we want to twist it and pervert it for some personal purpose.

Do you support some people being able to shove a variety of objects into all sorts of parts of the human body of a person who has not given their consent, drugging them and perhaps even inflicting great pain or even cutting off parts of the body including removing vital organs, limbs, eyes and other parts?


If he hasn't given consent, no.

If he has given consent, or if I think he would have given consent if he were able, then yes.

If you think he would !?!?!?!?!?!? Now its you playing God with other peoples lives!?!?!?!?!? Amazing.

The point is that medical people do this every day of the year all over the country when people are rushed to the hospital and are in no condition to make decisions for themselves. The doctor decides and gets to play God doing all manner of things to them including all the things I listed and much much more which would curl your hair if described.

But it sure sounds terrible doesn't it?

That is what you CONSTANTLY DO with your silly 'government force' and other libertarian nonsense. You do it constantly. The peoples acting acting on behalf of the entire society can make a purchase of property according to the US Constitution if just compensation is provided. But in your libertarian make believe world where real people do not exist - you are against it.

Amazing!!!!!

The only reason you can take such absurd positions is that there are no consequences to libertarian pie-in-the-sky insanity such as this. You guys NEVER get elected and NEVER have to put up or shut up. That pie-in-the-sky stays purely theoretical and is never baked and never eaten and never truly tested.

At least we can be thankful for that.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

That is what you CONSTANTLY DO with your silly 'government force' and other libertarian nonsense. You do it constantly. The peoples acting acting on behalf of the entire society can make a purchase of property according to the US Constitution if just compensation is provided.

I am against it because when eminent domain is exercised, a person's property is taken by force by other people. You simply can't convince me that such a thing is ethical or civilized.

But in your libertarian make believe world where real people do not exist - you are against it.

I don't live in a libertarian world of make believe. I live in the very same world you do, in which real people do indeed exist. I just don't feel as if I have the right to take what belongs to them. Apparently you do.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Society has always had to contend with those who wish to use force to set themselves up as master over their fellow man. The tragedy is that it seems every generation must fight its own tyrants and wanna be tyrants.

Indeed. Its human nature, and it generally does not change.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Amendment V clearly contains language which authorizes the use of eminent domain in the USA as it mandates payment for when it is used. The practical end result is the same.Your nitpicking is a distinction without a difference.

My nitpicking is a distinction that makes all the difference. In other nations-unless something is specifically mentioned in their constitution or founding documents-its assumed to be prohibited. Its the reverse here. Please, get educated.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

There is no confusion. Your position is crystal clear and in fact could not be any clearer if you posted it fifty more times today. But you got it wrong. I DO understand your position. Its the typical right libertarian pie-in-the-sky nonsense based on axioms and personal beliefs which are absolutely divorced from the real world the rest of us live in where there are consequences for ones political positions. The right libertarian has no political power so they can take any absurd or inane position they want to take since there are never any consequences for the silly positions they take.

So I do understand your position perfectly.

"Real world" liberalism is the pie in the sky ideology. A loose association of inconsistent and often delusional beliefs.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I am against it because when eminent domain is exercised, a person's property is taken by force by other people. You simply can't convince me that such a thing is ethical or civilized.



I don't live in a libertarian world of make believe. I live in the very same world you do, in which real people do indeed exist. I just don't feel as if I have the right to take what belongs to them. Apparently you do.

You could not be farther from reality. You advocate things which are simply not part of the real world.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

"Real world" liberalism is the pie in the sky ideology. A loose association of inconsistent and often delusional beliefs.

I have no idea what that means. Libertatians are the ones on the outside looking in and spouting off about their ideal world which simply does not exist.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

My nitpicking is a distinction that makes all the difference. In other nations-unless something is specifically mentioned in their constitution or founding documents-its assumed to be prohibited. Its the reverse here. Please, get educated.

The sad reality for you is that the US Constitution clearly authorizes eminent domain no matter how the libertarians object to it on the one hand while pretending to worship the Founders with the other. In some circles that would be called disociative disorder and a mental illness.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

I have no idea what that means. Libertatians are the ones on the outside looking in and spouting off about their ideal world which simply does not exist.

Why is wanting to be left alone, and for others to also be left alone pie in the sky? Its the left always interjecting and making everything their business. Its demonstrable in this thread.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The sad reality for you is that the US Constitution clearly authorizes eminent domain no matter how the libertarians object to it on the one hand while pretending to worship the Founders with the other. In some circles that would be called disociative disorder and a mental illness.

Why are you a champion of the govt forcibly taking property or wealth to use as it see's fit? What is it that you find so attractive?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Why is wanting to be left alone, and for others to also be left alone pie in the sky? Its the left always interjecting and making everything their business. Its demonstrable in this thread.

There are islands for sale. YOu can be alone there.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Why are you a champion of the govt forcibly taking property or wealth to use as it see's fit? What is it that you find so attractive?

Not a champion of anything but the US Constitution and the people of the USA and their elected government which represents them.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

They go to another store or doctor. Your hypotheticals dont really mirror real life.

Actually, it DOES mirror real life. I graduated high school in a small town that had ONE doctor and ONE supermarket - if you could call it that. And that town is still there today - I drove through there in February. There's LOTS more towns just like it, too, in rural America.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Not a champion of anything but the US Constitution and the people of the USA and their elected government which represents them.

This is a cop out. When its something you dont like, you will use every technique possible to circumvent the Constitution and the people of the USA.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Actually, it DOES mirror real life. I graduated high school in a small town that had ONE doctor and ONE supermarket - if you could call it that. And that town is still there today - I drove through there in February. There's LOTS more towns just like it, too, in rural America.

And there are plenty of towns with NO medical care within the community. So people (gasp!) drive.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You could not be farther from reality. You advocate things which are simply not part of the real world.

We are all part of the very same real world. I advocate for the idea that it is wrong to initiate aggression against the person or property of others. You know, the basic rules of civil behavior you probably learned in kindergarten: Don't hit people and don't take their stuff.

You, on the other hand, are a champion of government aggression, and yet you offer no justification for your position. I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying it. You can't convince me that it is perfectly fine for one person's property to be taken by force by others.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Not a champion of anything but the US Constitution and the people of the USA and their elected government which represents them.

And having people's property taken by force by other people who have decided they want it.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Actually, it DOES mirror real life. I graduated high school in a small town that had ONE doctor and ONE supermarket - if you could call it that. And that town is still there today - I drove through there in February. There's LOTS more towns just like it, too, in rural America.

And what would happen to everyone in that town if the doctor had suddenly dropped dead? How would they have managed?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You say you're from a small village in Alaska. I grew up about eight miles from a very small town in the MS Delta. When I was there, the only doctor in tow still had "white" and "colored" entrances to his office. The signs were painted over a solid green, but paint doesn't hide inch-deep chiseled words too well. This was in 1984, twenty years after the Civil Rights Act.

In the summer of 2012, I visited my family's house there again, and I noticed that there was not a single Obama bumper sticker or campaign sign or t-shirt to be seen...which was pretty odd since Sunflower County, MS, is 71% black. One would think there'd be Obama signs everywhere, right? So I talked to a black friend of mine there named Eddie (who knew I'd become a bleeding-heart liberal) why there were no Obama signs, and he looked back at me - sad, sad eyes - and said, "Pete, you know why". And he was right - I did know why. Any black person there who was so 'uppity' as to display an Obama sign would find himself out of a job pretty quickly, or his family member(s) would. That's just the way it is there.

What I'm getting to is that racism is still strong in America - it's more common than you might think. And if people are allowed to discriminate, then that gives legitimacy to their racism. Is that really what you want?
If you want to end personal racism, then you must convince people to change their attitudes, not merely force them to change their behavior.

But just as with the green paint you mention, forced behavior only puts a thin covering over attitudes which will still find a way to express themselves.

Shame people, and they will usually try to improve. Enlighten them, and they will strive to be better. Educate them and they will usually come to find a way to apply the knowledge that they gain. But coerce them, and they will often try to thwart you and twist your intent.

We have so many tools to convince people. But their use and application requires work, patience and diligence. But just like using a little cheap paint to cover a deeply incised affront, passing decrees is so much easier, whether they yield good results or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom