View Poll Results: Is it any of the governments business what consenting adults do with each other?

Voters
59. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 13.56%
  • No

    51 86.44%
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 116

Thread: Whos business is it?

  1. #51
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Not true.
    See, there you go. Lying without realizing it again.

    I don't on purpose. You can infer anything else you like, does not make it true.
    Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
    GP: Even false things?
    M2: Even false things are true.
    GP: How can that be?
    M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

    I already pointed it out. You ignored it and cut it out of my reply to you.
    I can infer from the fact that you are so reluctant to restate this fallacy that you have forgotten what it was, so I went back to look for it for you. The only formal fallacy you have attributed to me was in post 32, when you said that this:

    This might go a long ways towards helping ensure that people don't take emotional advantage of other people by throwing around the "L" word just to get in their pants.
    was a red herring. The red herring fallacy is a deliberate attempt to divert a line of inquiry away from the topic. This was not a red herring because the topic, (as has been stated before) is people (and government) sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, and my illustrative line of questioning did not divert from this topic.

    At his point in the debate you had claimed that the government had legitimate business in dictating what sort of relationships between consenting adults were acceptable in the interest of ensuring that one party was not taken advantage of by the other.

    The purpose of my line of questioning was to determine whether you were consistent in your assertion that the governments job was to keep people from taking advantage of each other when applied to sexual or emotional rather than financial arrangements. This is clearly pertinent to a discussion on whether such things are any of the governments business, and as such cannot be a red herring.

    Your innocent mislabeling of a legitimate line of inquiry as a fallacy aside, this was a very small part of the debate as a whole, so your claim to not want to get involved in a debate "riddled in nonsensical fallacy's[sic] right off the bat" over a single perceived fallacy in a small portion of the debate three pages in seems somewhat disingenuous.

    And that is your problem, and the lack of debate on the subject becomes self evident.
    What is my problem? That I think consenting adults can enter into arrangements that don't involve sex? How naive of me.

    Bravo!
    *bows*

    Please do.
    Ask and ye shall receive! See above. I had much better retorts this time.

  2. #52
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Probably.



    Exactly what the title implies. I want to talk about whose business it is.



    If you like.
    I've got to hand it to you. Not just anyone would start a thread about anal sex to show why a Ronpaultopian economic system would be best. Goobieman would be proud.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-24-10 at 06:28 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #53
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,868
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I've got to hand it to you. Not just anyone would start a thread about anal sex to show why a Ronpaultopian economic system would be best. Goobieman would be proud.
    hey, it could be about oral sex too

  4. #54
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Whos business is it?

    I've got to hand it to you. Not just anyone would start a thread about anal sex to show why a Ronpaultopian economic system would be best. Goobieman would be proud.
    I try to be my best.

    Care to opine on the topic at hand?

    Do you believe that it is any of the governments business what two (or three or howevermany) consenting adults do with or to each other voluntarily?

    Or do you believe (as many do) that it is none of the government's business so long as they are involved in gay sex or something else you approve of, but that it becomes the governments business as soon as they engage in something you don't approve of?
    Last edited by Panache; 01-24-10 at 04:15 PM.

  5. #55
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Do you believe that it is any of the governments business what two (or three or howevermany) consenting adults do with or to each other voluntarily?
    Kinky butsecks - No, not the government's business.
    Some sort of economic transaction - Maybe, maybe not. Depends what they're doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache
    Or do you believe (as many do) that it is none of the government's business so long as they are involved in gay sex or something else you approve of, but that it becomes the governments business as soon as they engage in something you don't approve of?
    Depends what they're doing. While I support some government regulation in the economic sector (as does anyone with a bit of common sense), that doesn't necessarily mean I don't approve of those transactions. For example, I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about wanting to grow one's business and drive the competitors out of the market, but the government needs antitrust legislation to preserve competition. Capitalism ceases to work properly without it.

    Conversely, there are some economic transactions that I *do* disapprove of which I don't necessarily think need government regulation. For example, I think it's immoral for snake-oil salesmen to sell homeopathic "medicines" to gullible consumers, but I don't think the government needs to regulate it unless they're actually making false medical claims.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-24-10 at 06:58 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #56
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Kinky butsecks - No, not the government's business.
    Some sort of economic transaction - Maybe, maybe not. Depends what they're doing.
    Kinky butsecks IS a sort of economic transaction. Economies don't require a monetized, quantifiable currency, they just require an exchange of value for value, which kinky butsecks is.

    People get taken advantage of engaging in kinky butsecks just as much as they do engaging in any other human affair. If the government's job is to make life fair for everyone, what is so special about kinky butsecks that it should be made off limits in that regard?

    Depends what they're doing. While I support some government regulation in the economic sector (as does anyone with a bit of common sense), that doesn't necessarily mean I don't approve of those transactions. For example, I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about wanting to grow one's business and drive the competitors out of the market, but the government needs antitrust legislation to preserve competition. Capitalism ceases to work properly without it.
    So why don't you support some government regulation in the sexual sector? If alpha males are monopolizing the heterosexual female population, and making it impossible for the beta males to get any tail, don't you think there should be some legislation to preserve competition?

    Conversely, there are some economic transactions that I *do* disapprove of which I don't necessarily think need government regulation. For example, I think it's immoral for snake-oil salesmen to sell homeopathic "medicines" to gullible consumers, but I don't think the government needs to regulate it unless they're actually making false medical claims.
    Well, I suppose we shall just have to agree to agree in that regard.

  7. #57
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Kinky butsecks IS a sort of economic transaction. Economies don't require a monetized, quantifiable currency, they just require an exchange of value for value, which kinky butsecks is.
    That's quite a stretch (no pun intended ). But even if you can make the argument that it's an economic transaction, it isn't an economic transaction that requires any government interference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache
    People get taken advantage of engaging in kinky butsecks just as much as they do engaging in any other human affair. If the government's job is to make life fair for everyone, what is so special about kinky butsecks that it should be made off limits in that regard?
    Who says that it's government's job to make life fair for everyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache
    So why don't you support some government regulation in the sexual sector? If alpha males are monopolizing the heterosexual female population, and making it impossible for the beta males to get any tail, don't you think there should be some legislation to preserve competition?
    That is a poor analogy to antitrust legislation. What you are describing is merely a situation where one market participant is able to do things BETTER than its competitors (i.e. providing those heterosexual female customers with a product they prefer). That's very different than a market participant actually preventing anyone else from competing.

    The defining characteristic of capitalism is NOT the total lack of government involvement in anything. The defining characteristic is competition, which is exactly why some government regulation is necessary. As Adam Smith himself wrote, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."
    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-24-10 at 08:38 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #58
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That's quite a stretch (no pun intended ). But even if you can make the argument that it's an economic transaction, it isn't an economic transaction that requires any government interference.
    Have to agree with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Who says that it's government's job to make life fair for everyone?
    Too many people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That is a poor analogy to antitrust legislation. What you are describing is merely a situation where one market participant is able to do things BETTER than its competitors (i.e. providing those heterosexual female customers with a product they prefer). That's very different than a market participant actually preventing anyone else from competing.
    Excellent point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The defining characteristic of capitalism is NOT the total lack of government involvement in anything. The defining characteristic is competition, which is exactly why some government regulation is necessary. As Adam Smith himself wrote, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."
    So Adam Smith was a conspiracy nut? j/k
    Education.

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

  9. #59
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Whos business is it?

    That's quite a stretch (no pun intended ). But even if you can make the argument that it's an economic transaction, it isn't an economic transaction that requires any government interference.
    Ok. What makes it less deserving of government regulation than any other economic transaction?

    Who says that it's government's job to make life fair for everyone?
    I'm sure someone said it. In this case I was just being hyperbolic. Everyone is fine with metaphors, but you bring in any other literary devices and they start getting all uppity.

    That is a poor analogy to antitrust legislation. What you are describing is merely a situation where one market participant is able to do things BETTER than its competitors (i.e. providing those heterosexual female customers with a product they prefer). That's very different than a market participant actually preventing anyone else from competing.
    Explain to me the difference, because all I see is a bunch of consenting adults being prevented from voluntarily engaging in interactions that shouldn't be anyone's business but theirs.

    The defining characteristic of capitalism is NOT the total lack of government involvement in anything. The defining characteristic is competition, which is exactly why some government regulation is necessary. As Adam Smith himself wrote, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."
    I am not particularly interested in the defining characteristics of capitalism. You may perhaps think that this thread is about capitalism, but as I said before, it is about people (and government) sticking their noses where they don't belong. If, as you say, people minding their own damn business will break capitalism, then "Down with the capitalist pigs!" shall be my battle cry.

    I am far more interested in human agency than I am in a functional capitalistic economic system.

  10. #60
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Ok. What makes it less deserving of government regulation than any other economic transaction?
    Playing along with your premise that it *is* an economic transaction...
    It's less deserving of government regulation than other economic transactions because 1) There are few or no market externalities involved, 2) It does not undermine the basic workings of our economic system, 3) There's no possible source of tax revenue unless it's prostitution, and 4) Regulations of this nature are highly unlikely to work at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache
    Explain to me the difference, because all I see is a bunch of consenting adults being prevented from voluntarily engaging in interactions that shouldn't be anyone's business but theirs.
    And that's all *I* see in your example too. Which is exactly why it's different than anti-competitive market behavior. If those alpha males had somehow PREVENTED the beta males from competing (as opposed to merely just offering a better product), then that would be a better analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache
    I am not particularly interested in the defining characteristics of capitalism. You may perhaps think that this thread is about capitalism, but as I said before, it is about people (and government) sticking their noses where they don't belong. If, as you say, people minding their own damn business will break capitalism, then "Down with the capitalist pigs!" shall be my battle cry.
    So just to clarify, you're perfectly OK with a bureaucratic entity making your decisions for you, as long as you didn't elect it and it calls itself a corporation instead of a government. Personally I don't want ANYONE setting the price of bread nationwide - whether it's the Politburo or Monopolistic Bread Corporation. Market forces work so much better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache
    I am far more interested in human agency than I am in a functional capitalistic economic system.
    Fine, except in the real world, the government focuses more on practical measures instead of philosophical purity, and rightly so.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-24-10 at 09:23 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •