• 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!

San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure[W:208]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I want to know how fake child porn fits into Ikari's position. Do those laws protect life or property? Or are they immoral laws.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
You did when you appealed to law on no other level than the fact that it's law. That is appeal to authority, and that is logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
No, I said the laws were sound. That is based on reasoning. Your views of these laws are based on ideology. I'll stick with the real world.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

No one forced the baker to put a FOR SALE sign on his "property"
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
You didn't?
Click to expand...

Indeed, a law being a law does not make it just.

sangha said:
The govt has demonstrated the necessity (ie thegovernmental interest it has in prohibiting public accommodations from refusing service because someone is a member of a protected class)

Again, please stay away from the absurd, it makes your arguments look pathetic.
Click to expand...

The government has not demonstrated the necessity to hold a gun to ones head and force them to deliver property unto whom they claim it should be delivered unto. Nothing I wrote was beyond level nor absurd, so trying to turn that around only makes your arguments look even more pathetic.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
I'm arguing that the law is not always right, that relying solely on that argument isn't a sound argument in the least.

There are certain contracts allowed to be enacted on behalf of children which oft revolve around right to life. But others are restricted, for instance you may not sell your child into slavery as that is against their life and property rights. A parent is given leeway to aid, and in some historical situations (such as those Christian "Scientists" folk, who I don't feel should be allowed to use scientist in their names) to harm, the rights of the child.
Click to expand...

So with your explanation, a parent could not send their child to a private school or even send them to a public school because those neither protect their lives nor their property.

Also, what about parents consenting, on behalf of their children, to a risky medical procedure that might kill the child, has no guarantee of success, but the child will certainly die without it?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

ecofarm said:
I want to know how fake child porn fits into Ikari's position. Do those laws protect life or property? Or are they immoral laws.
Click to expand...

Fake kiddie porn laws are absolutely moral laws. Incest laws are mostly the same. It's the Yuck Factor.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

ecofarm said:
I want to know how fake child porn fits into Ikari's position. Do those laws protect life or property? Or are they immoral laws.
Click to expand...

Fake child porn? You mean that which doesn't involve an actual child? If there's no rights to harm, there can be no harm to a real person. It takes threat to an actual humans right to evoke government force.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Fletch said:
Of course they can. But as guarantors or guardians of that childs rights, they may not enter into contracts that violate the rights they are obligated to defend.
Click to expand...

So a parent can't send their child to school since it infringes on the child's freedom to make their own decisions?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
So with your explanation, a parent could not send their child to a private school or even send them to a public school because those neither protect their lives nor their property.

Also, what about parents consenting, on behalf of their children, to a risky medical procedure that might kill the child, has no guarantee of success, but the child will certainly die without it?
Click to expand...

If it's to the detriment of the child, it should be disallowed. But then again, we do allow parents to kill their kids if they claim religious belief, and there's all sorts of colors of grays some of which contradict each other. It's starting to look a lot like the bible.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
So a parent can't send their child to school since it infringes on the child's freedom to make their own decisions?
Click to expand...

That is true. A child of age or legally emancipated cannot be forced to school by their parents.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
Fake child porn? You mean that which doesn't involve an actual child? If there's no rights to harm, there can be no harm to a real person. It takes threat to an actual humans right to evoke government force.
Click to expand...
Not so. See: Laws, Drug.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
So a parent can't send their child to school since it infringes on the child's freedom to make their own decisions?
Click to expand...
No. You didn't read what I wrote.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
Indeed, a law being a law does not make it just.
Click to expand...

IOW, after denying that you used your own personal morality, you are using your own personal morality


The government has not demonstrated the necessity to hold a gun to ones head and force them to deliver property unto whom they claim it should be delivered unto. Nothing I wrote was beyond level nor absurd, so trying to turn that around only makes your arguments look even more pathetic.
Click to expand...

In this case, the govt has demonstrated the necessity. Denying facts won't make them go away; It only makes your arguments look even more pathetic.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

TiredOfLife said:
Not so. See: Laws, Drug.
Click to expand...

Again, thank you for pointing out the laws we know exist. You do us all a great service by pointing out the obvious. But Eco I do believe was asking a fundamentally philosophical question not one that is based on current laws.

Appeal to authority is logical fallacy.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
That is true. A child of age or legally emancipated cannot be forced to school by their parents.
Click to expand...
I think at that point, what you have is no longer a child, but an adult.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
That is true. A child of age or legally emancipated cannot be forced to school by their parents.
Click to expand...
When they come of age we call them, legally speaking, adults. An emancipated minor becomes a legal adult.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
Fake child porn? You mean that which doesn't involve an actual child? If there's no rights to harm, there can be no harm to a real person. It takes threat to an actual humans right to evoke government force.
Click to expand...

You do not think there should be laws against fake child porn? What if it is very realistic?

You cannot hold your absolutist, personally defined, position without condoning such things.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
If it's to the detriment of the child, it should be disallowed.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see!!

"The welfare of the child" is the important thing, so to hell with the libertarian principles. So all a parent has to do is argue that hiring out their child to do kiddie porn is for their own good and the libertarians will be fine with that
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
IOW, after denying that you used your own personal morality, you are using your own personal morality
Click to expand...

That's not morality, it's comments to proper use of government force. Government is inherently an amoral institution and cannot (or rather should not) be used to endorse personal morality. The rights of the individual are what matter, and that is what government is created to protect.


sangha said:
In this case, the govt has demonstrated the necessity. Denying facts won't make them go away; It only makes your arguments look even more pathetic.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you can lay out this demonstration, yes?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
That is true. A child of age or legally emancipated cannot be forced to school by their parents.
Click to expand...

Thank you for helping to demonstrate how utterly foolish libertarianism is
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
Ahh, I see!!

"The welfare of the child" is the important thing, so to hell with the libertarian principles. So all a parent has to do is argue that hiring out their child to do kiddie porn is for their own good and the libertarians will be fine with that
Click to expand...

Not at all, right to life is fundamental and needs to be upheld. Acting counter to that is acting against the rights on a human.

And you'd have to do more than make the claim. Making claims is essentially all that your arguments come down to. They would have to prove the claim.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

sangha said:
Thank you for helping to demonstrate how utterly foolish libertarianism is
Click to expand...

That's how it works even now. I think you are writing things but don't quite understand how disconnected what you are writing is. An individual of age can consent to his own will and a parent cannot force action. One who has legally emancipated himself from his parents is equally free of their direct control. You wish to contend this point?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari said:
Again, thank you for pointing out the laws we know exist. You do us all a great service by pointing out the obvious. But Eco I do believe was asking a fundamentally philosophical question not one that is based on current laws.

Appeal to authority is logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
More of your ideology I see. Okay, we'll pretend that the real world doesn't exist.

For the sake of argument, based upon your "Harm" theory, could I open a child brothel if the parents sold their children to me and the children wanted to do the work and didn't feel that they were being harmed?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

TiredOfLife said:
Fake kiddie porn laws are absolutely moral laws. Incest laws are mostly the same. It's the Yuck Factor.
Click to expand...

That's what I am trying to get it. How does Ikari's philosophy consider such examples?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom