or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage - Page 2

post #41 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Life isn't that black and white. There's plenty of instances where the law must come before religious freedom. For example, you wouldn't let a Sikh person carry a knife (one of their religious symbols) on an airplane, would you?

 

I wouldn't care if he/she did. It's when he/she choses to use it to harm someone else when the line is crossed.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #42 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Let me introduce you to MJ.

HE WOULD.

As long as the owner of the airplane lets him, I should say. And a gun. A bomb. Without having to inform other passengers.

For MJ, personal liberty trumps all. Period. Even liberty that puts others at risk. You see for MJ, there is no such a concept of risk, at least not one that's legislatable.

 

Let me introduce you to tonton.

 

He would like to violate people's rights to personal self-defense and property ownership.

 

For tonton, control and engineering a perfect society through legislation and the government trumps all. Even when it means violating other people's rights. You see, for tonton, there's no such thing as inalienable rights, only privileges and permissions granted by the state and taken away when people like tonton don't want you have them.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #43 of 192

If any of you think this is laughable or homophobic to be against 2 men (or women) having sex you should really think deeply about what you are agreeing. If any of you have children and you are okay with people exhibiting this behavior ask yourself would you be okay with your little boy or little girl turning out to be gay or lesbian, or want an operation to become something they are not? Why is it that if you call one of your buddies, in humor, "A Homo" (when he is straight) your buddy vehemently denies it or gets pissed off at you? It's because this behavior is disgusting, perverse and filthy and being called a "Homo" is one of the greatest insults to a person, it's a kneejerk reaction. I'm not talking biblical here either. The act of what these people do to each other is absolutely vile. So if you are okay with Same Sex marriage but don't want to be called gay or have your kids grow up gay than you are a hypocrite. 

I am not condoning hate towards these people, it is their behavior that needs to be shunned. This is not normal human behavior, and there is nothing anyone can argue that normalizes it. Seeing this article and the number of corporations behind this "movement" is deflating to billions and billions of people that are not okay with this behavior. 

 

And for those of you that will state the argument of "why does it concern you what others do in their bedroom". The answer is simple, those that oppose were NOT the ones to bring this out into the open and out of the bedroom. We are simply reacting to the squeaky wheel and we would all love to see it go back into the bedroom. Do what you want in your own house but if it is abnormal don't publicize it and try to force abnormal behavior onto a normal society.

post #44 of 192
Please understand that to Christians, accpeting gay marriage is the equivalent of asking a Muslim to read a comic book about Mohammad. It is taking something that is sacred and instituted by God, and making fun of it. I realise that most people don't care about how they treat Christians, cause they 'don't matter and aren't relevant', but surely if some people are allowed to express the opinion that it is OK, then Christians should be at least be allowed to say that it isn't, without being ridiculed and vilified. I hope that Apple can increase their focus on delivering great products, rather than be side-tracked by these issues.
post #45 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcartesius View Post

The world is sinking into filthy decadence, and the crowds are cheering. Since biblical times...

What's the next big thing? Legalising sadomasochism "because they have needs, too"?

Here are some problems with your self-indulgent criticism...

 

1) To cite biblical times is to assume the world (and everyone living within) shares the same religious views. Incorrect. The world doesn't follow the hypocritical Christian rule. Your religious views are YOURS, not everyone's.

2) Religion has been debated for centuries as to the true existence of any divine beings in which they are all based. Fact.

3) Homosexuals are REAL people. Wether you like it or not, you most-likely know and associate with homosexuals as PEOPLE, and you have no clue about what goes on inside their OWN bedrooms. Fact. 

4) You won't catch GAY if same-sex marriage is legal. Fact.

5) I know more heterosexual couples with more relationship problems (cheating & divorce to name 2) than homosexual couples. So much for the sacred sanctity of marriage.  

post #46 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakekub View Post

If any of you think this is laughable or homophobic to be against 2 men (or women) having sex you should really think deeply about what you are agreeing. If any of you have children and you are okay with people exhibiting this behavior ask yourself would you be okay with your little boy or little girl turning out to be gay or lesbian, or want an operation to become something they are not? Why is it that if you call one of your buddies, in humor, "A Homo" (when he is straight) your buddy vehemently denies it or gets pissed off at you? It's because this behavior is disgusting, perverse and filthy and being called a "Homo" is one of the greatest insults to a person, it's a kneejerk reaction. I'm not talking biblical here either. The act of what these people do to each other is absolutely vile. So if you are okay with Same Sex marriage but don't want to be called gay or have your kids grow up gay than you are a hypocrite. 

I am not condoning hate towards these people, it is their behavior that needs to be shunned. This is not normal human behavior, and there is nothing anyone can argue that normalizes it. Seeing this article and the number of corporations behind this "movement" is deflating to billions and billions of people that are not okay with this behavior. 

 

And for those of you that will state the argument of "why does it concern you what others do in their bedroom". The answer is simple, those that oppose were NOT the ones to bring this out into the open and out of the bedroom. We are simply reacting to the squeaky wheel and we would all love to see it go back into the bedroom. Do what you want in your own house but if it is abnormal don't publicize it and try to force abnormal behavior onto a normal society.

What's "normal" to you isn't what is "normal" to others. The world is a big place, and views of normalcy are very broad. 

post #47 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Why would that prevent the partner from coming, anyway? It's not like they're going to get thrown in jail for being gay.

The only thing it really affects is that the partner couldn't be on the employee's medical plan, but it's generally possible to get insurance even as an individual - and will be even more possible under the new health care rules. And the people that Apple is likely to relocate from overseas make enough that the additional premium wouldn't be that big a factor in the decision. And even that isn't necessary - Apple can offer insurance to same sex partners even if the state doesn't recognize gay marriage - so I'm still wondering how it impacts recruiting.

Besides, I believe that most states (even those that don't allow gay marriage) will recognize marriages that are enacted somewhere else.

 

 

Yea may not be thrown in jail, but 32 states if you say the word’s I’m gay they can say Your Fired… and it is legal.

 

As for medical, company’s that offer partner benefits is a bit tricky.  Do you know that the primary person that works for the company gets taxed on those extra high premiums they pay every check because it is not the legal other half they added?  Also, did you also know that insurance company’s started putting language into the policy’s of Married Spouses Only.

 

Company’s that offer relocation packages, will not pay for the other half to move with them.  Nor help in job searches for the other half because it is not a legal married spouse.  So it’s a major expense that has to be incurred that otherwise would not for regular married couples.  Or the fact that like those 32 states, can’t even say the word’s in fear of getting fired.  Other major issues go into consideration on recruitment. 

 

Most states that do not have the right to marry, have on the books to not recognize outside state marriages.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakekub View Post

If any of you think this is laughable or homophobic to be against 2 men (or women) having sex you should really think deeply about what you are agreeing. If any of you have children and you are okay with people exhibiting this behavior ask yourself would you be okay with your little boy or little girl turning out to be gay or lesbian, or want an operation to become something they are not? Why is it that if you call one of your buddies, in humor, "A Homo" (when he is straight) your buddy vehemently denies it or gets pissed off at you? It's because this behavior is disgusting, perverse and filthy and being called a "Homo" is one of the greatest insults to a person, it's a kneejerk reaction. I'm not talking biblical here either. The act of what these people do to each other is absolutely vile. So if you are okay with Same Sex marriage but don't want to be called gay or have your kids grow up gay than you are a hypocrite. 

I am not condoning hate towards these people, it is their behavior that needs to be shunned. This is not normal human behavior, and there is nothing anyone can argue that normalizes it. Seeing this article and the number of corporations behind this "movement" is deflating to billions and billions of people that are not okay with this behavior. 

 

And for those of you that will state the argument of "why does it concern you what others do in their bedroom". The answer is simple, those that oppose were NOT the ones to bring this out into the open and out of the bedroom. We are simply reacting to the squeaky wheel and we would all love to see it go back into the bedroom. Do what you want in your own house but if it is abnormal don't publicize it and try to force abnormal behavior onto a normal society.

 

 

Not laughable, but yes homophobic.  And for the record being around gay’s and their normal behavior outside the bedroom.  Such as kissing, holding hands and other public display’s of affection, DO NOT make a child homosexual, unless they are genetically prone to being homosexual then it don't matter.  Then it shows them that they can have a normal life instead of hiding their true self.  I can give you many examples of friends that have kid’s and have raised them from diapers, while having other half’s come and go.  And guess what, the kid(s) are totally heterosexual. The phrase’s being an “Insult” only because it is been used so much for so long.  Just like OMG being fully worded out by atheists.  It’s a phrase.  As insults go, just like the “N” word for African-Americans. 

 

You know what is absolute vile, sex with a horse.  But you know what, 20+ states that is legal.  And those 20+ are the same ones that ban the marriage of two adult loving people, that have committed to each other.  But you know what has been proven time and again even in nature.  Homosexual activity.  So it is a nature/normal thing.  It’s been part of the human history, it’s been in animal history.  And who in the world would be “forcing” this behavior on you?  That would be called rape.  If you don’t want to do the behavior, don’t do it. 

 

But your entire “not normal” spiel can be taken the same way as to say being blond is not normal, and all blonds have to dye their hair so people don’t know their blond, because it’s forcing blond behavior on people.  Then if kids see you can be blond, then they will want to be blond.

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply
post #48 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakekub View Post

If any of you think this is laughable or homophobic to be against 2 men (or women) having sex you should really think deeply about what you are agreeing. If any of you have children and you are okay with people exhibiting this behavior ask yourself would you be okay with your little boy or little girl turning out to be gay or lesbian, or want an operation to become something they are not? Why is it that if you call one of your buddies, in humor, "A Homo" (when he is straight) your buddy vehemently denies it or gets pissed off at you? It's because this behavior is disgusting, perverse and filthy and being called a "Homo" is one of the greatest insults to a person, it's a kneejerk reaction. I'm not talking biblical here either. The act of what these people do to each other is absolutely vile. So if you are okay with Same Sex marriage but don't want to be called gay or have your kids grow up gay than you are a hypocrite. 

I am not condoning hate towards these people, it is their behavior that needs to be shunned. This is not normal human behavior, and there is nothing anyone can argue that normalizes it. Seeing this article and the number of corporations behind this "movement" is deflating to billions and billions of people that are not okay with this behavior. 

 

And for those of you that will state the argument of "why does it concern you what others do in their bedroom". The answer is simple, those that oppose were NOT the ones to bring this out into the open and out of the bedroom. We are simply reacting to the squeaky wheel and we would all love to see it go back into the bedroom. Do what you want in your own house but if it is abnormal don't publicize it and try to force abnormal behavior onto a normal society.

No sir, it is you who need to think deeply about what you are condemning and the judgements you're laying on others.

 

My kids can make their own choices.  Their happiness is my priority, not their sexuality or gender.

I don't call my buddies "homos", and if I did they'd probably take it in good humour, not as a vile slur, but as teasing, akin to jibing them about being a foot fetishist, or into bondage.  Sex is quite funny you see, we all do it, and it's a messy activity at the best of times.  I don't judge people on their own brands of messiness.  So being called a homo is a long way away from being the greatest insult.  It's not an insult at all.  I'd much rather be called homo than homophobic, since the latter is indicative of a closed mind.

What they "do to each other" is in a general sense no more vile than any other sexual activity.  Fluids are exchanged, pleasure is had, that's all there is to it really.  Besides which, being gay is about more than sex.  How disappointing that you define your own romantic life and marriage by the targets of your pelvic thrusts.

 

I'm ok with gay marriage.  I don't particularly mind being called gay, though it's be odd since I'm not.  And my kids can do what they want in their bedrooms, as long as they're happy (I also hope they're safe, but that's up to them, and applies whether they're straight or gay).

 

Finally, gay people aren't forcing themselves on you; get over yourself.  They just don't want to be ostracised for their private behaviour.  Check your privilege.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #49 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighr View Post

Please understand that to Christians, accpeting gay marriage is the equivalent of asking a Muslim to read a comic book about Mohammad. It is taking something that is sacred and instituted by God, and making fun of it. I realise that most people don't care about how they treat Christians, cause they 'don't matter and aren't relevant', but surely if some people are allowed to express the opinion that it is OK, then Christians should be at least be allowed to say that it isn't, without being ridiculed and vilified. I hope that Apple can increase their focus on delivering great products, rather than be side-tracked by these issues.

 

What is reasonable is for "Christians" (presumably there are no gay Christians in your universe) to express their personal opinions on, and to refrain from, this behavior that they disapprove of. What is not reasonable is to go further and demand that their personal values be imposed on the entire population.

 

No one is being forced into gay marriage, so rephrasing your statement to remove the obfuscation, you are saying that Christians allowing others to participate in gay marriage is like Muslims being required to read the comic book. Except it obviously isn't, since the latter involves direct participation while the former does not. The accurate analogy would be Christians accepting that others may participate in gay marriage is equivalent to Muslims accepting that others may read those comics. That, of course, smacks of religious tolerance, which is something of a one-way street with most religions.

post #50 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkBlade View Post

 

You know what is absolute vile, sex with a horse. 

 

Good to know.  Thanks for checking it out.

post #51 of 192
You
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Why would that prevent the partner from coming, anyway? It's not like they're going to get thrown in jail for being gay.

The only thing it really affects is that the partner couldn't be on the employee's medical plan, but it's generally possible to get insurance even as an individual - and will be even more possible under the new health care rules. And the people that Apple is likely to relocate from overseas make enough that the additional premium wouldn't be that big a factor in the decision. And even that isn't necessary - Apple can offer insurance to same sex partners even if the state doesn't recognize gay marriage - so I'm still wondering how it impacts recruiting.

Besides, I believe that most states (even those that don't allow gay marriage) will recognize marriages that are enacted somewhere else.

Since when do states issue passports? The partner would be prevented from seeking a visa because same sex marriage is NOT recognized by the federal government. Maybe if you live in Texas, you can go get a passport from the Lone Star Republic and you can then go travel around the world on that passport.

Not!
post #52 of 192

Crowley, anything goes right? Rotting from within, it's already happened in the UK, we are trying to stop the rot here. You're outside your mind, you just cannot see it.

post #53 of 192

HawkeBlade. I'm not sure of your point, but true self? Regardless of legality here or anywhere around the world Homosexuality is frowned upon with disgust. You can make as many laws to "normalize it" but it's a far cry from being blonde... that's just a goofy comment.

post #54 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighr View Post

Please understand that to Christians, accpeting gay marriage is the equivalent of asking a Muslim to read a comic book about Mohammad. It is taking something that is sacred and instituted by God, and making fun of it. I realise that most people don't care about how they treat Christians, cause they 'don't matter and aren't relevant', but surely if some people are allowed to express the opinion that it is OK, then Christians should be at least be allowed to say that it isn't, without being ridiculed and vilified. I hope that Apple can increase their focus on delivering great products, rather than be side-tracked by these issues.

 

Why are Christians so selective about what passages of the bible they choose to live their lives by?

 

The most definitive condemnation of gay men comes in Leviticus:

 

 

18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
 
Do you agree that gay men should be killed? The passage on mentions men. Is lesbian fine with you?

 

Let's take a look at other passages in Leviticus:

 

 

Wearing mixed material clothes - 19:19 [...] thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
Cutting your hair - 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Death for those who curse their parents - 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Rules on slavery - 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever
Valuing slaves - 27:3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
27:4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
 
These are all passage, which you would say are written by God, just like Leviticus 18:22. If Christians can leave the other outdated parts of the bible behind, why not the parts about homosexuality between men?
post #55 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post
Agreed. And, conversely, no one should be forced to submit to any governmental policies that would violate their personal religious beliefs either.

Absolutely. In the case of gay marriage, that means no religious person should be forced to perform a religious marriage ceremony between two people of the same sex, and THAT'S IT. I find it despicable that in the US today religious extremists have enough power to force everyone to conform to their religious beliefs, whether they like it or not. We need to kick religion out of politics once and for all. It's painful enough to hear "god bless america" at the end of every political speech, "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance and "in god we trust" on the currency. No wonder we're the laughingstock of the rest of the world.

post #56 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin View Post

Absolutely. In the case of gay marriage, that means no religious person should be forced to perform a religious marriage ceremony between two people of the same sex, and THAT'S IT. I find it despicable that in the US today religious extremists have enough power to force everyone to conform to their religious beliefs, whether they like it or not. We need to kick religion out of politics once and for all. It's painful enough to hear "god bless america" at the end of every political speech, "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance and "in god we trust" on the currency. No wonder we're the laughingstock of the rest of the world.

 

I'm opposed to any person or group of people - religious or not - using government to force others to conform to their beliefs. The only way to mitigate this is to reduce the size and scope of government so that it cannot be used for such purposes.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #57 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin View Post

Absolutely. In the case of gay marriage, that means no religious person should be forced to perform a religious marriage ceremony between two people of the same sex, and THAT'S IT. I find it despicable that in the US today religious extremists have enough power to force everyone to conform to their religious beliefs, whether they like it or not. We need to kick religion out of politics once and for all. It's painful enough to hear "god bless america" at the end of every political speech, "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance and "in god we trust" on the currency. No wonder we're the laughingstock of the rest of the world.

 

I'm opposed to any person or group of people - religious or not - using government to force others to conform to their beliefs. The only way to mitigate this is to reduce the size and scope of government so that it cannot be used for such purposes.

 

That does not follow. One way to mitigate that may be to reduce size and scope of government (although even small governments can infringe on rights), but why is that necessarily the only way? Wasn't that one of the purposes of the constitution and its amendments? There is nothing in there specifying the size of the government.

post #58 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin View Post

Absolutely. In the case of gay marriage, that means no religious person should be forced to perform a religious marriage ceremony between two people of the same sex, and THAT'S IT.

 

Actually, that's not it. I said no one should be forced to submit to any governmental policies that would violate their personal religious beliefs.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin View Post

I find it despicable that in the US today religious extremists have enough power to force everyone to conform to their religious beliefs, whether they like it or not.

 

Who is forcing who to do what?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin View Post

We need to kick religion out of politics once and for all.

 

Then we need to kick ALL beliefs and speech out of politics once and for all.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #59 of 192

I just thought I would throw this out here, because there seems to be this divide on what needs to be done:

 

Quote: Thomas Jefferson

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

 

You see, it is actually very simple.  Religion, by its very nature, divides people into groups and you have to be with one group or another, and holds some higher power as in ultimate control.  A government, on the other hand, can be used to unify the populace, and ultimately (in a Democracy) it is the people who hold ultimate control of it.

 

Since we are talking about the social aspects of this, it is the populace's stance on this that needs to be addressed, not the religious stance.  You see, each religion has different stances on this, but all of that does not matter one iota.  What does matter is how we the people are going to have this addressed.  You would think that it would be this simple, does it in reality hurt or affect a another person from living their life? In reality, Gay Marriage doesn't affect anyone but the people who are going to be married by the ruling.

 

A second point of order, and more important in my humble opinion, is the fact that by allowing one group access and privileges and not allowing the same benefits to another group is plain old discrimination.

 

 

Quote: http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/discrimination/
Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. Discrimination can be the effect of some law or established practice that confers privileges on a certain class or denies privileges to a certain class because of race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap. Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits employment discrimination based on any one of those characteristics. Other federal statutes, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in voting rights, housing, credit extension, public education, and access to public facilities. State laws also provide further protection against discrimination.

 

Discrimination is completely illegal in all 50 states of these United States. Allowing discrimination to continue is jaw-dropping at best. What's worse, is homophobic people try to wrap their discriminatory ways around their religion, as if only their view should be weighed and counted. Sadly, I know I will be vilified by posting this by a number of either religious zealots or right-wingers.  Being human and doing the right thing is never easy.

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
post #60 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That does not follow. One way to mitigate that may be to reduce size and scope of government (although even small governments can infringe on rights), but why is that necessarily the only way? Wasn't that one of the purposes of the constitution and its amendments? There is nothing in there specifying the size of the government.

 

Why does it not follow? Government has the power to dictate who you can and cannot marry, take your property from you and give it to another, etc., and that power is being used by some individuals to oppress other individuals. Strip the government of that power and it can no longer be used in such a fashion.

 

Some have speculated that the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution because the former worked all too well at decentralizing government and preventing the consolidation of power, and that the Constitution has done exactly what it was intended to do all along - provide for the slow, but steady growth of government.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #61 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm opposed to any person or group of people - religious or not - using government to force others to conform to their beliefs. The only way to mitigate this is to reduce the size and scope of government so that it cannot be used for such purposes.
let me ask you a question. Why does the phrase "using government" need to be in that statement at all? Why are you not opposed to any person or group of people forcing others to conform to their beliefs, when government is not involved? This hypocrisy speaks volumes.
post #62 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


let me ask you a question. Why does the phrase "using government" need to be in that statement at all? Why are you not opposed to any person or group of people forcing others to conform to their beliefs, when government is not involved? This hypocrisy speaks volumes.

 

Um, because the conversation was about government.

 

Why have you ignored my frequent mention of my belief in the non-aggression principle?

 

And my frequent assertions that government should not be allowed to do anything an individual is not allowed to do?

 

So that there can be no future misunderstanding of my position: I am opposed to any person or group of people - whether they call themselves a government or not - forcing others to conform to their beliefs. Period.

 

Now enough with your mock outrage.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #63 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Why have you ignored my frequent mention of my belief in the non-aggression principle?
I never have. As I've pointed out, the non-aggression principle, just like any law, is unenforceable without violation of the non-aggression principle. Therefore it is the non-practicable principle. A good utopian dream, but it falls apart in the context of reality. Your supreme folly is that under the non-aggression principle, everyone will follow the non-aggression principle, and those that do not will somehow be held accountable, and not benefit from their violation.
post #64 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That does not follow. One way to mitigate that may be to reduce size and scope of government (although even small governments can infringe on rights), but why is that necessarily the only way? Wasn't that one of the purposes of the constitution and its amendments? There is nothing in there specifying the size of the government.

 

Why does it not follow? Government has the power to dictate who you can and cannot marry, take your property from you and give it to another, etc., and that power is being used by some individuals to oppress other individuals. Strip the government of that power and it can no longer be used in such a fashion.

 

Some have speculated that the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution because the former worked all too well at decentralizing government and preventing the consolidation of power, and that the Constitution has done exactly what it was intended to do all along - provide for the slow, but steady growth of government.

 

It doesn't follow (and you did not provide any reasoning of any kind for the assertion) that your proposal is the only way to achieve that end, and it does not follow that your proposal itself achieves that end unless you strip government of all powers, rather than just make it smaller. But I explained that in my previous post, so what, exactly, are you asking?

 

As the size and complexity of the nation increases I would expect that growth of government would be necessary.

post #65 of 192
Apple; great company, great products, great foolishness.
post #66 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It doesn't follow (and you did not provide any reasoning of any kind for the assertion) that your proposal is the only way to achieve that end, and it does not follow that your proposal itself achieves that end unless you strip government of all powers, rather than just make it smaller. But I explained that in my previous post, so what, exactly, are you asking?

 

As the size and complexity of the nation increases I would expect that growth of government would be necessary.

 

I don't believe I was asking anything. I made a statement that you obviously disagree with. It happens.

 

It's understandable that you would expect government growth to be necessary and good, as you believe government itself is necessary and good.

 

I, however, do not believe institutionalized violence and plunder is necessary. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #67 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

institutionalized violence and plunder

Corporate fracking and oil drilling operations?  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #68 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


I never have. As I've pointed out, the non-aggression principle, just like any law, is unenforceable without violation of the non-aggression principle. Therefore it is the non-practicable principle. A good utopian dream, but it falls apart in the context of reality. Your supreme folly is that under the non-aggression principle, everyone will follow the non-aggression principle, and those that do not will somehow be held accountable, and not benefit from their violation.

 

Your opinion is noted. Now will you or will you not admit that the comment you made - about me not being opposed to any "non-governmental" person or group of people forcing others to conform to their beliefs - was utterly false?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #69 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It doesn't follow (and you did not provide any reasoning of any kind for the assertion) that your proposal is the only way to achieve that end, and it does not follow that your proposal itself achieves that end unless you strip government of all powers, rather than just make it smaller. But I explained that in my previous post, so what, exactly, are you asking?

 

As the size and complexity of the nation increases I would expect that growth of government would be necessary.

 

I don't believe I was asking anything. I made a statement that you obviously disagree with. It happens.

 

It's understandable that you would expect government growth to be necessary and good, as you believe government itself is necessary and good.

 

I, however, do not believe institutionalized violence and plunder is necessary. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

My mistake.  When you wrote "Why does it not follow?", I assumed that to be a question.

 

I'm curious - where did your oppression complex come from?  By institutionalized violence and plunder, I'm guessing that you mean, for example, law enforcement and the mechanism to pay for it (taxation). Assuming that you support such draconian edicts as "though shalt not steal", and that you do not wish to be the victim of actual plunder - the kind that happens a lot where there is no effective law enforcement - how would you propose to implement a practical mechanism to ensure that such laws are followed?  Barricade yourself in your home with some big guns?  Note that even your personal guru, Mr Rothbard, declares that the libertarian does not dispute the need for laws and law enforcement.

post #70 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm curious - where did your oppression complex come from?

 

I see what you did there.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #71 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm curious - where did your oppression complex come from?

 

I see what you did there.

 

You mean I constructed a post with some content that included reasoned arguments, pertinent to the subject under discussion? You should give it a try sometime.

post #72 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You mean I constructed a post with some content that included reasoned arguments, pertinent to the subject under discussion? You should give it a try sometime.

 

Don't play dumb. You know exactly what I mean. Clever try though.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #73 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You mean I constructed a post with some content that included reasoned arguments, pertinent to the subject under discussion? You should give it a try sometime.

 

Don't play dumb. You know exactly what I mean. Clever try though.

 

No - actually I have no idea what you are blabbering about, and I suspect you don't either. And since it's not your style to contribute anything useful to these conversations it will probably stay that way.

post #74 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - actually I have no idea what you are blabbering about, and I suspect you don't either. And since it's not your style to contribute anything useful to these conversations it will probably stay that way.

 

Look at what I fucking quoted wise-ass. Or maybe you're not playing dumb. But I think you know exactly what you were doing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #75 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - actually I have no idea what you are blabbering about, and I suspect you don't either. And since it's not your style to contribute anything useful to these conversations it will probably stay that way.

 

Look at what I fucking quoted wise-ass. Or maybe you're not playing dumb. But I think you know exactly what you were doing.

 

Do you have some kind of disorder that actually prevents you from saying what you mean, or is it just your way of imagining that you have plausible deniability for your bizarre thinking?

post #76 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Do you have some kind of disorder that actually prevents you from saying what you mean, or is it just your way of imagining that you have plausible deniability for your bizarre thinking?

 

Wow. There you did it again. Is this a liberal thing?

 

Why don't you tell us then what you were doing here:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm curious - where did your oppression complex come from?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #77 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Do you have some kind of disorder that actually prevents you from saying what you mean, or is it just your way of imagining that you have plausible deniability for your bizarre thinking?

 

Wow. There you did it again. Is this a liberal thing?

 

Why don't you tell us then what you were doing here:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm curious - where did your oppression complex come from?

 

Now, now - you started this with your comment "I see what you did". Not my place to put words in your mouth, so it's up to you to say what you saw, because as far as I'm concerned my question does not need further amplification.

 

Is what a liberal thing?


Edited by muppetry - 2/27/13 at 9:56pm
post #78 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I never have. As I've pointed out, the non-aggression principle, just like any law, is unenforceable without violation of the non-aggression principle. Therefore it is the non-practicable principle. A good utopian dream, but it falls apart in the context of reality. Your supreme folly is that under the non-aggression principle, everyone will follow the non-aggression principle, and those that do not will somehow be held accountable, and not benefit from their violation.

Your opinion is noted. Now will you or will you not admit that the comment you made - about me not being opposed to any "non-governmental" person or group of people forcing others to conform to their beliefs - was utterly false?
Before I respond, let me try to understand you more clearly. Do you admit that absent government, people or groups of people have continued in the past, and would continue in the future, to force others to conform to their beliefs? Meanwhile, although you may not be satisfied with the control we have of selecting those who represent us in government, and those two whom we give additional powers that other individuals may not have, do you deny that limited control of these things is a far better option than no control of these things?
post #79 of 192
I am also very curious about the origins of Jazzy's inferiority complex that has led to him believing so much that we are victims of the system, and not participants in the system? Was he upset that he had to go to bed at 9:00 as a child ("Mom, where is my FREEDOM!?") Did his dad tell him he was not allowed to have a dog? Did he lose a job, promotion or school placement because affirmative action favored a colleague? Did a family business fail, and somehow someone blamed it on taxes or regulation?

Same question goes to MJ.
post #80 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by IYFCalvin View Post

How sad. Now the homophobes will have to boycott Apple products.  Can't drink Starbucks, wear Nike shoes, use MS Windows and on and on and on.

All I can say is "quit the hating".
 

 

Just because you are not in favor of a particular issue doesn't mean you hate anybody.  It just means you differ from their opinion on the issue.  Being against gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gay people.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage