<liberal name calling>You are a fool.</liberal name calling>
Name calling is unnecessary and the easiest way to have your voice disassociated with rational thought, which is unfortunate because then people on the fence of an issue (the ones who hopefully can be open to reason) just ignore the thoughts that follow the name calling and reasoned debate dies.
Since you want the government out of personal relationships, basically giving people free reign to treat people anyway they want.
Do you think that blacks should still be forced to used different bathrooms than whites? Or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?
That's where we'd be without government intervention into personal relationships. I know there are quite a few people out there who would be more than happy to bring those days back.
Name calling is unnecessary and the easiest way to have your voice disassociated with rational thought, which is unfortunate because then people on the fence of an issue (the ones who hopefully can be open to reason) just ignore the thoughts that follow the name calling and reasoned debate dies.
Hey kettle, thanks for calling the pot black! Or did you forget your earlier comment?
Quote:
I very rarely say this to people i don't agree with, especially on the internet - but you are an idiot.
lol, I must be! I don't know what it is! Is the question "what needs to be paid" or "why is modern society the size it is"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
So let's continue to pile one bad idea on top of another?! Brilliant.
I don't want to, I said it because not everything we want gets passed (obviously) and just because it doesn't get changed right away doesn't mean as an in between step, equality can't be struck in the mean time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Fair enough. I agree with that.
(waits for the slow expansion of the definition of "using tax funds" to the point where a catch-22 is created in which no one is free.)
Success! To me, Using tax funds is using tax funds. Doesn't matter the organization, doesn't matter the location or political leanings. You get subsidized in any way by tax dollars, you treat every single taxpayer equally. Simple, plain language. Even if it was 1%. if you want to omit rights part of society, find a way to cover the 1% on your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Good luck with that!
We need to strive for something, right? I think it has at least as much of a chance as upending the entire government construct - and not as far fetched, with all due respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
You're right, we disagree.
That will happen, lol. My wife works with a lot of at-risk and marginalized women and youth and I volunteer a lot. Everyday my eyes are opened a little bit more to what's happening out there and what we are allowing to happen to the most disenfranchised of us. Being from Canada, we also have a different structure here than you have down there. I have found that people can't be relied upon (hence a larger, transparent and accountable body) to help/contribute to those who need it other than in extreme cases in front of their face (9/11, hurricane sandy, floods we are going though up here in Canada now), and even then they do it once, pat themselves on the back - ignoring the persisting problems we face. I won't presume your stance or level of activity in social causes, so don't think that is aimed at you. We are still friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
And this is where you have it completely backwards, upside down and inside out. The root problem is the government and the powers it has to even be able to do the things you object to.
Until you realize that, you'll be chasing the fantasy of accountable government. Good luck.
You are right in some ways, like I said, I don't mean the government isn't at the root of the problem at all, I mean for those in this situation (lacking of rights) they are marginalized well before the government reach is involved. The LGBT are marginalized by co-workers, employers ect. hiding under the guise or religious protection at which point the government gets involved and it becomes the ref in "equity" v "religion". That's the day-to-day fight. Its like saying last nights storm left destruction across my neighbourhood and I have to help my neighbours clean it for the better of all of us, but I have to deal with the tree across my front door before I can get out. Meanwhile my neighbours don't understand why I'm not out yet helping. I have a more immediate problem to me I have to tackle first that happens to not be a problem for you right now. If you want me to help you with the big clean up, help me out so we can tackle the big problem together.
lol, I must be! I don't know what it is! Is the question "what needs to be paid" or "why is modern society the size it is"?
Begging the question is a logical fallacy which basically means "assuming the point." In your case you are assuming the point that everything the government is paying is something that must be paid for, also that these things wouldn't be paid for absent the government, and there is the additional fallacy of the non sequiturs (it does not follow) having to do with the "modern society" and its size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I don't want to, I said it because not everything we want gets passed (obviously) and just because it doesn't get changed right away doesn't mean as an in between step, equality can't be struck in the mean time.
But the point is it is not an "in between" step.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Success!
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
To me, Using tax funds is using tax funds. Doesn't matter the organization, doesn't matter the location or political leanings. You get subsidized in any way by tax dollars, you treat every single taxpayer equally. Simple, plain language. Even if it was 1%. if you want to omit rights part of society, find a way to cover the 1% on your own.
The tautology doesn't help here, and I can guarantee you that it isn't as simple language as you presume.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
We need to strive for something, right?
Yes. I strive for liberty, voluntaryism, and the widespread respect for the basic and natural and God-given rights of life, liberty and property as well as their logically derivative rights of exchange/trade, defense and association (or disassociation.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I have found that people can't be relied upon (hence a larger, transparent and accountable body) to help/contribute to those who need it other than in extreme cases in front of their face (9/11, hurricane sandy, floods we are going though up here in Canada now), and even then they do it once, pat themselves on the back - ignoring the persisting problems we face.
I'm sorry to hear that your experience has left you with that conclusion. I suggest your experience is not broad enough because I have seen exactly the opposite in my own experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
You are right in some ways, like I said, I don't mean the government isn't at the root of the problem at all, I mean for those in this situation (lacking of rights) they are marginalized well before the government reach is involved. The LGBT are marginalized by co-workers, employers ect. hiding under the guise or religious protection at which point the government gets involved and it becomes the ref in "equity" v "religion".
This word "marginalized" is kind of a weasel-word. What is meant here? In what way are they being "marginalized?" What "rights" are those people lacking? Are they really "rights" or just wishes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Its like saying last nights storm left destruction across my neighbourhood and I have to help my neighbours clean it for the better of all of us, but I have to deal with the tree across my front door before I can get out. Meanwhile my neighbours don't understand why I'm not out yet helping. I have a more immediate problem to me I have to tackle first that happens to not be a problem for you right now. If you want me to help you with the big clean up, help me out so we can tackle the big problem together.
I would like to point out that 'civil rights' traditionally refer to immutable characteristics. This ruling is significant in that its probably the first (dont hold me to that as I dont know history perfectly) to include a characteristic that is mutable. Being gay has not been proven to be an immutable characteristic, just lots of speculation. People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who... just saying.
I would like to point out that 'civil rights' traditionally refer to immutable characteristics. This ruling is significant in that its probably the first (dont hold me to that as I dont know history perfectly) to include a characteristic that is mutable. Being gay has not been proven to be an immutable characteristic, just lots of speculation. People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who... just saying.
Exodus International just folded and the founder apologized for the hurt they've caused. If many devout Christians honestly try (and they did) and fail to pray away the gay, my guess is its because that's the way god made them.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy which basically means "assuming the point." In your case you are assuming the point that everything the government is paying is something that must be paid for...
With you here...
Quote:
also that these things wouldn't be paid for absent the government
No it wouldn't. I have been volunteering for over 15 years. No one wants to pay a dime for a service they figure they will never use. Like addictions support or Domestic abuse services. They are all nice to haves but that doesn't go away after some one spends a day at a soup kitchen. Donations are few and far between and staff is still needed to drum that up. Throw in a down economy and people are even more tight-fisted. Not saying they shouldn't be thrifty with their money but even people who are well off think they could be more well off. Private sector is not enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
But the point is it is not an "in between" step.
Not for you. Because it's already available for you. I'm just saying perception is an amazing thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
...or you can roll your eyes when we agree. wow all or nothing with you, lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
The tautology doesn't help here, and I can guarantee you that it isn't as simple language as you presume.
Wow, defeatist, much? I'm just giving my opinion of what I would like to see, not what I think will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Yes. I strive for liberty, voluntaryism, and the widespread respect for the basic and natural and God-given rights of life, liberty and property as well as their logically derivative rights of exchange/trade, defense and association (or disassociation.)
I don't understand "God-given". That's not real. I agree with everything else, however i see it is skewed heavily to the individual and not society. That's where we differ, and that's fine as these are opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
I'm sorry to hear that your experience has left you with that conclusion. I suggest your experience is not broad enough because I have seen exactly the opposite in my own experiences.
No, it's plenty broad. 15 years with multiple overlapping organizations dealing with youth, new immigrants, lots with addictions and homelessness and many disfranchised aboriginals here in Manitoba. The people who volunteer are great - damn near "angels" - but there is no funding. every year something gets cut and you cannot wait for everyone to build up enough personal wealth to keep it covered. It will not happen. Especially not in the current economic climate. In the mean time people are literally dying in the streets and sleeping in crack houses just to have a roof on their heads for the night. Waiting to upend the government to help them is tantamount to doing nothing in a span of time that would make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
This word "marginalized" is kind of a weasel-word. What is meant here? In what way are they being "marginalized?" What "rights" are those people lacking? Are they really "rights" or just wishes?
No it isn't. If you question socio-marginalization then you are one of the lucky that aren't oppressed by it. I see it every single day. In this instance (LGBT) they are marginalized because they are prevented equal treatment because a group with power deems their life "icky" so they have to make a big stink about being seen as "the same" in both society and in law as others. There shouldn't be a question. personal opinions are just that but if you believe in liberty, it should be for everyone not just the parts that effect you and it would be great if you could see others are looking for a flavour of it too. They are only wishes if the are not fundamental in your life. That is already filled for you so i can see why you see no urgency for it but not everyone is in the same boat.
Being gay has not been proven to be an immutable characteristic, just lots of speculation. People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who... just saying.
Holy shit, are you for real? Want me to get a list of kids who attempted suicide because they can't help who they are? That wish to god they were "normal" so that life could be easier. That thought process is dangerous, asinine and borderline evil. Serious. You are willing to gamble with people's lives because you (who this doesn't effect an any way, shape or form) are "unsure" about something that has nothing to do with you.
That's just... ****, wow... might as well call them not a whole person. Lets start a study to "prove" it's not true... 20/30 years should be long enough. I'm sure people are willing to put their lives on hold till you feel "sure".
And, sadly, you'll be viewed as an "enemy of human decency" amongst other things simply because you don't agree on a social issue - it's absurd... Oh, and a bigot to be sure - your views are only allowed it they agree with the liberal agenda, if they don't then you're a hateful bigot with nothing but hate in your heart...
LOL "Liberal Agenda"? Have you ever tried to get liberals to agree on anything?
Here, have some fun, try to plan a meal for a Liberal meeting sometime. Or try to keep things on topic without delving into everyone's pet concerns. Can't be done!
There is no "liberal agenda" - you choose that phrase for two reasons. One, it sounds scary, like there's a sinister plot about. And Two, because your right-wing media masters (And those actually DO exist - Alles, Limbaugh, ect.) tell you it does.
In reality, it's the difference between supporting people and not supporting people. Apple, as usual, comes down on the right side of history.
No it wouldn't. I have been volunteering for over 15 years. No one wants to pay a dime for a service they figure they will never use. Like addictions support or Domestic abuse services.
But they will (or perhaps family in the examples given) will pay for them when they are needed. People generally do pay for the things they want and need. What they often don't want to pay for are the things that others think they want or need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Donations are few and far between and staff is still needed to drum that up. Throw in a down economy and people are even more tight-fisted. Not saying they shouldn't be thrifty with their money but even people who are well off think they could be more well off. Private sector is not enough.
We disagree. I would also suggest that, after generations of this, a vast majority of the public has simply taken on the assumption that the government will take care of that, and this affects their giving. It's not a static issue...it's highly dynamic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Not for you. Because it's already available for you. I'm just saying perception is an amazing thing.
It's not a question of for me or not for me. It's not an "in between" step because in between suggests a step closer to to the goal. It's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
...or you can roll your eyes when we agree. wow all or nothing with you, lol.
There were rolling at your lame "success!" comment as if convincing me (or something) is your goal here. Like my agreeing with you is some sign of success. Whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Wow, defeatist, much? I'm just giving my opinion of what I would like to see, not what I think will happen.
"Defeatest much?" What the hell does that even mean. I pointed out that you're being tautological on the "using tax dollars means using tax dollars" and I'm saying that what "using" means is not as simple as you claim. I guarantee I can find someone (usually of the leftist, but always of the statist persuasion) that will stretch the definition of "using" here to broadly that almost anything someone is doing is "using tax dollars." These are the same people for whom not paying as much taxes as they think some "should" pay is tantamount to "stealing" from the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I don't understand "God-given".
Sorry to hear that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
That's not real.
Thanks for your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I agree with everything else, however i see it is skewed heavily to the individual and not society.
You say that like a) it's a bad thing, and b) like you can define society objectively enough to make the things we must "do for society" definable and defendable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
No, it's plenty broad.
And yet I have experiences that are in direct contradiction to your claims. So, as I said, I guess not broad enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Waiting to upend the government to help them is tantamount to doing nothing in a span of time that would make a difference.
hey, look...a straw man! Good for you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
No it isn't. If you question socio-marginalization then you are one of the lucky that aren't oppressed by it.
And a non sequitur. Wow, you're flush with fallacies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
In this instance (LGBT) they are marginalized because they are prevented equal treatment because a group with power deems their life "icky" so they have to make a big stink about being seen as "the same" in both society and in law as others.
Still speaking in generalities. Be specific please or I'll just have to assume you're hand-waving with weasel-words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
...but if you believe in liberty, it should be for everyone not just the parts that effect you...
I do and it should be for everyone. I agree 100%. And everyone's rights should be respected. Problem is, I suspect you don't actually agree with that once you boil your positions down to their essence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
They are only wishes if the are not fundamental in your life.
Still waiting for examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
That is already filled for you so i can see why you see no urgency for it but not everyone is in the same boat.
Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?
My goodness the extent of fallacious "reasoning" here is astonishing.
I was tempted to apologize for calling you a fool, but I've decided to add on that you're an idiot too. Or maybe I should say ignoramus so that I can follow your example and throw in multisyllabic words to make myself sound more intelligent than the idiotic crap you keep posting.
I'm bisexual. I'm transgendered. I didn't chose to be either of those things. Hence, it's not a choice. But again that's just another of my continuing fallacious arguments. You talk of "fallacious arguments" and then throw in "God-given rights." To borrow your words:
Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?
As a person who wants actual evidence, God is a pretty weak argument. Exactly what proof can you present for the existence of such a thing? And while we're at it, perhaps you could be more specific as to which deity you are referencing. Shiva, Allah, Odin, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
If you're going to deride someone for insults, you should perhaps refrain from insults yourself.
Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?
My goodness the extent of fallacious "reasoning" here is astonishing.
That was a real argument just because it isn't happening in your life doesn't mean it isn't important or real. Those two lines you wrote had no argument in it other than trying to be an ass. They were that same as saying "I don't need to make an argument if I can just dismiss theirs". Sprinkle in some "words of the day" and don't I sound smart making fun of other people's misfortunes with no-content lines while speaking in circles. I was trying to have a calm, interesting debate between two people who started with opposing views to see if in some places we can find some common ground, and you took the opportunity to talk down to me in every single opportunity, if you thought I was adding sarcasm or something, i don't know and now don't care. I never expected you do a 180, just as I was confidant in my view but I am not so blind as to think I know all that's needed to know. Hell, I even defended you to try to keep some civil debate going but you aren't having that aren't you? But you know what? **** it. You roll your eyes at peoples personal struggles. You rage against the government control yet don't give a shit about your community, small or large. You cherry pick portions of lines to say I'm not making point yet ignore any context of this large, multi post debate because doing so allows you to keep talking down at peoples struggles. You seem to be Ultra- individualist trying to tell other people how they should be while you actually don't give a shit about other people. Thank goodness you want government to end cause government is filled with people just like you. You americans don't need another like you in power.
That was a real argument just because it isn't happening in your life doesn't mean it isn't important or real. Those two lines you wrote had no argument in it other than trying to be an ass. They were that same as saying "I don't need to make an argument if I can just dismiss theirs". Sprinkle in some "words of the day" and don't I sound smart making fun of other people's misfortunes with no-content lines while speaking in circles. I was trying to have a calm, interesting debate between two people who started with opposing views to see if in some places we can find some common ground, and you took the opportunity to talk down to me in every single opportunity, if you thought I was adding sarcasm or something, i don't know and now don't care. I never expected you do a 180, just as I was confidant in my view but I am not so blind as to think I know all that's needed to know. Hell, I even defended you to try to keep some civil debate going but you aren't having that aren't you? But you know what? **** it. You roll your eyes at peoples personal struggles. You rage against the government control yet don't give a shit about your community, small or large. You cherry pick portions of lines to say I'm not making point yet ignore any context of this large, multi post debate because doing so allows you to keep talking down at peoples struggles. You seem to be Ultra- individualist trying to tell other people how they should be while you actually don't give a shit about other people. Thank goodness you want government to end cause government is filled with people just like you. You americans don't need another like you in power.
I was tempted to apologize for calling you a fool, but I've decided to add on that you're an idiot too. Or maybe I should say ignoramus so that I can follow your example and throw in multisyllabic words to make myself sound more intelligent than the idiotic crap you keep posting.
Delightful. When you have nothing, call name and declare the other person to be an idiot. How liberal of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
I'm bisexual. I'm transgendered. I didn't chose to be either of those things. Hence, it's not a choice. But again that's just another of my continuing fallacious arguments.
Actually it is fallacious to assume that it is not a choice for anyone (which is your implication.)
But I'm just a fool and an idiot, so nothing I have to say should concern you anyway.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
<liberal name calling>You are a fool.</liberal name calling>
Name calling is unnecessary and the easiest way to have your voice disassociated with rational thought, which is unfortunate because then people on the fence of an issue (the ones who hopefully can be open to reason) just ignore the thoughts that follow the name calling and reasoned debate dies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
I'll just stop there.
How about you address my point?
Since you want the government out of personal relationships, basically giving people free reign to treat people anyway they want.
Do you think that blacks should still be forced to used different bathrooms than whites? Or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?
That's where we'd be without government intervention into personal relationships. I know there are quite a few people out there who would be more than happy to bring those days back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Name calling is unnecessary and the easiest way to have your voice disassociated with rational thought, which is unfortunate because then people on the fence of an issue (the ones who hopefully can be open to reason) just ignore the thoughts that follow the name calling and reasoned debate dies.
Hey kettle, thanks for calling the pot black! Or did you forget your earlier comment?
Quote:
I very rarely say this to people i don't agree with, especially on the internet - but you are an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
How about you address my point?
Not interested in "debating" with you because you have demonstrated yourself to be an insulting and unreasonable person.
Not merely with your opening name-calling but, also, with your fallacious thinking as expressed (at least) in your two recent posts.
Next time think twice before jumping to the standard "I disagree with you and think you're wrong so, you must be a fool and I'm going to say so."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Now you're begging the question. *sigh*
lol, I must be! I don't know what it is! Is the question "what needs to be paid" or "why is modern society the size it is"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
So let's continue to pile one bad idea on top of another?! Brilliant.
I don't want to, I said it because not everything we want gets passed (obviously) and just because it doesn't get changed right away doesn't mean as an in between step, equality can't be struck in the mean time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Fair enough. I agree with that.
(waits for the slow expansion of the definition of "using tax funds" to the point where a catch-22 is created in which no one is free.)
Success! To me, Using tax funds is using tax funds. Doesn't matter the organization, doesn't matter the location or political leanings. You get subsidized in any way by tax dollars, you treat every single taxpayer equally. Simple, plain language. Even if it was 1%. if you want to omit rights part of society, find a way to cover the 1% on your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
We need to strive for something, right? I think it has at least as much of a chance as upending the entire government construct - and not as far fetched, with all due respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
You're right, we disagree.
That will happen, lol. My wife works with a lot of at-risk and marginalized women and youth and I volunteer a lot. Everyday my eyes are opened a little bit more to what's happening out there and what we are allowing to happen to the most disenfranchised of us. Being from Canada, we also have a different structure here than you have down there. I have found that people can't be relied upon (hence a larger, transparent and accountable body) to help/contribute to those who need it other than in extreme cases in front of their face (9/11, hurricane sandy, floods we are going though up here in Canada now), and even then they do it once, pat themselves on the back - ignoring the persisting problems we face. I won't presume your stance or level of activity in social causes, so don't think that is aimed at you. We are still friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
And this is where you have it completely backwards, upside down and inside out. The root problem is the government and the powers it has to even be able to do the things you object to.
Until you realize that, you'll be chasing the fantasy of accountable government. Good luck.
You are right in some ways, like I said, I don't mean the government isn't at the root of the problem at all, I mean for those in this situation (lacking of rights) they are marginalized well before the government reach is involved. The LGBT are marginalized by co-workers, employers ect. hiding under the guise or religious protection at which point the government gets involved and it becomes the ref in "equity" v "religion". That's the day-to-day fight. Its like saying last nights storm left destruction across my neighbourhood and I have to help my neighbours clean it for the better of all of us, but I have to deal with the tree across my front door before I can get out. Meanwhile my neighbours don't understand why I'm not out yet helping. I have a more immediate problem to me I have to tackle first that happens to not be a problem for you right now. If you want me to help you with the big clean up, help me out so we can tackle the big problem together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Hey kettle, thanks for calling the pot black! Or did you forget your earlier comment?
You are right and I am sorry. That was uncalled for and I shouldn't have stuck my nose in it. I also amended my post to apologize to libertyforall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
lol, I must be! I don't know what it is! Is the question "what needs to be paid" or "why is modern society the size it is"?
Begging the question is a logical fallacy which basically means "assuming the point." In your case you are assuming the point that everything the government is paying is something that must be paid for, also that these things wouldn't be paid for absent the government, and there is the additional fallacy of the non sequiturs (it does not follow) having to do with the "modern society" and its size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I don't want to, I said it because not everything we want gets passed (obviously) and just because it doesn't get changed right away doesn't mean as an in between step, equality can't be struck in the mean time.
But the point is it is not an "in between" step.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Success!
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
To me, Using tax funds is using tax funds. Doesn't matter the organization, doesn't matter the location or political leanings. You get subsidized in any way by tax dollars, you treat every single taxpayer equally. Simple, plain language. Even if it was 1%. if you want to omit rights part of society, find a way to cover the 1% on your own.
The tautology doesn't help here, and I can guarantee you that it isn't as simple language as you presume.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
We need to strive for something, right?
Yes. I strive for liberty, voluntaryism, and the widespread respect for the basic and natural and God-given rights of life, liberty and property as well as their logically derivative rights of exchange/trade, defense and association (or disassociation.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I have found that people can't be relied upon (hence a larger, transparent and accountable body) to help/contribute to those who need it other than in extreme cases in front of their face (9/11, hurricane sandy, floods we are going though up here in Canada now), and even then they do it once, pat themselves on the back - ignoring the persisting problems we face.
I'm sorry to hear that your experience has left you with that conclusion. I suggest your experience is not broad enough because I have seen exactly the opposite in my own experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
You are right in some ways, like I said, I don't mean the government isn't at the root of the problem at all, I mean for those in this situation (lacking of rights) they are marginalized well before the government reach is involved. The LGBT are marginalized by co-workers, employers ect. hiding under the guise or religious protection at which point the government gets involved and it becomes the ref in "equity" v "religion".
This word "marginalized" is kind of a weasel-word. What is meant here? In what way are they being "marginalized?" What "rights" are those people lacking? Are they really "rights" or just wishes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Its like saying last nights storm left destruction across my neighbourhood and I have to help my neighbours clean it for the better of all of us, but I have to deal with the tree across my front door before I can get out. Meanwhile my neighbours don't understand why I'm not out yet helping. I have a more immediate problem to me I have to tackle first that happens to not be a problem for you right now. If you want me to help you with the big clean up, help me out so we can tackle the big problem together.
Sorry, totally lost me on that analogy.
I would like to point out that 'civil rights' traditionally refer to immutable characteristics. This ruling is significant in that its probably the first (dont hold me to that as I dont know history perfectly) to include a characteristic that is mutable. Being gay has not been proven to be an immutable characteristic, just lots of speculation. People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who... just saying.
Exodus International just folded and the founder apologized for the hurt they've caused. If many devout Christians honestly try (and they did) and fail to pray away the gay, my guess is its because that's the way god made them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Begging the question is a logical fallacy which basically means "assuming the point." In your case you are assuming the point that everything the government is paying is something that must be paid for...
With you here...
Quote:
also that these things wouldn't be paid for absent the government
No it wouldn't. I have been volunteering for over 15 years. No one wants to pay a dime for a service they figure they will never use. Like addictions support or Domestic abuse services. They are all nice to haves but that doesn't go away after some one spends a day at a soup kitchen. Donations are few and far between and staff is still needed to drum that up. Throw in a down economy and people are even more tight-fisted. Not saying they shouldn't be thrifty with their money but even people who are well off think they could be more well off. Private sector is not enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
But the point is it is not an "in between" step.
Not for you. Because it's already available for you. I'm just saying perception is an amazing thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
...or you can roll your eyes when we agree. wow all or nothing with you, lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
The tautology doesn't help here, and I can guarantee you that it isn't as simple language as you presume.
Wow, defeatist, much? I'm just giving my opinion of what I would like to see, not what I think will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Yes. I strive for liberty, voluntaryism, and the widespread respect for the basic and natural and God-given rights of life, liberty and property as well as their logically derivative rights of exchange/trade, defense and association (or disassociation.)
I don't understand "God-given". That's not real. I agree with everything else, however i see it is skewed heavily to the individual and not society. That's where we differ, and that's fine as these are opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
I'm sorry to hear that your experience has left you with that conclusion. I suggest your experience is not broad enough because I have seen exactly the opposite in my own experiences.
No, it's plenty broad. 15 years with multiple overlapping organizations dealing with youth, new immigrants, lots with addictions and homelessness and many disfranchised aboriginals here in Manitoba. The people who volunteer are great - damn near "angels" - but there is no funding. every year something gets cut and you cannot wait for everyone to build up enough personal wealth to keep it covered. It will not happen. Especially not in the current economic climate. In the mean time people are literally dying in the streets and sleeping in crack houses just to have a roof on their heads for the night. Waiting to upend the government to help them is tantamount to doing nothing in a span of time that would make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
This word "marginalized" is kind of a weasel-word. What is meant here? In what way are they being "marginalized?" What "rights" are those people lacking? Are they really "rights" or just wishes?
No it isn't. If you question socio-marginalization then you are one of the lucky that aren't oppressed by it. I see it every single day. In this instance (LGBT) they are marginalized because they are prevented equal treatment because a group with power deems their life "icky" so they have to make a big stink about being seen as "the same" in both society and in law as others. There shouldn't be a question. personal opinions are just that but if you believe in liberty, it should be for everyone not just the parts that effect you and it would be great if you could see others are looking for a flavour of it too. They are only wishes if the are not fundamental in your life. That is already filled for you so i can see why you see no urgency for it but not everyone is in the same boat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Sorry, totally lost me on that analogy.
lol, I don't know why but I am not surprised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
Being gay has not been proven to be an immutable characteristic, just lots of speculation. People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who... just saying.
Holy shit, are you for real? Want me to get a list of kids who attempted suicide because they can't help who they are? That wish to god they were "normal" so that life could be easier. That thought process is dangerous, asinine and borderline evil. Serious. You are willing to gamble with people's lives because you (who this doesn't effect an any way, shape or form) are "unsure" about something that has nothing to do with you.
That's just... ****, wow... might as well call them not a whole person. Lets start a study to "prove" it's not true... 20/30 years should be long enough. I'm sure people are willing to put their lives on hold till you feel "sure".
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
And, sadly, you'll be viewed as an "enemy of human decency" amongst other things simply because you don't agree on a social issue - it's absurd... Oh, and a bigot to be sure - your views are only allowed it they agree with the liberal agenda, if they don't then you're a hateful bigot with nothing but hate in your heart...
LOL "Liberal Agenda"? Have you ever tried to get liberals to agree on anything?
Here, have some fun, try to plan a meal for a Liberal meeting sometime. Or try to keep things on topic without delving into everyone's pet concerns. Can't be done!
There is no "liberal agenda" - you choose that phrase for two reasons. One, it sounds scary, like there's a sinister plot about. And Two, because your right-wing media masters (And those actually DO exist - Alles, Limbaugh, ect.) tell you it does.
In reality, it's the difference between supporting people and not supporting people. Apple, as usual, comes down on the right side of history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
No it wouldn't. I have been volunteering for over 15 years. No one wants to pay a dime for a service they figure they will never use. Like addictions support or Domestic abuse services.
But they will (or perhaps family in the examples given) will pay for them when they are needed. People generally do pay for the things they want and need. What they often don't want to pay for are the things that others think they want or need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Donations are few and far between and staff is still needed to drum that up. Throw in a down economy and people are even more tight-fisted. Not saying they shouldn't be thrifty with their money but even people who are well off think they could be more well off. Private sector is not enough.
We disagree. I would also suggest that, after generations of this, a vast majority of the public has simply taken on the assumption that the government will take care of that, and this affects their giving. It's not a static issue...it's highly dynamic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Not for you. Because it's already available for you. I'm just saying perception is an amazing thing.
It's not a question of for me or not for me. It's not an "in between" step because in between suggests a step closer to to the goal. It's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
...or you can roll your eyes when we agree. wow all or nothing with you, lol.
There were rolling at your lame "success!" comment as if convincing me (or something) is your goal here. Like my agreeing with you is some sign of success. Whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Wow, defeatist, much? I'm just giving my opinion of what I would like to see, not what I think will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I don't understand "God-given".
Sorry to hear that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
That's not real.
Thanks for your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I agree with everything else, however i see it is skewed heavily to the individual and not society.
You say that like a) it's a bad thing, and b) like you can define society objectively enough to make the things we must "do for society" definable and defendable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
No, it's plenty broad.
And yet I have experiences that are in direct contradiction to your claims. So, as I said, I guess not broad enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Waiting to upend the government to help them is tantamount to doing nothing in a span of time that would make a difference.
hey, look...a straw man! Good for you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
No it isn't. If you question socio-marginalization then you are one of the lucky that aren't oppressed by it.
And a non sequitur. Wow, you're flush with fallacies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
In this instance (LGBT) they are marginalized because they are prevented equal treatment because a group with power deems their life "icky" so they have to make a big stink about being seen as "the same" in both society and in law as others.
Still speaking in generalities. Be specific please or I'll just have to assume you're hand-waving with weasel-words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
...but if you believe in liberty, it should be for everyone not just the parts that effect you...
I do and it should be for everyone. I agree 100%. And everyone's rights should be respected. Problem is, I suspect you don't actually agree with that once you boil your positions down to their essence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
They are only wishes if the are not fundamental in your life.
Still waiting for examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
That is already filled for you so i can see why you see no urgency for it but not everyone is in the same boat.
And another non sequitur. Good job!
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
lol, I don't know why but I am not surprised.
Whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Holy shit, are you for real? Want me to get a list of kids who attempted suicide because they can't help who they are?
Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?
My goodness the extent of fallacious "reasoning" here is astonishing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saintstryfe
...comes down on the right side of history.
Ahh that classic liberal talking point that sounds so wise and as if it is some sort of indefensible trump card.
I was tempted to apologize for calling you a fool, but I've decided to add on that you're an idiot too. Or maybe I should say ignoramus so that I can follow your example and throw in multisyllabic words to make myself sound more intelligent than the idiotic crap you keep posting.
I'm bisexual. I'm transgendered. I didn't chose to be either of those things. Hence, it's not a choice. But again that's just another of my continuing fallacious arguments. You talk of "fallacious arguments" and then throw in "God-given rights." To borrow your words:
Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?
As a person who wants actual evidence, God is a pretty weak argument. Exactly what proof can you present for the existence of such a thing? And while we're at it, perhaps you could be more specific as to which deity you are referencing. Shiva, Allah, Odin, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
If you're going to deride someone for insults, you should perhaps refrain from insults yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?
My goodness the extent of fallacious "reasoning" here is astonishing.
That was a real argument just because it isn't happening in your life doesn't mean it isn't important or real. Those two lines you wrote had no argument in it other than trying to be an ass. They were that same as saying "I don't need to make an argument if I can just dismiss theirs". Sprinkle in some "words of the day" and don't I sound smart making fun of other people's misfortunes with no-content lines while speaking in circles. I was trying to have a calm, interesting debate between two people who started with opposing views to see if in some places we can find some common ground, and you took the opportunity to talk down to me in every single opportunity, if you thought I was adding sarcasm or something, i don't know and now don't care. I never expected you do a 180, just as I was confidant in my view but I am not so blind as to think I know all that's needed to know. Hell, I even defended you to try to keep some civil debate going but you aren't having that aren't you? But you know what? **** it. You roll your eyes at peoples personal struggles. You rage against the government control yet don't give a shit about your community, small or large. You cherry pick portions of lines to say I'm not making point yet ignore any context of this large, multi post debate because doing so allows you to keep talking down at peoples struggles. You seem to be Ultra- individualist trying to tell other people how they should be while you actually don't give a shit about other people. Thank goodness you want government to end cause government is filled with people just like you. You americans don't need another like you in power.
I'm out.
Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
I was tempted to apologize for calling you a fool, but I've decided to add on that you're an idiot too. Or maybe I should say ignoramus so that I can follow your example and throw in multisyllabic words to make myself sound more intelligent than the idiotic crap you keep posting.
Delightful. When you have nothing, call name and declare the other person to be an idiot. How liberal of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
I'm bisexual. I'm transgendered. I didn't chose to be either of those things. Hence, it's not a choice. But again that's just another of my continuing fallacious arguments.
Actually it is fallacious to assume that it is not a choice for anyone (which is your implication.)
But I'm just a fool and an idiot, so nothing I have to say should concern you anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
That was a real argument just because it isn't happening in your life doesn't mean it isn't important or real.
Well, it wasn't a very logical argument. Let me put it that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Those two lines you wrote had no argument in it other than trying to be an ass.
And more naming calling. Lovely how you liberals work. If I was being an ass, it was merely in mimicking you being an ass to the other poster.
You guts are priceless.