Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-02-2018, 06:38 PM   #9321 (permalink)
Gotcha
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atop of the Throne
Posts: 29,746
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT] View Post
That violates the NAP
Holds about as much weight for me as saying it violates Harry Potter's Constitution.
Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 06:54 PM   #9322 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT] View Post
Can we all agree that you do not have the right to someone else's labor, against their will? Yes or no?
If you're in business, you're not working against your will during business hours for any paying customer abiding by any reasonable standards. Nobody's forcing you to operate a business that makes money, you can close down and get out of the business, or you can serve everybody. There's really no gray area when it comes to operating a business that's legitimate and in compliance with US regulations.

Quote:
You're coming at it from a gender/sex rights POV and I'm coming from a basic civil liberties view.

I can bottom line this. THE BAKERY WAS WRONG FOR DENYING THE GAY COUPLE A WEDDING CAKE. But, it should be the bakery's right to make the call.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Gender and sex rights are basic human civil liberties. Now, in order to put these "human" liberties ahead of gender/persuasion liberties you have to either be naive and not realize the weight of your beliefs, or you have to be pretty damn ignorant. Considering you admittedly support discrimination over protections, it seems to be the latter.

If you're worried about tyranny, I can assure you that Hitler wasn't aided by protections of gays and jews, or checks and balances to businesses power to refuse service to said minority groups. Actually, if it's liberty you're after, the founders of this nation, while of varying backgrounds, agreed on checks and balances to power.

Quote:
What if someone shoplifts from your store? Do you have the right to deny them entry henceforth?
Jesus Christ, do you honestly not understand the difference between banning someone from your store because they've stolen merchandise which costs you money and banning someone because they're black or gay? I call bull****.

Quote:
Having gay sex is an action. The bakers don't condone it.
They don't have to condone it, and they don't have to run a business, but if they want to run a business they've gotta follow the rules. That should make a decent amount of sense, but for some reason I think it may be lost on you.
Maajo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 07:11 PM   #9323 (permalink)
Gotcha
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atop of the Throne
Posts: 29,746
Default

Another thing is that calling this ruling fascism shows a limited understanding of what fascism is. Fascism limits the freedom of an individual. This ruling was meant to preserve the freedom of individuals. Allowing people to deny those freedoms to others because of their religious beliefs would be holding an institution (religion) above the individual and isn't fascism either, but it's a tiny bit closer.
Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 07:34 PM   #9324 (permalink)
one-balled nipple jockey
 
OccultHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dirty Souf Biatch
Posts: 11,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
[MERIT] you win: in the face of such intransigence and constantly moving the goalposts around, strawman arguments, flip-flopping and more that has just confused and frustrated the hell out of me, I give up. I'll leave you to the mercy of the man I have to admit is one of the best debaters on this forum. May you die honourably.
He hasnít moved the goal post around. Heís given various hypotheticals in defense of a consistent position: People shouldnít be forced by the government to do things they donít believe in. People are up in arms because heís putting economic liberty in front of social reform to prevent discrimination. The Libertarian position is that if youíre not actively trespassing on others the government should not intervene.

My thoughts:
Even if you take the position that eliminating discrimination is more important than the liberty to run your own business as you see fit everyone should be able to see thereís a social cost either way. The government enforces laws by force. As an anarchist, I want the government to exert no force but less force is better than more force. Thatís why I have some sympathy for Meritís position. I also have issues with it but I see where heís coming from.

Let me give what I think is a fair equivalency. Letís say Iím, not surprisingly, a free speech absolutist.

In todayís world, walking around with a sign that advocates genocide against African Americans would be offensive but I support your right to say it.

100 years ago it would have been more offensive to most people to advocate for interracial gay sex. A free speech absolutist would have supported your right to say that as well. Itís not about the position but the right to speak freely.

Itís not exactly the same but the Libertarian perspective of no or very limited workplace interference is also a position that can be rooted in a desire for maximum freedom not as a means to support discrimination. Discrimination, like hate speech, is an unfortunate side effect in a world that isnít perfect.

Now, Iím not a Libertarian because I donít believe in private property and money. None-the-less I think youíre unfairly maligning the philosophy.
__________________
2017 & 2018 Member of the Year Back2Back

experimental music on Spotify worth checking out

FREAK FIGHTER JOURNAL (Awarded 2018 Journal of the Year)

free jazz 2018 thread

Drone/Ambient Releases of 2018

OccultHawk Reviews Southern States

The government that governs best is the government whose members commit suicide.
OccultHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 07:37 PM   #9325 (permalink)
one-balled nipple jockey
 
OccultHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dirty Souf Biatch
Posts: 11,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
Holds about as much weight for me as saying it violates Harry Potter's Constitution.
Thatís too bad, because drawing a line at real aggression is a cornerstone to personal freedom.
__________________
2017 & 2018 Member of the Year Back2Back

experimental music on Spotify worth checking out

FREAK FIGHTER JOURNAL (Awarded 2018 Journal of the Year)

free jazz 2018 thread

Drone/Ambient Releases of 2018

OccultHawk Reviews Southern States

The government that governs best is the government whose members commit suicide.
OccultHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 07:48 PM   #9326 (permalink)
Gotcha
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atop of the Throne
Posts: 29,746
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk View Post
He hasnít moved the goal post around. Heís given various hypotheticals in defense of a consistent position: People shouldnít be forced by the government to do things they donít believe in. People are up in arms because heís putting economic liberty in front of social reform to prevent discrimination. The Libertarian position is that if youíre not actively trespassing on others the government should not intervene.

My thoughts:
Even if you take the position that eliminating discrimination is more important than the liberty to run your own business as you see fit everyone should be able to see thereís a social cost either way. The government enforces laws by force. As an anarchist, I want the government to exert no force but less force is better than more force. Thatís why I have some sympathy for Meritís position. I also have issues with it but I see where heís coming from.

Let me give what I think is a fair equivalency. Letís say Iím, not surprisingly, a free speech absolutist.

In todayís world, walking around with a sign that advocates genocide against African Americans would be offensive but I support your right to say it.

100 years ago it would have been more offensive to most people to advocate for interracial gay sex. A free speech absolutist would have supported your right to say that as well. Itís not about the position but the right to speak freely.

Itís not exactly the same but the Libertarian perspective of no or very limited workplace interference is also a position that can be rooted in a desire for maximum freedom not as a means to support discrimination. Discrimination, like hate speech, is an unfortunate side effect in a world that isnít perfect.

Now, Iím not a Libertarian because I donít believe in private property and money. None-the-less I think youíre unfairly maligning the philosophy.
While I'm trying to keep it generally constructive, I malign Merit's opinions because he's a ridiculous incarnation of libertarianism, much like I've argued with ridiculous arguments from liberals on here who I've agreed with to an extent.

As far as your comment I thought it was well written and agree to an extent. Would you say that in the modern day that businesses more closely represent governments than individuals? I would. That's why I'm more comfortable with putting limitations on how they can operate in terms of how they treat their customers: because they're put in a position of power and any chance to abuse that will be sprung on. That's all within reason though because too much regulation can choke out everybody except for corporations, but this isn't one of those cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk View Post
Thatís too bad, because drawing a line at real aggression is a cornerstone to personal freedom.
Like I said, it's a good place to start but it's not absolute.
Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 08:06 PM   #9327 (permalink)
one-balled nipple jockey
 
OccultHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dirty Souf Biatch
Posts: 11,499
Default

Quote:
Would you say that in the modern day that businesses more closely represent governments than individuals?
Governments. In America today business is the strongest ďbranchĒ of government. So... yeah, in the real world, not the world of the rare mom and pop exception, or the world of hypotheticals, you have the better argument and correct position. However, vision is also important, and the vision of society functioning with as little government as possible is an important one. The Libertarian vision is becoming more and more irrelevant (see universal basic income thread) but still, I wish people could at least explain it without peppering it with bigotry and hatred.
__________________
2017 & 2018 Member of the Year Back2Back

experimental music on Spotify worth checking out

FREAK FIGHTER JOURNAL (Awarded 2018 Journal of the Year)

free jazz 2018 thread

Drone/Ambient Releases of 2018

OccultHawk Reviews Southern States

The government that governs best is the government whose members commit suicide.
OccultHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 08:10 PM   #9328 (permalink)
Nobody likes my music
 
Trollheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: In Cognito
Posts: 21,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk View Post
He hasnít moved the goal post around.
Just to answer that point: yes, he has. He keeps arguing for one thing then changing it. He said everyone should have the right to discriminate, then later said nobody should be allowed to discriminate against others. I'm tired now so I'm not going to go looking for the posts, but that is basically what he said. His constant taking one stance, then the other, wears me out.
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018
Trollheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 08:19 PM   #9329 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 462
Default

Everybody has to have the same liberties and the same access to those liberties, or else the libertarian ideology fails. I have no problem with that, but brown folks, LGBT folks and women have for so long been told that they have the same exact rights as a white man, but that has never been true because protections of their liberties have been denied. That's what Merit seems to be advocating for, and it is malicious whether he realizes it or not.
Maajo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 10:18 PM   #9330 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 10,663
Default

Chula Vista is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.