Jump to content
Guest #1Stunner

State of California bans travel for College teams to certain states

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, just_chris said:

The wedding cake is just an example, if you allow people to discriminate based on religious beliefs where is the endgame? Can they discriminate against me because I am a single father and that goes against their beliefs? Can they discriminate against the Muslim guy because he doesn't practice their religion? Can Orthodox Jews discriminate against non Orthodox because they're not God's chosen people? Where do we draw the line? 

 

People discriminate all the time and are perfectly at liberty to do so as private citizens. Just look around you some time at something like a basketball or football game.

  • Like 2

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wyovanian said:

Only if the policies are governmental. It's pretty hard to argue that forcing a particular someone to provide you with a wedding cake protects your Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness. I'd say it's quite the opposite. The person requesting the cake has a choice and is not facing the deprivation of any of those rights. A person forced to bake the cake has no choice and is deprived.

not sure we can assist the poor deprived person baking the cake

sometimes you cant fix stupid :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I'm not sure what a bear mauling has to do with it. Nobody has ever claimed immortality is a natural right. You can pray to whatever God you like as you die and the bear can't do a thing about it. 

Before man ever was, his natural rights waited for him. They were already there. The right to not be a slave to another is self evident. A man's mind and beliefs are his own, no social contract needed. Because we have described these concepts with words and codified them into legal law does not mean they were invented by man.  Newton did not invent gravity by simply describing a thing that was self-evident to him. 

Do these rights exist in this world absent man?

Asked another way, if humans never came to exist on the planet Earth, do these natural rights still exist, "waiting" for him?

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
Just now, Wyovanian said:

Both seek to explain death. It is their primal driver. Remove everything that seeks to comfort man in the face of mortality and the religions never coalesce.

I don't understand why you are assuming that death / end of life equates to fear.

Most Christians / Jews don't view death as fearful  

Maybe the act of dying is fearful.  But death itself?  We all gonna die eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

Wrong. 

Rights are absolutely, 100% a human construct.  They do not "come" with us in our natural state; we are not "born" with them.  They are a concept we've invented, defined, and accepted as part of a social contract (that is, we claim and accept they're "natural" by virtue of participation in society), and the government is there as an institution we participate in to recognize and endorse those rights. 

Tell a f-cking bear that you have natural rights as its mauling you to death. 

I would explain to the bear the rights I acquired by virtue of opposable thumbs as enumerated by Sam Colt.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

Even the language you use reflects the fact (I allege) that the very idea of rights stem from what we understand them to be, e.g., we have constructed them.  They are a concept.

If these rights were truly "natural" or inherent then they should be universal - they should apply to everyone at all times.  More importantly, they should recognized, identified, and understood universally - throughout all eras and societies.  But there are clearly examples of eras and societies throughout history which don't recognize, let alone articulate, rights at all, especially "natural rights" as we've identified them in our Constitution, the UN Charter, etc.  In some of these other contexts, a person might be killed simply because another person is hungry, or threatened, or simply for the hell of it.  People have violated the rights of other people throughout history, and whatever arbiter of whether said violation was "right" or "wrong" changes throughout history - maybe it's one society's idea of God or gods, or karma, or our various justice systems, or a king's decree.  It all depends.  

We create the idea of natural (or inherent) rights as a foundation for which humans can coexist in a manner which is generally agreeable to many (though not all) members of said group.  Later, those rights were fundamental to the creation of "social contracts," the organization of larger societies, their foundational documents. etc. 

The argument can be made, "well, what is it that humans find "agreeable" or want in order to coexist - is it to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, is it simply to be able to live, to live free, etc."  These are all fairly obvious and I'm not saying I disagree with them.  In fact, I find them necessary.  I'm just saying they're somewhat arbitrary constructs of the human mind, and not something that is "inherent" to life.  

Moreover, we violate these so-called "inherent" rights all of the time, by virtue of the terms of our social contracts.  We deprive people of life, of liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on a daily basis, for a multitude of reasons.  In fact there are no "rights" which are inviolate, because each and every one of them can in fact be taken away by our governing constructs. 

Great and all, except Man is part of nature. Therefore, our rights are natural.

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, roswellcoug said:

What federal anti-discrimination law?

Well, there are any number of them, as well as policies, rules, and regulations, of which have passed Constitutional muster.  The obvious one being the Civil Rights Act and the various titles contained therein (Title VII being the most prominent). 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

I don't understand why you are assuming that death / end of life equates to fear.

Most Christians / Jews don't view death as fearful  

Maybe the act of dying is fearful.  But death itself?  We all gonna die eventually.

Only because their religion teaches them not to be...

Fear is the emotional manifestation of man's struggle to survive. It is the prime motivation. 

  • Like 1

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Wyovanian said:

It's not about being "ok" with it. It's just the way things are.

As an aside, I'd have to point out that most Muslim dominated nations have a very shaky relationship with everything ensconced in our Founding Documents, so the likelihood of your hypothesis is about as remote as it would get for hypothetical history.

Why is that?

Perhaps they simply have a different definition and interpretation of human "rights" than we in the West do. 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wyovanian said:

Name one religion that is not based on fear of the unknown.

I would caveat that it appeals to a combination of the fear you speak and a desire for purpose....both are natural and it just so happens that most religions seem to have a lot to say about those two things...coincidence?

  • Like 1

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Wyovanian said:

Only if the policies are governmental. It's pretty hard to argue that forcing a particular someone to provide you with a wedding cake protects your Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness. I'd say it's quite the opposite. The person requesting the cake has a choice and is not facing the deprivation of any of those rights. A person forced to bake the cake has no choice and is deprived.

That's not what the circuit court found, and what SCOTUS has tacitly accepted. 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jwherb said:

Well, there are any number of them, as well as policies, rules, and regulations, of which have passed Constitutional muster.  The obvious one being the Civil Rights Act and the various titles contained therein (Title VII being the most prominent). 

Title VII explicitly protects LGBT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Wyovanian said:

Great and all, except Man is part of nature. Therefore, our rights are natural.

Do natural rights extend to the rest of nature, e.g., plants and animals?

Your logical is simply tautological, and somewhat meaningless babble.  Try harder.

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

I would caveat that it appeals to a combination of the fear you speak and a desire for purpose....both are natural and it just so happens that most religions seem to have a lot to say about those two things...coincidence?

Purpose is not as instinctual as survival. The concept of purpose arises from reflection. The concept of survival arises from fear.

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, roswellcoug said:

Title VII explicitly protects LGBT?

The nexus has been made numerous times.  But because it has not been made explicit in the title, or another law, there has been a great deal of confusion.  Many states have taken it upon themselves to extend anti-discrimination laws to LGBT, or reject / ignore them. 

However, it has generally become federal policy and rules have been promulgated by a nexus to certain existing case law and/or interpretation of existing law and/or the Constitution.

 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wyovanian said:

One that decrees inequality and repression.

I don't disagree.  But on what basis can we judge?  The New World Order, ahem, the U.N. charter - as participants of the social contract of the global order?

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

That's not what the circuit court found, and what SCOTUS has tacitly accepted. 

Courts are often wrong and a full SCOTUS hearing has never taken place. On its face, depriving one person of liberty for the convenience of another is immoral.

  • Like 1

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...