Quote from: TechnomancerThat might have something to do with this discussion if I was saying it was ok to hurt people of a different race, sexuality, gender, etc.  As it is, I was arguing for the right to associate or not associate with anyone you want and to do what you want with your own property as long as you're not hurting anyone else or messing with their stuff.  Your argument has fuck all to do with that.

You don't have to hit someone in order to hurt them

Quote from: TechnomancerWhat the fuck does that even mean, the freedom to fully participate in society?

If someone is denied access to certain careers (or denied the ability to progress within that career) or denied access to goods and services simply because of something they have no control over (e.g. race, sex, sexuality or a disability if that disability doesn't impact on their performance in that career) then they are being denied the right to fully participate in society

Seriously, were you asleep in Civics class or something?

Quote from: TechnomancerThe government's obligation to all races, creeds, etc, is to protect their life and property equally.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, actually (at least in the United States)

Quote from: TechnomancerLook at it from another perspective. If you are a Jewish hotel owner, should you be forced to rent out your hotel for a pro-nazi convention that's in town? What about for a Muslim convention whose members are advocating the destruction of the state of Israel?

Irrelevant.  Those are political opinions - your political opinions are something you have control over

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonYou don't have to hit someone in order to hurt them

No, but it should be a prerequisite for government involvement. Or are you suggesting that hurting someone's feelings should be grounds for government action?

QuoteIf someone is denied access to certain careers (or denied the ability to progress within that career) or denied access to goods and services simply because of something they have no control over (e.g. race, sex, sexuality or a disability if that disability doesn't impact on their performance in that career) then they are being denied the right to fully participate in society

Seriously, were you asleep in Civics class or something?

They're being denied access to something that doesn't belong to them in the first place.  It's no different than telling someone they can't come into your house, or use your car.  You have no inherent right to something that belongs to someone else.

QuoteLife, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, actually (at least in the United States)

Ok, the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't mean I or anyone else have to help them get that happiness.

QuoteIrrelevant.  Those are political opinions - your political opinions are something you have control over

Then I guess you wouldn't have a problem with discrimination on the basis of religion?

Quote from: TechnomancerOk, the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't mean I or anyone else have to help them get that happiness.

Yes, you do.  You're a part of the general welfare, so you are required to promote the general welfare and protect our posterity.  All citizens are required to do so, as part of our civic obligations as being participants in the Republic's government, as we are our government as the Preamble to the Constitution spells out plain as day what we--through our government--is our national mission.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerYes, you do.  You're a part of the general welfare, so you are required to promote the general welfare and protect our posterity.  All citizens are required to do so, as part of our civic obligations as being participants in the Republic's government, as we are our government as the Preamble to the Constitution spells out plain as day what we--through our government--is our national mission.

Ok, why don't you help me out with an Xbox 360? That'll make me happy.

I'm responsible for someone else's happiness? That's freedom? Bullshit.  Where exactly does this supposed obligation to provide for the happiness of my fellow man end?  

You may want to reread the Constitution.  It spells out exactly what the government can and cannot do, not private citizens.  And no, I may have a say in who the government is, but I am not the government.

Quote from: TechnomancerOk, why don't you help me out with an Xbox 360? That'll make me happy.

Learn to Leibnitz.  Happiness is the exercise and development of one's powers of cognition.

QuoteI'm responsible for someone else's happiness? That's freedom? Bullshit.  Where exactly does this supposed obligation to provide for the happiness of my fellow man end?

If you are unable to develop and exercise your powers of cognition to their fullest extent, then you cannot be happy.  Doing so means contributing to the tools--institutions and individual apparatae--that make this possible, such as education, as well as related tools that provide the security necessary to allow for it, such as law enforcement and military defense (physical security) as well as the physical economic infrastructure that supplies the power and facilitates the work needed to make that happen (power, water, transportation, health care, etc.).  The Founding Fathers--the Federalists far better than the Anti-Federalists--knew and understood this, as they got it from Leibnitz vis Franklin.

QuoteYou may want to reread the Constitution.  It spells out exactly what the government can and cannot do, not private citizens.  And no, I may have a say in who the government is, but I am not the government.

You're a citizen.  You are the government.  We are to blame for what goes on in D.C.; we don't get to pass the buck because we're not in office.  That's what being a citizen in a Republic means.

Quote from: hgjsI am not, but I am passingly familiar with the recently passed laws you are talking about -- and they do NOT make it illegal to hold certain opinions.  They make it illegal to EXPRESS certain opinions.  Huge difference.

" Iam not but I am.." is a contradiction.If you can't write coherently you certainly won't be able to read my posts coherently.
If you bothered to actually read what I have written in past posts you would see that I never said that any laws make it illegal to hold certain opinions.
If you are not familiar with the recently passed laws, then stop flouncing about like a poodle with a dick up its arse and DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH!:p

Quote from: TechnomancerThey're being denied access to something that doesn't belong to them in the first place.  It's no different than telling someone they can't come into your house, or use your car.  You have no inherent right to something that belongs to someone else.

I think we're talking past each other here.  Let me give you a specific example

In the United States during the 1950's, it was almost impossible for a woman or a person from an ethnic minority to get a senior role in the financial or engineering industries

If you believe that this was a bad thing, please explain why

Laws were passed with the intention of preventing discrimination based on race and sex

If you believe that this was a bad thing, please explain why

Incidentally, how do you feel about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Is it the whole concept of human rights that you have difficulty with?

Quote from: TechnomancerThen I guess you wouldn't have a problem with discrimination on the basis of religion?

Speaking as a Christian who's associated with the evangelical protestant wing of the Church (while regarding my fundamentalist brothers and sisters in Christ as Lawncrappers), it's unpleasant.  Genuine persecution is a breach of Article 14 (among others) of the European Declaration of Human Rights, the law of the land in my country.

However, for simplicity, I was deliberately restricting this discussion to things that a person has no control over

Quote from: hgjsThere's no law in the world against having hateful and prejudiced opinions.  

hgjs you are wrong on that count.Try using that piece of shit you call a brain to actually go and find out some things about the real world! I did some research and it shows your opinion to be wrong:p



Irving admits Holocaust 'mistake'  
 
David Irving arrived at court carrying a copy of one of his books
British historian David Irving has pleaded guilty in a court in Vienna to charges of denying the Holocaust.
"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," he told the court, referring to comments he made in Austria in 1989.

But he insisted: "In no way did I deny the killings of millions of people by the Nazis."

Mr Irving, 68, faces up to 10 years in jail in Austria, where Holocaust denial is a criminal offence.( SO A FASCISTIC OPINION CAN BE ILLEGAL IN SOME COUNTRIES!)

Fears that the court case would provoke right-wing demonstrations and counter-protests did not materialise, the BBC's Ben Brown at the court in Vienna said.

  I'm not an expert on the Holocaust

David Irving

Mr Irving arrived in the court room handcuffed, wearing a blue suit, and carrying a copy of Hitler's War, one of many books he has written on the Nazis, and which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.

Mr Irving was arrested in November when he went to Austria to give a lecture to a far-right student fraternity. He has been held in custody since then.

He was stopped by police on a motorway in southern Austria, on a warrant dating back to 1989, when he gave a speech and interview denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

'I've changed'

In the past, he has claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little, if anything, about the Holocaust, and that the gas chambers were a hoax.

 COUNTRIES WITH LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Switzerland


Timeline: David Irving
Denying the Holocaust
Send us your reaction  

In 2000, a British court threw out a libel action he had brought, and declared him "an active Holocaust denier... anti-Semitic and racist".

On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.

"History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."

Asked if he admitted the existence of the Holocaust, he replied: "I would call it the Jewish tragedy in World War II."

"Yes, there were gas chambers," he said. "Millions of Jews died, there is no question. I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust."

Plea for leniency

Of his guilty plea, he told reporters: "I have no choice."

He said it was "ridiculous" that he was being tried for expressing an opinion.

"Of course it's a question of freedom of speech... I think within 12 months this law will have vanished from the Austrian statute book," he said.

Mr Irving's lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, told the BBC that he would be asking for "a certain leniency in sentencing".

"His lecture happened 17 years ago. He is an English citizen, he doesn't live in Austria, [he is] 68-years-old. He is a historian who is well known. He is not really dangerous, especially in Austria," he said.

Quote from: hgjsI am not, but I am passingly familiar with the recently passed laws you are talking about -- and they do NOT make it illegal to hold certain opinions.  They make it illegal to EXPRESS certain opinions.  Huge difference.

If you'd have bothered, you lazy retard, to read and think about my posts, you'd have seen that I actually wrote about " hateful opinions that incite violence". By implication these opinions must be expressed, otherwise how could they cause violence?
Think about the words I post before you knee jerk reply and show the rest of us what an ignorant fool you are!:p

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerLearn to Leibnitz.  Happiness is the exercise and development of one's powers of cognition.

If you are unable to develop and exercise your powers of cognition to their fullest extent, then you cannot be happy.  Doing so means contributing to the tools--institutions and individual apparatae--that make this possible, such as education, as well as related tools that provide the security necessary to allow for it, such as law enforcement and military defense (physical security) as well as the physical economic infrastructure that supplies the power and facilitates the work needed to make that happen (power, water, transportation, health care, etc.).  The Founding Fathers--the Federalists far better than the Anti-Federalists--knew and understood this, as they got it from Leibnitz vis Franklin.

Ok first of all you put forth a definition for happiness that doesn’t make sense or match any definition I’ve ever heard and present it as fact followed by an equally nonsensical statement in support of that definition (developing one’s power of cognition does not automatically make one happy, nor is one’s happiness contingent on fully developed powers of cognition).  

Next, you present us with a methodology for achieving your definition of happiness which is also complete nonsense (one cannot develop one’s powers of cognition without contributing to the “tools’ you mention, i.e. contributing to and taking part in society, doing your part to play nice and give of yourself? What does one have to do with the other? One can do either without doing the other).

The best is at the end when you invoke the founding fathers in support of your argument which, at its root, is a collectivist philosophy they certainly did not share.  Men were individuals expected to and allowed to succeed or fail on their own, not resources to be used by others.

Honestly, I have to wonder if you actually believe this nonsense or if you’re just throwing together a bunch of inconsistent and twisted logic that you come up with on the spur of the moment for the sole purpose of refuting my arguments and hoping something will stick.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI think we're talking past each other here.  Let me give you a specific example

In the United States during the 1950's, it was almost impossible for a woman or a person from an ethnic minority to get a senior role in the financial or engineering industries

If you believe that this was a bad thing, please explain why

Laws were passed with the intention of preventing discrimination based on race and sex

If you believe that this was a bad thing, please explain why

You, I can talk to.

Was it a bad thing that women and minorities couldn’t get senior roles in financial or engineering industries?

It offends my sense of fairness and equality, but is it inherently bad? Let me ask you, why is it inherently “good” that women and minorities have these roles?  

As I said, it offends me, so I like to think that I would not discriminate if I were in the position to do so, but what someone else chooses to do with their property (and a job is the property of the person who created it-the business owner) is not my concern if they are not hurting me with it.  

Let me ask something else. Do you think that, without laws against discrimination, women and minorities would still be excluded from these positions?  Do you think that human beings as a whole are so lousy that the only way to get them to treat people equally is to enforce it by law?

Thirdly, are women and minorities excluded now, even with anti-discrimination laws?  Can an employer find a way to not hire or promote a black person or a woman if they want?  Does this mean we need stronger laws, or that maybe a different approach is called for, perhaps educating people why discrimination doesn’t make sense.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, anti-discrimination laws can have two big negative effects on people:

1) Breed resentment that they are forced to associate with someone else, whether they would have already or not
2) Cause them to view the protected group as less capable or incapable of standing on their own

You also asked if it was bad that laws were passed with the intention of preventing discrimination based on race and sex?

It was bad that the government passed laws that forced one person to do something with their property that they didn’t want to.  The law that should have been passed (indeed it had already been passed with the 14th amendment) was one that prevented government from taking part in and enforcing discrimination or segregation.

(It may surprise you to learn that in many cases, discrimination and segregation were enforced by the state governments, especially in the South, because for many individual business owners the desire for profit outweighed the social stigma of doing business with and hiring minorities)  

Quote from: Hastur T FannonIncidentally, how do you feel about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Is it the whole concept of human rights that you have difficulty with?

There are some good sentiments there, but as you get farther down and it starts moving from negative rights to positive rights I start to have a problem.  Positive rights (the right to have something provided to you) by their nature imply that someone else has an obligation to provide you with those rights.  I find this objectionable, as exercising my rights should not require someone else to give up some of theirs.

But as mentioned previously, the concept of rights really is artificial.  You have no “rights” except those which your fellow citizens are willing to allow you to exercise.  Your right to liberty means nothing if someone locks you up and refuses to let you out.

Instead of talking about and defining which rights you or I have, I would ask how and where one person gets the power to compel another to act in a certain way.  The only justification I can see for exercising such power is in response to, or to prevent, someone from using that power against you in the first place, or to make yourself whole after such power has been used against you (i.e. restitution).  Withholding something that I own from someone else is not hurting them-my action (or lack thereof) is not causing their condition to worsen. It is not helping to improve their condition, but that’s another matter.

Quote from: TechnomancerIt offends my sense of fairness and equality, but is it inherently bad? Let me ask you, why is it inherently "good" that women and minorities have these roles?

It is inherently bad when someone isn't allowed to fulfill their potential.  It is inherently good when someone is allowed or encouraged to fulfill their potential.  These are truths I hold to be self-evident and I believe that this (fulfilling your potential) is one of the things that the Founding Fathers meant by "the pursuit of happiness"

Quote from: TechnomancerAs I said, it offends me, so I like to think that I would not discriminate if I were in the position to do so, but what someone else chooses to do with their property (and a job is the property of the person who created it-the business owner) is not my concern if they are not hurting me with it.

What do you think is mean by the phrase "civic responsibility" (or "social responsibility") and do you think it applies to you?

Quote from: TechnomancerLet me ask something else. Do you think that, without laws against discrimination, women and minorities would still be excluded from these positions?  Do you think that human beings as a whole are so lousy that the only way to get them to treat people equally is to enforce it by law?

Yes I do.

Quote from: TechnomancerThirdly, are women and minorities excluded now, even with anti-discrimination laws?  Can an employer find a way to not hire or promote a black person or a woman if they want?  Does this mean we need stronger laws, or that maybe a different approach is called for, perhaps educating people why discrimination doesn't make sense.

I think both the carrot and the stick are necessary

Quote from: TechnomancerFrom a purely pragmatic point of view, anti-discrimination laws can have two big negative effects on people:

1) Breed resentment that they are forced to associate with someone else, whether they would have already or not

Prejudice is based on ignorance.  If you actually meet and get to know the group you think you hate then, a lot of the time, those prejudices evaporate

Quote from: Technomancer2) Cause them to view the protected group as less capable or incapable of standing on their own

The reverse is also true.  If a woman or a person from an ethnic minority is prevented from doing something the prejudice grows that the reason that they don't (e.g.) become a doctor or an engineer is because there is something inherent to that group that stops them from doing it

Quote from: TechnomancerThe law that should have been passed (indeed it had already been passed with the 14th amendment) was one that prevented government from taking part in and enforcing discrimination or segregation.

You're separating "government" and "people".  Surely in a true democracy, the government is the people (or at least a representative sample)

Quote from: TechnomancerThere are some good sentiments there, but as you get farther down and it starts moving from negative rights to positive rights I start to have a problem.  Positive rights (the right to have something provided to you) by their nature imply that someone else has an obligation to provide you with those rights.

I see a positive right as breaking into two parts: the first is a differently worded negative right (the "right to an education" means that no-one should forcefully prevent someone from being educated).  The second is an aspiration ("universal education is good for society")

Quote from: TechnomancerI find this objectionable, as exercising my rights should not require someone else to give up some of theirs.

What about traffic lights?

Quote from: TechnomancerBut as mentioned previously, the concept of rights really is artificial.  You have no "rights" except those which your fellow citizens are willing to allow you to exercise.  Your right to liberty means nothing if someone locks you up and refuses to let you out.

Can I suggest you re-read the preamble and have a think about the historic context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

I see it as saying (among other things) that we have seen what happens to countries that don't hold to this standard - they become tyrannies that require violent overthrow.  In an attempt to prevent something like WWII happening again, we agree to uphold this document as a universal standard.  

I agree that it is an artificial standard, but it's one that we, as a species, has agreed upon

(as a tangent, does anyone else think that article 30 gives it built-in protection against rules-lawyers?)

Quote from: TechnomancerInstead of talking about and defining which rights you or I have, I would ask how and where one person gets the power to compel another to act in a certain way.  The only justification I can see for exercising such power is in response to, or to prevent, someone from using that power against you in the first place, or to make yourself whole after such power has been used against you (i.e. restitution).

Can you expand on this a little?

Quote from: TechnomancerWithholding something that I own from someone else is not hurting them-my action (or lack thereof) is not causing their condition to worsen. It is not helping to improve their condition, but that's another matter.

What about in a disaster situation?

Quote from: AnthrobotIf you bothered to actually read what I have written in past posts you would see that I never said that any laws make it illegal to hold certain opinions.

Quote from: AnthrobotBecause there are laws over here against hateful opinions that incite violence.

Oh, I'm sorry.  I assumed you actually meant what you wrote, as opposed to saying things that vaguely approximate the ideas bouncing around in your head, and hoping that other people fill in the difference for you.

Since the post you were replying to was about the difference between laws regulating opinion and laws regulating acting on an opinion in some way (like, for example, talking about it), I assumed that you DID mean what you were saying, and were just misinformed and not an idiot.  I won't make that mistake again.

Quote from: hgjsOh, I'm sorry.  I assumed you actually meant what you wrote, as opposed to saying things that vaguely approximate the ideas bouncing around in your head, and hoping that other people fill in the difference for you.
Since the post you were replying to was about the difference between laws regulating opinion and laws regulating acting on an opinion in some way (like, for example, talking about it), I assumed that you DID mean what you were saying, and were just misinformed and not an idiot.  I won't make that mistake again.

Do you have any idea of semantics? You are a total space cadet, living in another universe far from this reality.In future don't assume anything about my posts because that piece of shit you laughingly think of as a brain,is completely unable to understand what you semi glance at.
You don't research anything, like an ignoramus, and your english is almost impossible to read.
I put it to you sir that being called an idiot by the likes of you is comical!:D

Ah, the "I'm way too intelligent for you to understand" maneuver. Followed with a slightly less than perfect, but still good enough for government work "and oh yeah, you suck" gambit. While we get a lot of the second, we don't see too many of the first. Bravo, sir.

Quote from: James McMoronAh, the "I'm way too intelligent for you to understand" maneuver. Followed with a slightly less than perfect, but still good enough for government work "and oh yeah, you suck" gambit. While we get a lot of the second, we don't see too many of the first. Bravo, sir.

 My reply was for someone who obviously has a problem reading and analyzing what I have written.If I were to explain to him what his low mental faculties cannot infer by logic, then I'd be here all day. If you feel a kinship with this fellow then feel free to blurt out another knee jerk reaction to what you haven't read properly and is the product of your own misinterpretation.