TheRPGSite

This whole gay marriage thing brings up an interesting issue: How far does "majority rule" go?

Seriously, stop and think of it for a minute. If we allow total "majority rule" then that means that 51% of the population could pass laws enslaving the other 49%, taking their property, stripping them of all human rights and it would be perfectly OK because 'the majority' voted on it.

A lot of people are saying that gays can't get married because 'the majority' voted against it. Well, what if 'the majority' voted to ban interracial marriage, as was done in america until recently? Would that be OK? Suppose the majority voted to bring back segregation? Hey, majority rules, right?

I believe in a civillized country, the majority has rights and power, but the minority has the right not to be crushed by majority, and personally I think that gay marriage is a priavate matter for consenting adults, and the majority really doesn't have a say in it.

I believe in order to maintain a civillized society, the minority must have some inalienable rights that the majority can't take away or violate. Thruout history whenever things have gone south, it's been a typical human response to point a finger at a convenient minority and 'solve' everything by persecuting or destroying them.

Society and civillization only advance by learning from the past, and one lesson we must learn is that people who don't fit into the majority viewpoint are still people and still have rights, and  one of the great tests of a civillization is how much it respects the rights of the minority.

So I'm in favor of gay marriage laws, and if 'the majority' doesn't like it, then it can just live with it. Allowing people with differeing views to have their rights respected within reason is part of living in a civillized society.

So, you've discovered Tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority) ? Good for you !

This said, opposition to gay marriage being based on homosexuality inherent squickyness/immorality/whatever, I'm afraid there's not much point in trying to reason it . Even in my own very secular country, I don't expect any progress in the foreseeable future. Time will sort this out, I suppose.

It's important to remember that marriage is not a right.  It is a social institution--in western democracies, a special subset of contract law--to which participation is extended as a franchise.  Just like voting, not just anyone is entitled to the marriage franchise.  We don't let close blood relations marry, nor juvenilles, nor do we allow polygamy despite it being part of certain religious beliefs.  Larger questions like equality under the law can make the case that gay marriage should be legal.  But there is nothing inherently wrong under the principles of "natural law" why the majority of the population can decide to exclude same-sex marriage.

    In case you are wondering, I have no problems with gay marriage.  My sister is civil-unioned to a perfectly lovely woman who has become a close part of our family.  They would have married if the legal challenges resolving gay marriage in Canada had been resolved sooner.

Andrew

Quote from: SamarkandIt's important to remember that marriage is not a right.  
Andrew

Just a small nitpick : over here, marriage is a constitutionnally protected right. Of course, at the time only heterosexual marriage was contemplated and there is a whole body of law surrounding this principle (particularily because of immigration issues), but you still have an opening.

Quote from: SamarkandIt's important to remember that marriage is not a right.  

Article 16 (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonArticle 16 (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

I have to say, on first blush this is the first legal basis I've seen asserted for marriage as a right. Most legal arguments I see are for protection under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. It could be that I just don't pay that close attention to the subject, but it really is the first time I've seen the UN declaration, in which America is a participant, asserted. Very nice.

I have only one problem with it - playing devil's advocate as it were - with the assertion.  Look at the first item of Article 16:

Quote from: Declaration of Human RightsMen and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

I can see someone pointing out that it does not, with respect to marriage, bar discrimination based on sexual orientation. It bars discriminating on the basis of race, nationality, or religion (and gender by saying Men and Women), but not sexual orientation.

So, in theory, it would be possible for a country to say which Men and Women can marry, as long as it's not based on one of those three items mentioned. This is the same way in which many people, essentially, dismiss the 14th Amendment.

As I said, I'd love to see this put forward in more of the discussion. It's not that I'm rabidly for or against the proposition of same-sex marraige. But I am interested in the legal aspects of the debate. I wonder why this isn't used more often? Could it be the current dislike for the UN in the US?

EDIT: I'm sorry, I just realized this may be hijacking the thread as it's about majority rule.  My apologies.

Someone needs to declare homosexuality a religion and/or nation.

Quote from: James McMurraySomeone needs to declare homosexuality a religion and/or nation.

Now that would be an interesting twist. I'm homosexual because my religion says I must be. Since you can't discriminate against a religious belief, you can't discriminate against my homosexualtiy with respect to X, Y, or Z.

Intersting, indeed.

Quote from: James McMurraySomeone needs to declare homosexuality a religion and/or nation.

Or a race, maybe. Clever idea. Hollering about "Racism" and "Discrimination" has gone a long way to help a lot of people in america get ahead, even people who couldn't spell "racism" or "discrimination".

Quote from: Dominus NoxHollering about "Racism" and "Discrimination" has gone a long way to help a lot of people in america get ahead, even people who couldn't spell "racism" or "discrimination".

You are one warped personage. What are you sniffing now, your armpits or your crotch?:eek: All that Right Wing pungency seeping up into your nostrils must be a potent and toxic brain destroyer:eek:  :p

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonArticle 16 (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Luckily, for religious conservatives in America, the United States of America has pretty much ignored everything the UN has ever done. Frankly I'm surprised anyone would even bother with the UN given it's disgraceful state-which of course, ironically enough, is our (Our in this case being the world's nations, including America.) own fault.

As an American what kills me is how this last election played out, and then how gay marriage laws have turned out. It seems even the most liberal American's aren't keen on same sex marriage.

Now personally I think the institution of Marriage is garbage, and steeped way too deeply in the Judeo-christian traditions. I think civil contracts should be as far as the government gets involved, but I may as well be pissing into a strong wind these days.

Quote from: Dominus NoxOr a race, maybe. Clever idea. Hollering about "Racism" and "Discrimination" has gone a long way to help a lot of people in america get ahead, even people who couldn't spell "racism" or "discrimination".

Well, hey, since its looking like there's a biological basis for homosexuality, and the big argument from many of that persuasion is that they're "made that way" - its not a choice, you could easily get protected group status. If nothing else, the American's With Disabilities Act would be a powerful tool for them.

I mean, not that its a disability. True, in nature, any characteristic that dosn't breed true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_breeding_organism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_breeding_organism) ) is damn hard to pass on, and hence is biologically useless or worse. And since homosexuals can't naturally conceive... well, that way lies flame-fest.  

Hey, its not me, its the scientists!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408,00.html

I read that same article, WereKoala.  It simply illuminates the problems that homosexuals have in attempting to establish equality.

If you think it's born into you, some scientist from the University of Oregon is going to show how you can be "cured."

If you think it's a choice (based on nurture or not), you lose some of your steam in the equal rights battle.

It's a horrible position to be in.

I actually think the genetic route is the way for them to go, because they can (as seen in the article) start screaming about how abhorrent "fixing" homosexuality would be. Would you also, they might ask, be able or willing to "fix" black? Etc.

By taking the genetic route, they can ban any manipulation of genetics. Hey, the homosexuals and hard-right have common cause! Their future is assured!

Homosexuality, if it is a genetically-connected trait, is obviously one that does not depend on direct genetic inheritance. Otherwise it wouldn't last very long, would it?

Likewise, evidence seems to indicate that it is definitely biological.  It could be biological without being directly genetic.  That seems likely, since children and siblings of homosexuals don't seem any more prone to homosexuality than anyone else.  It also doesn't appear to be a learned behaviour, since children raised in homosexual/lesbian families don't seem any more prone to become homosexuals either.

The reality of it all is considerably more complicated, it would seem.

I don't see, however, how any of that makes any difference in terms of civil/human rights.  There's a ton of stuff, like, say, religion, that is obviously a "lifestyle choice" that receives protections under the law. Its an issue of freedom.  Even if homosexuality is entirely and completely a question of choice (and I really don't believe it is; nor do I see how anyone could think it is) that wouldn't affect in the least the rights of homosexuals as human beings.

RPGPundit

Didn't we (and by that I mean some kooks completely unassociated with me) already determine that soy was the cause of homosexuality?

That and Spongebob.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Serious PaulNow personally I think the institution of Marriage is garbage, and steeped way too deeply in the Judeo-christian traditions. I think civil contracts should be as far as the government gets involved, but I may as well be pissing into a strong wind these days.

I'm right there with you. I'm opposed to gay marriage AND straight marriage.  

The only government involvement should be enforcing the terms of any civil contract the parties may come up with themselves.

A shame we can't make that law here in the United States.

Quote from: TechnomancerI'm right there with you. I'm opposed to gay marriage AND straight marriage.  

The only government involvement should be enforcing the terms of any civil contract the parties may come up with themselves.

You know, I've actually had several religious folks agree with this approach.  I challenged a couple of older non-blood related folks on this a couple of years ago, and when the discussion got right down to it, this is what really bothers them - that the term marriage, generally considered a religious endeavor, is being used as a term to describe something frowned upon by their religion.

I bet, Serious Paul, you'd get more support for this than you think.  The biggest obstacle I see is the overhaul of legislation that it would require (as well as some other sticking points like "Can I be in a civil union with my brother and/or sister?")

IMHO, FWIW, YMMV, etc.

Problem is, as I see t, American law is not based off of the desires or needs of the American people. But rather they're purchased by a select few. I try not to be cynical, but I work in Law Enforcement, and it's hard not to be.

Quote from: Dominus NoxThis whole gay marriage thing brings up an interesting issue: How far does "majority rule" go?
So I'm in favor of gay marriage laws, and if 'the majority' doesn't like it, then it can just live with it. Allowing people with differeing views to have their rights respected within reason is part of living in a civillized society.

Over here in Blighty we have just had some hardline Christians and Muslims demonstrating against a proposed law against discrimination of gays.It is active in Northern Ireland, and could lead to anyone, such as a hotel manager, facing criminal charges should they refuse two gay people a room together.
It seems that these hardliners want the right to be intolerant bigots. Maybe they should group together to buy an island somewhere far away from the modern world.

Quote from: AnthrobotIt seems that these hardliners want the right to be intolerant bigots.

Or maybe they have the crazy idea that they should be able to decide who they let onto their own property and who they associate with.  

You know, freedom?

Quote from: TechnomancerYou know, freedom?

Oh yes

"No blacks, no dogs, no Irish."

Freedom

Quote from: AnthrobotOver here in Blighty we have just had some hardline Christians and Muslims demonstrating against a proposed law against discrimination of gays.It is active in Northern Ireland, and could lead to anyone, such as a hotel manager, facing criminal charges should they refuse two gay people a room together.
It seems that these hardliners want the right to be intolerant bigots.

They ALREADY have the right to be intolerant bigots.  There's no law in the world against having hateful and prejudiced opinions.  What they want to retain is the right to refuse service to people on the basis of said bigotry. :p

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonOh yes

"No blacks, no dogs, no Irish."

Freedom

Dogs? Is dog discrimination a problem where you are?

For the record, yes, those laws are an infringement on freedom as well.  No one should be forced to associate with people they don't want to.

Quote from: TechnomancerDogs? Is dog discrimination a problem where you are?

If you don't recognise the quote or can't grok the reference from context, google it

Quote from: TechnomancerFor the record, yes, those laws are an infringement on freedom as well. No one should be forced to associate with people they don't want to.

If Mummy and Daddy didn't teach you why discrimination based on racial origin, sex (or anything else that the object of your prejudice has no control over) is a Bad Thing, then it's not my job to educate you

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIf Mummy and Daddy didn't teach you why discrimination based on racial origin, sex (or anything else that the object of your prejudice has no control over) is a Bad Thing, then it's not my job to educate you

I don't think he's saying discrimination is 'right' or in fact isn't a 'bad thing'. I think he's making an interesting point about where Freedom and Culture collide.  

Freedom means being able to be a dick to someone for any reason at all, Culturally we demand 'equal rights' which is a horse of another color all together. It is the practice of instituitionalized prejudice against people of certain color or nationality taht led to laws prohibiting such behavior.  One store owner being a dick to, say... Koreans isn't a problem. Koreans take their business elsewhere where they are wanted. Every businessman being a dick to Koreans is a problem, they have no where to go, and under the circumstances can't even try to start up their own businesses.  Thus the law must step in to enforce equality over freedom.

Unless you live in the woods you aren't really free at all.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIf Mummy and Daddy didn't teach you why discrimination based on racial origin, sex (or anything else that the object of your prejudice has no control over) is a Bad Thing, then it's not my job to educate you

Sure, they taught me it's not nice. But it's not the government's job to make people be nice, the government's job is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens.  Forcing a person to associate with someone they don't want to is a deprivation of their liberty.  

Do you also think a gay rights organization should be forced to do business with or hire an ultraconservative anti-gay rights bigot?

I'm all for everyone having the same rights.  But if I'm running a business it belongs to me, it's my property, you have no right to the product or service I am providing if I choose not to give it to you.  Just like if a black person or homosexual didn't want to do business with me because I was white and straight, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Quote from: SpikeFreedom means being able to be a dick to someone for any reason at all...

Is that what freedom is? Huh.

Quote from: hgjsThey ALREADY have the right to be intolerant bigots.  There's no law in the world against having hateful and prejudiced opinions.  What they want to retain is the right to refuse service to people on the basis of said bigotry. :p

You don't come from Blighty I take it? Religious bigotry doesn't have the backing of being enshrined in a bill of rights in Britain, yet.
Because there are laws over here against hateful opinions that incite violence.The BNP almost ran afoul of them, recently. Oh, and by the way, "rights" really are metaphysical abstractions.No one really has a RIGHT to do anything, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. :p :p :p

Quote from: TechnomancerI'm all for everyone having the same rights.BUT if I'm running a business it belongs to me, it's my property, you have no right to the product or service I am providing if I choose not to give it to you.  Just like if a black person or homosexual didn't want to do business with me because I was white and straight, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

 Racial segregation is something you approve of ?

Quote from: Serious PaulIs that what freedom is? Huh.

Sorry, did I not express that clearly enough?

I know language is terribly imprecise but I thought you had some ability to comprehend what I wrote.

Want to parse it down then? Freedom means the ability to attempt any action you want, any action at all, unconstrained by anything other than your own desire to do or not do it. You have the freedom to leap off a cliff and fly to another cliff if you like. Gravity has the freedom to squash you like a bug because you don't have wings.

Anything else is merely a cultures individual definition of freedom, rather than actual freedom.   Prior to the civil war the US considered itself a free country, despite the fact that a very significant portion of it's population was anything BUT free. After the Civil War they still thought they were a free country despite the fact that they weren't equal.  Now everyone is equal but less free than ever before, yet... yet we still call ourselves the land of the free.  Some say it daily.

Now, you could very well argue that we are still free. The slave was free to rise up and kill the slave holder, the slave holder was free to whip him to death for daring to think about it.   But we've already gone into ludicrious speed, haven't we.

Quote from: SpikeSorry, did I not express that clearly enough?

No your idea of what freedom is quite clear. That I don't concur is also quite clear. But that has little to do with the topic at hand.

Quote from: TechnomancerI'm all for everyone having the same rights.  But if I'm running a business it belongs to me, it's my property, you have no right to the product or service I am providing if I choose not to give it to you.  Just like if a black person or homosexual didn't want to do business with me because I was white and straight, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I'm sure that you are familiar with the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins? In other words where your exercise of your freedoms impacts on my freedoms there is a conflict.  That conflict is best resolved as a negociation between individuals, but, where this is not possible the wider society (as manifest in it's laws and justice system) needs to intervene

For example, in the US, the Whites Only hospitals, benches and drinking fountains (and in the UK, the boarding houses that wouldn't admit Blacks and Irish) were preventing a minority group from exercising their freedom to fully participate in society.  I firmly believe (and you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise) that the laws that banned them were one of the great achievements of the last century for both our societies

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI'm sure that you are familiar with the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins? In other words where your exercise of your freedoms impacts on my freedoms there is a conflict.

That 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.

Actually I take that back.  Your argument supports my position more than your own.  As in your "right" to curl up and go to sleep ends where my bed begins. Or your "right" to go to work ends where my factory begins.  I see no basis for an obligation for me to provide you with either of those things provided we haven't previously entered into a legal agreement.  Don't you have the right to choose not to stay in my hotel or not to accept a job offer from me, for whatever reason?  Are you allowed to make that decision because you don't like my race, sexuality, etc?  So why should the freedom of association only exist one-way?

QuoteFor example, in the US, the Whites Only hospitals, benches and drinking fountains (and in the UK, the boarding houses that wouldn't admit Blacks and Irish) were preventing a minority group from exercising their freedom to fully participate in society.

What the fuck does that even mean, the freedom to fully participate in society?  

I agree that government/public institutions and services have no business discriminating, which would toss out whites-only benches and water fountains (unless they were privately owned).  The government's obligation to all races, creeds, etc, is to protect their life and property equally.

Quote from: AnthrobotRacial segregation is something you approve of ?

Not if it is government-mandated or -controlled.  The government has an obligation to treat everyone equally.  Private citizens, and private businesses, on the other hand, do not.

Quote from: AnthrobotNo one really has a RIGHT to do anything, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. :p :p :p

The question is not whether I have a right to do something.  The question is where do you get the power to tell me I can't do something, or even worse, that I have to do something?  If I'm not hurting you or messing with your stuff, you have fuck all to say about what I do.

Quote from: TechnomancerNot if it is government-mandated or -controlled.  The government has an obligation to treat everyone equally.  Private citizens, and private businesses, on the other hand, do not.
The question is not whether I have a right to do something.  The question is where do you get the power to tell me I can't do something, or even worse, that I have to do something?  If I'm not hurting you or messing with your stuff, you have fuck all to say about what I do.

BUT what about when your bigotry is hurting someone? What then? Because, as sure as hell, that bigotry is going to come out some place public and maybe it will lead to someone getting hurt?

Quote from: TechnomancerOr maybe they have the crazy idea that they should be able to decide who they let onto their own property and who they associate with.  

You know, freedom?

What? Like the freedom to associate with known terrorists who want to make bombs in your basement?
Freedom  has to be put into the perspective of harm to people at large. It is a concept that does not live in a vacuum as a be all and end all. By that I mean that adhering to the concept of being free without considering the outcome of some of your actions sounds more like selfishness. A person's freedom cannot come at the expense of disregarding other peoples' safety.

Quote from: TechnomancerSure, they taught me it's not nice. But it's not the government's job to make people be nice, the government's job is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens.  Forcing a person to associate with someone they don't want to is a deprivation of their liberty.
Do you also think a gay rights organization should be forced to do business with or hire an ultraconservative anti-gay rights bigot?
I'm all for everyone having the same rights.  But if I'm running a business it belongs to me, it's my property, you have no right to the product or service I am providing if I choose not to give it to you.  Just like if a black person or homosexual didn't want to do business with me because I was white and straight, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

If the governments job is protecting life, liberty and the American...no, sorry er...property wouldn't it be in everyone's interest to challenge irrational bigotry? Less bigotry means less violence.Less violence means a bit less money spent on policing and a better safer society.
A lot of bigots have never even had a conversation with the object of their hate.Perhaps a meeting of extreme opposites (maybe with some kind of chaperone to stop physical violence) would allow the two groups to actually see each other as human beings worthy of respect? Maybe some parochial minds should be exposed to the outside world?
Your last paragraph seems to say that you would not have the cojones to challenge any bigotry you came up against.I'd call you cowardly in that respect, but in your country folks are often packing a gun (I'm assuming that you are American)and a conversation can quickly turn into a firefight.Which isn't good for the neighbourhood!

Quote from: AnthrobotBUT what about when your bigotry is hurting someone? What then? Because, as sure as hell, that bigotry is going to come out some place public and maybe it will lead to someone getting hurt?

First of all, for the record, it's not MY bigotry.  I despise ignorant bigoted fuckwits and frequently exercise my right to not associate with them.

Perhaps "hurt" was not the best choice of words.  I used it because it sounds better conversationally, rather than something dry sounding like "coercion" or "the initiation of force or fraud".  The idea is that people in a free society should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of anyone else to do the same (your "right to swing my fist" principle).  Only when someone initiates the use of force against you or tries to take or damage your property (either physically or through fraud) should the government step in.

Hurting someone's feelings does not qualify.  No force is being used against them.  It is merely the expression of an opinion, albeit one that is ignorant and short-sighted. I can try to change that person's mind and show them that bigotry is counter-productive, but I can't force them to change their mind.

Also, NOT providing someone with something is not the same as hurting them.  They have no right to anything that belongs to me, the fact that they need something does not create an obligation for me to provide it.  They can ask me or try to make a deal with me, but it's up to me if I want to accept.
 

Quote from: AnthrobotIf the governments job is protecting life, liberty and the American...no, sorry er...property wouldn't it be in everyone's interest to challenge irrational bigotry? Less bigotry means less violence.Less violence means a bit less money spent on policing and a better safer society.

If it's such a good idea, why can't you convince people to do it voluntarily? Why do you need to pass laws?

QuoteA lot of bigots have never even had a conversation with the object of their hate.Perhaps a meeting of extreme opposites (maybe with some kind of chaperone to stop physical violence) would allow the two groups to actually see each other as human beings worthy of respect? Maybe some parochial minds should be exposed to the outside world?

And do you think passing laws is going to make bigot like the people they previously discriminated against?  Forcing someone to rent a room to someone they don't like is going to make them see that person as a human being?

QuoteYour last paragraph seems to say that you would not have the cojones to challenge any bigotry you came up against.I'd call you cowardly in that respect, but in your country folks are often packing a gun (I'm assuming that you are American)and a conversation can quickly turn into a firefight.Which isn't good for the neighbourhood!

A coward? How so? I respect the right of others to associate or not associate with anyone they choose.  Just as I choose not to associate with racist/homophobic/misogynistic fuckwits.

(And for the record, the American states with the highest percentage of legal gun ownership also have the lowest violent crime rates.)

Quote from: TechnomancerPerhaps "hurt" was not the best choice of words.  I used it because it sounds better conversationally, rather than something dry sounding like "coercion" or "the initiation of force or fraud".  The idea is that people in a free society should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of anyone else to do the same (your "right to swing my fist" principle).  Only when someone initiates the use of force against you or tries to take or damage your property (either physically or through fraud) should the government step in.
Hurting someone's feelings does not qualify.  No force is being used against them.  It is merely the expression of an opinion, albeit one that is ignorant and short-sighted. I can try to change that person's mind and show them that bigotry is counter-productive, but I can't force them to change their mind.
Also, NOT providing someone with something is not the same as hurting them.  They have no right to anything that belongs to me, the fact that they need something does not create an obligation for me to provide it.  They can ask me or try to make a deal with me, but it's up to me if I want to accept.
 If it's such a good idea, why can't you convince people to do it voluntarily? Why do you need to pass laws?
 And do you think passing laws is going to make bigot like the people they previously discriminated against?  Forcing someone to rent a room to someone they don't like is going to make them see that person as a human being?
A coward? How so? I respect the right of others to associate or not associate with anyone they choose.  Just as I choose not to associate with racist/homophobic/misogynistic fuckwits.
(And for the record, the American states with the highest percentage of legal gun ownership also have the lowest violent crime rates.)

So it is okay to hurt someone's feelings but not their person.Got your drift.Governments pass laws so that stupid or bigotted folks have guidelines, that are clear information on whats wrong and whats right.Wether they follow those guidelines is up to the individual.
Any law fining bigots for their bigotry would not force them to house someone they despised. Instead they would get a fine for not doing so. This would hurt their feelings, which is okay by your criteria, and give them a martyr complex, no doubt.
As to increasing a bigots empathy for the people they despise. Well, er no it wouldn't. But it would show the bigot that their behaviour is no longer acceptable in modern society.

Quote from: A coward? How so? I respect the right of others to associate or not associate with anyone they choose.  Just as I choose not to associate with racist/homophobic/misogynistic fuckwits.

(And for the record, the American states with the highest percentage of legal gun ownership also have the lowest violent crime rates.)[/QUOTEYour laissez-faire attitude will not change anything for the better. All the more reason why the government should have laws against bigots.

As for gun ownership.I'll have to take your word about the crime rate. Over here in Britain guns are more of an aid rather than a deterrant to cime.:(

Quote from: AnthrobotSo it is okay to hurt someone's feelings but not their person.Got your drift.Governments pass laws so that stupid or bigotted folks have guidelines, that are clear information on whats wrong and whats right.Wether they follow those guidelines is up to the individual.
Any law fining bigots for their bigotry would not force them to house someone they despised. Instead they would get a fine for not doing so. This would hurt their feelings, which is okay by your criteria, and give them a martyr complex, no doubt.

A law against bigotry would not be appropriate. As I explained, the government's job is to keep people from using force or fraud. Since bigotry by itself is neither of these things, it would be inappropriate to pass laws against it.  In a free country at least.

Look 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?

QuoteAs to increasing a bigots empathy for the people they despise. Well, er no it wouldn't. But it would show the bigot that their behaviour is no longer acceptable in modern society.

How is it your place, or anyone else's, to tell someone what is acceptable to do with their own property, until it hits them in the face, to use your fist-swinging example again?

Wouldn't it be better to show them their behavior is not "acceptable" by refusing to patronize their business or associate with them.  Remember, you and I are free to treat them like assholes too.

Quote from: AnthrobotYou don't come from Blighty I take it? Religious bigotry doesn't have the backing of being enshrined in a bill of rights in Britain, yet.
Because there are laws over here against hateful opinions that incite violence.The BNP almost ran afoul of them, recently.

I 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. :p

Quote from: AnthrobotOh, and by the way, "rights" really are metaphysical abstractions.No one really has a RIGHT to do anything, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. :p :p :p

That's what I keep on saying, but then people keep on going on about "human dignity, crimes against humanity, blah blah blah." :D

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness#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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness#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. :p
:D

" 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 :p :p :p :p :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.  :p

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. :p :D

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 :p :p :p :D

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. :D

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. :D

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 :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :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.:p

Quote from: TechnomancerOr maybe they have the crazy idea that they should be able to decide who they let onto their own property and who they associate with.You know, freedom?

Heaven forbid that these upstanding haters of gays should actually have to accomodate someone they irrationally despise. Anyone would think that in a civilized society people wouldn't be hated for their consensual private sexual activities.Screaming LIBERTY UBER ALLES seems like a distraction away from the fact that these gay haters have despicable prejudices that should belong in the ancient past, not the modern world. But then again most libertarians don't give a fig for anyone else's liberty but that their own.

Quote from: James McMurrayAh, 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.

You will like this from the Dilbert authour (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/results_of_why_.html), if you haven't seen it before,
   
If you are new to the Internet, allow me to explain how to debate in this medium. When one person makes any kind of statement, all you need to do is apply one of these methods to make it sound stupid. Then go on the offensive.

   1. Turn someone’s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)

   2. Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.

   3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

   4. Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.

   5. Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.

   6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

   7. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

Those are the basic tools that come to mind.

Anthrobot's "Do you have any idea of semantics?" (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=63515&postcount=58) is a good example of #7, but he goes on to settle for plain old, "u r such a poopyhead!" Sad, sad.

Quote from: AnthrobotMy 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.:p

"Me smart, u poopyhead!"

I'm always in favour of keeping things in plain English. That way, we can more easily see if they're bollocks or not.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou will like    6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

   7. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

Those are the basic tools that come to mind. [/COLOR]

Anthrobot's "Do you have any idea of semantics?" (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=63515&postcount=58) is a good example of #7, but he goes on to settle for plain old, "u r such a poopyhead!" Sad, sad.

I ain't accusing anyone of intellectual laziness.It is PHYSICAL laziness I'm accusing you and your mate of. Since your mate can't be arsed to either read my posts properly or use a search engine.Big difference, not that you'd be bothered to notice.
Since you wish to defend someone who has read all sorts of things into my posts I will have to explain myself to you.

Why can't someone who has never heard of stuff mentioned in a post not use a search engine to do some research before complaining that they haven't heard of the the things mentioned? Is that not lazy?
If you know something about words you will know that by their very nature they are open to interpretation and misunderstanding.If I had to explain everything in my arguments in infinite over the top detail, as you and your mate want me to,then my posts would be very long indeed.
When someone willfully misinterprets my posts because they have been angered by something that I wrote and doesn't have the brain to defend their view point then I have to jump on that misinterpretation.
If I'm being too vague for you here Sadboy, then I could write in E prime or even Rheomode if you like!:p

Again, you could have just posted, "me smart, u poopyhead."

Unfortunately, as smart as you may be, you have to show it, not simply proclaim that. One kind of intelligence is being able to explain complicated things in a simple way, without making the listener feel like a moron. One kind of stupidity is being unable to explain simple things except in a complicated way.

Quote from: AnthrobotIf you know something about words you will know that by their very nature they are open to interpretation and misunderstanding.

That's certainly so. And that's why an intelligent and careful writer will write in such a way that it's hard for their words to be misunderstood - assuming people actually read them thoroughly (a big assumption on the internet). A writer ought to be clear.

There's a saying that it's a poor craftsman indeed who blames his tools. I'd say that it's a poor writer who blames their readers. Again, assuming they actually read what the writer's said. But if they've read it, and still haven't understood you, it's probably your fault.

If you'd rather always blame the readers for their failure to appreciate your stupendous genius, then I suggest you take up posting at The Forge, where that point of view is widely-promoted.

Quote from: JimBobOzAgain, you could have just posted, "me smart, u poopyhead." ( or I could have posted READ MY FUCKING POSTS PROPERLY)

Unfortunately, as smart as you may be, you have to show it ( No I don't), not simply proclaim that. One kind of intelligence is being able to explain complicated things in a simple way ( No shit,Sherlock?), without making the listener feel like a moron,even if he is one. One kind of stupidity is being unable to explain simple things except in a complicated way (like the stupid guy wanted you to).

You appear to have a bee in your bonnet about intelligence. Have I hit some nerve there that takes you back to your school days?. Most of the people replying to my posts don't seem to misinterpret my writing. One lazy individual did. He also can't even be bothered to research anything he writes about and appears not to know anything about the subject matter that was being discussed.If I see that as retarded and sad that is my perception. I'm not here to educate someone who appears to be a dullard.If you wish to do so, be my guest.
If you wish to defend this kind of posting then be my guest, after all thats what we're here for.
You seem to be trying to defend stupidity. You also need someone else's criteria to slag my position off. Are you able to think for yourself? Do you understand this? Wa karimasu ka?
I don't think you can.:D

Saying this:

QuoteIf I had to explain everything in my arguments in complete detail, that a normal person can work out using common sense, then my posts would be very long indeed.

To JimBob is truly a sign of...well...I'm not going to get in the middle.  It's just damn funny...

Quote from: JimBobOzAgain, you could have just posted, "me smart, u poopyhead."

Unfortunately, as smart as you may be, you have to show it, not simply proclaim that. If you'd rather always blame the readers for their failure to appreciate your stupendous genius, then I suggest you take up posting at The Forge, where that point of view is widely-promoted.

Me not claim smart. me claim u moron.Is diffrent ugh! Me simplify , u like?

By way Jim Booby don't fucking tell me to post anywhere. You arrogant ass ain't fuckin' moderator!
U use searchin' enjin look up :
logic
semantics
learn diffrence between "THEY THINK THEY HAVE A RIGHT" and what ur brotha Moron Wrote. Me never said anyone had a right. Me said "they think they have a right." Me not say is illegal to have bigot opinion. Me do research find is illegal in Austria.
Think they have a right.They do to b bigots.
Them Kristyans them have no rights, not even 2 b bigots.
U no like this u fuck off and die cos u bigot also.OK?:D

Quote from: James J SkachSaying this:
To JimBob is truly a sign of...well...I'm not going to get in the middle.  It's just damn funny...

Ugh am guilty as charged.Too complex. me say eye cannot go into level of detail that morons want me 2. Morons have other agenda. Stamp on anti bigotry posts.Cos them bigots.
U unnerstan?

Quote from: JimBobOz2. Turn someone's factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.

Although it may fall under #2, another method can be added.

"Accuse the poster of being a pedophile, homophobe, communist, catpissman, 40 year old virgin, or whatever other blacklisting type of label regardless of what they initially stated."

Quote from: James J SkachSaying this:


To JimBob is truly a sign of...well...I'm not going to get in the middle.  It's just damn funny...

:D

Like I keep saying, some people post way more than they read. This leads to them making tits of themselves.

Quote from: GabrielAlthough it may fall under #2, another method can be added.

"Accuse the poster of being a pedophile, homophobe, communist, catpissman, 40 year old virgin, or whatever other blacklisting type of label regardless of what they initially stated."

But what happens if they really are in one, or more of these categories?

Well then they write a book, and get a spot on Oprah? Or a cell mate named Bocefus Cletus who's been asking for a new sissy for a week now.

This is Jimknob's particular affliction in a nutshell.BTW Jimknob thanks for providing me with enough ammo to blast your hallucinatory shit to atoms!

"Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.:p"

Quote from: Serious PaulWell then they write a book, and get a spot on Oprah? Or a cell mate named Bocefus Cletus who's been asking for a new sissy for a week now.

Then please put Jim Booby in that cell as he is a frowzy mollusc!

Quote from: JimBobOz"Me smart, u poopyhead!"

I'm always in favour of keeping things in plain English. That way, we can more easily see if they're bollocks or not.

You would be in favour of such simplicity as you have a problem reading what is actually written.:p

Quote from: AnthrobotBut then again most libertarians don't give a fig for anyone else's liberty but that their own.

I find it the height of irony that this accusation is coming from someone who is advocating abridging people's freedom because he doesn't like what they have to say.

Find all the irony you like Technomancer because,if I'm not hurting you or messing with your stuff, you have fuck all to say about what I do.;)(EDIT: The above quote is partly taken from something that Technomancer posted earlier in this thread.)

I'm just trying to figure out how this:

Quote from: AnthrobotFind all the irony you like Technomancer because,if I'm not hurting you or messing with your stuff, you have fuck all to say about what I do.;)

Jibes with this:

Quote from: AnthrobotThink they have a right.They do to b bigots.
Them Kristyans them have no rights, not even 2 b bigots.

Of course, the posts are getting so difficult to decipher, I could just be missing a lot of sarcasm.

Quote from: AnthrobotFind all the irony you like Technomancer because,if I'm not hurting you or messing with your stuff, you have fuck all to say about what I do.;)

I'm not sure if you're serious, but I agree with this post.

Do you think I should be able to compel you to take or not take some action because I find your opinion disagreeable?  Because that's what you're arguing for at the heart of it.  Or is it just the people that you disagree with that it's ok to push around?

Quote from: TechnomancerOr is it just the people that you disagree with that it's ok to push around?

I don't know about him, but I wouldn't be upset at a world where I was the deciding factor on these things.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm just trying to figure out how this:

Jibes with this:

Of course, the posts are getting so difficult to decipher, I could just be missing a lot of sarcasm.

 Naff sarcasm aside. No one is born with any innate "rights".
We have to prop up the concept of a right with the implication that action of some kind will be taken against any who abuse it.

Quote from: TechnomancerNot if it is government-mandated or -controlled.  The government has an obligation to treat everyone equally.  Private citizens, and private businesses, on the other hand, do not.

I find it ironic that when asked if you support racial segregation you gave the reply quoted above.
It is ok to segregate by race, but so long as that is "unofficial". Isn't support for racial segregation ,wether private or not, a form of bigotry?

Quote from: AnthrobotNo one is born with any innate "rights".

I was.  As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I was born with a rather vaguely defined set of rights that has since been clarified through the Human Rights Act.  To say that they don't exist or are somehow fictional borders on sophistry

They're no more artificial than any human construct

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI was.  As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I was born with a rather vaguely defined set of rights that has since been clarified through the Human Rights Act.  To say that they don't exist or are somehow fictional borders on sophistryThey're no more artificial than any human construct

I'm glad to hear that, as I am from the UK.Rights are an artificial construct though. That have to be made/imagined and, more importantly, backed up by the implied threat of some form of action (physical force or legal action).Religious extremists seem (to me) to think that their piousness allows them to act in a hateful manner to Gays /lesbians.
I'd like to see some form of legislature to dissuade this kind of thinking.
I think fining people who discriminate against gays/ lesbians in business would not be a bad thing, as it sends a message that such behaviour is not to be tolerated in this century.

Quote from: RPGPunditHomosexuality, if it is a genetically-connected trait, is obviously one that does not depend on direct genetic inheritance. Otherwise it wouldn't last very long, would it?

Likewise, evidence seems to indicate that it is definitely biological.  It could be biological without being directly genetic.  That seems likely, since children and siblings of homosexuals don't seem any more prone to homosexuality than anyone else.  It also doesn't appear to be a learned behaviour, since children raised in homosexual/lesbian families don't seem any more prone to become homosexuals either.

The reality of it all is considerably more complicated, it would seem.

I don't see, however, how any of that makes any difference in terms of civil/human rights.  There's a ton of stuff, like, say, religion, that is obviously a "lifestyle choice" that receives protections under the law. Its an issue of freedom.  Even if homosexuality is entirely and completely a question of choice (and I really don't believe it is; nor do I see how anyone could think it is) that wouldn't affect in the least the rights of homosexuals as human beings.

RPGPundit

I subscribe each and every point on this post :)

When confronted to the homosexuality debate, we have to bear one important thing in mind: be it choice or genetic condition or whatever, it's a question of freedom. And as long as no one gets hurt, forced or whatever hurtful thing you may think of, that freedom should be respected and protected by all means, the same way it is protected in heterosexual relationships.

Quote from: AnthrobotI find it ironic that when asked if you support racial segregation you gave the reply quoted above.
It is ok to segregate by race, but so long as that is "unofficial". Isn't support for racial segregation ,wether private or not, a form of bigotry?

No, not any more so than my supporting any other group's free speech, freedom of association, and property rights makes me one of them.

QuoteI think fining people who discriminate against gays/ lesbians in business would not be a bad thing, as it sends a message that such behaviour is not to be tolerated in this century.

Who are you that you think someone else needs you to "tolerate" their actions before they are acceptable?  What makes your opinion so important that it gives you the power to force someone to do something they don't want to?  

Someone else could just as easily say "fining people who hire gays/lesbians would not be a bad thing, as it sends a message that such behaviour is not to be tolerated in this century".  If someone said that and got enough people behind it to pass that law, would that then be legitimate and proper?  If not, then why is it proper for your law to be passed?  What you're proposing is no different. It's "What they're doing offends me so I'm going to pass a law against it".

Quote from: TechnomancerNo, not any more so than my supporting any other group's free speech, freedom of association, and property rights makes me one of them.

Who are you that you think someone else needs you to "tolerate" their actions before they are acceptable?  What makes your opinion so important that it gives you the power to force someone to do something they don't want to?  

Someone else could just as easily say "fining people who hire gays/lesbians would not be a bad thing, as it sends a message that such behaviour is not to be tolerated in this century".  If someone said that and got enough people behind it to pass that law, would that then be legitimate and proper?  If not, then why is it proper for your law to be passed?  What you're proposing is no different. It's "What they're doing offends me so I'm going to pass a law against it".

Discrimination by religious hardliners is a despicable thing and should be discouraged.If the British government allow gay or lesbian folk to take legal action against religious bigots who refuse to accomodate them in their hotels ( a hotel that is supposed to be for the purpose of accomodating people, not kicking them out with a " My God says you're evil, you sodomiser!")then I for one applaud that bit of "state interference".
In case you hadn't noticed we all live in a society.It is all well and good for freedom of speech, to let folks espouse religious nastiness, but when they start discriminating against a person because of their sexual preferences then that is the  start of something sinister that may spread.
How do you feel about the discrimination of Jews in Germany before the immediate rise of the Nazi party?
Some hotel manager says " Juden du bist verboten" and kicks him out of his hotel. It goes unchallenged by the libertarian, with his "leave folks to their private bigotry" philosophy, and suddenly Germany is jack boot central!
If governments have the responsibility to protect people, then they have the right to nip any religious bigotry in the bud.
It starts with discrimination of gays, or women not wearing a full headscarf, and ends with the world trade center attacks.

Quote from: ImperatorI subscribe each and every point on this post :)

When confronted to the homosexuality debate, we have to bear one important thing in mind: be it choice or genetic condition or whatever, it's a question of freedom. And as long as no one gets hurt, forced or whatever hurtful thing you may think of, that freedom should be respected and protected by all means, the same way it is protected in heterosexual relationships.

Would you agree that fining a religious bigot because they won't allow a gay couple to either enter, or sleep together, in their hotel is a good thing? Or do you think it is a step too far by the State, which invades the right of the landowner to do as he pleases?

Quote from: TechnomancerWho are you that you think someone else needs you to "tolerate" their actions before they are acceptable? What makes your opinion so important that it gives you the power to force someone to do something they don't want to?

Does a particular group (such as society as a whole) have the right to decide that certain behaviour is damaging to that group and should not be tolerated among members of that group?

Quote from: TechnomancerSomeone else could just as easily say "fining people who hire gays/lesbians would not be a bad thing, as it sends a message that such behaviour is not to be tolerated in this century". If someone said that and got enough people behind it to pass that law, would that then be legitimate and proper?

In a democracy it would be both legitimate and proper.  That's what democracy means and it's the reason we have constitutions and bills/conventions of rights to slow down the process until we (as a society) are absolutely positive that a major change like that would be a good idea

Still wouldn't make it right - at least not in my eyes

Quote from: TechnomancerIf not, then why is it proper for your law to be passed? What you're proposing is no different. It's "What they're doing offends me so I'm going to pass a law against it".

Of course.  That power cuts both ways

Quote from: AnthrobotWould you agree that fining a religious bigot because they won't allow a gay couple to either enter, or sleep together, in their hotel is a good thing? Or do you think it is a step too far by the State, which invades the right of the landowner to do as he pleases?

I think that the bigot should be fined.

I think the bigot should be tied to one of his beds in the middle of a circle jerk. Make the punishment fit the crime.

Quote from: AnthrobotDiscrimination by religious hardliners is a despicable thing and should be discouraged.

Opinion presented as fact.  Who says it should be discouraged?  You may feel it should be discouraged, and are welcome to do so by picketing, writing angry letters to the company, the newspaper, and anyone who will listen, by boycotting.  But you are not justified in using government force to enforce your opinion.  

Quote from: AnthrobotIf the British government allow gay or lesbian folk to take legal action against religious bigots who refuse to accomodate them in their hotels ( a hotel that is supposed to be for the purpose of accomodating people, not kicking them out with a " My God says you're evil, you sodomiser!")then I for one applaud that bit of "state interference".

A hotel is private property (assuming it is owned by a private individual or company and not government-run). It's purpose is whatever the owner-not you-decides it is.

Quote from: AnthrobotIn case you hadn't noticed we all live in a society.

Feh, reminds me of George Costanza. "People! We're living in a society!"  Usually code for "You're not giving me my way."  Society is an artificial construct.  Society is nothing but a large group of individuals?  How can something be good for society if it is harmful to the rights of individuals?

Quote from: AnthrobotIt is all well and good for freedom of speech, to let folks espouse religious nastiness, but when they start discriminating against a person because of their sexual preferences then that is the start of something sinister that may spread.

This next part is so absurd I don't know where to begin.  I'll just take it in order.

Quote from: AnthrobotHow do you feel about the discrimination of Jews in Germany before the immediate rise of the Nazi party?

I think blanket discrimination based on race/religion/sex, etc is cruel and ignorant.  I also think two men having sex is gross and that wearing fur is murder.  I don't have the right to tell someone not to do any of those things because no one is being harmed.  I do have the right to tell them that they may come onto my property on the condition that they do not do those things.

Quote from: AnthrobotSome hotel manager says " Juden du bist verboten" and kicks him out of his hotel. It goes unchallenged by the libertarian, with his "leave folks to their private bigotry" philosophy, and suddenly Germany is jack boot central!

What a ridiculous leap of logic.  So tyranny and dictatorship result from giving people too much freedom and protection of their property rights?  I've got news for you, it usually works the other way,  Government takes action against and restricts the freedom of a fringe group no one likes or cares about, which sets the precedent for further infringements that affects more people in ways no one expected.  

Private discrimination is not the same as government-mandated discrimination against and oppression of a portion of its citizenry it has a duty to protect.

Try and stay with me here:

-Government oppressing part of the population based on biological or non-harmful lifestyle choices-BAD, restricting freedom
-Individuals free to associate (or not) with each other in a way that they think will bring them the most benefit and/or enjoyment-GOOD, protecting freedom

Quote from: AnthrobotIf governments have the responsibility to protect people, then they have the right to nip any religious bigotry in the bud.

That's faulty logic. One has nothing to do with the other.  Bigotry does not automatically lead to harm. It can be a factor, just like pornography and violent movies can be a factor leading to violent behavior.  But it isn't automatic than one leads to the other. Government has a duty to act against and protect people from harm, but until there is harm (or threat of harm) it has no legitimate excuse for interfering with the actions and interactions between its citizens.

Quote from: AnthrobotIt starts with discrimination of gays, or women not wearing a full headscarf, and ends with the world trade center bombings.

Allowing people to decide who may use their property and not forcing them to associate with people they don't want to leads to mass killings at the hands of terrorists?  Good grief!

I'm sure some internet debate law should be invoked here, maybe someone who knows them better than me can say which one.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonDoes a particular group (such as society as a whole) have the right to decide that certain behaviour is damaging to that group and should not be tolerated among members of that group?

Yes.  And denying others the use of your property does not damage anyone.  Please demonstrate how refusing service to someone or deciding not to associate with them can cause objective, quantifiable damage.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIn a democracy it would be both legitimate and proper.  That's what democracy means and it's the reason we have constitutions and bills/conventions of rights to slow down the process until we (as a society) are absolutely positive that a major change like that would be a good idea

So a democracy can do anything it wants as long as it gets a majority of voters behind it?  That's called tyranny of the majority.  

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonOf course.  That power cuts both ways

At least you're consistent.

Quote from: ImperatorI think that the bigot should be fined.

Should a homosexual who refuses to hire or rent to a bigot also be fined?

He (the homosexual) should be given an award.

Quote from: TechnomancerYes.  And denying others the use of your property does not damage anyone.  Please demonstrate how refusing service to someone or deciding not to associate with them can cause objective, quantifiable damage.

If one group prevents another from fully participating in society then society as a whole suffers.  For example: if a person with the potential to become a brilliant doctor is stopped from training because they're black or a woman then society loses a brilliant doctor.  Should, therefore, society have the moral duty to pass laws to prevent that from happening?

Quote from: TechnomancerSo a democracy can do anything it wants as long as it gets a majority of voters behind it?

Well yes - I thought that would be self-evident.  If enough people get their shit together they can even overthrow that state and stick a dicator or theocracy in charge

Quote from: TechnomancerThat’s called tyranny of the majority.

And it's why modern constitutional democracies have checks and balances in place to limit the damage that the "tyranny of the majority" can cause

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIf one group prevents another from fully participating in society then society as a whole suffers.

Society doesn't suffer, individuals suffer.  You are advocating the use of government force to make sure certain individuals whose beliefs you do not agree with suffer.  I would argue that giving government that power causes "society" to suffer more than allowing people to freely choose who they will associate with.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonFor example: if a person with the potential to become a brilliant doctor is stopped from training because they're black or a woman then society loses a brilliant doctor.  Should, therefore, society have the moral duty to pass laws to prevent that from happening?

A hypothetical what-if like that is no basis for laws.  I could come up with a dozen hypothetical reasons why helping out your unfortunate black woman would turn out badly for every reason you give why she should be helped.

Society cannot lose something it didn't have in the first place. And the fact that she did have the potential to become a doctor does not create an obligation on my part or anyone else's to help her become one.

Quote from: TechnomancerSociety doesn't suffer, individuals suffer.

Society is a collection of individuals - when individuals suffer, society suffers

Quote from: TechnomancerYou are advocating the use of government force to make sure certain individuals whose beliefs you do not agree with suffer.  I would argue that giving government that power causes "society" to suffer more than allowing people to freely choose who they will associate with.

One of the major models of ethics (utilitarianism) is about the balancing of suffering and happiness between individuals.  That's what law is about

Quote from: TechnomancerA hypothetical what-if like that is no basis for laws.

Not hypothetical.  It used to happen - a lot

Quote from: TechnomancerSociety cannot lose something it didn't have in the first place.

It had this persons potential.  It lost it

Quote from: TechnomancerAnd the fact that she did have the potential to become a doctor does not create an obligation on my part or anyone else's to help her become one.

No, but neither you or anyone else have the right to stop her, if she truely has that potential

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonAnd it's why modern constitutional democracies have checks and balances in place to limit the damage that the "tyranny of the majority" can cause

You're missing a big part of the modern constitutional democracy and why those founding fathers were so fucking brilliant.

You see, we do have rights, as you mention, spelled out in our Constitution.  But nowhere in that document does it make it illegal, or a violation of someone's rights, to discriminate based on sexual preference/practice.

Now, should it be in that document?  Let's assume you and I agree that it should be. Well, lo and behold, there's a process for making that happen.  It's called an Amendment. There's a whole bunch of them right there at the end of it - go look, I promise they're there.

And that's really how this system works.  It's why this argument of Majority rule is kinda bogus.  You can't have 51% of the population decide it's OK to discriminate against blacks or jews or whites or what have you.  Why?  Because some things are fundamental rights.  They are so important that no mater what anyone tries to do, you can't violate them.  So far, Sexual preference/practice is not among them.

As long as that's the case (here in America), people can make all the rules they want. Now states can pop in and say according to their constitutions it's not right, but that's a different issues (actually the same issue, but on the state level).

I realize that I did not express what I was getting at right after I hit the submit button.

See, the American Constitution is not a set of rules that govern every aspect of legal life in America.  Beyond the specifics of setting up the methods of electing and sitting a government, it's a set of guidelines, or principles.  It's meant to be a boundry beyond which neither the government, nor the people, will go beyond.

Anything else is left to the States and the People.

So, in America, it's perfectly legal to tell someone they can't come into your place of business because they aren't wearing a tie.  It's your business, you get to say.  The Constitution is silent on this matter.  If your State or Local government has no rule barring you from discriminating based on tie/no-tie, your gold.  What the Constitution does say is that regardless of what your State or Local governments say, you cannot do certain things (EDIT: for example, turn away a black patron without a tie, but let in a white patron not wearing a tie).  And in absence of any other authority, the same holds.

If I can discriminate using something as silly as a tie, how come I can't be bigoted based on who you sleep with? The Constitution is silent on this matter.  If your State/Local governments are silent, you're good to go.

None of this is to say it's morally right.  The question is whether you are legally responsible to act in a certain way. I'm convinced what people are mad about is how homosexual rights are being pursued, not with the right/wrong of it. Couple that with the fact that one fundamental right, freedom of religious expression, and one potential fundamental right, sexual preference/practice, are coming into conflict, and you get all sorts of bad rhetoric from both sides.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonNo, but neither you or anyone else have the right to stop her, if she truely has that potential

So if I own a medical school, I am required to let her in, even if I don't want to, because of her potential?  Now that's a branch of law I'd love to see in more detail.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonOne of the major models of ethics (utilitarianism) is about the balancing of suffering and happiness between individuals.  That's what law is about

I was under the impression that Utilitarianism was about maximizing utility - which can be defined subjectively.

EDIT: In fact, the idea of utilitarianism, IIRC, is to maximize happiness,yes? How much happiness is being added if you allow the homosexual into church versus if you don't?  It's a terrible way to judge some things, no?  Who has a greater claim on happiness, the homosexual to his/her sexual preference or the pious to his religious practice?

Quote from: James J SkachSo if I own a medical school, I am required to let her in, even if I don't want to, because of her potential?  Now that's a branch of law I'd love to see in more detail.

Of course you don't have to let her in, you just can't deny her access because she's black or female. Find another excuse, close the loophole, and continue with business. This is America, right? Isn't that how these things work?

By the way, that law for sexual preference discrimination will happen eventually. Smart businesses (that aren't in a strongly conservative location) get the free publicity of doing it before they're forced to.

Quote from: James McMurrayOf course you don't have to let her in, you just can't deny her access because she's black or female. Find another excuse, close the loophole, and continue with business. This is America, right? Isn't that how these things work?

Yeah, you see that stuff going down in Michigan? They passed a proposition to remove gender and race as any part of entrance criteria for the universities (which is funny if you think about it), but they won't take it off the application - which will, of course, lead to exactly what you're suggesting.

Quote from: James McMurrayBy the way, that law for sexual preference discrimination will happen eventually. Smart businesses (that aren't in a strongly conservative location) get the free publicity of doing it before they're forced to.

I suspect you're right - the law will be the law of the land, eventually.  I'd just like to see it done right.  When you don't, you actually make things worse. I just listened to an NPR story about places doing the voluntary non-smoking thing ahead of the laws for that very reason.  It's fine with me not because I don't smoke (a recently quitter, for now), but because it's their choice.  And that's the whole point.  Now, let the market decide.

Quote from: TechnomancerOpinion presented as fact.  Who says it should be discouraged?  You may feel it should be discouraged, and are welcome to do so by picketing, writing angry letters to the company, the newspaper, and anyone who will listen, by boycotting.  But you are not justified in using government force to enforce your opinion.  

A hotel is private property (assuming it is owned by a private individual or company and not government-run). It's purpose is whatever the owner-not you-decides it is.

.

So you find descrimination against gays by religious bigots a good thing? I'm not using the government to enforce MY opinion. In this case the British government are contemplating this law, which I happen to agree with. Big difference.
I always thought that hotels were there to give folks temporary accomodation, silly me.Because someone is well off enough to own a hotel or some land, then they get the right to be like some feudal baron, ejecting someone that they have an irrational hatred against.Do folks who don't own hotels or land have a say in this Libertarian Utopia of yours or is it just landed white straight folks?

Quote from: TechnomancerFeh, reminds me of George Costanza. “People! We’re living in a society!”  Usually code for “You’re not giving me my way.”  Society is an artificial construct.  Society is nothing but a large group of individuals?  How can something be good for society if it is harmful to the rights of individuals?

Just because my words remind you of someone else's doesn't mean that I share their opinions.Don't set up a straw dog argument please, its a cheap tactic.
You accuse me of faulty logic.Let me return the compliment.By your criteria if it harms society to harm the rights of individuals then some highly dangerous persons should be free to walk the streets.

Quote from: TechnomancerThis next part is so absurd I don't know where to begin.  I'll just take it in order.

 I think blanket discrimination based on race/religion/sex, etc is cruel and ignorant.  I also think two men having sex is gross and that wearing fur is murder.  I don't have the right to tell someone not to do any of those things because no one is being harmed.  I do have the right to tell them that they may come onto my property on the condition that they do not do those things.

Your logic fails totally here. Wether mandated by the government or privately by yourself, it has the exact same effect-descrimination against gays.

Quote from: TechnomancerWhat a ridiculous leap of logic.  So tyranny and dictatorship result from giving people too much freedom and protection of their property rights?  I've got news for you, it usually works the other way,  Government takes action against and restricts the freedom of a fringe group no one likes or cares about, which sets the precedent for further infringements that affects more people in ways no one expected.
Private discrimination is not the same as government-mandated discrimination against and oppression of a portion of its citizenry it has a duty to protect.
 

No I never wrote that.Tyranny and dictatorship come from seeds of irrational descrimination. Some religious bigots are guilty of horrendous crimes and should be part of the governments "watched list". If no one likes or cares about the group, so what? They may still be a threat.
Private descrimination is only different from government descrimination by its scale. But it has the same effect, does it not? Or did your logic circuits melt down when you thought of two grown men having consensual anal sex?

Quote from: TechnomancerTry and stay with me here: (I hope that jimknob has a go at you for this little insult:D )

-Government protecting part of the population based on biological or non-harmful lifestyle choices-BAD, restricting freedom
-Individuals free to descriminate (or not) with each other in a way that they think will bring them (THEM, not everyone else as well?) the most benefit (to them)and/or enjoyment-GOOD, protecting freedom to descriminate irrationally.

 That’s faulty logic. One has nothing to do with the other.  Bigotry does not automatically lead to harm. It can be a factor, just like pornography and violent movies can be a factor leading to violent behavior.  But it isn’t automatic than one leads to the other. Government has a duty to act against and protect people from harm, but until there is harm (or threat of harm) it has no legitimate excuse for interfering with the actions and interactions between its citizens.  

Faulty logic eh?
Bigotry does not automatically lead to harm.
I agree with you on that,but then again sometimes it does. But governments that can't issue some kind of pre emptive anti descriminatory legislature, are failing to protect the liberty of descriminated folks.
If governments have to wait for harm to be done before they step in, then they cannot protect individuals,as they've already been harmed. It makes a mockery of what you said about it having a DUTY to protect people from harm.
In the real world even notice of a threat cannot guarantee that the government can protect someone. So I would put it to you that SOME pre emptive legislature can be a good thing. You appear to see it as the beginning of a slippery slope to less freedom, or even tyranny by the "State".

Quote from: TechnomancerAllowing people to decide who may use their property and not forcing them to associate with people they don't want to leads to mass killings at the hands of terrorists?  Good grief!

I'm sure some internet debate law should be invoked here, maybe someone who knows them better than me can say which one.

You put your point across excellently.Put like that you'd think that we weren't talking about a group of religious hardline bigots that have an irrational fear of two men having consensual anal sex.
If you think that such religious bigotry doesn't sometimes lead to terrorism, then you aren't living in our world. Take a look at the news archives from the past few years willya?

As for invoking internet laws....Don't wimp out on me now! I find your ideas stimulating to think about. We're only chatting for fuck's sake.

Quote from: Anthrobotirrational descrimination

Can you tell methe difference between rational and irrational discrimination?

Is the former when it's your bigotry (against, say, religious people who have an opinion different than yours), and the latter when it's someone else's?

Quote from: AnthrobotSo you find descrimination against gays by religious bigots a good thing?

No, it offends me, and I am free to choose not to patronize a business or attend a church that uses discriminatory practices.  If enough people find discrimination offensive, the business will not make money and will either change their policy or go out of business.

Quote from: AnthrobotBecause someone is well off enough to own a hotel or some land, then they get the right to be like some feudal baron, ejecting someone that they have an irrational hatred against.Do folks who don't own hotels or land have a say in this Libertarian Utopia of yours or is it just landed white straight folks?

Yes, they can throw someone off or prevent someone from coming onto their property (or property they are legally renting or occupying) just like the rich guys.

Quote from: AnthrobotYou accuse me of faulty logic.Let me return the compliment.By your criteria if it harms society to harm the rights of individuals then murderers should be free to walk the streets.

Murderers cause harm to others.  Bigotry by itself does not. It is proper for the government to punish the former and not the latter.

Quote from: AnthrobotYour logic fails totally here. Wether mandated by the government or privately by yourself, it has the exact same effect-descrimination against gays.

No, as I have explained, government, which gets its power from the people it governs, has a responsibility to treat all of those people equally, whereas I, as a private citizen, do not possess any such obligation.  If I do, please explain where it comes from, other than your own sense of niceness.

Quote from: AnthrobotNo I never wrote that.Tyranny and dictatorship come from seeds of irrational descrimination. Some religious bigots are guilty of horrendous crimes and should be part of the governments "watched list". If no one likes or cares about the group, so what? They may still be a threat.

If some individual bigots are guilty of such crimes they should either be in jail or watched, sure. What’s your point? That because some bigots commit crimes we have a right to punish or restrict the behavior of all of them?  Substitute the word “bigots” for “Muslims” or “blacks” and see if you still feel the same.

Quote from: AnthrobotPrivate descrimination is only different from government descrimination by its scale. But it has the same effect, does it not?

No, it doesn’t. The effect of private discrimination is that someone is denied the use of property or services that belong to someone else, to which they did not have a right to in the first place.  The owner gets to decide who gets to use it, and under what conditions.  The effect of public institutionalized discrimination is that the government, which gets its power from the people it governs and has a duty to protect them, is doing the opposite.

Quote from: AnthrobotFaulty logic eh?
Bigotry does not automatically lead to harm.
I agree with you on that,but then again sometimes it does. But governments that can't issue anti descriminatory legislature are failing to protect the liberty of descriminated folks.
If governments have to wait for harm to be done before they step in, then they cannot protect individuals,as they've already been harmed. It makes a mockery of what you said about it having a DUTY to protect people from harm.
In the real world even notice of a threat cannot guarantee that the government can protect someone. So I would put it to you that SOME pre emptive legislature can be a good thing. You appear to see it as the beginning of a slippery slope to less freedom, or even tyranny by the "State".

Government doesn’t have to wait for harm to occur, that’s why I made a point to mention the threat of harm was enough grounds for government involvement.  Being an ass to someone is not the same as causing them harm, and part of living in a free society is that other people can be rude to you if they want to, and they don’t have to explain themselves.

Quote from: AnthrobotYou put your point across excellently.Put like that you'd think that we weren't talking about a group of religious hardline bigots that have an irrational fear of two men having consensual anal sex.
If you think that such religious bigotry doesn't sometimes lead to terrorism, then you aren't living in our world. Take a look at the news archives from the past few years willya?.

It can, it doesn’t have to.  To use a previous example, this is similar to the argument the censors use to try and ban violence in video games.  Some people who play violent video games commit violent acts. Does that mean violent video games should be banned? Even though many, many more people who play these games never hurt anyone?

Do you feel like we keep saying the same things over and over.  Because I do.  I feel I’ve made my point, so I’m bowing out, although I will give you the courtesy of reading any further response you make (so you’ve got one more chance to convince me I’m wrong :) ).  

I will say that I understand your motives for wanting anti-discrimination laws in place, they are noble and do you credit.  I share your feelings about bigotry, but I feel that the methods you espouse will prove to cause more harm than good in the long run.

In other words, I think your heart is in the right place but your methods are wrong.

Quote from: TechnomancerFirst of all, for the record, it's not MY bigotry.  I despise ignorant bigoted fuckwits and frequently exercise my right to not associate with them.

if you despise "ignorant bigoted fuckwits" why are you defending them?:confused:

He's not, he's defending their right to be ignorant bigoted fuckwits. I disagree wholeheartedly, but can see where he's coming from.

Of the three, which do you think is the problem?  I mean, I assume you think it's OK to discriminate if someone is ignorant (you can't get into Harvard cause you aren't smart enough) or is a fuckwit (you can't come in my bar because you're loud and obnoxious). So it's only if they are bigoted?

I mean, I assume we'd like to stop the other behaviors, right? Let's make a law that says you can't discriminate if someone is a fuckwit. People are free to be fuckwits and you have to let them in your church/business/etc. Or how about ignorance.  I mean, we discriminate all the time based on ignorance.  But from now on, you can't refuse to hire someone because they are ignorant. I know in some businesses (and certainly in politics) we'd hardly know the difference.

Quote from: James McMurrayHe (the homosexual) should be given an award.

This comment exactly sums up what is wrong with the arguements against Technomancer... that we can and should fine the bigot for his discrimanatory practices, but reward people (any people) for discriminating against the bigot.

The difficulty with enshrining certain rights and priviledges to a certain class of people is that the the protected class becomes 'more equal' than unprotected classes, this only fuels the bigotry and hatred in the long run.  Look to the debates over  'quotas' in hiring or education.  While they served a purpose in getting people into jobs and schools, making them free, they also created enormous resentment from those who were not protected by quotas who felt that they were being discriminated against.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, Technomancer has a valid point. The businessman or landowner has the right to use his property as he sees fit. From a practical standpoint however, this breaks down horribly when faced with instituitionalized prejudice, as we saw in the south prior to civil rights movement.  While government could, theoretically, lead the way: government jobs being open to anyone, schools, as funded by the government in whole or in part required to be 'equal'... there simply is no way we could wait long enough, nor keep such widespread discrimination out of such places, to make it work.  Thus, the rights of the landowner must be abridged to protect the rights of the minority citizens. It is a legal connundrum that has been, and is still being, dealt with by far greater men than we.

Who gives a shit about theory? No matter how much theory a bigot has behind him, he's still just a bigot. And as such, he is less equal, at least to me.

Note, I'm not saying I agree with quotas and affirmative action programs that gaurantee things to one group that another can't have. I just like rewarding people who fight the good fight against people I revile. If you bitch slap the bad behavior and give cookies for the good, eventually good prevails.

Quote from: James McMurrayWho gives a shit about theory? No matter how much theory a bigot has behind him, he's still just a bigot. And as such, he is less equal, at least to me.

Is the Constitution theory?  I mean, what you're saying is in direct conflict with that document, specifically in this case. Because the bigot to whom you are referring is basing his beliefs (however wrong-headed they might be) on his religion.  And I quote:

Quote from: Bill of Rights, Amednment 1Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

For the government to force a religion to accept homosexuality is a violation of the First Amendment, plain and simple. It's not theory, it's reality.

As an interesting side note, it's telling that the first thing in the First Amendment, before speech or assembly, or even petitioning the government for redress, is religion.  That should tell you how important it was to those brilliant people who wrote the most amazing documents human history has produced.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I have no problem with you disliking bigots or, in your personal business, rewarding those with whom you agree and bitch slapping those with whom you disagree.  That is, after all, the American way.

Quote from: James McMurrayWho gives a shit about theory? No matter how much theory a bigot has behind him, he's still just a bigot. And as such, he is less equal, at least to me.

Note, I'm not saying I agree with quotas and affirmative action programs that gaurantee things to one group that another can't have. I just like rewarding people who fight the good fight against people I revile. If you bitch slap the bad behavior and give cookies for the good, eventually good prevails.

Good prevails? We're in a comic book now?  I could point out our metaphorical neighbor who acted out that very behavior in microcosm in the form of RPG.net. They slapped down anyone with an unpopular 'bad' belief and rewarded people who acted just like bigots against the 'bad people'...

We end up with a strange nannystate coupled with thought police, where dangerous, disliked thought and behavior is punished, and only the Groupthink prevails... only, as we can see from some of the expats over here, eventually Groupthink gets narrower and narrower until even the biggest fan is an outsider, no matter how like the abusive spouse they act... it was their own fault, etc.  

'But they are just Bigots'... you say. Bully for you, but you sound a lot like the bigots when they say 'but they are just...'.  Reducing anyone to 'less than human' is...

Well, you get the picture. Wether you want to understand it is up to you.

Sorry James, didn't mean to intimate that I cared at all about the constitution as far as it pertains to my own personal philosophy. The mere idea of "all men are created equal" is enough to make me look sideways at the document, because it's blatantly untrue. What the rest of america does is up to them, I was just stating what I would do if I were dictator for life.

Spike: RPG.net obviously did it wrong. I gave a bit simplified version of proper behavioral modification techniques, but wasn't looking to draw diagrams, just give insight into my own philosophy. If "they're just bigots" means I'm bigotted against bigots, I can handle that. Won't bother me in the slightest, nor make me think I'm wrong because I don't like a morally distasteful and ethically repugnant practice.

All IMO of course. If you don't like it, don't vote for me when the dictator for life elections roll around. :)

Quote from: James J SkachCan you tell methe difference between rational and irrational discrimination?Is the former when it's your bigotry (against, say, religious people who have an opinion different than yours), and the latter when it's someone else's?

I am not a bigot against religious people.I know and am friendly towards religious moderates.
Do you find it reasonable that anyone should have a fear of two men having consensual sex in the privacy of a hotel room?

Quote from: AnthrobotDo you find it reasonable that anyone should have a fear of two men having consensual sex in the privacy of a hotel room?

The person who has to clean up in the morning :p

Quote from: TechnomancerNo, it offends me, and I am free to choose not to patronize a business or attend a church that uses discriminatory practices.  If enough people find discrimination offensive, the business will not make money and will either change their policy or go out of business.

True.:)

Quote from: Yes, they can throw someone off or prevent someone from coming onto their property (or property they are legally renting or occupying) just like the rich guys.[/QUOTELibertairianism could come to the rescue here.
Say that two gay men manage to get a hotel room, in a bigot's hotel.They are having sex when the owner ( who has just heard about the two gay men from the staff member that let them have the room) bangs on the door and shouts " Get out of my hotel you unholy sodomisers!"
One of the gay men replies "If I'm not hurting you ,physically, or anyone else in this hotel then you have fuck all to say on the matter!"
By your criteria the gay gentleman is correct.It involves no laws.
The owner isn't being physically injured, he's just upset because his archaic beliefs are being shown to be outmoded.But that also is allowed by your criteria.:) Problem solved?

Quote from: TechnomancerMurderers cause harm to others.  Bigotry by itself does not. It is proper for the government to punish the former and not the latter.

Bigotry by itself...I'm about to agree with you on that statement, but bigotry doesn't exist in a vacuum.It can spread.Hurt feelings can( but not always) lead to violence.

Quote from: TechnomancerNo, as I have explained, government, which gets its power from the people it governs, has a responsibility to treat all of those people equally, whereas I, as a private citizen, do not possess any such obligation.  If I do, please explain where it comes from, other than your own sense of niceness.

True. No one is obligated to be decent folk.But it is the intelligent thing to do. To at least try to get on with everyone who isn't causing you harm.The bible says "Love thy neighbour", but the  Christian hardliners might be forgetting that bit.

Quote from: TechnomancerIf some individual bigots are guilty of such crimes they should either be in jail or watched, sure. What's your point? That because some bigots commit crimes we have a right to punish or restrict the behavior of all of them?  Substitute the word "bigots" for "Muslims" or "blacks" and see if you still feel the same.
No, it doesn't. The effect of private discrimination is that someone is denied the use of property or services that belong to someone else, to which they did not have a right to in the first place.  The owner gets to decide who gets to use it, and under what conditions.  The effect of public institutionalized discrimination is that the government, which gets its power from the people it governs and has a duty to protect them, is doing the opposite.

The point is that a bit of anti descriminatory legislation would show these people that their beliefs are outmoded/nasty.I don't advocate locking them up here.Merely fining them.It may hurt their bank balance but it won't hurt them, unless they are foolish enough to keep being bigots.Then their business will suffer.
Government descrimination has the same effect as private descrimination.Why can't you see that.It is irrelevant who is descriminating.The effect is the same: descrimination.
I'm not going to change the name bigots for Muslims or Blacks.This is about religious bigots.Not ALL Muslims,ALL Christians or ALL Black people, some of whom know more about being descriminated against better than any white property owning religious bigot.

Quote from: TechnomancerIt can, it doesn't have to.  To use a previous example, this is similar to the argument the censors use to try and ban violence in video games.  Some people who play violent video games commit violent acts. Does that mean violent video games should be banned? Even though many, many more people who play these games never hurt anyone?
Do you feel like we keep saying the same things over and over.  Because I do.  I feel I've made my point, so I'm bowing out, although I will give you the courtesy of reading any further response you make (so you've got one more chance to convince me I'm wrong :) ).
I will say that I understand your motives for wanting anti-discrimination laws in place, they are noble and do you credit.  I share your feelings about bigotry, but I feel that the methods you espouse will prove to cause more harm than good in the long run.
In other words, I think your heart is in the right place but your methods are wrong.

I'm not talking about video games.Bigotry is a far more serious threat to society than some liberal politician's spurious scapegoat.
I think we've both gone over pretty much the same territory.Thank you for letting me reply.
Thanks for understanding my motives.
I am in support of the anti descriminatory legislation in the UK. I doubt that it will catch on around the world, as each country ,and society,has different sets of values.
My methods may be wrong in America or from your perspective, but I think they MAY work over here in the UK.
Trying to change values that lead to descrimination is never a bad thing in my book.
Thanks for having the cojones to get into a debate/argument/ verbal fistfight with me.:)

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonThe person who has to clean up in the morning :p

Good point.Lets hope that they clean up after their night of passion! And while we're at it...any heterosexuals should clean up after a shag as well!:D

Quote from: James McMurraySpike: RPG.net obviously did it wrong. I gave a bit simplified version of proper behavioral modification techniques, but wasn't looking to draw diagrams, just give insight into my own philosophy. If "they're just bigots" means I'm bigotted against bigots, I can handle that. Won't bother me in the slightest, nor make me think I'm wrong because I don't like a morally distasteful and ethically repugnant practice.

All IMO of course. If you don't like it, don't vote for me when the dictator for life elections roll around. :)

Personally, James, I don't think you CAN do it right. Once you've enshrined the instituition of oppression... no matter how justifiable your initial decision may be, it is eventually going to spiral out of control.  RPG.net didn't do it wrong, they just did it. Poof!  Scientifically it's too small a sample to 'prove' anything, but the way it follows the predictive model is facinating and slightly disturbing.

Depending on how you look at it, RPG.net might be considered to have done it right, if you assume they've got a close approximation of the kind of forum they'd like to have. Sure, they no longer appeal to you or I, but their goal wasn't to have a forum where everybody is one big Kumbaya singing family.

I'd suggest otherwise. First of all, they aren't done yet, of course. It could go either way, they could stop removing 'unwelcome' elements and become more open once again, or they could keep tightening the noose until the forum becomes defunct.  What I suspect they can not do is maintain their current 'stability'.

Let's analyze your comment that they got exactly what they wanted, thus have done it right, shall we?

Ostensibly, what they want is to make the site more open and accepting of everyone. Obviously this is not what they have or they wouldn't have so many bitter ex-pats, so lets parse it a bit more.

What they want, then, is a site that does not tolerate prejudice, racial, sexual, or religious, from it's posters. It wants to oust the bigots, both actual and accidental.  Mind you, I got there right before the revolution started (Nisarg, that is the Pundit, commented on one of my first ever reviews...).

How does that jibe with Jimbob being banned then?  Other than some vague anti-american rumblings he's pretty damn unprejudiced...

Oh, so they want a polite website then?  (Kumbaya?) Jimbo, just as my example, is reasonably polite but occasionally cutting in his remarks.  So, is RPG.net polite then? Not according to most of the expats... they've got more snark and bitter hatred simply covered by a veneer of civility. To some long term posters there is a definite feeling that there is an axe overhead, just waiting to drop.   A bit of hearsay, certainly. I've felt it, and I am not exactly 'long term', and only recently did I bother posting again over there.  

Need I remind you they've turned on eachother, much as the French revolutionaries did, if less permanently.  Cessna had to self ban himself for two weeks to restore order.  Several of the moderators have 'jumped ship', removing themselves from actual power rather that continue on.

Given that this thread is arguably about the Tyranny of the Majority, the RPG.net is an interesting example, in microcosm, of what happens  when it is allowed to progress unchecked. It is not complete, nor is it the 'best' example available to us, but it does remain an interesting object lesson. And not one I'd care to emulate, here or in the real world.

I did say "depending on how you look at it." RPG.net is a bad example for me to discuss because I don't care enough about places I don't like to track their history and goings ons like a lot of the disgruntled displacees here seem to do.

To use a different example, I'll point to my own experiences with a forum in the past, that my wife currently runs. It's a poetry forum, and doesn't get near as much insanity as a gaming board, but it has it's moments.

For example, a little while ago my wife told me about a girl who posted quite regularly. They really liked her stuff, and people enjoyed her presence (the carrot). However, she also insisted on posting poems every so often that were ostensibly about her suffering as a child, but in the end amounted to child pornography. My wife and the rest of the mods didn't want any of this on their site, although they do allow other sexually explicit stuff in a private subforum. The girl was warned and told to stop (the stick). She constantly defended her works and refused to stop, and was eventually banned (the even bigger stick). Now New Horizons is a child pornography free zone, and they got what they wanted.

Amusingly enough this girl started up a blog and another forum somewhere whose sole purpose seems to be to bitch about censorship, especially as it pertains to the folks at my wife's site. She takes the saner (IMO) route and ignores them.

Also, RPG.net is group run. If I were dictator for life that wouldn't be the case, so there's no need to worry about me turning on myself. :)

In regards to your return example:

the matter is the difference between the absolutes of theory and the practical limits of a culture.  It is amusing to note that the primary arena we see this sort of clash between the absolute of theory and the practical limits of culture is the Arts, wether it be Maplethorpe photographs or poetry about child sex.  Artists have taken it upon themselves to be the testers of the waters, and tend to be the ultimate proponents of 'freedom' in so many regards. I for one tend to value this service, even as I wince at the quality of a given work or shake my head at the choice of subject matter.

The practice of exiling those who's presence in a culture is disruptive is quite old. The greek city-states enjoyed it.  More recently our culture has been reluctant to do it, prefering to make criminals and jail those we can and tolerate however bitterly those we can't... yet on the internet the practice has revived itself via banning.

As for not having to deal with groupthink as a dictator for life... who do you plan to use to enforce your anti-bigotry laws? Who do you intend to inform you of who is or is not a bigot?  No dictator for life exists in a vacuum. ;)

Ah, but since I'm only dreaming about it, so of course it would work perfectly for me. I'm fully convinced that if everyone held my moral and ethical standards the world would be a wonderful place. The only way to change that conviction would be to prove that something I hold as being good is actually bad, at which point I would change my belief and all would be right again. :)

That would require much more than being dictator for life, but one is equally as likely to happen as the other.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for artists exploring new boundaries (within my moral strictures of course). But I'm also all for people that want to enforce the things I agree with (like no child pornography in their website). Write about it all you want, just don't expect others to let you display it in their homes.

See...

You are woefully underprepared for the eventual, possibly accidental, ascention to Dictator-for-lifehood, should it be thrust upon you by the whimseys of fate.

For shame, James.  Were you never a Boyscout?  Why aren't you prepared?

I was a Boy Scout, but they tossed me out. Of course, I stuck another kid's hand in the little hand-crank generator we were using for an experiment, but I didn't force it, just talked him into it.

I've been preparing for Dictator for Life since I was a wee lad.

No no... that's training, James, Not preperation.  

Me? I have a blueprint of my government all laid out, with notes and cross references.  Of course, i am forced to keep most of it in my head, with a few bits ciphered for security so people don't steal 'em.   Of course, I prefer 'Most Benevolent Ruler of All Mankind' to the prosaic 'Dictator for life'...:D

Too much work for me. I'd rather spend my time spanking myself and shooting lightning bolts out of my ass. When the glorious day finally arrives I'll simply give everyone on the planet one of those 1,000 question psychological exams. Everyone that didn't answer exactly as I did will be shot. I'll then shoot half of the remaining group as an object lesson to the rest.

I guess the inclination is to work at what doesn't come most naturally.  Of course, it is easy to be a dictator for life if all your subjects are dead. No chance of revolt.

Of course, this presupposes you don't get Romero Revolution! Mort le revolucion! Or something. I don't speak the lingo to do it justice...:p

Who cares? By that point absolute power will have corrupted me absolutely and I'll be living in my underground pleasure bunker with my harem. Let the dead have the world, I won't need it anymore.

Quote from: SpikeGiven that this thread is arguably about the Tyranny of the Majority, the RPG.net is an interesting example, in microcosm, of what happens  when it is allowed to progress unchecked.

Is it? I'm not so sure. I remember when RPG.net had no moderation, not even the level practised here. I remember that people used to argue the trolls and the bigots away, not have them banned.

It was when RPG.net developed a commissariat that things started to change. I don't think that's tyranny of the majority.

Quote from: droogIs it? I'm not so sure. I remember when RPG.net had no moderation, not even the level practised here. I remember that people used to argue the trolls and the bigots away, not have them banned.

It was when RPG.net developed a commissariat that things started to change. I don't think that's tyranny of the majority.

Having a commisariat enforce rules and standards of behavior is not in and of itself proof of the existance, or non-existance of a ToM.  Prior to the existance of such a body of power, if you will, it was simply mob rule, nothing more, though I'll have to take your word for it that it was or was not like that. I've only been a forum user for about a year and a half.

The specific facet of behavior I use for my judgement of the ToM catagory is how the minority is slowly disempowered, disenfranchised and gradually eliminated.  If you express an unpopular belief, the majority pressures the moderation to force you out, which they do under the edict of keeping the peace and enforcing the community standards. Without a voice in the politics of the place, the minority viewpoints shrink, reinforcing the majority opinion. Of course, that majority opinion gets narrower and narrower as dissenting opionons are weeded out.  Like anything else its a process not a state of being.

Quote from: SpikeWhat they want, then, is a site that does not tolerate prejudice, racial, sexual, or religious, from it's posters. It wants to oust the bigots, both actual and accidental.[...]

How does that jibe with Jimbob being banned then?  Other than some vague anti-american rumblings he's pretty damn unprejudiced...

Actually, I have many prejudices. It's just that you see me talking about rpgs, and those prejudices are irrelevant to the discussion; as for off-topic stuff, I don't see why anyone would want to hear my views about this or that culture.

In the Trouble Tickets thread discussing my banning, several posters accused me of racist, sexist, and homophobic comments. Not one moderator backed them up, but they didn't tell them they were wrong, either. I once picked up a suspension for mocking furries. On what basis? I asked. "Mocking a sexuality", they said. Which is funny, since in the past people had been been criticised by furries for saying that furries were a sexuality...

The prejudice I did express which the moderators didn't like, was scorn for Bitter Non-Gamers, and for people who posted only to Tangency Open, and who had no interest in gaming. "If you're not interested in the topic of this site, what the fuck are you doing here?" is vile prejudice and must not be said!

Quote from: SpikeSo, is RPG.net polite then? Not according to most of the expats... they've got more snark and bitter hatred simply covered by a veneer of civility.

The hostility, unexpressed, is merely sublimated. It circles beneath the surface like a shark. Everyone knows who hates whom, that's no mystery. It just doesn't come out into the open. In the short term, this is good, since it keeps things more or less polite; in the long term, not so good, since the bad blood remains.

Quote from: SikeGiven that this thread is arguably about the Tyranny of the Majority, the RPG.net is an interesting example, in microcosm, of what happens  when it is allowed to progress unchecked.

It's more like, "tyranny of those who give a shit." The people who hit the report button and write PM and emails are those who determine the moderation style of the site. If it were down to a majority vote, I would not have been banned - only half a dozen posters would hate me enough to want to ban me; much the same goes for almost anyone else banned from the site. But a few active posters write emails and hit the report button, and there you go. Redredredderreddest, eyebeamz and Amado G. have got their wish; Tangency is now an "emotionally safe environment", at least if you're a fat white male geek who likes h4wt chixxorz pics and can't get a game group because he's a dork.

The same sort of thing happens in our own democracy. Few people write letters to their MPs, so the few who do have a disproportionate effect on policy. Here in Australia we have a loud-mouthed right-wing chat radio guy, Alan Jones, he writes about 1,700 letters to the Prime Minister alone each year. There's a "Minister for Alan Jones" - a secretary whose entire job is to deal with his correspondence, answering the points raised by him. That's because if he's not answered, Jones will speak about it to his hundreds of thousands of listeners, and those people all vote.

The majority don't consider their vote, or policies of society or a forum. They don't give a shit. Because they don't give a shit, they cannot enforce a tyranny. It's a tyranny of those who give a shit.

Jimbob, that was a long ass post to say: Democracy only supports the (pro)active members of it's constituency.  Which is perfectly true and valid. And if the majority of voters lobby for laws prohibiting bigots from walking down the street... it will pass only if the framework that guides that democracy permits it.  Without that framework, the majority of people who actively oppose bigots... and I don't mean oppose bigotry but think the bigots themselves should be second class citizens (at best) can impose a tyranny of the majority upon them... presuming they are not outnumbered in the voting booth by people who presumably fear being labled a bigot...

Not that I am exactly known for short posts...

Cool, when do we have the vote for who we want to be second class citizens? I'll definitely vote for bigots, but they're not at the top of my list.

Quote from: SpikeJimbob, that was a long ass post to say: Democracy only supports the (pro)active members of it's constituency.

Yes, but I also wanted to talk about me.

Me me, me!

But seriously, I just wanted to illustrate what I was saying with an example. Since we were talking about democracy being the tyranny of the majority, and you mentioned my banning, well... it seemed a natural example.

Quote from: James McMurrayCool, when do we have the vote for who we want to be second class citizens? I'll definitely vote for bigots, but they're not at the top of my list.

But you see, James, under the current Democratic model, just as Bigots must find their right to discriminate circumvented by laws to protect their targets, so too must people like you find their ability to cast laws against bigots circumvented.  You cannot have this cake and eat it too. Without the legal structure protecting the bigots, we would not have had the legal reforms necessary to bring about widespread realization that their bigotry was in and of itself a bad thing. We'd still be living in a pre-civil rights movement society.

I thought we were voting and making it happen. Nobody mentioned going through my government's legal process. That sort of vote would never work using the government, because there'stoo many large groups of voters that could be called bigots.

Quote from: James McMurrayI thought we were voting and making it happen. Nobody mentioned going through my government's legal process. That sort of vote would never work using the government, because there'stoo many large groups of voters that could be called bigots.

There is more to it than that, James.  Even a lack of voter turnout among bigots would not permit anti-bigot laws being enacted.  There is a reason why the judiciary oversight of the legal system is so hard to influence with votes and popularity. This is a check against popular but bad laws.

There are anti-bigot laws. Well, anti-bigotry at least. They're just diversified in different sets of "you can't mess with group X in manner Y" laws. True, a single "no being a bigot" law would never pass, because it's too hard to define what a bigot is. If you could definte all the bigoted acts that can possibly be commited, you could (given time and enough lobbying) pass a law against every single one.

Quote from: AnthrobotLibertairianism could come to the rescue here.
Say that two gay men manage to get a hotel room, in a bigot's hotel.They are having sex when the owner ( who has just heard about the two gay men from the staff member that let them have the room) bangs on the door and shouts " Get out of my hotel you unholy sodomisers!"
One of the gay men replies "If I'm not hurting you ,physically, or anyone else in this hotel then you have fuck all to say on the matter!"
By your criteria the gay gentleman is correct.It involves no laws.
The owner isn't being physically injured, he's just upset because his archaic beliefs are being shown to be outmoded.But that also is allowed by your criteria.:) Problem solved?

You have a misunderstanding of libertarian thought.  Once the owner of the property wants you out, you have no say in the manner.  You are there at his behest. Now if he doesn't want to give you your money back, that's a separate issue.  But the moment you try to take property from someone (taking a room for the night against his wishes), you are in the wrong. You are taking the owner's property without his consent.  Whether his consent is "based on beliefs shown to be outmoded" or not.

Quote from: James McMurrayThere are anti-bigot laws. Well, anti-bigotry at least. They're just diversified in different sets of "you can't mess with group X in manner Y" laws. True, a single "no being a bigot" law would never pass, because it's too hard to define what a bigot is. If you could definte all the bigoted acts that can possibly be commited, you could (given time and enough lobbying) pass a law against every single one.

And many would argue that the portion of the law that states a property owner cannot be a bigot is the source of the problem.

Everyone (that I've seen post here) agrees that it's perfectly valid for laws that force the government (federal, state, and local) to be unprejudiced are perfectly fine. But telling private property owners, including businesses, they can not act as they see fit, is where things get dicey.

How long until it's your private property?  What if you put up a sign that said "No radical Christians!" on your property? Your business?

Some people might, but not me. I'm much more concerned with justice than law though.

I'm already restricted in the uses of my private property, and if the government wants to tell me I can't put up a "No radical Christians" sign that's cool. I'll keep doing what I always do, since I've got no anti-radical Christian agenda, nor any reason to put up a sign saying no to any particular group.

If a radical Christian comes by and behaves in a way that makes me want to eject him, he'll be out on his ear and it won't be bigotry doing it.

Quote from: James McMurrayThere are anti-bigot laws. Well, anti-bigotry at least. They're just diversified in different sets of "you can't mess with group X in manner Y" laws. True, a single "no being a bigot" law would never pass, because it's too hard to define what a bigot is. If you could definte all the bigoted acts that can possibly be commited, you could (given time and enough lobbying) pass a law against every single one.

I very clearly avoided using bigotry in my statement, for this very reason.  Defining who is and is not a bigot is no harder than defining who is or is not a jew. Ask those who remember the process of Judenfrie (er...sp?) which eventually consisted of trying to check people bloodlines for signs of taint. The process never ends, no matter who you pick as the target.  And personally, it's a dispicable... no matter who the target.  Attacking the bigot for his beliefs only reinforces them, and depending upon his actual beliefs proves they are 'right'.

I'm not attacking bigots for their beliefs, only for their actions. You can think whatever you want and I won't ever care, or even know. go outside of thought and the actions will dictate the response.