(12-12-2011 02:26 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Is freedom of speech really a human right or just a right of this country? Would we go to war over another country supressing freedom of speech? I think not.

Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress gun ownership?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress religion?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress voting?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress assembly?

Thats not the bar my friend.

(12-12-2011 02:27 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:16 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:04 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I never "assumed that government is always great, wonderful, well-intentioned , and respectful of rights." Keep your words to your own mouth, not mine.

Than you're not being naive, you're being a fool. My bad...

Quote:My litmus test for discrimination is whether the discrimination serves an actual purpose or if it discrimination for the sake of discrimination.

But *WHO* gets to determine if a purpose is legitimate or not? What law defines that? Who writes that law?

You? Me? The courts? the elected Government?

OR...

Do we let private citizens, and private non incorporated business make that decision themselves?

If the owner of the bookstore can produce *1* customer that is less comfortable with a homosexual working at the store is that enough?

Quote:If you want to put a Help Wanted ad in the paper for your bookstore with the stipulation that blacks need not apply, don't get up on your cross when you get sued.

Right because rights are never put in danger by people threatening lawsuits...

Calling me names doesn't make your argument stronger.

Ignoring my argument doesn't make it any weaker either.

Look any man who knows the government can vacillate based on dollars but still wants them to tell people as private citizens when it is / is not ok to discriminate is a fool.

Clearly, we're not going to agree on this. Best of luck with your bookstore!

(12-12-2011 02:29 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Clearly, we're not going to agree on this. Best of luck with yur bookstore!

Best of luck having other tell you who you can associate with and who you can not.

So clearly Bull and Torch don't think Freedom from Discrimination should be a human right.

Torch: Or did you mean that there is no such thing as Human Rights? Or rather that it's a social construct that we haphazardly apply? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

(12-12-2011 02:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:26 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Is freedom of speech really a human right or just a right of this country? Would we go to war over another country supressing freedom of speech? I think not.

Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress gun ownership?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress religion?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress voting?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress assembly?

Thats not the bar my friend.

What is? Freedom of speech also means an open internet. Is a censored internet a violation of human rights? Gun ownership is not a human right, neither is assembly, voting or religion - they're national rights.

To me, human rights are being free from being physically harmed, separated from your family, loss of freedom for no reason, torture for no reason, etc. A human right is something we would grant our enemies if captured.

(12-12-2011 02:35 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So clearly Bull, Torch, and all of the enlightenment thinkers from whom the Bill of rights draws inspiration don't think Freedom from Discrimination should be a human right.

Fixed it for you..

(12-12-2011 02:39 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:26 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Is freedom of speech really a human right or just a right of this country? Would we go to war over another country supressing freedom of speech? I think not.

Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress gun ownership?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress religion?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress voting?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress assembly?

Thats not the bar my friend.

What is? Freedom of speech also means an open internet. Is a censored internet a violation of human rights? Gun ownership is not a human right, neither is assembly, voting or religion - they're national rights.

To me, human rights are being free from being physically harmed, separated from your family, loss of freedom for no reason, torture for no reason, etc. A human right is something we would grant our enemies if captured.

Woah what? religion is not a human right? would you not grant a captured enemy the right to pray to the diety of his choice?

(12-12-2011 02:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:35 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So clearly Bull, Torch, and all of the enlightenment thinkers from whom the Bill of rights draws inspiration don't think Freedom from Discrimination should be a human right.

Fixed it for you..

Yes, clearly I'm the knuckle-dragger of this conversation.

(12-12-2011 02:55 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:35 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So clearly Bull, Torch, and all of the enlightenment thinkers from whom the Bill of rights draws inspiration don't think Freedom from Discrimination should be a human right.

Fixed it for you..

Yes, clearly I'm the knuckle-dragger of this conversation.

Wow, what happened to calling names distracting?

In any event you may wish to address the fact that the right to be a jerk is pretty well, and long, understood to be among the fruits of the enlightenment.

Now just because that movement happened hundreds of years ago does not make people who think its worthwhile 'knuckle draggers' but thanks for playing.

(12-12-2011 02:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:39 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:26 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Is freedom of speech really a human right or just a right of this country? Would we go to war over another country supressing freedom of speech? I think not.

Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress gun ownership?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress religion?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress voting?
Would we go to war with a nation because the suppress assembly?

Thats not the bar my friend.

What is? Freedom of speech also means an open internet. Is a censored internet a violation of human rights? Gun ownership is not a human right, neither is assembly, voting or religion - they're national rights.

To me, human rights are being free from being physically harmed, separated from your family, loss of freedom for no reason, torture for no reason, etc. A human right is something we would grant our enemies if captured.

Woah what? religion is not a human right? would you not grant a captured enemy the right to pray to the diety of his choice?

He can pray, but who says I have to build him a mosque?

(12-12-2011 03:15 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:55 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:35 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So clearly Bull, Torch, and all of the enlightenment thinkers from whom the Bill of rights draws inspiration don't think Freedom from Discrimination should be a human right.

Fixed it for you..

Yes, clearly I'm the knuckle-dragger of this conversation.

Wow, what happened to calling names distracting?

In any event you may wish to address the fact that the right to be a jerk is pretty well, and long, understood to be among the fruits of the enlightenment.

Now just because that movement happened hundreds of years ago does not make people who think its worthwhile 'knuckle draggers' but thanks for playing.

Oh, I get it! You're proving the right to be a big ol' jar of santorum.

Sorry, I'm a bit slow on the uptake. Pretty clever!

(12-12-2011 02:55 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:35 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So clearly Bull, Torch, and all of the enlightenment thinkers from whom the Bill of rights draws inspiration don't think Freedom from Discrimination should be a human right.

Fixed it for you..

Yes, clearly I'm the knuckle-dragger of this conversation.

Being "modern" does not mean correct. To ignore the accumulated wisdom and intellefence of centuries of man's existence, is a combination of hubris and foolishness. If it makes you feel better, this is a common error of the "post-enlightenment" era. The notion that every other generation was "primitive" simply b/c their technology doesn't match our, is arrogant and simply wrong.

The simple-minded paradoxes and critiques that I put forth on your proposals should embarass you, and signal that these notions are ill-conceived, regardless if they came from the 20th C AD or BC (CE or BCE if you prefer). If ideas can't stand the scrutiny of simple challenges, then they are far from being robust enough to stand up to reality. That many people would agree with your proposed ideas doesn't make them any more right, it simply serves to validate the empirical reality that MPAI.

(12-12-2011 03:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  He can pray, but who says I have to build him a mosque?

Someone can speak but you don't have to build them a paper...

Rights are not 'given to you'... Rights are something that can only be taken away.

(12-12-2011 03:33 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:55 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 02:35 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So clearly Bull, Torch, and all of the enlightenment thinkers from whom the Bill of rights draws inspiration don't think Freedom from Discrimination should be a human right.

Fixed it for you..

Yes, clearly I'm the knuckle-dragger of this conversation.

Being "modern" does not mean correct. To ignore the accumulated wisdom and intellefence of centuries of man's existence, is a combination of hubris and foolishness. If it makes you feel better, this is a common error of the "post-enlightenment" era. The notion that every other generation was "primitive" simply b/c their technology doesn't match our, is arrogant and simply wrong.

The simple-minded paradoxes and critiques that I put forth on your proposals should embarass you, and signal that these notions are ill-conceived, regardless if they came from the 20th C AD or BC (CE or BCE if you prefer). If ideas can't stand the scrutiny of simple challenges, then they are far from being robust enough to stand up to reality. That many people would agree with your proposed ideas doesn't make them any more right, it simply serves to validate the empirical reality that MPAI.

Torch, it was never an issue of modernity. My comment was more about Bull's approach to dialogue than anything else.

I imagine that we would disagree on the necessity of the 1964 civil rights act. I know that Rand Paul got some flack a year or so ago about his argument for a free market solution to racial discrimination. And while I agree with his argument in theory, that the 64CRA should not have been necessary, I do not in practice.

(12-12-2011 03:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I imagine that we would disagree on the necessity of the 1964 civil rights act. I know that Rand Paul got some flack a year or so ago about his argument for a free market solution to racial discrimination. And while I agree with his argument in theory, that the 64CRA should not have been necessary, I do not in practice.

I would imagine that the fact I have said several times that corporations do not have the right to discriminate would answer my view on the 64 act.

(12-12-2011 03:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 03:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I imagine that we would disagree on the necessity of the 1964 civil rights act. I know that Rand Paul got some flack a year or so ago about his argument for a free market solution to racial discrimination. And while I agree with his argument in theory, that the 64CRA should not have been necessary, I do not in practice.

I would imagine that the fact I have said several times that corporations do not have the right to discriminate would answer my view on the 64 act.

... and yet I was talking to Torch.

(12-12-2011 03:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I imagine that we would disagree on the necessity of the 1964 civil rights act. I know that Rand Paul got some flack a year or so ago about his argument for a free market solution to racial discrimination. And while I agree with his argument in theory, that the 64CRA should not have been necessary, I do not in practice.

I don't know the full breadth of the CRA, but some of it was a reaction to decades of discrimination, to try and level out previous injustices.

But even that concession allows us to understand that the CRA should have been temporary at best, b/c to level out previous injustices, you must overcompensate in some way. You must tilt the scales in the opposite direction.

But tilting the scales, by definition, is injustice. So, while in some short, temporary timeframe, this may be reasonable, it is clear that it is a violation of liberty in a long timre frame, and certainly a disaster as a permanent requirement.

(12-12-2011 03:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 03:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 03:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I imagine that we would disagree on the necessity of the 1964 civil rights act. I know that Rand Paul got some flack a year or so ago about his argument for a free market solution to racial discrimination. And while I agree with his argument in theory, that the 64CRA should not have been necessary, I do not in practice.

I would imagine that the fact I have said several times that corporations do not have the right to discriminate would answer my view on the 64 act.

... and yet I was talking to Torch.

Sorry for the confusion.. You mentioned me in the first line and 'we' in the second.

(12-12-2011 03:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 03:17 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  He can pray, but who says I have to build him a mosque?

Someone can speak but you don't have to build them a paper...

Rights are not 'given to you'... Rights are something that can only be taken away.

We're talking human rights here, not the rights we're used to in this country. When I think of human rights violations, I immediately think of intentional or neglectful cruelty, rape, forced starvation, etc. Forcing someone to pray silently is not inhuman.

Our right to freedom of speech has limitations, I can't sound an air horn during a congressional hearing because I think it's my right. Other countries may have similar laws and/or freedoms with their own limitations. Could a country that has more liberal freedom of speech rights than ours accuse us of violating human rights because we prohibit soft porn being broadcast on regular TV but others do?

(12-12-2011 03:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 03:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I imagine that we would disagree on the necessity of the 1964 civil rights act. I know that Rand Paul got some flack a year or so ago about his argument for a free market solution to racial discrimination. And while I agree with his argument in theory, that the 64CRA should not have been necessary, I do not in practice.

I don't know the full breadth of the CRA, but some of it was a reaction to decades of discrimination, to try and level out previous injustices.

But even that concession allows us to understand that the CRA should have been temporary at best, b/c to level out previous injustices, you must overcompensate in some way. You must tilt the scales in the opposite direction.

But tilting the scales, by definition, is injustice. So, while in some short, temporary timeframe, this may be reasonable, it is clear that it is a violation of liberty in a long timre frame, and certainly a disaster as a permanent requirement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was any notion of restitution in it. I agree with you that over-compensation in the name of correcting a previous injustice is just as wrong. I'm against affirmative action, hell, I think women should have to register for the draft.