Sanders explains what democratic socialism is

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Some situations require government involvement, and some people won't like the decisions that government reaches, but it's much better than the alternative

If government makes a decision that you don't like, there are legal options available to take action and change the decision, if they don't and leave it up to the people, you get things like race riots, sit-in's, protests, etc.

The day we let someone's deeply held religious beliefs take priority over equal civil rights is the day we open the door to every other crazy belief regardless of how outlandish it may be
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Some situations require government involvement, and some people won't like the decisions that government reaches, but it's much better than the alternative

If government makes a decision that you don't like, there are legal options available to take action and change the decision, if they don't and leave it up to the people, you get things like race riots, sit-in's, protests, etc.

The day we let someone's deeply held religious beliefs take priority over equal civil rights is the day we open the door to every other crazy belief regardless of how outlandish it may be
Click to expand...
...such is exactly what many of these chicken heads want, having absolutely no idea of the potential consequences should anyone of a conflicting religion assert the same rights.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Are you nuts?

Let's use your exact same logic on a different issue, civil rights, and see how well the "government shouldn't get involved!" argument plays out...

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed segregation in the United States. Without government action, you get Jim Crow and separate but equal facilities, and what do you end up with? B; conflict between groups who disagree. In regards to segregation after 1964, would you classify the United States as "Authoritarian"? No, you wouldn't.

So without the government, we still end up with hypothetical scenario B in your example, and using the government to enact equal civil rights, we don't end up with hypothetical scenario A; Authoritarianism, in your example.

Extrapolating from that, if we use the government to enact equal civil rights for homosexuals, it is not authorizing an authoritarian regime
Click to expand...
Using government force to enact law over otherwise peaceful (if disagreeable) individuals is by nature authoritarian. You talk about being all progressive and open minded yet are happy to funnel hate towards anyone who holds a bias or prejudice (kind of like you do). See, I tend to just ignore or destroy the arguments of those who suggest one group is better than another... it's really the only way to get them to be more reasonable about their feelings. Punishment will only feel like persecution and maybe even further justify their thinking in some cases.

When I say I want to protect the rights of all I mean all. Not just some.

For example the idiots who think Jews are the devil and running the world. Clearly they ignore much of history to come to this conclusion as ridiculous as it may be. But they should still have the right to say it.

The only thing aggressively pushing this stuff on people who do not want does is make them even more resentful and creates further divide. Of course that's really the point I think here.

Just look at the crap happening on campuses...
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Da fuk is this? I'm sorry, we're not in grade school anymore.
Click to expand...
I said it would create divide and derision to get the government involved. This thread is more than enough proof. This has nothing to do with high school and everything to do with objective reality. You won't acknowledge her position, she won't acknowledge yours. Both pay taxes.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Using government force to enact law over otherwise peaceful (if disagreeable) individuals is by nature authoritarian.
Click to expand...
so are you calling the civil rights act of 1964, which prohibited businesses from refusing service to people based on skin color, just an authoritarian power grab?

are you calling the people who kicked blacks out of their stores peaceful?

LOL!

hello, rawn pawl junior. you are just as big of a loser as your racist daddy was.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
I said it would create divide and derision to get the government involved. This thread is more than enough proof. This has nothing to do with high school and everything to do with objective reality. You won't acknowledge her position, she won't acknowledge yours. Both pay taxes.
Click to expand...
And the sky is still blue, chickens still lay eggs and so what?

Now you're just throwing shit against the wall, hoping something sticks. Apparently, an oath to uphold the laws of the land means nothing to you.

I'm done wasting my time arguing with you, you're not willing to learn anything.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so are you calling the civil rights act of 1964, which prohibited businesses from refusing service to people based on skin color, just an authoritarian power grab?

are you calling the people who kicked blacks out of their stores peaceful?

LOL!

hello, rawn pawl junior. you are just as big of a loser as your racist daddy was.
Click to expand...
I leave him to you...
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
And the sky is still blue, chickens still lay eggs and so what?

Now you're just throwing shit against the wall, hoping something sticks. Apparently, an oath to uphold the laws of the land means nothing to you.

I'm done wasting my time arguing with you, you're not willing to learn anything.
Click to expand...
Your arguments are all fallacious. What if her job was the press the button on the oven but she objected? Should she just follow her oath then too? It's obviously extreme and not on the same level, but it doesn't change the fallacious nature of your argument.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Using government force to enact law over otherwise peaceful (if disagreeable) individuals is by nature authoritarian.
Click to expand...
So what do you call using religion to enforce a law over otherwise peaceful (if disagreeable) individuals?
OGEvilgenius said:
You talk about being all progressive and open minded yet are happy to funnel hate towards anyone who holds a bias or prejudice (kind of like you do).
Click to expand...
People are free to hold any bias or prejudice they want, except when it conflicts with others' civil rights

Kim Davis does not have the right to deny homosexual couples a marriage licence in accordance with this summer's Supreme Court decision
OGEvilgenius said:
See, I tend to just ignore or destroy the arguments of those who suggest one group is better than another... it's really the only way to get them to be more reasonable about their feelings. Punishment will only feel like persecution and maybe even further justify their thinking in some cases.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that all groups of people are equal in every possible way imaginable, or do you occupy reality like the rest of us?

Nazi's are not equal to Environmentalists, Nobel Laureates are not equal to convicted murderers...

People who deny equal rights to others based on imaginary fairy tales are not equal to people who grant equal rights based on humanity
OGEvilgenius said:
When I say I want to protect the rights of all I mean all. Not just some.
Click to expand...
Clearly this is not the case as you support Davis' "deeply held religious beliefs" to deny homosexual couples equal protection under the law over said homosexuals she would deny that equal protection
OGEvilgenius said:
For example the idiots who think Jews are the devil and running the world. Clearly they ignore much of history to come to this conclusion as ridiculous as it may be. But they should still have the right to say it.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that belief doesn't deny anyone else equal protection under the law
OGEvilgenius said:
The only thing aggressively pushing this stuff on people who do not want does is make them even more resentful and creates further divide.
Click to expand...
That's the same argument white southerners were using against the civil and voting rights acts in the 1960s

I personally don't give a fuck if religious people feel resentment towards the government for granting homosexuals equal rights, that's not my, or likely their, prerogative. It's not the governments job to make sure people feel a certain way.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Your arguments are all fallacious. What if her job was the press the button on the oven but she objected? Should she just follow her oath then too? It's obviously extreme and not on the same level, but it doesn't change the fallacious nature of your argument.
Click to expand...
mike huckabee is proud of you, defending this woman's right to be a law breaking bigot.



i bet you'd be defending her right not to issue marriage licenses for interracial couples too, eh?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Tyranny of the majority has exactly nothing to do with one county clerk clearly overstepping her official position. Again, no one forced her to take the job. If she wants to exercise her freedom of religion, she can DO IT ON HER OWN TIME, NOT ON THE TAXPAYER'S.

I have a personal problem with selling things
Click to expand...
OGEvilgenius said:
It is exactly this very issue. The courts will be forced to rule on this one way or the other meaning she will either be forced to or not. Thereby potentially implementing said tyranny by majority. This is what always happens when the government oversteps.

She is a taxpayer too as are many others who disagree with this law. If she wins in court she could potentially grab a bunch of them to work under h er and no gays will be getting married in her county. They will have to go elsewhere. If she loses then she will be forced to quit or do something against her religious beliefs. She was never asked to do this prior in her job. The government isn't supposed to be infringing upon your religious rights either. Regardless of where you work or what you do.

The constitution doesn't end when government work begins.
Click to expand...
No. When you accept employment you accept the job description along with..failure to do so is insubordination and subject to dismissal.

Further, there's nothing in the bible that says don't sign marriage certificate for lgbt..it's her skewed interpretation of the book of metaphor.

Saaaaaaay..isn't she in a 'right to work state'? Verdict: she gets the boot no reason given..if you must..for being wet and sweaty all the time.
 
Last edited:
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
It doesn't matter what her beliefs are. This is the whole problem with giving government monopolies. So far you guys haven't argued against my point. It's going to be decided in court and someone is going to win and someone is going to be upset. You all basically just don't like what she's done. That's your right, but it's her right to challenge this if she feels her other rights are being violated. It's a no win situation that wouldn't exist if government hadn't stuck it's nose into this problem in the first place.



My opinion makes perfect sense. You don't like her so you feel like she should do something that she feels violates a religious belief, right or wrong it is irrelevant - the court isn't really there to judge religious beliefs, especially ones that do no harm. You can only really argue harm because the government has setup tax law to benefit the married (another overstep which caused this overstep in the first place).

By the way, it's more than economic.

The issue of marriage is in large part an economic one as well you know. The gains from being married. There is of course something more fundamental at stake here which is the right to freely practice ones beliefs without the threat of coercion or force. And the fact that government takes stuff by force makes this one that is fundamental in nature. A government who takes things by force cannot equally apply the law to everyone ever. If the government weren't in the business she could be doing a similar job at a legal desk and hold her beliefs just the same and another person could hold different beliefs and marry this couple no problem. As it stands both parties feel legitimately persecuted.



Not relevant or that simple.
Click to expand...
So then the same goes for a cop who decides he doesn't like the laws?

newsflash..all government employees are sworn in to uphold those municipality laws.

SWORN IN..can no longer meet those needs of your employer (citizens of the municipality which hired you)?

There's the door..litigious society!
 
Last edited:
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
I literally cannot agree with a single one of your opinions.

The woman was refusing to sign marriage certificates not only for homosexual couples but for heterosexual couples too, she was in gross dereliction of her sworn duties because of her "feels".

You go to work to trade labour for payment, not to have an opinion while you're there.
Click to expand...
Bravo, Irish:clap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top