Switch Theme:

Politics - USA  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Rosebuddy wrote:
But, like, to frame this as "building a wall" versus "building a wall" is brutally stupid because one is a security apparatus operating around the clock to keep out the undesirable races and the other is someone piling rocks up and leaving them there. In one case "blocking the view" is a relevant complaint and in the other case it isn't.


By the logic presented by Asterios, anyone who ever builds any kind of wall for any kind of reason can never oppose the construction of any other kind of wall.

I mean, I think Trump's proposal for a wall across Mexico is an incredibly stupid boondoggle, because it will do little to impact illegal traffic, and because the problem is steadily resolving itself (increased prosperity in Mexico is reducing the economic reason for people to cross the border). The only reason it gets any kind of support is because it appeals to basic xenophobic instincts. But I also had a retaining wall built on a property I own, so I guess I must be a hypocrite?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them.


What you're describing is a nonsense. You're attempting to claim that a thing that isn't written in to law, isn't observed or even noticed by a society, is still an inherent right. What on Earth can that possibly mean, and what good can it do anyone?

Consider this instead - rights are legal protections that you win through hard work and sacrifice, that you should give up only when another important right would be impacted too greatly. And while constitutional protection can make such rights stronger and more easily protected, in and of itself even constitutional protection is not enough* - ultimately rights are defined by a society. This makes people uneasy, because a society can choose to no longer value a right that you might think is very important... but it is how it is.


*Just like your 27th amendment, Russia has a constitutional term limit on the presidency. And yet Putin has ruled since 2000, because after his second term expired he had a puppet placed in the presidency, and then claimed the presidency again after that. Because even though it was written plain as day in the constitution, Russian society didn't care and was happy for Putin to ignore that rule in practice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Personally I'm hoping for Carly Fiorina just for the possibility of her being knocked out three times in one political cycle.


Third time is a charm!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/29 02:54:19


 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

I own a fence to keep my dog in, so I guess technically I support Donald Trump?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Ouze wrote:
I mean, I had assumed the ice was already thin before that but apparently some generalizations have a greater latitude than others? Not sure what other conclusions it's possible to draw from that.


Maybe it was because it could maybe be seen as a positive generalisation? He was saying Jews good are good with money? A bit like how it's seen as okay to say Chinese people are good at maths, but offensive to say they're small and need to wear thick glasses? Even though both parts are drawing on the same negative stereotype of the nerd, people somehow think the former isn't as negative. So maybe it's that, but I really hope not, because the 'Jews are good with money' thing is really messed up as it is drawing on the stereotype of Jews as money grubbing and manipulative... which were really central ideas in the fething holocaust.

I don't know, I've been noticing more and more that dakka gets the forum that its moderation encourages. You can't say something mean about another poster, but you can engage in deliberately stupid lines of argument (equating tattoos and abortion, for instance), and now apparently you can also skirt the lines on some really offensive racial behaviour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
I own a fence to keep my dog in, so I guess technically I support Donald Trump?


If you don't you're a hypocrite.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/29 03:03:44


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 sebster wrote:

Also, holy gak you're still here after that stuff you said about Jews? Wow.


That has pretty much been the final kick in the ass that is making me post less and less in the OT.

The topic at the time was "Trump says racist gak". The defense given by him was "it's not racist, it's true, I also believe all this racist gak and I'm going to double down on it". Then he was called out on saying the same racist gak that Trump says.

And all we got was some orange MOD text to "stay on topic" when the topic was "Trump says racist gak and you are repeating it".

Which made me realize that I'm just giving myself ulcers for no reason whatsoever because people are going to repeat the same idiotic racist gak and they get away with it, and nothing I do changes anyone's mind, so why bother.
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 d-usa wrote:
 sebster wrote:

Also, holy gak you're still here after that stuff you said about Jews? Wow.


That has pretty much been the final kick in the ass that is making me post less and less in the OT.

The topic at the time was "Trump says racist gak". The defense given by him was "it's not racist, it's true, I also believe all this racist gak and I'm going to double down on it". Then he was called out on saying the same racist gak that Trump says.

And all we got was some orange MOD text to "stay on topic" when the topic was "Trump says racist gak and you are repeating it".

Which made me realize that I'm just giving myself ulcers for no reason whatsoever because people are going to repeat the same idiotic racist gak and they get away with it, and nothing I do changes anyone's mind, so why bother.


It's a real shame because I have seen some really good debates (and arguments ) in the OT where, even if I didn't agree with their side, I could see where it was coming from and why they thought it was good. Recently it does seem to have gone even more off the rails than it occasionally used to but I think that is down to a small number of posters who just keep cropping up and spouting off with the same kind of stuff in every thread.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/29 03:20:08


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 d-usa wrote:
Which made me realize that I'm just giving myself ulcers for no reason whatsoever because people are going to repeat the same idiotic racist gak and they get away with it, and nothing I do changes anyone's mind, so why bother.


I think of the OT forum kind of like shadow boxing. It produces absolutely nothing of value but it can be fun and sharpen your skills. The problem comes when the best the other side can come up with is Asterios, it's like shadow boxing with a new born. Sure you win, but the new born doesn't even know what just happened and you just end up feeling kind of like a bully.

So we're at this point where US politics is in an incredible place historically speaking, having picked as ridiculous a candidate as Donald Trump for a major party nomination, so you'd think it'd be a terrifying but fascinating time to be part of the political debate. But it's actually just kind of boring. And terrifying. Boring and terrifying.

 d-usa wrote:
Which made me realize that I'm just giving myself ulcers for no reason whatsoever because people are going to repeat the same idiotic racist gak and they get away with it, and nothing I do changes anyone's mind, so why bother.


The moderation policy is directly affecting the forum. When there's scope to post terrible and even racist arguments, but punishment for attacking those arguments in a very direct way, well then you end up with people posting terrible and even racist arguments, and less people willing to call them on their nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It's a real shame because I have seen some really good debates (and arguments ) in the OT where, even if I didn't agree with their side, I could see where it was coming from and why they thought it was good. Recently it does seem to have gone even more off the rails than it occasionally used to but I think that is down to a small number of posters who just keep cropping up and spouting off with the same kind of stuff in every thread.


I think of the OT forum kind of like shadow boxing. It produces absolutely nothing of value but it can be fun and sharpen your skills. The problem comes when the best the other side can come up with is Asterios, it's like shadow boxing with a new born. Sure you win, but the new born doesn't even know what just happened and you just end up feeling kind of like a bully.

So we're at this point where US politics is in an incredible place historically speaking, having picked as ridiculous a candidate as Donald Trump for a major party nomination, so you'd think it'd be a terrifying but fascinating time to be part of the political debate. But it's actually just kind of boring.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/06/29 04:20:20


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

 Ouze wrote:

I mean, I had assumed the ice was already thin before that but apparently some generalizations have a greater latitude than others? Not sure what other conclusions it's possible to draw from that.
Saying stupid things isn't against the rules- only being mean or going off-topic is.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/29 05:16:25


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 sebster wrote:
The moderation policy is directly affecting the forum. When there's scope to post terrible and even racist arguments, but punishment for attacking those arguments in a very direct way, well then you end up with people posting terrible and even racist arguments, and less people willing to call them on their nonsense.


Pretty much. Though, to be fair, dakka is hardly unique in this. Because moderators everywhere tend to be lazy it's very common for moderation to focus very heavily on bad words and rudeness and ignore pretty much everything else. So you can say whatever horrible or dishonest or blatantly false things you like as long as you're very polite and use only G-rated language to express your ideas. It's only on sites that make a deliberate effort to have a policy of "you don't have to be polite to trolls" that trolls and s are properly dealt with.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/29 05:00:06


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

If we don't like the way the forum is moderated, take it up with the mods, or YakFace. It serves no purpose to discuss it here.

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Peregrine wrote:
Pretty much. Though, to be fair, dakka is hardly unique in this. Because moderators everywhere tend to be lazy it's very common for moderation to focus very heavily on bad words and rudeness and ignore pretty much everything else. So you can say whatever horrible or dishonest or blatantly false things you like as long as you're very polite and use only G-rated language to express your ideas. It's only on sites that make a deliberate effort to have a policy of "you don't have to be polite to trolls" that trolls and s are properly dealt with.


It is true that any policy that moves away from the simple and direct rules of banning rude language and insults does get more subjective, and more difficult to apply. I get that, and it's a reasonable consideration. And yeah, it's why most sites I've been on have limited their rules to just that. Moderating is a tough job to ask of a volunteer without making the rules more complex. And I'm by no means criticising the mods, even when they've banned me I think the rulings have been consistent with dakka rules.

But ultimately, you get the forum that rules encourage. That needs to be considered also. If there are ways to address things like people who make repeated false claims, or regularly fail to respond when their bad arguments are rejected, then I think it should be looked at. It could be restricted to repeat and chronic offenders without placing too great a burden on mods, I'd think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
If we don't like the way the forum is moderated, take it up with the mods, or YakFace. It serves no purpose to discuss it here.


That is a fair point. Okay. I'll make no more comment on the issue in this thread.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/29 06:02:39


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Ustrello wrote:
Trump and Nugent running on the bat gak crazy ticket


So few words in this post, yet so much excellence.

Reportedly Trump is lining up "sports legends" and others for the Republican convention. Wait...what? Why do I feel we're about to enter a WWF pay per view event?
"I'm seeing...Jake the Snake, Kim Kardashian, and a song lead in by Janet Jackson, WITH FIREWORKS!"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/29 12:31:10


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

 jasper76 wrote:
Who the hell knows who Trump will pick. Gene Simmons?


Maybe Richard Simmons?
Make America great again by sweatin' to the oldies!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/29 12:55:29


"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

New poll- Trump and Clinton neck and neck. Voters dislike both- neither would be a good president:
http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2363

Apparently, 50% think Trump would do a better job on immigration vs. 45% for Clinton. So wall it is? And 52% think Trump would be better at creating jobs. Presumably related to construction.



-James
 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Chris Christie is going to be pissed when the VP isn't him!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jmurph wrote:
New poll- Trump and Clinton neck and neck. Voters dislike both- neither would be a good president:
http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2363

Apparently, 50% think Trump would do a better job on immigration vs. 45% for Clinton. So wall it is? And 52% think Trump would be better at creating jobs. Presumably related to construction.




National polls are worthless. All that matters are the battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

Edit: I have seen little polling data for these states yet, but this is a good start based on historical demographics:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

Spoiler: Hillary wins.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/29 13:16:24


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Frazzled wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
Trump and Nugent running on the bat gak crazy ticket


So few words in this post, yet so much excellence.

Reportedly Trump is lining up "sports legends" and others for the Republican convention. Wait...what? Why do I feel we're about to enter a WWF pay per view event?
"I'm seeing...Jake the Snake, Kim Kardashian, and a song lead in by Janet Jackson, WITH FIREWORKS!"


Mike Tyson is going. He's one of Trump's African-Americans.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Maybe Richard Simmons?
Make America great again by sweatin' to the oldies!



Don't you mean Fiona Simmons???
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
There are parents that might harm their child if he/she got a tattoo without permission so the state requires that minors obtain parental consent first.


With a tattoo then refusing it without parental permission means that the person has to wait until they're 18, and in the meantime they'll just have to live with skin that doesn't have ink injected in to it. If you require a similar waiting period for a minor, then that minor will go through pregnancy, give birth, and then have a baby that they will have to care for or give to the state.

Those two things are so different in such obvious ways that the only possible conclusion is that you are choosing to engage in completely dishonest debate on this subject. I don't know why you've chosen to pretend to believe silly things, but stop it because you're wasting everyone's time, especially your own.


You're not understanding my point because you're focussing on the differences between what people want to choose and I'm concerned with the right to make the choices themselves. I glad the courts ruled in support of the "Pro Choice" side of the abortion issue because I am Pro Choice, but I am Pro Choice for a lot more choices than just abortion. The arguments that led to legal protection of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion also justify legal protection to for women (and men) to have legal protection to make a whole host of other choices. The courts shouldn't only protect a person's right to make a choice only when that choice is regarding whether or not to have an abortion. The courts should protect everyone's right to do what they want with their own bodies period. The court shouldn't be inconsistent with it's protection of choices and it shouldn't arbitrarily create a stronger right to some choices than others. I don't think wanting consistent equal protection of our rights by the law is silly because I don't think it's good for the courts to protect our right to our own bodies only in very specific and narrowly defined instances while allowing severe state restrictions on all the other instances where the state limits that right. I want the courts to vigorously defend the totality of our rights and liberts from unduly burdensome state restrictions, not just on hot button topics.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't think wanting consistent equal protection of our rights by the law is silly because I don't think it's good for the courts to protect our right to our own bodies only in very specific and narrowly defined instances while allowing severe state restrictions on all the other instances where the state limits that right.


So you're against State rights? Because legal consistency across the US basically means trampling them.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





Prestor Jon wrote:
 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
There are parents that might harm their child if he/she got a tattoo without permission so the state requires that minors obtain parental consent first.


With a tattoo then refusing it without parental permission means that the person has to wait until they're 18, and in the meantime they'll just have to live with skin that doesn't have ink injected in to it. If you require a similar waiting period for a minor, then that minor will go through pregnancy, give birth, and then have a baby that they will have to care for or give to the state.

Those two things are so different in such obvious ways that the only possible conclusion is that you are choosing to engage in completely dishonest debate on this subject. I don't know why you've chosen to pretend to believe silly things, but stop it because you're wasting everyone's time, especially your own.


You're not understanding my point because you're focussing on the differences between what people want to choose and I'm concerned with the right to make the choices themselves. I glad the courts ruled in support of the "Pro Choice" side of the abortion issue because I am Pro Choice, but I am Pro Choice for a lot more choices than just abortion. The arguments that led to legal protection of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion also justify legal protection to for women (and men) to have legal protection to make a whole host of other choices. The courts shouldn't only protect a person's right to make a choice only when that choice is regarding whether or not to have an abortion. The courts should protect everyone's right to do what they want with their own bodies period. The court shouldn't be inconsistent with it's protection of choices and it shouldn't arbitrarily create a stronger right to some choices than others. I don't think wanting consistent equal protection of our rights by the law is silly because I don't think it's good for the courts to protect our right to our own bodies only in very specific and narrowly defined instances while allowing severe state restrictions on all the other instances where the state limits that right. I want the courts to vigorously defend the totality of our rights and liberts from unduly burdensome state restrictions, not just on hot button topics.


You know what, I completely agree with you. We should remove the legal drinking age, smoking age, make all drugs legal for all ages, and let kids get tattoos/piercings whenever they want. We should also let kids have sex at any age because it is their body. Because if women can get abortions, kids should be able to do what they want with their body! Screw science and it trying to tell us that those things hurt developing minds! LIBERTY OR NOTHING! /s
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 sebster wrote:


Prestor Jon wrote:
The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them.


What you're describing is a nonsense. You're attempting to claim that a thing that isn't written in to law, isn't observed or even noticed by a society, is still an inherent right. What on Earth can that possibly mean, and what good can it do anyone?

Consider this instead - rights are legal protections that you win through hard work and sacrifice, that you should give up only when another important right would be impacted too greatly. And while constitutional protection can make such rights stronger and more easily protected, in and of itself even constitutional protection is not enough* - ultimately rights are defined by a society. This makes people uneasy, because a society can choose to no longer value a right that you might think is very important... but it is how it is.


*Just like your 27th amendment, Russia has a constitutional term limit on the presidency. And yet Putin has ruled since 2000, because after his second term expired he had a puppet placed in the presidency, and then claimed the presidency again after that. Because even though it was written plain as day in the constitution, Russian society didn't care and was happy for Putin to ignore that rule in practice.


Term limits aren't rights. Bloomberg did the same thing when he ran for a 3rd consecutive term as Mayor of NYC. Rights and laws aren't the same thing at all.

Legal recognition of natural rights often requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice but our handful of basic natural rights are preexisting. I'll try to concisely paraphrase Francis Hutcheson, Georg Hegel, the Stoics, Hobbes, Locke, Richard Price etc. with some examples.

You have the right to your own body and your own life, they are yours, they belong to you. These are objective truths that are not changed by ethereal concepts like laws and social norms. Your body is YOUR body, it is not MINE or anyone else's, it belongs to you alone. You have a right to your body because it is yours. I do not have a right to your body because it is not my body, I have my own body that is mine, I do not have a right to yours. For example, I might want to shave your head because I want you to be bald but I don't have a right to shave your head because that's your hair on your body, I have no right to it, you have the right to control your hair and your body. Whether we are both standing in the USA or Australia or Somalia or on a boad in international waters does not change the fact that you are the only one with the right to control your body. I may be capable of forcibly shaving your head, there may be no laws or justice system established holding jurisdiction over the area that prohibits me from shaving your head but neither of those circumstances changes the fact that I have no right to your body. Neither might nor law changes the fact that our bodies are our own and we, ourselves, alone have he right to control our bodies. A person forcibly controlling another person's body is always objectively unjust because nobody has the right to control another's body against his/her will. Nothing changes the fact that your body is your own so therefore nothing can remove your right to control it and nothing can give somebody else a right to your body without your consent.

The same applies to your right to your life. I don't have the right to murder you, I do not have a right to your life. Your life is YOURS, that is an objective truth, nothing can change the fact that your life is your own, it is not anyone else's, everyone else has their own life they don't have YOUR life. Since your life is yours, you own it, you have a right to it, it is YOURS. It does not matter where we are located, what society we live in or what legal system claims jurisdiction over us, none of that changes the objective truth that your life is your own. Therefore, since your life is yours and not mine, I do not have the right to take your life from you, it is not mine, I do not own it, I do not have the right to end it. I will never have the right to arbitrarily end your life against your will simply because I desire to end it. The unjustified ending of your life is murder and I don't have the right to destroy what is not mine. I may have the capability of murdering you, the society and legal system governing us may not prohibit or may condone me murdering you on a whim but none of that changes the fact that your lfie is your own, not mine so I have no right to claim it or take it.

Since we all have a right to our own livesand our bodies we also have the right to protect them. This inherent right to self defense allows us to defend ourselves against those that would harm/murder us against our will. If you choose to try to harm/murder me, because you want my stuff, or you don't like the way I dress or you are offended by something I said/did or because I'm a Tottenham fan, or because you're a crazy homicidal person, whatever arbitrary reason you have for murdering me I have the right to act in self preservation and protect myself from your assault on my body/life. If I am forced to harm or kill you in order to protect myself from you harming/murdering me than my actions are justifiable so in those circumstances my right to protect my body/life allows me to fight back to whatever extent is necessary to stop you from hurting/murdering me. The amount of force I am justified in using is limited to the amount needed to end your threat to my body/life and no more.

We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.



   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Prestor Jon wrote:

We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.


never heard of Eminent domain?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 dogma wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I don't think wanting consistent equal protection of our rights by the law is silly because I don't think it's good for the courts to protect our right to our own bodies only in very specific and narrowly defined instances while allowing severe state restrictions on all the other instances where the state limits that right.


So you're against State rights? Because legal consistency across the US basically means trampling them.


States are limited by the constitution. The states can't impose an undue burden on the ability of citizens to exercise their protected rights. The courts determine what constitutes an undue burden. The definition of an undue burden should be consistently applied to all of our protected rights. Limiting the states' ability to restrict our protected rights doesn't trample states rights, it upholds individual rights. I want the courts to consistently protect all of our rights and liberty from undue burdens of state restrictions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.


never heard of Eminent domain?


As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
There are parents that might harm their child if he/she got a tattoo without permission so the state requires that minors obtain parental consent first.


With a tattoo then refusing it without parental permission means that the person has to wait until they're 18, and in the meantime they'll just have to live with skin that doesn't have ink injected in to it. If you require a similar waiting period for a minor, then that minor will go through pregnancy, give birth, and then have a baby that they will have to care for or give to the state.

Those two things are so different in such obvious ways that the only possible conclusion is that you are choosing to engage in completely dishonest debate on this subject. I don't know why you've chosen to pretend to believe silly things, but stop it because you're wasting everyone's time, especially your own.


You're not understanding my point because you're focussing on the differences between what people want to choose and I'm concerned with the right to make the choices themselves. I glad the courts ruled in support of the "Pro Choice" side of the abortion issue because I am Pro Choice, but I am Pro Choice for a lot more choices than just abortion. The arguments that led to legal protection of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion also justify legal protection to for women (and men) to have legal protection to make a whole host of other choices. The courts shouldn't only protect a person's right to make a choice only when that choice is regarding whether or not to have an abortion. The courts should protect everyone's right to do what they want with their own bodies period. The court shouldn't be inconsistent with it's protection of choices and it shouldn't arbitrarily create a stronger right to some choices than others. I don't think wanting consistent equal protection of our rights by the law is silly because I don't think it's good for the courts to protect our right to our own bodies only in very specific and narrowly defined instances while allowing severe state restrictions on all the other instances where the state limits that right. I want the courts to vigorously defend the totality of our rights and liberts from unduly burdensome state restrictions, not just on hot button topics.


You know what, I completely agree with you. We should remove the legal drinking age, smoking age, make all drugs legal for all ages, and let kids get tattoos/piercings whenever they want. We should also let kids have sex at any age because it is their body. Because if women can get abortions, kids should be able to do what they want with their body! Screw science and it trying to tell us that those things hurt developing minds! LIBERTY OR NOTHING! /s


You have created a strawman argument. At no point did I state that I was a proponent of anarchy or absolute liberty or nothing. What I have consistently and clearly advocated for is a consistent standard for the courts to use to determine undue burdens placed on our individual liberties by the state. Consistent judicial rulings on constitutional protection of individual liberty is completely different from what your hyperbolic sarcastic statement describes.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/29 16:24:13


Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.


never heard of Eminent domain?


As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.


but Government in and of itself is natural, a form of control and regulation for without it, you are left with anarchy. and that is not natural, people need control in their life in one form or another for without control and or rules nobody has anything or is guaranteed anything.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





If you believe minors should be able to get tattoos because it is their body, you can make the same argument that minors should be able to drink alcohol because it is their body.You are arguing for a consistent standard based on "My body, my choice." You are arguing that consistently a child should be able to get a tattoo because "my body, my choice." Same can be said for drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. "My body, my choice."
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.


never heard of Eminent domain?


As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.


but Government in and of itself is natural, a form of control and regulation for without it, you are left with anarchy. and that is not natural, people need control in their life in one form or another for without control and or rules nobody has anything or is guaranteed anything.


No, people don't need government, governments need people. You can have people with no government, there are large of areas of the world that currently don't have governmental control but have people in them. There are no governments that exist without people. You can have fully functional societies without government, there have been tribal societies living freely in the world for the entirety of human existence. Intrusive, regulatory government with the right of eminent domain is a relatively recent development created by people. Again, there is no naturally occuring government, there are naturally created people who can choose to create a government or not, and if they choose to create a government they choose whether or not that government has the power of eminent domain. A person, naturally created and in complete isolation from other people still have the natural ability to create and own property.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Prestor Jon wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.


never heard of Eminent domain?


As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.


but Government in and of itself is natural, a form of control and regulation for without it, you are left with anarchy. and that is not natural, people need control in their life in one form or another for without control and or rules nobody has anything or is guaranteed anything.


No, people don't need government, governments need people. You can have people with no government, there are large of areas of the world that currently don't have governmental control but have people in them. There are no governments that exist without people. You can have fully functional societies without government, there have been tribal societies living freely in the world for the entirety of human existence. Intrusive, regulatory government with the right of eminent domain is a relatively recent development created by people. Again, there is no naturally occuring government, there are naturally created people who can choose to create a government or not, and if they choose to create a government they choose whether or not that government has the power of eminent domain. A person, naturally created and in complete isolation from other people still have the natural ability to create and own property.


and you still think government control is the only form of control, everything has a heirarchy or control to them someone calling the shots and in charge, it is seen in animals and most insects. as to people in isolation they are still at the whims of the country they are in.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/29 16:39:00


Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If you believe minors should be able to get tattoos because it is their body, you can make the same argument that minors should be able to drink alcohol because it is their body.You are arguing for a consistent standard based on "My body, my choice." You are arguing that consistently a child should be able to get a tattoo because "my body, my choice." Same can be said for drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. "My body, my choice."


If that's where the courts draw the line with undue burdens placed upon our individual rights by the state, then yes. People should be free to make their own choices. Are you claiming that the government is currently phsyically stopping minors from being able to gain access to alcohol and cigarettes. Every minor that desires alcohol and/or cigarettes is more than likely capable of getting them right now already. All the govenment is doing is criminalizing that choice to enable the government to punish those minors for making that choice. It's a reactive prohibition not a proactive one. Nobody, minor or adult is required to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol it's a choice freely made. The adverse effects of cigarettes and alcohol afflict adults too, yet the governmet allows cigarettes and alcohol to be produced and sold and adults to consume both. Why is it ok for an 18 year old to smoke as much as he/she wants but it's a crime for a 17 year old to do the same behavior? The US criminalizes the consumption of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21 yet the majority of Europe has no legal drinking age requirement. I guess Europe doesn't care about the health of their minors as much as the USA does?

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Prestor Jon wrote:
Why is it ok for an 18 year old to smoke as much as he/she wants but it's a crime for a 17 year old to do the same behavior? The US criminalizes the consumption of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21 yet the majority of Europe has no legal drinking age requirement. I guess Europe doesn't care about the health of their minors as much as the USA does?


actually in California it is a crime for anyone under 21 to smoke here or at least buy smokes.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/29 16:45:33


Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.


never heard of Eminent domain?


As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.


but Government in and of itself is natural, a form of control and regulation for without it, you are left with anarchy. and that is not natural, people need control in their life in one form or another for without control and or rules nobody has anything or is guaranteed anything.


No, people don't need government, governments need people. You can have people with no government, there are large of areas of the world that currently don't have governmental control but have people in them. There are no governments that exist without people. You can have fully functional societies without government, there have been tribal societies living freely in the world for the entirety of human existence. Intrusive, regulatory government with the right of eminent domain is a relatively recent development created by people. Again, there is no naturally occuring government, there are naturally created people who can choose to create a government or not, and if they choose to create a government they choose whether or not that government has the power of eminent domain. A person, naturally created and in complete isolation from other people still have the natural ability to create and own property.


and you still think government control is the only form of control, everything has a heirarchy or control to them someone calling the shots and in charge, it is seen in animals and most insects. as to people in isolation they are still at the whims of the country they are in.


Are you claiming that all forms of hierarchy have an inherent right to the legal concept of Eminent Domain?

How are people in isolation still beholden to a nation? Who says a nation even has to exist? Tribes of people were living all over the world long before the land they lived on was claimed by any nation or government.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




Prestor Jon wrote:
 sebster wrote:


Prestor Jon wrote:
The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them.


What you're describing is a nonsense. You're attempting to claim that a thing that isn't written in to law, isn't observed or even noticed by a society, is still an inherent right. What on Earth can that possibly mean, and what good can it do anyone?

Consider this instead - rights are legal protections that you win through hard work and sacrifice, that you should give up only when another important right would be impacted too greatly. And while constitutional protection can make such rights stronger and more easily protected, in and of itself even constitutional protection is not enough* - ultimately rights are defined by a society. This makes people uneasy, because a society can choose to no longer value a right that you might think is very important... but it is how it is.


*Just like your 27th amendment, Russia has a constitutional term limit on the presidency. And yet Putin has ruled since 2000, because after his second term expired he had a puppet placed in the presidency, and then claimed the presidency again after that. Because even though it was written plain as day in the constitution, Russian society didn't care and was happy for Putin to ignore that rule in practice.


Term limits aren't rights. Bloomberg did the same thing when he ran for a 3rd consecutive term as Mayor of NYC. Rights and laws aren't the same thing at all.

Legal recognition of natural rights often requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice but our handful of basic natural rights are preexisting. I'll try to concisely paraphrase Francis Hutcheson, Georg Hegel, the Stoics, Hobbes, Locke, Richard Price etc. with some examples.

You have the right to your own body and your own life, they are yours, they belong to you. These are objective truths that are not changed by ethereal concepts like laws and social norms. Your body is YOUR body, it is not MINE or anyone else's, it belongs to you alone. You have a right to your body because it is yours. I do not have a right to your body because it is not my body, I have my own body that is mine, I do not have a right to yours. For example, I might want to shave your head because I want you to be bald but I don't have a right to shave your head because that's your hair on your body, I have no right to it, you have the right to control your hair and your body. Whether we are both standing in the USA or Australia or Somalia or on a boad in international waters does not change the fact that you are the only one with the right to control your body. I may be capable of forcibly shaving your head, there may be no laws or justice system established holding jurisdiction over the area that prohibits me from shaving your head but neither of those circumstances changes the fact that I have no right to your body. Neither might nor law changes the fact that our bodies are our own and we, ourselves, alone have he right to control our bodies. A person forcibly controlling another person's body is always objectively unjust because nobody has the right to control another's body against his/her will. Nothing changes the fact that your body is your own so therefore nothing can remove your right to control it and nothing can give somebody else a right to your body without your consent.

The same applies to your right to your life. I don't have the right to murder you, I do not have a right to your life. Your life is YOURS, that is an objective truth, nothing can change the fact that your life is your own, it is not anyone else's, everyone else has their own life they don't have YOUR life. Since your life is yours, you own it, you have a right to it, it is YOURS. It does not matter where we are located, what society we live in or what legal system claims jurisdiction over us, none of that changes the objective truth that your life is your own. Therefore, since your life is yours and not mine, I do not have the right to take your life from you, it is not mine, I do not own it, I do not have the right to end it. I will never have the right to arbitrarily end your life against your will simply because I desire to end it. The unjustified ending of your life is murder and I don't have the right to destroy what is not mine. I may have the capability of murdering you, the society and legal system governing us may not prohibit or may condone me murdering you on a whim but none of that changes the fact that your lfie is your own, not mine so I have no right to claim it or take it.

Since we all have a right to our own livesand our bodies we also have the right to protect them. This inherent right to self defense allows us to defend ourselves against those that would harm/murder us against our will. If you choose to try to harm/murder me, because you want my stuff, or you don't like the way I dress or you are offended by something I said/did or because I'm a Tottenham fan, or because you're a crazy homicidal person, whatever arbitrary reason you have for murdering me I have the right to act in self preservation and protect myself from your assault on my body/life. If I am forced to harm or kill you in order to protect myself from you harming/murdering me than my actions are justifiable so in those circumstances my right to protect my body/life allows me to fight back to whatever extent is necessary to stop you from hurting/murdering me. The amount of force I am justified in using is limited to the amount needed to end your threat to my body/life and no more.

We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.





This is all wishful thinking. Idealism that may have laid the foundation for actual legal rights. It can be helpful in the progression of human rights to fantasize that these rights are innate, but IMO its dangerous to do so, because if you imagine your rights are innate, you might end up imagining they are inviolable. The truth is that you have no innate rights, the state can violate them both legally and illegally. You only have those legal rights that those before you and those contemporaneous with you take the effort to establish and protect.

But to pretend for a moment that rights are innate, do you have any idea which innate rights we have that are not (yet) protected by law? Surely if what you say is true, then there are innate rights we have that are not currently recognized by the state. Be interested to know what you think those are. Or is the Bill of Rights the expression of all of our innate rights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.


never heard of Eminent domain?


As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.


but Government in and of itself is natural, a form of control and regulation for without it, you are left with anarchy. and that is not natural, people need control in their life in one form or another for without control and or rules nobody has anything or is guaranteed anything.


Government is I suppose natural in the same sense that plastic is natural. I prefer to think of "natural" as "not man made". If you look in nature, you will see that anarchy is actually the "natural" order of things, and government was created by people to protect themselves against the anarchy of nature.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/29 16:56:38


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: