Senate The US Politics discussion

I'll admit, though, it's hard to write a substantial response. I start typing and it all descends into "lulz Nozick" for pages and pages. Maybe that's the strategy.

 

maybe the best strat (for you, as a much more prolific and learned message board philosopher than i) would be to just write a overview of all the different (and stronger) conceptions of the nature of rights and let people ~decide for themselves~

basically the root argument debunking the libertarian "pos/neg" "natural" rights model for me is just that the justifications for splitting rights into "negative" and "positive" categories assumes way too much about the nature of human interaction and isolates agency by ascribing it only to what we "do" and not simultaneously to all the things we "dont do"

 

Well, that'd still just be avoiding the much broader issue that it is totally disingenuous to critique an argument for not obeying an arbitrary and not even close to universal categorization scheme. "Oh yeah, folks, rights exist except for the ones that don't exist, and linguistics tell us essential properties about them. This is totally not an artifact of our language and we are not performing semantic backflips to allow whatever we want to allow. Oh have I mentioned that positive enforcement of negative rights by police doesn't count because they're a 'public good'?"

Disgusting.

Can you imagine if we based any argument's worth on whether or not it conformed to ****ing Robert Nozick? Better throw out all utilitarian ethics, y'all, that isn't canon to the Laws of Philosophy as prescribed by the great and terrible Noz.

 

Souderwan is 3/5 of a man!

 

well id hazard a guess that's precisely the world kimball kinnison imagines he lives in, give or take a recourse to the theological

 

idgi dp4m

 

Rogue_Ten -- are you seriously telling me you are not familiar with the Three-Fifths Compromise?

 

i just dont understand who it was responding to and why it was relevant

there was a lot of dumb **** on the last page and i skimmed a lot of it, so its possible i missed it. maybe you could quote the post or segment you were responding to?

 

I thought it was pretty evident that we were talking about the right to not serve anyone we chose as a private business and could view other people as lesser. So I dropped in a fun fact from our nation's history to show that we've evolved somewhat in the last 227 years.

 

oh i thought souderwan had already stated/implied he was okay with a world where people could legally exclude him from goods and services because of his racial background as long as he got to legally exclude people from goods and services for their sexual identity. my bad

 

Personally I think slaves should not have counted as persons. If legally they were chattel property, then it makes no sense to double the comparative national vote of some slaves states, and substantially increase that of others.

 

You're such an awful person.... seriously, truly terrible.

 

Part of the reason I tend not to participate in these discussions is because there is an inherent lack of mutual respect. Despite a genuine disagreement on policy, I try my best not to mock or deride people who I disagree with. I don't accuse them of being idiots or bigots. Consistently, however, liberals in this thread either make such insinuations at conservatives or stand by while others do it.

You can't seem to get it through your collective heads that we want the exact same things but just have a different point of view on ways to get there. Suggesting that I want to oppress people based on their sexuality is probably the most offensive thing you've ever said about me. Considering your propensity to take pot-shots at people who disagree with you, that's saying something.

 

Good point. My statement was overly broad. That said, every time I post in this or any political thread, it ends up decending into borderline racially offensive name-calling and baiting.

I mean seriously. What the **** is this supposed to be? Funny?

 

Wait, which part -- now I am confused!

 

Probably the 3/5 of a man 'joke' you made. It was in pretty horrendous taste.

 

But... that wasn't in response to him? Hence I'm confused?

 

What was it in response to?

 

Specifically, the jump from V03 -> af -> KK on the limiting / allowing business rights based on what the business owner wants to do, plus combined with Ramza's good post on the previous page about "rights existing except where they don't exist" and how that's a stupid argument.

My point, especially as relating to the Three-Fifths Compromise, was just how arbitrary those morals are since obviously in this country we counted people like Souderwan as less than a full human being which is disgusting. It was more a point on the fact that separate-but-equal had been decided for business owners for many decades now.

 

Ok. I'll bite. David, first off I want you to know that I love you. But the joke was just on the hairy edge of "WTF?"

That said, had it been left alone or somebody had said something like "What're you getting at?" (like RT did at first), I would have been fine with it. But then I get the animated gif (seriously? WTF am I supposed to take from that? What does it say about out collective opinion of black male culture when that's considered funny?)
Anyway once you explained what you were trying to say, I was going to let it go and just write a post explaining why that has absolutely nothing to do with my position. But then RT decides to accuse me of supporting institutionalized oppression of people based on their sexuality and I was just ****ing done.

Enough.

If you guys actually want to hear from people with different opinions, you're gonna have to go out of your collective way to show some respect. Specifically, I demand to be shown the same respect I show you (global "you"). At a minimum, stow the racial insensitivity.

Edit: And now that I know you weren't even responding to me at all, it comes off a lot differently. Thanks for the clarification .

 

It's cool, man -- I love you too. Sorry for any confusion / WTFery.

 

Not according to Rand Paul.

He was for allowing private business to do whatever they want, before he was against it.

Peace,

V-03