Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Kansas' Gay Discrimination Bill

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
136 replies to this topic
Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#61

Posted 15 February 2014 - 03:18 AM


Wh... what!? You're literally arguing for a legally enshrined right to discriminate against others, purely because you like the idea of people being able to do whatever stupid sh*t they want.

 

Not at all.

 

The case for property rights in general that I hold is grounded in the works of people such as John Locke and Frederic Bastiat, which entails self-ownership, and it's extension, the homesteading principle of property rights. If such principles are held consistently, one of the end conclusions arrive at is that you cannot initiate any sort of violence against another for the act of being discriminatory with their property (e.g. I can't attack, steal from, force them to work for me, or otherwise aggress against a bakery because they refused to sell me a cake because I'm jewish).

 

Since your beliefs apparently aren't grounded in aesthetics (which I find odd from someone who has previously stated they are a moral subjectivist), would you care to demonstrate this in some capacity?


JIMHO
  • JIMHO

    Hateoful Player

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2013
  • None

#62

Posted 15 February 2014 - 03:18 AM

Can we please get back to talking about Kansas and gay rights; how it hates those, etc.?


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#63

Posted 15 February 2014 - 03:40 AM

The case for property rights in general that I hold is grounded in the works of people such as John Locke and Frederic Bastiat, which entails self-ownership, and it's extension, the homesteading principle of property rights.

How is this not an aesthetic position? You advocate this because you like the way it sounds, not because it has any practical benefit.

 

Why would I want to be apart of a society where being Jewish precludes you from being able to buy a f*cking cupcake? What kind of barbaric, dystopian hell hole would allow that?

 

 

 

Since your beliefs apparently aren't grounded in aesthetics (which I find odd from someone who has previously stated they are a moral subjectivist), would you care to demonstrate this in some capacity?

It's not aesthetic, it's practical. If I go into a store for an ice cream and they tell me to leave because I'm with someone with darker skin than they find acceptable, that's a massive load of sh*t and I shouldn't have to put up with it. It's inconvenient, inefficient as well as deeply offensive. An equal society is a cohesive society that functions better socially and economically, and I personally want to be able to keep whatever company I want, and live whatever lifestyle I want without being discriminated against.


stu
  • stu

    Ya filthy animal.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#64

Posted 15 February 2014 - 03:46 AM

(i.e. it forces some humans to be subservient to others). 

 

I forgot you were a libertarian, and a seemingly extreme one at that. It all makes sense now. 

 

I don't care for libertarianism, you don't care for non-libertarianism.  

 

Fin.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#65

Posted 15 February 2014 - 03:57 AM

 

(i.e. it forces some humans to be subservient to others). 

 

I forgot you were a libertarian, and a seemingly extreme one at that. It all makes sense now. 

 

I don't care for libertarianism, you don't care for non-libertarianism.  

 

Fin.

 

Are you really agreeing to disagree over whether or not Jews should be free to buy cupcakes?


Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#66

Posted 15 February 2014 - 03:59 AM


How is this not an aesthetic position?


 

Because it's deontological ethics, and it's validity has no bearing on how emotionally pleasing I find the conclusions (e.g. I find the usage of drugs and alcohol to be a disgusting habit, although morally I have no right to forcibly stop you from using them).
 

 


It's not aesthetic, it's practical.

 

It's only practical insofar as it serves to achieve the aesthetic goal of egalitarianism. 


JIMHO
  • JIMHO

    Hateoful Player

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2013
  • None

#67

Posted 15 February 2014 - 04:03 AM

Topic needs more Kansas.

sodomy_map.jpg


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#68

Posted 15 February 2014 - 04:05 AM

deontological ethics

All about aesthetic satisfaction, no? Again, what is the practical application of giving people the freedom to discriminate? 

 

 

 

It's only practical insofar as it serves to achieve the aesthetic goal of egalitarianism. 

No, it's practical in the numerous ways I outlined. An egalitarian society is one where I can have gay, black, female and jewish friends without it restricting my activities, and where valuable human resources aren't wasted arbitrarily due to prejudice. It's you who is trying to achieve the aesthetic goal of "freedom" or your own warped, twisted definition thereof.

  • stu likes this

Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#69

Posted 15 February 2014 - 04:23 AM


All about aesthetic satisfaction, no?

 

It's not. 

 


No, it's practical in the numerous ways I outlined. An egalitarian society is one where I can have gay, black, female and jewish friends without it restricting my activities, and where valuable human resources aren't wasted arbitrarily due to prejudice. It's you who is trying to achieve the aesthetic goal of "freedom" or your own warped, twisted definition thereof.

 

"Practical" has no meaning whatsoever in-and-of itself, as value is subjective. The word only means anything in the context of the relationship between actions and the achievement of an end goal, in this case the aesthetic goal of egalitarianism.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#70

Posted 15 February 2014 - 04:38 AM

It's not. 

Then tell me what the practical purpose is. It is about aesthetic satisfaction, that's why you're babbling on about freedom to associate.

 

 

 

"Practical" has no meaning whatsoever in-and-of itself, as value is subjective. 

...

 

It's not of subjective value if it's of immediate benefit to me. I want an icecream, they won't let me in the store because I'm with a posse of jewish stereotypes (I'm not going to list them because I'll look like a knob, but they're all there), so passing a law that forces them to take my money and serve me an ice cream is of objective value to me. That's why I advocate it, not because I have some picture in my head of a perfect society of everyone holding hands and in my reckless naivete, don't care if I offend all the racist rich who will f*ck off to build their own super society in the mountains or what ever Ayn Rand novel you see playing out if this horrible injustice continues.

 

 

 

 in this case the aesthetic goal of egalitarianism.

Whatever you say.  I feel inclined to point out, previously you seemed intelligent and reasonable, if indoctrinated into a silly belief structure. But repeating your beliefs to yourself has seemingly made you smug, dismissive and stubborn. You spout total nonsense and don't budge an inch on any of your extreme positions no matter what anyone says, and refuse to even begin to examine your flimsy rationale for holding said extreme opinions. You've become a deluded ideologue of the highest order.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#71

Posted 15 February 2014 - 04:41 AM

 

Whatever you say.  I feel inclined to point out, previously you seemed intelligent and reasonable, if indoctrinated into a silly belief structure. But repeating your beliefs to yourself has seemingly made you smug, dismissive and stubborn. You spout total nonsense and don't budge an inch on any of your extreme positions no matter what anyone says, and refuse to even begin to examine your flimsy rationale for holding said extreme opinions. You've become a deluded ideologue of the highest order.

 

Don't say I didn't warn you.

 

Well I didn't, directly. But yeah. This guy really quotes from Libertarian blogs.

 

Really though, how about them gays in Kansas.

  • JIMHO likes this

Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#72

Posted 15 February 2014 - 04:56 AM Edited by Chunkyman, 15 February 2014 - 04:59 AM.

 

It's not of subjective value if it's of immediate benefit to me. I want an icecream, they won't let me in the store because I'm with a posse of jewish stereotypes (I'm not going to list them because I'll look like a knob, but they're all there), so passing a law that forces them to take my money and serve me an ice cream is of objective value to me. 

 

So you place greater value in your convenience in getting ice cream than you do with respecting the rights of other people?
 


JIMHO
  • JIMHO

    Hateoful Player

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2013
  • None

#73

Posted 15 February 2014 - 05:02 AM

A more important question, is this a special law for gays?

fredphelpsrft.jpg


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#74

Posted 15 February 2014 - 08:26 AM


 
It's not of subjective value if it's of immediate benefit to me. I want an icecream, they won't let me in the store because I'm with a posse of jewish stereotypes (I'm not going to list them because I'll look like a knob, but they're all there), so passing a law that forces them to take my money and serve me an ice cream is of objective value to me. 

 
So you place greater value in your convenience in getting ice cream than you do with respecting the rights of other people?
 
Straw man argument. At the end of the day your entire argument comes down to the idea that the individual rights and freedoms of citizens are universal and inalienable, which is nice and all but impractical, illogical, contradictory to reality and if extended to a logical conclusion, basically justifies genocide.

If the rights of individuals to express and enforce their bigotry supersedes the right to equality in the eyes of the law- which, let's not beat around the bush, is basically what this argument boils down to, then whose to stop someone deciding that, say, blacks aren't actually human and therefore don't deserve their right to freedom from Violence?

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#75

Posted 15 February 2014 - 09:57 AM

Why would I want to be apart of a society where being Jewish precludes you from being able to buy a f*cking cupcake? What kind of barbaric, dystopian hell hole would allow that?

A Palestinian confectionary? Or the canteen at Anjem Choudary's local mosque?


phunkism
  • phunkism

    I'm a grill btw

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2014
  • None

#76

Posted 15 February 2014 - 09:59 AM Edited by phunkism, 15 February 2014 - 09:59 AM.

You guys are making gay specie look normal while obviously it's not normal

  • JIMHO likes this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#77

Posted 15 February 2014 - 10:09 AM

You guys are making gay specie look normal while obviously it's not normal

You're not an advocate for homosexual currency then?


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#78

Posted 15 February 2014 - 10:11 AM

You guys are making gay specie look normal while obviously it's not normal


Define Normal.

phunkism
  • phunkism

    I'm a grill btw

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2014
  • None

#79

Posted 15 February 2014 - 11:18 AM Edited by phunkism, 15 February 2014 - 11:20 AM.

 

You guys are making gay specie look normal while obviously it's not normal


Define Normal.

 

Homosexuals claim that “heterosexuals” molest most children but statistics show that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do heterosexuals. 

This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates: 

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985) 

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2) 

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991) 

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200) 

From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts. While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children. 

 

 

See you later

  • JIMHO likes this

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    True Gentleman

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#80

Posted 15 February 2014 - 11:22 AM

You're a f*ckin' idiot.

  • Melchior, Finite and Raavi like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#81

Posted 15 February 2014 - 12:03 PM

Correlation is not causation. You'll have to show some kind of causal link if you're going to falsely conflate two unrelated things.

  • Finite and Raavi like this

Killerdude8
  • Killerdude8

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#82

Posted 15 February 2014 - 12:10 PM

Dunno about anyone else, but am I the only one who thinks trying to pass Gay Rights laws in the Bible Belt is a Bad idea?

 

It's like trying to teach Cavemen Calculus.


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#83

Posted 15 February 2014 - 12:43 PM Edited by F4L?, 15 February 2014 - 12:45 PM.

I'm Backwards-Ass Hillbillies.

I'm sorry but that's what I'm getting from this, pathetic.
  • Finite likes this

Finite
  • Finite

    Solitude

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • None
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#84

Posted 15 February 2014 - 12:53 PM Edited by Secura, 15 February 2014 - 12:54 PM.

Firstly, correlation doesn't equal causation, two events can occur in tandem without them ever being directly connected.

 

Secondly, what person, homosexual or otherwise has claimed that heterosexual people molest children far more than people of any other sexual inclination? Seriously, where on Earth did you even pull those statistics from? Regardless what you've typed down there is complete and utter bullsh*t.


phunkism
  • phunkism

    I'm a grill btw

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2014
  • None

#85

Posted 15 February 2014 - 01:11 PM Edited by phunkism, 15 February 2014 - 01:16 PM.

Firstly, correlation doesn't equal causation, two events can occur in tandem without them ever being directly connected.

 

Secondly, what person, homosexual or otherwise has claimed that heterosexual people molest children far more than people of any other sexual inclination? Seriously, where on Earth did you even pull those statistics from? Regardless what you've typed down there is complete and utter bullsh*t.

Do you really think i made up that wall of text because i was bored?

 

Gay supporters delusional and ignoring the facts as usual, nothing new. Whatever i post i'll get bombed by butthurt gays/gay fanboys crying about facts that are actually true. Do your research i don't need to provide you with every link, you are not important to me.

 

Lets say if your brain somehow realise that statistics i posted are actually true you would still aggressively defend their mental illness.

  • JIMHO likes this

Kirsty
  • Kirsty

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Moderator 2013
    Most Helpful 2013

#86

Posted 15 February 2014 - 01:15 PM

The abyss of his asshole.

 

Seriously, the most absurd statistics I've ever read. He might be able to back them up with references, but the cases are already flawed on so many levels that you'd be a complete fool to believe them and think they are still relevent today. Mainly because in the 80s and 90s there would be significantly less people being openly gay, and secondly most importantly how can you compare two groups of people that are completely disproportionate?

  • Tyler and theadmiral like this

Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#87

Posted 15 February 2014 - 01:21 PM Edited by AceKingston, 15 February 2014 - 01:22 PM.

Whatever i post i'll get bombed by butthurt gays/gay fanboys crying about facts that are actually true. Do your research i don't need to provide you with every link, you are not important to me.


Because you are a butthurt homophobe crying about facts that are utter bullsh*t.

phunkism
  • phunkism

    I'm a grill btw

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2014
  • None

#88

Posted 15 February 2014 - 01:25 PM Edited by phunkism, 15 February 2014 - 01:27 PM.

oh my


John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#89

Posted 15 February 2014 - 01:25 PM

gays/gay fanboys

"gay fanboys"?

 

Only on a gaming forum...

  • stu and theadmiral like this

theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#90

Posted 15 February 2014 - 01:29 PM

It is a bit hard to follow the garbage in this cesspool of a thread, but isn't this guy basically arguing that homosexuals should not have rights because some of them commit crimes? Should just strip all of us of our basic human rights in that case.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users