Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!   (84,897 visits to this link)

    2. News

    1. GTA Online

      1. Find Lobbies & Players
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Vehicles
      4. Content Creator
      5. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    2. Red Dead Redemption

    3. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
I cucked Alex Jones

Kansas' Gay Discrimination Bill

Recommended Posts

Chunkyman

 


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarshalMoo

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

(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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

 

(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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chunkyman

 


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarshalMoo

Topic needs more Kansas.

sodomy_map.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chunkyman

 


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. House

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chunkyman

 

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?

 

Edited by Chunkyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarshalMoo

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

fredphelpsrft.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

 

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phunkism

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

Edited by phunkism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

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

You're not an advocate for homosexual currency then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vercetti42

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

Define Normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phunkism

 

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

Edited by phunkism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel

You're a f*ckin' idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Killerdude

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finn 7 five 11

I'm Backwards-Ass Hillbillies.

 

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

Edited by •¿F¡ññ4L¡ƒ£?•

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finite

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.

Edited by Secura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phunkism

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.

Edited by phunkism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirsty

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vercetti42

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.

Edited by AceKingston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phunkism

oh my


Edited by phunkism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

gays/gay fanboys

"gay fanboys"?

 

Only on a gaming forum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theadmiral

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.