Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Universe Prince

Pages: 1 ... 234 235 [236] 237 238 ... 244
3526
3DHS / Re: Diversity's Oppressions
« on: November 04, 2006, 02:55:25 AM »
Quote from: Lanya on November 03, 2006, 11:50:26 PM

But look at the things that we could not do in the 1950s: No right of girls to have equal athletic programs in high school, thus very few women's college athletic scholarships. 

We had to make a law. Title 9.


Did we really have to make a law? Or that just the way it happened? You seem to be assuming that no change would have occurred without the law. Is that what you think?

Quote from: Lanya on November 03, 2006, 11:50:26 PM

Some countries sell children into sex slavery.  We have laws against that.


Yes, that sort of slavery is a non-consensual violation of rights.

Quote from: Lanya on November 03, 2006, 11:50:26 PM

We used to not recognize that women could even be raped by their husbands.  So yes, I think it requires a majority consensus imposed on everone, to safeguard some that otherwise would live lives of horror and desperation.


You think safeguarding people requires imposing a consensus with which you agree. If the "religious right" were to grow in political power and began to force their moral consensus on you and me and everyone else, would you be so supportive of a majority consensus imposed on everyone?

No one is suggesting we don't need laws. The point is that we don't need laws or a consensus about everything someone decides is good and needful. If some group of people want to live in a communist commune where everything and every individual's life is owned by all in the commune, why should they be stopped? If a group of people decide they like Gorean values and want to form a group where men are dominant and women are submissive, what is that to you or me? They are no less human beings than we are. We have no special authority to demand that others live as we say.

You see a society around you with whose values you mostly agree, and you are, apparently, assuming that it is only so because you have laws. It's easy to favor imposing moral judgments on others when those judgments are your own or similar to your own. People seem to forget that they complain when the tables are turned. Laws against slavery prove we need a majority consensus? Hardly. Some people think we need laws against homosexual marriage. And however much you think laws against slavery protect society, those people also think they are trying to protect society.

That we have laws does not prove that we need each of those laws. Having a majority consensus and laws imposing such does not guarantee freedom from slavery or abuse. It can, in fact, result in exactly the opposite. Once upon a time, in a land not so far away, there was a majority consensus about persecuting people who were Jews. Once upon a time, there was a majority consensus that enslavement of the Negroes was a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Right now, in parts of the world, there is a majority consensus that women are inferior to men.

While I admire and agree with your desire to protect people from slavery and abuse, I do not agree that having a majority consensus is some magical thing that makes violation of human rights go away. And having a majority consensus does not give one authority over everyone else who dissents from that consensus.

3527
3DHS / Re: Diversity's Oppressions
« on: November 03, 2006, 08:08:39 PM »
Lanya, at one time, slavery was agreed on as good and needful. So what is your point? Is it your suggestion that without some sort of majority consensus imposed on everyone, your neighbors would start enslaving each other?

3528
3DHS / Re: Racial vs Intellectual Diversity
« on: November 03, 2006, 06:16:33 PM »
Quote from: The_Professor on November 03, 2006, 05:50:27 PM

Culture is linked to values and our values, if you examine them from a Biblical context, are detereoriating.


From a Biblical context? You want to see people getting pelted with stones for adultery? What do you mean when you say "Biblical context"? And then, if you would, please explain why that standard is the one against which we should measure our non-theocratic culture.

3529
3DHS / Re: Diversity's Oppressions
« on: November 03, 2006, 06:06:42 PM »
Quote from: Lanya on November 03, 2006, 05:27:40 PM

One word: Slavery.


What about it?

3530
3DHS / Re: More Political Fallout
« on: November 03, 2006, 03:34:20 PM »
Quote

He has denied the accusation, but said in a statement on the New Life church website that he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations ... I hope to be able to discuss this matter in more detail at a later date. In the interim, I will seek both spiritual advice and guidance".


Quote from: The_Professor on November 03, 2006, 01:18:07 PM

"To whom much is given, much is expected." -- God.

He apparently failed this requirement. So sad...


Can we please wait and see if he actually failed before we start lamenting/condemning the man?

3531
3DHS / Re: Diversity's Oppressions
« on: November 03, 2006, 03:03:45 PM »
Quote from: Plane on November 03, 2006, 02:54:47 PM

So this becomes a states rights issue?


I certainly hope so.

Quote from: Plane on November 03, 2006, 02:54:47 PM

We cannot agree, but we must have a policy


Why must we have a policy?

3532
3DHS / Re: Racial vs Intellectual Diversity
« on: November 03, 2006, 03:00:09 PM »
Quote from: The_Professor on November 03, 2006, 11:53:31 AM

If you truly beleive we are better off, culturally, than, say, 50 years ago when traditional values reigned, then you have truly been captured by the new "liberals".


We do not live in a cultural paradise, but we certainly seem better off culturally compared to 50 years ago. And I do not see why that would be a specifically liberal position, because I am not a liberal. (Just ask the liberals.) Would you mind, Professor, explaining why we are not better off culturally than 50 years ago?

3533
3DHS / Re: Diversity's Oppressions
« on: November 03, 2006, 02:51:30 PM »
Quote from: sirs on November 03, 2006, 11:19:20 AM

The assertion is based on the mountrain of articles he's written over the years,


Then perhaps you should show us one or more of those articles that support your position, rather than just expecting other people to take your word for it that you know what he really meant.

3534
3DHS / Re: Diversity's Oppressions
« on: November 03, 2006, 02:48:10 PM »
Quote from: BT on November 03, 2006, 06:41:41 AM

Try to keep in mind that those same laws trump freedom, absolute or otherwise. The concepts of freedom and rule of law are not in conflict. But the ideal is far from the reality. And that is what really needs to be kept in mind.


The ideal is far from reality. Did you think I was unaware of this?

3535
3DHS / Re: Diversity's Oppressions
« on: November 03, 2006, 02:44:25 PM »
Quote from: Plane on November 03, 2006, 02:27:37 AM

Is there a way to experiment and learn whether some of these laws and penaltys might could be done away with without causeing too much harm?


Sure. Let the states do it.

Quote from: Plane on November 03, 2006, 02:27:37 AM

To be specific , I would like to repeal the laws that restrict Marijuanna use and replace them with more reasonable regulation that is designed to make the stuff safe to use responsibly rather than the law as it is which seems to be designed to punish a user or provider without reguard to the safety and responsibility of the use.


A few states are progressing toward that. I think Colorado is the state closest to legalizing casual (as opposed to medical) possession of marijuana, but that is a huge controversy there. And who knows if the U.S.D.O.J. would even allow it.

Quote from: Plane on November 03, 2006, 02:27:37 AM

The rights that belong to a Human Being by natural right should always be a matter of discusson between citizens.

"Why?"

Because we are not born agreeing on what is good and needful, nor do we die at great age haveing learned all.


Why do we have to agree on that? Are we so afraid of everyone becoming murderers and rapists and pedophiles that we cannot allow people to decide for themselves what is good and needful? If we are, that seems like a severe lack of faith in one's fellow humans.

3536
3DHS / Re: Diversity's Oppressions
« on: November 03, 2006, 02:01:26 AM »
Quote

I am not sure why I have to qualify my comments to say that I don't mean "absolute freedom" since clearly our society is not in that situation and since I did not say "absolute freedom". And since I have never, in this conversation or any other, advocated any sort of lawless "absolute freedom" I have no idea why you would have thought I might have meant it.


That reminded me of something Dave Barry said in an interview. Luckily, the interview is online.

                              Reason: One of your editors said, "Well, Dave's a libertarian, that's true. But he's not an irresponsible libertarian." Doesn't that kind of take the fun out of it?

Barry:: I'm not sure what they mean by that. If you tell most people what libertarians think, they immediately assume that you cannot mean it all the way, that you're really just taking a position for argument's sake. When you say you don't think we should have public schools, they can't believe you mean that. You must mean that they should be smaller. But you can't really mean no public schools. Therefore, if I don't argue too much, they probably think I'm responsible. I don't think I'm particularly responsible. I resent that!

Reason: Last fall you wrote a piece in the Tropic and explicitly acknowledged being a libertarian. . .

Barry:: John Dorschner, one of our staff writers here at Tropic magazine at The Miami Herald, who is a good friend of mine and an excellent journalist, but a raving liberal, wrote a story about a group that periodically pops up saying that they're going to start their own country or start their own planet or go back to their original planet, or whatever. They were going to "create a libertarian society" on a floating platform in the Caribbean somewhere. You know and I know there' s never going to be a country on a floating anything, but if they want to talk about it, that's great.

John wrote about it and he got into the usual thing where he immediately got to the question of whether or not you can have sex with dogs. The argument was that if it wasn't illegal to have sex with dogs, naturally people would have sex with dogs. That argument always sets my teeth right on edge.

And I always want to retort with, "You want a horrible system, because you think the people should be able to vote for laws they want, and if more than half of them voted for some law, everyone would have to do what they said. Then they could pass a law so that you had to have sex with dogs."

I was ranting and raving about this here in the office. So my editor, Tom Shroder, said "Why don't you write a counterpoint to it?"

So I wrote about why I didn't think libertarians are really doing this kind of thing so that they can have sex with dogs. I discussed some of the reasons that a person might want to live out of the control of our federal, state, local, and every other form of government. Actually, I don't think I even called myself a libertarian in the article. I think Tom Shroder identified me as one.

Reason: Did that give you pause, coming out of the closet on this?

Barry:: I guess libertarianism is always considered so weird and fringe that people assume that you're in the closet if you don't go around talking about it. Usually in interviews we're talking about humor writing and they don't bring it up. Because I don't write an overly political column, people just assume I'm not. I guess nobody assumes anybody is a libertarian. It's a more complex political discussion than most people are used to, to explain why you think the way you do about public education or drug laws, and why it's not as simple as being for or against something.

Reason: Did you get any mail about being a libertarian after that article?

Barry:: I got a few letters, mostly pretty nice. One or two letters saying, "Here's why it wouldn't work to be a libertarian, because people will have sex with dogs." Arguments like, "Nobody would educate the kids." People say, "Of course you have to have public education because otherwise nobody would send their kids to school." And you'd have to say, "Would you not send your kids to school? Would you not educate them?" "Well, no. I would. But all those other people would be having sex with dogs."		                             

The whole interview, which is a decade or so old and also includes comments on parenting, can be found at the other end of this link.

3537
3DHS / Re: Diversity's Oppressions
« on: November 03, 2006, 01:32:40 AM »
Quote from: BT on November 03, 2006, 12:48:03 AM

Quote
If you think we are not a free society, I would very much like to see your reasoning as to why

I didn't say that.


Didn't you? I said to Plane, "We are a society of freedom, right?" You said no, and that "We are a society based on the rule of law." So I asked, "Is it your assertion then that our society, American society, is not free? America is not the land of the free but the land of the rule of law?" Which you answered with "Yep." It sure looks to me like you said we are not a free society.

Quote from: BT on November 03, 2006, 12:48:03 AM

I simply said we are a nation of laws. And those laws limit absolute freedom, thus we are not a "society of freedom", which i believe was your original claim.


Uh, yeah, a society of freedom, not a society of "absolute freedom", which I am left to guess means some sort of lawless society with unhindered murderers and pedophiles running rampant through the streets because no one is held responsible for anything they do.  I didn't say "absolute freedom". I didn't say we don't have laws or that we don't need laws. I am not sure why I have to qualify my comments to say that I don't mean "absolute freedom" since clearly our society is not in that situation and since I did not say "absolute freedom". And since I have never, in this conversation or any other, advocated any sort of lawless "absolute freedom" I have no idea why you would have thought I might have meant it.

So, um, thanks for pointing out that we have laws in America. I'll be sure to, uh, not forget that. Yeah.

3538
3DHS / Re: VH-1 Top Songs of the 80's
« on: November 03, 2006, 12:14:11 AM »
Oh, and Brass, you might want to clarify that you're talking about the artist formerly known as "the artist formerly known as Prince", and not me. Not that most folks would confuse me with Prince if they knew anything about my severe lack of musical talent.

3539
3DHS / Re: VH-1 Top Songs of the 80's
« on: November 03, 2006, 12:07:06 AM »
Wow. Repubgirl and Jane, in the same thread even. Sweet. Welcome back.

3540
3DHS / Re: Diversity's Oppressions
« on: November 03, 2006, 12:02:56 AM »
Quote from: BT on November 02, 2006, 05:38:13 PM

Quote
Is it your assertion then that our society, American society, is not free? America is not the land of the free but the land of the rule of law?

Yep.

Define free and then see how well we stack up.


I was not aware that being a nation of laws made us not free. Sounds like something an anarchist might say. Anyway, by free I meant the basic meaning of free in a political context, i.e. not enslaved, having liberty to exercise our rights. Are you suggesting that we are enslaved or that we do not have liberty to exercise our rights? Granted there are some intrusions on liberty, but we are still basically a free society, as I understand the situation. If you think we are not a free society, I would very much like to see your reasoning as to why.

Pages: 1 ... 234 235 [236] 237 238 ... 244