Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > Archives > General Chat Archive
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-28-2014, 02:54 AM   #121
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbreegull View Post
for christ's sake the guy's name is RAND
Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for his first name. Growing up, he went by "Randy",[11] but his wife shortened it to "Rand."[9][12][13]

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 02-28-2014, 03:05 AM   #122
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
It is disingenuous and arrogant to claim that you know that his views 'really are' and then base your opinions of someone based on those unfounded and unsubstantiated 'hunches'.
yeah but you're talking to eulogy

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 02-28-2014, 07:46 AM   #123
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

well since you're both apparently incapable

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...90a4_blog.html

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-01-2014, 10:15 PM   #124
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
what the fuck is an "egregious anti-discrimination law"
Any law based on an uncritical analysis of its possible consequences, both intended and unintended.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-01-2014, 10:19 PM   #125
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trotskilicious View Post
well what is the not racist reason against this thing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
FREEDOM (for straight white well off males)
Pretty much. People may disagree with that reason, but they cannot deny that it exists nor can they say that it is inherently racist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
i love how his post is like "i don't think this, but i ALSO don't think this!" well good for you man why don't you tell us what you do think and we can go from there

whenever someone is hesitant to tell you what they actually think it means that what they actually think is fucking dumb. and i encounter this way way way way more than i would have ever expected.
What I am 'hesitant to do' is uphold a patently obvious false dichotomy between choice a) I support the civil rights act and choice b) I am a racist.

I didn't know that my thoughts (on what, exactly, I am still not very clear) are relevant at all in a discussion about what Rand Paul may or may not believe.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-02-2014, 10:41 AM   #126
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

Lol ok

Why would anyone care about an opinion on what we are talking about.

And if you do not support the civil rights act you are on some level racist. We don't live in a theoretical vacuum.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-02-2014, 07:11 PM   #127
Trotskilicious
Banned
 
Trotskilicious's Avatar
 
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
Default

freedom for property owning white males is not inherently racist

 
Trotskilicious is offline
Old 03-02-2014, 10:16 PM   #128
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
And if you do not support the civil rights act you are on some level racist. We don't live in a theoretical vacuum.
But you have failed to say why. You are just asserting your point and ignoring mine.

Just because, without question, there will be racist outcomes if the CRA were repealed (and we are talking about a scenario which is completely absurd - I live in a theoretical vacuum!!!! LOL!)does not mean that someone supports those outcomes. Do all people who are pro-choice agree with all abortions which have ever been performed in every circumstance? Or do you like in a 'theoretical vacuum' when it comes to abortion? What about the freedom to consume alcohol? Do you support every drunk-driving death, beaten wife and kids and alcohol-induced suicide?

You are the one who is ignoring reality here.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 08:46 PM   #129
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

drinking and driving and beating your wife are not legal

there are a lot of (supposedly) legal restrictions on abortion

try again

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 08:55 PM   #130
Trotskilicious
Banned
 
Trotskilicious's Avatar
 
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
Default

i think you missed what he was getting at: "good" freedoms have "bad" concequences

 
Trotskilicious is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 10:03 PM   #131
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

i know that's what he was getting at. but the analogy doesn't work because without the civil rights act, it would be legal to discriminate on the basis of race. it is not legal to get drunk and then drive or beat your wife.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 10:10 PM   #132
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
i know that's what he was getting at. but the analogy doesn't work because without the civil rights act, it would be legal to discriminate on the basis of race. it is not legal to get drunk and then drive or beat your wife.
Eulogy, you've conveniently ignored the third thing I put in my analogy (suicide) in order to avoid having to deal with the principle I am getting at. But you can't slip out of it. Even if the analogy is totally bad (which it isn't), the logic still stands. You are stalling. I am waiting for your response.

Also, you really should ask yourself why it is that you avoid direct responses and often refuse to deal with threats to your belief system and what that reveals about yourself.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 10:21 PM   #133
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

You're asking if I support suicide?

Wtf. What am I not responding to? The right of business owners to discriminate is outweighed by the societal interest in ensuring people aren't discriminated against on the basis if race. To disagree with that assessment is, in my opinion, racist.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 10:22 PM   #134
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

And your analogies really suck. Just for the record.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 10:38 PM   #135
Bread Regal
Banned
 
Posts: 5,711
Default

i thought jczeroman had some sort of mea culpa but it looks like nothing has changed.

 
Bread Regal is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 10:46 PM   #136
Bread Regal
Banned
 
Posts: 5,711
Default

rand paul is the son of a doctor who never had to want anything in his life and he lives in a rhetorical fantasy world of moral absolutism which is rooted in an "enlightenment era" document written by a bunch of slave-owning slave-rapers.

if you object to the existence of the civil rights act because it restricts the freedoms of business owners, you're an unthinking asshole racist moron.

 
Bread Regal is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 11:06 PM   #137
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
You're asking if I support suicide?

Wtf. What am I not responding to? The right of business owners to discriminate is outweighed by the societal interest in ensuring people aren't discriminated against on the basis if race. To disagree with that assessment is, in my opinion, racist.
Eulogy, NO ONE is suggesting that repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act will not lead to racist outcomes. In fact, I have argued in this very thread that it will. What you are not dealing with is the point that I am actually making: can you agree with a right (or, even more abstract, a 'freedom') without inherently agreeing with every possible or even probable outcome of that right?

Can you please answer that question. That one right up there . It's right there.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 11:12 PM   #138
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
Eulogy, NO ONE is suggesting that repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act will not lead to racist outcomes. In fact, I have argued in this very thread that it will. What you are not dealing with is the point that I am actually making: can you agree with a right (or, even more abstract, a 'freedom') without inherently agreeing with every possible or even probable outcome of that right?

Can you please answer that question. That one right up there . It's right there.
It's a stupid fucking question. This is a very specific issue.

Do I think the first amendment protects the right of people to say stupid shit without getting arrested? Yes. Do I think it should be legal to discriminate on the basis of race as a business owner? No. Your question is dumb because it cannot be applied to every situation uniformly.

You apparently think the right of a business owner to discriminate outweighs the societal interest in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race. You tried to make an analogy and failed miserably.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 11:14 PM   #139
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

like what would the legal punishment be for a suicide anyway

god this is frustrating. you're a libertarian. i find libertarianism inherently repulsive. that's really the end of the conversation.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 11:39 PM   #140
duovamp
Brazilian Blouselord
 
duovamp's Avatar
 
Location: heavy metal pool party
Posts: 35,781
Default

Fuck everybody else a man is an island, Eulogy. When you gonna learnd?

 
duovamp is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 11:50 PM   #141
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
Eulogy, NO ONE is suggesting that repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act will not lead to racist outcomes. In fact, I have argued in this very thread that it will. What you are not dealing with is the point that I am actually making: can you agree with a right (or, even more abstract, a 'freedom') without inherently agreeing with every possible or even probable outcome of that right?

Can you please answer that question. That one right up there . It's right there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
It's a stupid fucking question.
So 'no'...

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 11:51 PM   #142
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post

Do I think the first amendment protects the right of people to say stupid shit without getting arrested? Yes. Do I think it should be legal to discriminate on the basis of race as a business owner? No. Your question is dumb because it cannot be applied to every situation uniformly.

You apparently think the right of a business owner to discriminate outweighs the societal interest in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race. You tried to make an analogy and failed miserably.
So ignore all of this. Your question is dumb and not at all relevant. There is not a "yes" or "no" answer to it. It depends on the goddamn specifics of the situation jesus christ.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 11:53 PM   #143
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
god this is frustrating. you're a libertarian. i find libertarianism inherently repulsive. that's really the end of the conversation.
Classic ad hominem. I assert you are 'x'. I don't like 'x'. Therefore I don't have to deal with your argument.

You can call it 'libertarianism' if you want Eulogy, but I am just asking you to square your logic. It isn't a political question. You cannot hold both premises that you are holding at the same time and you are unwilling to confront that.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 11:53 PM   #144
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

I mean you ask me if I support drunk people beating their wives

you are so far off the fucking rails. which you've always been. so i guess i shouldn't be surprised.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-03-2014, 11:54 PM   #145
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
Classic ad hominem. I assert you are 'x'. I don't like 'x'. Therefoe I don't have to deal with your argument.

You can call it 'libertarianism' if you want Eulogy, but I am just asking you to square your logic. It isn't a political question. You cannot hold both premises that you are holding at the same time and you are unwilling to confront that.
You have yet to point out where the inconsistency is. Calling you a libertarian is not an ad hominem. It's a set of values I find to be wholly repulsive.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-04-2014, 12:03 AM   #146
Bread Regal
Banned
 
Posts: 5,711
Default

just now reading that link eulogy posted. rand paul is deluding himself if he thinks "states' rights" isn't a racist dog whistle. that phrase has been used endlessly in the attempted justification for enacting so many regressive policies that it's not even funny. it's weird to me that "states' rights" is a phrased that is so rarely invoked in the discussions about progressive polices like gay marriage, marijuana decriminalization, emissions control et al.

republicans take umbrage at the suggestion that their policies are inherently racist. but the fact is that their social policies harm minorities in a greater proportion than WASPs. that is an absolute fact.

the idea that matters of civil liberty should be decided upon by the states is so asinine that i don't even know where to begin with it. why? why draw the distinction there? it just seems so needlessly arbitrary to place a threshold right there if it has nothing to do with racism.

 
Bread Regal is offline
Old 03-04-2014, 12:05 AM   #147
Bread Regal
Banned
 
Posts: 5,711
Default

and to say that america "mostly abhors overt racism" is also ridiculous. there are public buildings all over the south that are named after prominent figures in the confederacy.

there's a robert e lee middle school that's about 3 miles from downtown orlando, so it's not like this is some backwoods shit either.

 
Bread Regal is offline
Old 03-04-2014, 12:09 AM   #148
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
You have yet to point out where the inconsistency is. Calling you a libertarian is not an ad hominem. It's a set of values I find to be wholly repulsive.
Calling me a libertarian isn't an ad hominem, yes. But that isn't what you just did. Rather, you called me a libertarian and use that as a justification for dismissing my argument. That is an ad hominem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
So ignore all of this. Your question is dumb and not at all relevant. There is not a "yes" or "no" answer to it. It depends on the goddamn specifics of the situation jesus christ.
Your statement doesn't address the question because of the second part (' Do I think it should be legal to discriminate on the basis of race as a business owner? No'). I am not asking you to think that it should be legal to discriminate, nor am I asking you to think that racist outcomes will not result from the repeal of the CRA. I am asking you whether someone, just like in your free speech example, can believe in 'property rights' (or any other justification for repeal of the CRA) without inherently supporting some of the nasty and awful things that will result.

If the answer is yes, then you need to admit that you cannot use that argument to claim someone is racist.

If the answer is no, then you need to explain in principle, why this 'situation' is logically different.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-04-2014, 12:12 AM   #149
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

Speech doesn't affect the right of another person to participate fully in society.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-04-2014, 12:13 AM   #150
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bread Regal View Post
just now reading that link eulogy posted. rand paul is deluding himself if he thinks "states' rights" isn't a racist dog whistle. that phrase has been used endlessly in the attempted justification for enacting so many regressive policies that it's not even funny. it's weird to me that "states' rights" is a phrased that is so rarely invoked in the discussions about progressive polices like gay marriage, marijuana decriminalization, emissions control et al.

republicans take umbrage at the suggestion that their policies are inherently racist. but the fact is that their social policies harm minorities in a greater proportion than WASPs. that is an absolute fact.

the idea that matters of civil liberty should be decided upon by the states is so asinine that i don't even know where to begin with it. why? why draw the distinction there? it just seems so needlessly arbitrary to place a threshold right there if it has nothing to do with racism.
I don't disagree with any of this and I think that Rand Paul is ignoring reality on this issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bread Regal View Post
and to say that america "mostly abhors overt racism" is also ridiculous. there are public buildings all over the south that are named after prominent figures in the confederacy.

there's a robert e lee middle school that's about 3 miles from downtown orlando, so it's not like this is some backwoods shit either.
You did notice my parentheses? You did notice the context of that statement? Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, there are still (and I think always will be) major impulses toward racism in this country and elsewhere. If people aren't prevented by some kind of external pressure from altering their behaviour, then the ugly will come right out.

 
jczeroman is offline
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How has the media covered the election? Nimrod's Son General Chat Archive 21 11-02-2008 10:50 PM
Colbert announces presidential pursuit KrazeeStacee General Chat Archive 23 10-17-2007 09:01 PM
Liberal Opposition is releasing the names of 129 Conservative candidates MrPantyFAce General Chat Archive 3 09-24-2007 10:15 PM
The presidential nominating process - a potential megaprimary and reform proposals BlueStar General Chat Archive 0 03-06-2007 02:37 PM
First presidential debate today at 3:00pm ET / noon PT BlueStar General Chat Archive 30 02-22-2007 12:29 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 PM.




Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2022