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 03-05-2014, 04:33 AM   #181
Trotskilicious
Banned
 
Trotskilicious's Avatar
 
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
Default

i really don't think it's inherently awful to believe in property rights, to be the sole soveriegn authority of the land you own

of course PROPERTY IS THEFT but i'm just putting that aside for a moment here to play psuedo devil's advocate but i really do think you guys are trying to bring the specifics of the act that Racist ol' Ron Paul doesn't like with the idea jczeroman is asking questions about. i'd like to also take the time to point out that colin hasn't exactly endorsed anything concrete but he has repeatedly reinforced unequivocably that the specific legalities of this particular act, and property rights in general, is because we can't trust humans not to be tribal and we really can't. just like we can't trust anyone not to use free speech to hurl abuse at homosexuals or women or arabs or blacks or whatever

i'd like to point out that not having a concrete position but asking questions of the interrogator is a pretty standard philosophical technique, and it shows that someone is a lot less rigid then you think he might be i think

Last edited by Trotskilicious : 03-05-2014 at 04:39 AM.

 
Trotskilicious is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 04:37 AM   #182
Trotskilicious
Banned
 
Trotskilicious's Avatar
 
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
Default

i mean we could be like germany wehre the government actively censors public hate speech of all kinds but i really don't think we want that at all

 
Trotskilicious is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 08:40 AM   #183
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

So apparently this hinges on me not answering your suicide analogy. But I did. What legal punishment would you suggest for it?

If you can't figure out how to deploy a single decent analogy it might be because your point sucks. We can all be in favor of rights that if taken to certain extremes cause harm. That's why we (FUCKING) make laws that make taking them to extremes illegal. Like with you know the civil rights act and laws against drunk driving and beating your wife.

You have yet to make any sort of convincing argument as to why not supporting the civil rights act is not inherently racist. You don't think it's racist because you employ the simpleminded view that anything short of "black people are less than" can be sheltered by a belief in the importance of property rights. It is, in fact, racism. It makes libertarians sad and defensive to be made aware of that but that's just how it is.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 08:47 AM   #184
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

And please give me an example of speech being as harmful as a place of public accommodation denying service to someone based on race or sexual orientation.

If a god hates fags sign is benign I really don't know what you have in mind. Gay children are in some cases significantly damaged by growing up in areas where anti-gay rhetoric is prevalent. But how do you legislate that away? You can't. Legislating discrimination against black people away is relatively simple by comparison. We've done it already. Obviously it still happens but it's against the law which is a pretty huge step.

Protecting speech is more important than protecting a business's right to discriminate based on race. When you open a business, you are subjecting yourself to all kinds of regulation for the exchange of the community being made available to you to patronize your business. Speech is not analogous.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 09:06 AM   #185
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

and shit we already regulate speech probably more than property rights in some respects. all sorts of time/place/manner restrictions are in place that most people don't really take issue with.

all rights are and should be subject to some level of regulation. if you're absolutist about a business owner's right to discriminate against a black person for being black while purporting to operate in the public sphere as a public business, you are, on some level, racist.

that is my point. it has not at all been refuted.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 10:59 PM   #186
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bread Regal View Post
you call eulogy out on succumbing to the ad hominem fallacy but your slippery slope and strawman fallacies are equally egregious.

this rhetorical exercise wherein you compare permissive alcohol laws to abolition of the civil rights act is just plain silly. the act of denying service to minority patrons is inherently awful. drinking alcohol isn't. your analogy is so flawed it doesn't merit a response, but here we are.
Let's say that 100% of what you say here is right - in which case, the analogy is bad, but that doesn't invalidate the argument just because I didn't work very hard to come up with a good illustration. Remember, I whipped out a few analogies to try and make an original point clearer. Even if the analogies completely fail, there is still the original point to deal with.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:01 PM   #187
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trotskilicious View Post
i really do think you guys are trying to bring the specifics of the act that Racist ol' Ron Paul doesn't like with the idea jczeroman is asking questions about. i'd like to also take the time to point out that colin hasn't exactly endorsed anything concrete but he has repeatedly reinforced unequivocably that the specific legalities of this particular act, and property rights in general, is because we can't trust humans not to be tribal and we really can't. just like we can't trust anyone not to use free speech to hurl abuse at homosexuals or women or arabs or blacks or whatever

i'd like to point out that not having a concrete position but asking questions of the interrogator is a pretty standard philosophical technique, and it shows that someone is a lot less rigid then you think he might be i think
This whole post.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:03 PM   #188
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 make any sort of convincing argument as to why not supporting the civil rights act is not inherently racist.
Woa, since when do I have the burden of proof?

This is EXACTLY why this discussion is going nowhere. You think (and I mentioned this at the very beginning of the discussion) that your point is a priori and it isn't.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:08 PM   #189
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
all rights are and should be subject to some level of regulation. if you're absolutist about a business owner's right to discriminate against a black person for being black while purporting to operate in the public sphere as a public business, you are, on some level, racist.
There are millions of other beliefs which could negate the equivalence error that your whole argument is based upon. What if a person believes that an 'absolutist' view of property rights will mean no racism? What if they believe that people are inherently good and won't be racists?

For the record, I think both those ideas are silly, but surely you are willing to acknowledges that someone can have motivations for 'property rights' without it having anything to do with desiring racist outcomes? You would be right to call such ideas ignorant, but I don't see how you can call them racist.

Sometimes, Eulogy, people are just wrong or ignorant or idealists. You cannot assume that they are always racists.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:10 PM   #190
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/m...3/timmoen.jpg?

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:18 PM   #191
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
Let's say that 100% of what you say here is right - in which case, the analogy is bad, but that doesn't invalidate the argument just because I didn't work very hard to come up with a good illustration. Remember, I whipped out a few analogies to try and make an original point clearer. Even if the analogies completely fail, there is still the original point to deal with.
We have already addressed your argument. We outlaw the negative effects of the rights you're saying are important.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:20 PM   #192
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jczeroman View Post
There are millions of other beliefs which could negate the equivalence error that your whole argument is based upon. What if a person believes that an 'absolutist' view of property rights will mean no racism? What if they believe that people are inherently good and won't be racists?
we are talking about the right to discriminate against a person based on race. it doesn't matter whether or not someone believes it will actually happen or not.

Quote:
For the record, I think both those ideas are silly, but surely you are willing to acknowledges that someone can have motivations for 'property rights' without it having anything to do with desiring racist outcomes? You would be right to call such ideas ignorant, but I don't see how you can call them racist.
i can call them a racist if they think someone has the right to discriminate against someone based on race. whether or not they think it would or should actually happen.

Quote:
Sometimes, Eulogy, people are just wrong or ignorant or idealists. You cannot assume that they are always racists.
i can know that their idea is racist. and in this case it is.

this is exhausting.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:23 PM   #193
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

you're basically saying that someone supporting the right to discriminate against black people for being black isn't necessarily racist.

either they are too stupid to be taken seriously or they are racist. their idea, regardless of who is holding it, is racist.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:23 PM   #194
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

as i have said, libertarians get sad and defensive when confronted with the idea that their worldview is inherently racist.

it's an inconvenient truth, i know. but it is the truth.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:39 PM   #195
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

and i guess you have abandoned the speech analogy because it's nonsensical

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:45 PM   #196
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
libertarians...

inherently racist...

it is the truth...
Ok, I am complete moron for attempting to pursue this conversation. I genuinely believed that we could agree on basic logic, but we can't even get there because you cannot get over your dislike for 'libertarianism' and you continued insistence upon bringing it into this discussion for some reason despite it having no relevance to any position advocated in this thread by any of its participants. I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that you will not approach the logical questions because you fear that this will threaten your worldview, which seems to be based upon practical consequences rather than ideals and/or principles (not saying that is good or bad, but definitely apples and oranges).

I am left to conclude from this experience that despite it being entirely logically untenable, the argument that someone is inherently and automatically racist because they support an 'absolutist' view of property rights will sell with even reasonably clever people like Eulogy.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:47 PM   #197
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
you're basically saying that someone supporting the right to discriminate against black people for being black isn't necessarily racist.

either they are too stupid to be taken seriously or they are racist. their idea, regardless of who is holding it, is racist.
already anticipated your response

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:48 PM   #198
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

thinking it should be someone's right to discriminate on the basis of race is racist

this is not a crazy thought. if you think you can refute it, please do.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:50 PM   #199
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

and also, what "logical questions" have i not answered? whether someone can support a right without supporting everything that flows from it? i've answered it several times.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:53 PM   #200
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

and again, i suppose you could quibble and say that a person that holds that view is not racist. but the view in question is undoubtedly racist.

can you handle that distinction?

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-05-2014, 11:57 PM   #201
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

also you keep jumping around. you said i was obviously wrong because i didn't address your suicide analogy... and then i did, and then.... crickets. then you say your shitty analogies didn't matter anyway.

goal post moving is apparently a specialty of yours.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-06-2014, 12:29 AM   #202
Trotskilicious
Banned
 
Trotskilicious's Avatar
 
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
Default

eulogy, c'maaaaaaaaaaaaaan

 
Trotskilicious is offline
Old 03-06-2014, 12:39 AM   #203
null123
Minion of Satan
 
Location: bye
Posts: 7,266
Default

Who Exactly Is Our 2016 Candidates Though

 
null123 is offline
Old 03-06-2014, 01:03 AM   #204
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,965
Default

Rand Paul

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 03-06-2014, 01:03 AM   #205
Trotskilicious
Banned
 
Trotskilicious's Avatar
 
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
Default

corganist, eulogy, and jczeroman

 
Trotskilicious is offline
Old 03-06-2014, 01:03 AM   #206
Trotskilicious
Banned
 
Trotskilicious's Avatar
 
Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship.
Posts: 39,439
Default

i dunno about you guys but i'm writing in GOVERNOR SANDWICHES

 
Trotskilicious is offline
Old 03-06-2014, 07:42 AM   #207
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trotskilicious View Post
eulogy, c'maaaaaaaaaaaaaan
What? That's exactly what he's doing.

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 03-06-2014, 03:24 PM   #208
duovamp
Brazilian Blouselord
 
duovamp's Avatar
 
Location: heavy metal pool party
Posts: 35,781
Default

I'm anti union but pro ham sandwich.

 
duovamp is offline
Old 03-14-2014, 01:22 AM   #209
TuralyonW3
Immortal
 
TuralyonW3's Avatar
 
Posts: 25,684
Default

Thanks Paul Ryan for fucking yourself 2 years early

 
TuralyonW3 is offline
Old 03-14-2014, 03:07 AM   #210
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,965
Default

not really

 
Future Boy 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 04:02 AM.




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