I'm not a moderator in this forum. I've actually had a few posts deleted here.
But you were the one to insult.
Another Goebbels.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
’A punch in the gut’: Wedding videographer refuses business to same-sex couple in Colorado(article)
- Thread starter lbuclk=
- Start date
But you were the one to insult.
I have dealt with your posts and position, which is quite different to attack the person. Your argument is stupid is different to you are stupid.I'm not a moderator in this forum. I've actually had a few posts deleted here.
But you were the one to insult.
I'd rather your post not be deleted, a record of your posting is better witness.
As you fail to engage beyond slogans and insults, inaccurate ones at that, you are not worth my further time.
Yikes. If by 'dealt with' you mean misconstrued and sometimes outright ignored, then sure, you've 'dealt with' it.I have dealt with your posts and position, which is quite different to attack the person. Your argument is stupid is different to you are stupid.I'm not a moderator in this forum. I've actually had a few posts deleted here.
But you were the one to insult.
I'd rather your post not be deleted, a record of your posting is better witness.
We both want to live in functional societies. We both want versions of government to maintain some aspects of those societies. But we differ on which specific aspects, and we both think the other's argument is stupid. What's the point in additional conversation?
Only one of us has insulted the other. You've called me delusional, out of touch with reality, etc. I've simply argued my position. Then you accuse me of insulting you when I point that out. Ironic. And typical.
The sad part is that we probably agree on many positions, but we'd never be able to find those because you would rather dismiss than discuss.
Have a good day.
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
The primary purpose of government is to resolve conflict between people. You want to play loud music at 1am, I want to sleep.
Frequently the choices one person makes will affect others. Sometimes the interaction isn't always obvious. For instance I may want a fire department on call in case my house catches fire. You may not mind if your house burns down, but your house burning down can create a fire that spreads, which makes it a danger to others.
Some rules are there simply to make life easier for everyone. Something as simple as agreeing which side of the street we should drive on makes driving better for everyone.
Personally, I think we should have the minimum amount of government that we need, and not the maximum that we can think of. The challenge is that reasonable people can disagree as to what constitutes a minimum level of government.
It is not a zero-sum thing regardless. People, especially minority groups, can feel both benefit and deficit by the very same government.
Zero-sum, black/white, this or that thinking is easy, but rarely correct.
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Yes. it's not an easy issue.
Correct. The point at which fist meets face.
True. How did we deal with it prior to the creation of state level funding for such needs?
I couldn't agree more.
Anytime you single out a group for special treatment, you institute a governmental position that is inherently unjust. Egalitarianism is the only just position.
Right. Which is why we need baseline standards. But agreeing on them is... difficult.
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Not necessarily. The basis of capitalism is that those that contribute more to society should be given special treatment (i.e. more rewards).
Capitalism rewards with money, and those with money certainly get "special" treatment. Someone with a lot of money can eat better food, can live in a nicer house, can have someone else mow his lawn, etc.
Certainly, US society gives special treatment to celebrities. If a celebrity walks into a restaurant that has a long waiting line, the celebrity may get seated before those who were already waiting.
Now if you are talking about singling out a group of people based on race, creed color, religion, etc., then that's a different matter.
But that raises a different issue. It is clear that there has been some unfair treatment in the past, and the affects are still affecting members of those classes. What is the "fair" way of handling this? Should we ignore the lingering effects of past discrimination, or should we try to compensate for these past wrongs?
While some think there are simple and obvious answers, it actually is a complex situation. One can make a good case that the fair and just solution is to single out these groups, and try to compensate for past wrongs. Once can also make a case that the fair solution is not single out any group.
Neither solution is perfect.
The first step is that one should be able to have a polite and reasonable discussion with people who have a very different point of view. Sometimes they may actually have a reasonable point to add. Unfortunately, there seems to be too many people in this world who prefer to attack those who feel differently. This sort of attitude seems to be plaguing US politics at the moment.
From the market, yes, not the government. The government has an obligation to treat every citizen equally. Your next three paragraphs are all market forces. I'm cutting those out for brevity.
No. The only thing we should do is make sure that we do the right thing NOW. The right thing is egalitarianism.
There are simple answers. Extremely difficult to do, but very simple.
Agree, and something I do very regularly. Doesn't hurt that I enjoy such conversations. However, I find that most of the time it goes the way this way did. At least one side devolves into tell the other side that they are delusional, ignorant, etc. I find this happens most commonly when the insulting party has no logical responses to a position OR simply cannot comprehend anyone holding that position.
I can intellectually understand collectivism. I understand why some people believe it's something to be striven for. I understand why many would feel comforted by a large central presence making sure that everything is done 'right'. I understand why people feel bad for groups who have, historically, been thought of or treated poorly. I understand all of that.
Just because I happen to disagree with those positions is irrelevant to whether I can understand them intellectually.
A photographer who has religious convictions, or just random biases he inherited from his family, or whatever, is still an individual. His services are his own. Those services are inherently his property, and no one has a right to his property. No matter how distasteful I find his positions, I would argue to the death for his right to hold them. As long as he doesn't harm me or my property (and denying a service is neither), he has a right to them. Simple as that.
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
I think that's a position that needs at least a little justification. Why shouldn't a rich community get better police than a poor community?
I think government services are not available to all citizens equally, but vary depending on wealth.
I agree that in a perfect world we would make things equal today.
But we don't live in a perfect world, and it's a serious question as to what should be done about the inequalities of the past. Those who discriminated against stereotypically feel differently than those who benefited.
But let's do a little thought exercise. Suppose a certain group of people were treated unfairly. Suppose that over the past 10 years, they were taxed a rate 5% higher than everyone else. What is the "just and fair" remedy for this situation?
We could simply stop the discrepancy, and from now on, make sure that everyone is taxed at the same rate. However those who were taxed at the lower rate are likely to have more possessions, or more savings. This means the repercussions of the over-taxation live on, even after the taxes are equalized. On the surface letting one group keep 10 years of extra accumulations hardly seems "equal".
We could swap the tax rates so that for the next 10 years the other group pays the higher tax rate. However differential tax rates hardly seems "equal".
We could refund the additional taxes that were charged. Now both groups have the same tax rate, but one group didn't have use of the money for 10 years. That hardly seems equal.
I'm not saying that I know what the right answer is, but I am saying that there isn't a simple answer that is obvious equal treatment of everyone. Once you are in a situation where there have been inequalities, there is not always a clear path to making the world "equal" again.
Perhaps we are at a disconnect. I'm referring to the federal government, which does not provide police forces. Likewise, state governments do not provide police forces, either. That falls to local government, and local government is, well, local. So each local community will provide police forces they feel sufficient for their community.
That should never be the case.
What *specific* people are you referring to? It's hard to speak specifically without any details.
Oh, so like the current rich population, who IS taxed at a higher rate? Should they be compensated now?
No. Those were the laws, they were followed. They were sucky laws, but they were the laws. The only reasonable way forward is to change the laws and move on.
Life isn't fair. Bad stuff happens. Best we can do is avoid more bad stuff happening.
rumple
Senior Member
(italics mine) The smallest minority is the individual. No need to form a group.
That is, or should be, an absolutely terrifying statement. With that in play, one cannot even disapprove of something they disagree with.
Time for some people to re-read "1984", and for those who prefer lessons from reality vs. insightfully-didactic fiction, "The Gulag Archipelago". There's a recent fiftieth anniversary edition, abridged for consumability.
--
"THINK" - Watson
Last edited:
That is NOT how it works.
I did not say people cannot disapprove. Of course they can, that is also how things change. But it doesn't change that intolerance is a spectrum, not an on or off thing. Life is not zero-sum.
Just wow. Wanting people to have equal treatment and recognising the government must be part of that means totalitarianism or oppressive communism? Not even close.
rumple
Senior Member
It should be. And shouting (all caps) does not help.
I interpret your statement "Disapproval supports hate which supports violence" to draw a direct line from violence to disapproval, and therefore to a prohibition of disapproval.
No, wanting disapproval to be prohibited means totalitarianism or oppressive communism. Although "oppressive communism" is a redundant statement - "oppressive" is implicit, through it's inevitability, in communism.
I've said my piece, and will bow out.
--
"THINK" - Watson
Last edited:
I'm not sure why it should be, but is definitely isn't. We are parts of groups who look/believe/live near/share culture/etc us.
Generally, caps as shouting is when it is all caps, that was meant as emphasis.
If you interpreted, then fair enough. If you still interpret so, you are incorrect.
Again, not what I am saying.
I am not a fan of communism, but I think that simplistic.
No, no there's not. What is this the Fox News forum?
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
We disagree. I don't think the situation is as clear cut as you suggest. While I don't pretend to know the best solution, there are clearly factors that make the situation complicated.
For instance, a tax assessor in a small town has some leeway to use his personal judgement in how he handles various homes. If the tax assessor did not like a certain minority group, he could assess their homes at a higher value, resulting in them paying higher taxes. Assume the tax assessor has been doing this for about 10 years.
Someone notices the difference in assessed value and asks the tax assessor about. He readily admits that he assesses homes belonging to that minority a higher value as he doesn't like them, and wants to make it more expensive for them to live in his town (perhaps they will move away).
How would you remedy the situation?
Do we simply say the past is the past, and going forward assessments will be blind to minority status?
Do we return money to those who were overcharged? Do we give them a lower tax rate for the next 10 years? Do we charged those who were not overcharged a surcharge to compensate?
====
Let's make this easier. It turns out a bank had a programing error in the software that manages their mortgage portfolio. Banks typically handle paying the home insurance premiums, and bill the customers over the year. For the past 10 years the bank has been overcharging customers for insurance premiums and keeping the difference.
Obviously, once the bank finds the problem they correct the software and going forward, there will be no further overcharges.
As the bank has fixed the situation, and everything is now fair, should the bank be able to keep the hundreds of thousands they have made from overcharges? After all, the past is the past.
====
I agree that ideally minority status shouldn't be a factor. However, it is not unreasonable to consider the concept of making up for past errors.
OK, I predict this thread will not last much longer. But much of what drives Fox news is what drives these irrational comparisons. Fear. The fear of people who feel their place is threatened by allowing others to have the same rights as they. It is a common human issue. One of the complications is that much of it is subconscious. We are not rational creatures, but creatures with the ability to reason. And this is an important difference.
Equal marriage is no threat to straight marriage. In fact, the former includes the latter.
Offering a service ≠ endorsing one's client's lives.
The failure of those who agree with the discriminating photographer fail to address the history of discrimination and how progress has actually been made is telling. Likely ignorance and/or inconvenience.
ETA: The people in these cases who want to be able to discriminate are typically hypocritical. They say they only want to represent their values, but do not vet straight couples to ascertain whether the couple meets those values.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum