|
On January 09 2012 02:02 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 20:08 Voros wrote:
3) Good. Slapping "Civil Rights" on an act that erodes property rights and allows government to interfere in your nonviolent use of private property doesn't make it any less odious. Americans need to get it through their heads that people have the right to hold racist, sexist, xenophobic or otherwise unpopular views, and they have the right to use their private property in any way they please (even if that entails discriminating against others). The past 50 years of endless abuses against property rights by the federal and state governments, from the EPA to eminent domain to assert forfeiture laws, can all claim the Civil Rights Act as their grandfather.
And this is just further reasoning of why I can't take libertarians seriously. It seems you're more concerned with the rights of someone to discriminate, rather than the rights of another to not be discriminated against.
Yes, yes, 100 times yes!
You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to prevent speech of others you disagree with.
You have the right to believe in whatever religion you want. You do not have the right to ban religions you don't like.
You have the right to peaceably assemble. You do not have the right to prevent others from assembling just because you don't like them.
You should have the right to make your own choices in life, whether they be good ones or bad ones. You should not have the right to force decisions on others to fit your own ideal worldview. That's the difference between libertarianism and authoritarianism. I don't condone racial/sexual/whatever discrimination or sexual harassment either, but our personal and private property rights must prevail in a free society.
|
|
|
Makes sense, especially given that Florida is full of old people who don't support Paul.
|
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:
The reason I bring up that everyone having a RIGHT to health-care would be actual slavery
The truly wonderful thing about a full bloodied anarcho-capitalist is that if you just let them talk for long enough their position ends with them making statements like this. Statements which require such a fundamental blindness to the reality of the world in which they live that it's self evident that their position was nonsense from the start.
|
OK, serious question. If you had the opportunity to and with no consequences - would you hit it?
Poll: Michele BachmannNo (14) 64% Yes (8) 36% 22 total votes Your vote: Michele Bachmann (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
I mean, I'm guessing the only reason 1% (or less) of people are voting for her is because they think she is hot. I want to get a demographic statistical sample of how TL rate her + Show Spoiler +.
|
On January 09 2012 10:03 Rodimus Prime wrote:OK, serious question. If you had the opportunity to and with no consequences - would you hit it? Poll: Michele BachmannNo (14) 64% Yes (8) 36% 22 total votes Your vote: Michele Bachmann (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
I mean, I'm guessing the only reason 1% (or less) of people are voting for her is because they think she is hot. I want to get a demographic statistical sample of how TL rate her + Show Spoiler +.
I think I remember from the first fifty pages that she was popular because she would be the easiest for Obama to defeat in November.
|
Zzzz... there are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack or dislike Bachmann. Reducing her to a sex object is not one of them.
Furthermore, you're making me defend her, which is also not OK.
|
On January 09 2012 10:26 Haemonculus wrote:
Zzzz... there are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack or dislike Bachmann. Reducing her to a sex object is not one of them.
Furthermore, you're making me defend her, which is also not OK.
Reducing?
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 09 2012 10:26 Haemonculus wrote:
Zzzz... there are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack or dislike Bachmann. Reducing her to a sex object is not one of them.
Furthermore, you're making me defend her, which is also not OK.
Reducing implies she was somehow superior to a sex object. She has a ways to go before she gets good enough to be considered on the level of a sex object.
|
On January 09 2012 10:26 Haemonculus wrote:
Zzzz... there are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack or dislike Bachmann. Reducing her to a sex object is not one of them.
Furthermore, you're making me defend her, which is also not OK.
Sorry but in my eyes she is nothing more than a sex object, I don't feel the need to be attacking her based on anything else. And I'm not actually attacking her, I voted yes in the poll, which I thought up whilst watching the New Hampshire debate and hearing nothing come out of her mouth other than imagining a big fat cock sliding in and out of it.
Edit: Not the NH debate... The debate where they're all sitting around a table.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle.
|
On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote:
Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle.
I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today.
Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks.
|
I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though... 
I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry.
|
On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though... I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry.
Being a non-interventionalist is dangerous?
The fuck? What planet do you live on? Your decision to circle back to Perry makes me fully understand now. You must be a generic Republic who believes we have to involve ourselves in matters that don't concern us.
|
On January 09 2012 11:37 Rodimus Prime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote:
Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle. I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today. Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks.
Uh....
You mentioned an example of judging someone you want to marry or date based on their appearances...
Do you really judge the people who you want to vote for on physical appearances? I understand judging a potential mate on their physical appearances, but a politician? How on earth could that possibly be a good idea?
|
On January 09 2012 11:39 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though... I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry. Being a non-interventionalist is dangerous? The fuck? What planet do you live on?
Aye. It's never worked, it never will work, and trying to make it work has only resulted in bigger, longer, deadlier wars.
Earth. It's pretty nice here, most times.
|
United Kingdom5454 Posts
Still waiting for someone to answer these points?
On January 06 2012 09:15 sc4k wrote:
Libertarianism just feels so jarring, I can't believe it's actually gaining traction. I guess the allure of having to pay less taxes will win almost anyone over. But the whole de-regulation thing just seems so dangerous. It's hard enough to deal with monopolies now in the modern world. How does a libertarian society deal with monopolies? I mean, companies just buying out all the competition aggressively, tying up all possible distribution outlets...all that sort of crap?
Also, I think the general criticism of the FDA seems a bit weird to me. Getting rid of that sort of regulation just seems so reckless as to the health of people in your society. You are happy to stand by and allow the possibility that people will be seriously harmed and damaged by drugs which aren't tested to any standard of care...until it's found that the damage has been done and everyone keeps away from it...I know that food and drugs regulation can't stop everything but it just seems crazy to actually reduce society's ability to protect itself from that...things like the thalidomide tragedy have taught us some serious lessons about regulation and to back off from that seems crazy.
Same goes for...how does a libertarian society effectively administer disease control? For example, a spread amongst livestock of a certain disease...how does it deal with culling animals? Seeing as it's not supposed to have coercive power to cull livestock...does that mean you are happy for BSE burgers to be floating around the country?
|
On January 09 2012 11:37 Rodimus Prime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote:
Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle. I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today. Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks.
What. "Women are often judged on their appearances, thus me judging a politician solely on her looks and imagining porn scenes whenever she talks is not sexist."
Welp, I'm done with that convo.
|
On January 09 2012 11:41 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 11:39 stevarius wrote:On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though... I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry. Being a non-interventionalist is dangerous? The fuck? What planet do you live on? Aye. It's never worked, it never will work, and trying to make it work has only resulted in bigger, longer, deadlier wars. Earth. It's pretty nice here, most times.
Actually it goes both ways.
|
On January 09 2012 10:03 Rodimus Prime wrote:OK, serious question. If you had the opportunity to and with no consequences - would you hit it? Poll: Michele BachmannNo (14) 64% Yes (8) 36% 22 total votes Your vote: Michele Bachmann (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
I mean, I'm guessing the only reason 1% (or less) of people are voting for her is because they think she is hot. I want to get a demographic statistical sample of how TL rate her + Show Spoiler +.
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
