|
On August 05 2010 06:50 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:42 matjlav wrote:On August 05 2010 06:40 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:38 matjlav wrote:On August 05 2010 06:37 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:33 UniversalSnip wrote:On August 05 2010 06:31 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:23 Jayme wrote:
An opinion isn't immune from being called stupid, especially when there is no evidence to back up a statement. Why does he need evidence to back up his opinion that he believes in majority rule? It's not like it's a science formula where you could unequivocally prove that one is more correct than the other. It's completely subjective... The fact that you don't happen to personally agree with his opinion doesn't make it "stupid". His opinion isn't that he believes in majority rule, it's that majority rule is a good thing. And yeah, you probably should have evidence to back up a belief that's resulted in so much tragedy from socrates to segregation... Well, considering the fact that "good" itself is a completely subjective term, my point still stands... On August 05 2010 06:36 matjlav wrote:On August 05 2010 06:35 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:16 matjlav wrote:On August 05 2010 06:14 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:10 D10 wrote:On August 05 2010 06:08 Gatsbi wrote:
[quote]
...Why? He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs Yes I do. Yes, that too. What is the problem here though? They're just my beliefs, you act like yours are something better, its all an opinion. Yeah, but the difference is that your opinion is backwards and harmful. Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean it's not stupid. How do my beliefs harm anyone? And I don't know how an opinion can be backwards. Also, something may be stupid to someone, and something may be a brilliant idea to others. If you're not going to actually make an argument, just stop posting. Can we cut the semantic BS? It's getting really tiring. You're the one attacking someone else for their personal beliefs. Now why don't you provide a basis for that attack rather than assume that your views of how the world should be are absolutely correct and that someone who disagrees with you is "stupid"? Bear in mind that those beliefs that I'm attacking him for are really stupid. I (as well as other people) have already explained why. Read the thread. This is the last time I'm going to respond to any of your "IT'S JUST AN OPINION" posts, so actually argue please. (The other dude can get 1 more post out of me.) Yeah, I'm not going to sit here and take my time to read 34 pages of a thread just because you refuse to put any effort into responding to my challenge of your attack. Personally, I'm against Prop 8 and I don't believe that majority rule is necessarily best, but that doesn't mean that people for it are stupid. It just means they have a different view of the world and a different standard by which they measure what is, in fact, beneficial for the world. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion and defend it, but you can't reasonably expect everyone else in the world to hold the same priorities that you do or see the world the same way you do. If you can't understand someone else's sense of values or morals, then please just admit that, express your disagreement, and move on rather than ignorantly insulting them for their beliefs when your beliefs are just as subjective as his. Seriously, what does calling someone stupid or calling an opinion stupid actually accomplish?
Supporting Prop 8 is supporting the passage of a law that infringes upon people's rights. This is not the same as personal believe in traditional marriage.
|
On August 05 2010 06:54 bearbuddy wrote:
Supporting Prop 8 is supporting the passage of laws the infringe upon people rights. This is not the same as personal believe in traditional marriage.
In all fairness, most people I've seen supporting Prop 8 don't believe that homosexuals have a "right" to marry in the first place and until fairly recently, they really didn't so far as our federal and state governments were concerned... So in their opinion, they're not infringing on people's rights at all since they don't acknowledge the existence of those rights in the first place.
|
On August 05 2010 06:37 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:33 UniversalSnip wrote:On August 05 2010 06:31 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:23 Jayme wrote:
An opinion isn't immune from being called stupid, especially when there is no evidence to back up a statement. Why does he need evidence to back up his opinion that he believes in majority rule? It's not like it's a science formula where you could unequivocally prove that one is more correct than the other. It's completely subjective... The fact that you don't happen to personally agree with his opinion doesn't make it "stupid". His opinion isn't that he believes in majority rule, it's that majority rule is a good thing. And yeah, you probably should have evidence to back up a belief that's resulted in so much tragedy from socrates to segregation... Well, considering the fact that what constitutes itself as "good" or a "tragedy" is a completely subjective, my point still stands...
That argument is junk. to put it bluntly, if you can't agree that segregation was a bad thing, you have no common ground with anyone else in this thread, which means you can't really have a discussion. So you might as well stop talking to yourself.
|
On August 05 2010 06:59 UniversalSnip wrote:
That argument is junk. to put it bluntly, if you can't agree that segregation was a bad thing, you have no common ground with anyone else in this thread, which means you can't really have a discussion. So you might as well stop talking to yourself.
I personally believe it was bad, but I believe our overall belief of what's "good" or "bad" evolves with time and the change of society. If you are going to argue that there is some absolutely objective reason as to why segregation is bad other than the fact that our values and world view have simply evolved over time, I think you would have trouble finding ground to stand on. That's all I'm saying.
|
On August 05 2010 06:36 Diuqil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:19 synapse wrote:On August 05 2010 06:14 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:10 D10 wrote:On August 05 2010 06:08 Gatsbi wrote:On August 05 2010 06:03 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Prop 8 overturned. - CNN EDIT: Proposition 8 has been overturned by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, reports CNN.
The decision is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, and could reach the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it. Aw man.. I'm a strong supporter of Prop 8  ...Why? He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs Yes I do. Yes, that too. What is the problem here though? They're just my beliefs, you act like yours are something better, its all an opinion. The problem is that legal gay marriage can be beneficial to many couples for [reason reason reason] and would have no effect on your life, yet you choose to support the banning of gay marriage. Don't you see something wrong here? Again, its an OPINION
Ya and you really need to take a look at your opinion. If you truly believe that if a majority of people in a community/state/nation agree on what is right IS right, then you really need think long and hard what that means in the context of history and the nature of morality. Utilitarianism is considered out of date for a reason.
If right and wrong is purely defined by majority rule, than morality becomes irrelevant because we already have laws to do that. Something maybe wrong one year and right the next. Ethically, where does that leave us? With jack shit, that's what.
|
On August 05 2010 06:57 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:54 bearbuddy wrote:
Supporting Prop 8 is supporting the passage of laws the infringe upon people rights. This is not the same as personal believe in traditional marriage. In all fairness, most people I've seen supporting Prop 8 don't believe that homosexuals have a "right" to marry in the first place and until fairly recently, they really didn't so far as our federal and state governments were concerned... So in their opinion, they're not infringing on people's rights at all since they don't acknowledge the existence of those rights in the first place.
I think majority of them don't even believe homosexuals are human beings. That and the massive smear campaign funded by the church (so much for separation of church and state) stating that homosexuality will be taught in schools, namely kindergartens (I am fucking serious, i mean wtf?!?), and also the horribly wrong belief that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia.
So yeah the whole issue of prop 8 is a violation of basic human rights, and the basis of it being passed in the first place was nothing more than massive propaganda, and the fact that an Asian person (I'm Asian) actually co-authored this retarded, shameful, and basic human rights violation travesty law bring shame to me personally. What an asshole!
|
On August 05 2010 06:57 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:54 bearbuddy wrote:
Supporting Prop 8 is supporting the passage of laws the infringe upon people rights. This is not the same as personal believe in traditional marriage. In all fairness, most people I've seen supporting Prop 8 don't believe that homosexuals have a "right" to marry in the first place and until fairly recently, they really didn't so far as our federal and state governments were concerned... So in their opinion, they're not infringing on people's rights at all since they don't acknowledge the existence of those rights in the first place.
This seems familiar ...
![[image loading]](http://cdn.newsone.com/files/2009/06/slaves_in_chains.jpg)
And you wanna know why ? because the past is not a succesfull model for the future.
|
On August 05 2010 07:06 RivetHead wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:36 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:19 synapse wrote:On August 05 2010 06:14 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:10 D10 wrote:On August 05 2010 06:08 Gatsbi wrote:On August 05 2010 06:03 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Prop 8 overturned. - CNN EDIT: Proposition 8 has been overturned by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, reports CNN.
The decision is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, and could reach the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it. Aw man.. I'm a strong supporter of Prop 8 ...Why? He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs Yes I do. Yes, that too. What is the problem here though? They're just my beliefs, you act like yours are something better, its all an opinion. The problem is that legal gay marriage can be beneficial to many couples for [reason reason reason] and would have no effect on your life, yet you choose to support the banning of gay marriage. Don't you see something wrong here? Again, its an OPINION Ya and you really need to take a look at your opinion. If you believe that if a majority of people in a community/state/nation agree on what is right, than that IS right, then you really need think long and hard what that means in the context of history and the nature of morality. If right and wrong is purely defined by majority rule, than morality becomes irrelevant because we already have laws to do that. Something maybe wrong one year and right the next. Ethically, where does that leave us? With jack shit, that's what.
What is morality and ethics if not essentially a majority consensus on an expected norm of beliefs and values?
|
On August 05 2010 06:57 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:54 bearbuddy wrote:
Supporting Prop 8 is supporting the passage of laws the infringe upon people rights. This is not the same as personal believe in traditional marriage. In all fairness, most people I've seen supporting Prop 8 don't believe that homosexuals have a "right" to marry in the first place and until fairly recently, they really didn't so far as our federal and state governments were concerned... So in their opinion, they're not infringing on people's rights at all since they don't acknowledge the existence of those rights in the first place.
Well, it's really no longer "just an opinion" when it affects others. It's more like enforcing opinions on others.
|
Prop 8 makes me ashamed to be part of this country. Thankfully it's been overturned. Now we gotta wait for the top.
|
I see this getting appealed up to the supreme count of cali where it will be stuck down. Marriage is a legal manner not a peoples manner so it's about what has already been set in precedence and judges interpretations of what is universally fair.
As if i remember correctly the right was given to the people by the supreme count first give the right and then by vote prop 8 wanted to take it away. But as this is made out to be an issue by prop 8 supporters of the will of the people vs prop 8 opposer seeing this as a suppression of ones given rights, i see the supreme count siding to strike down prop 8 even if it is legal to change the california Constitution with only what 58% vote of the majority it is not within the people to make legal the creation of a 2nd class citizen.
So even if this wins on the basis of changing the constitution i feel it will be stuck down in a separate case for infringement of rights anyways.
As a over 18 person living in cali i voted against prop 8.
|
On August 05 2010 07:02 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:59 UniversalSnip wrote:
That argument is junk. to put it bluntly, if you can't agree that segregation was a bad thing, you have no common ground with anyone else in this thread, which means you can't really have a discussion. So you might as well stop talking to yourself. I personally believe it was bad, but I believe our overall belief of what's "good" or "bad" evolves with time and the change of society. If you are going to argue that there is some absolutely objective reason as to why segregation is bad other than the fact that our values and world view have simply evolved over time, I think you would have trouble finding ground to stand on. That's all I'm saying.
In other words, we shouldn't say segregation is bad because the universe says it's bad, we should say it's bad because it's bad, even though sometimes we are wrong about what's bad.
Well no shit. What bearing does that have on what I said? Your relativism is totally half-assed, on the one hand you're like "well ok fine segregation is bad" but on the other hand you're like "but really bad is just a MADE UP CONCEPT MAN." As if that has practical implications beyond 'don't be an ironclad idiot fundamentalist.'
|
On August 05 2010 07:10 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:02 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:59 UniversalSnip wrote:
That argument is junk. to put it bluntly, if you can't agree that segregation was a bad thing, you have no common ground with anyone else in this thread, which means you can't really have a discussion. So you might as well stop talking to yourself. I personally believe it was bad, but I believe our overall belief of what's "good" or "bad" evolves with time and the change of society. If you are going to argue that there is some absolutely objective reason as to why segregation is bad other than the fact that our values and world view have simply evolved over time, I think you would have trouble finding ground to stand on. That's all I'm saying. In other words, we shouldn't say segregation is bad because the universe says it's bad, we should say it's bad because it's bad, even though sometimes we are wrong about what's bad. Well no shit. What bearing does that have one what I said?
separate is not equal in the united states. Not that it's by nature bad it's just someone always ends up with the short stick.
|
On August 05 2010 06:50 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:42 matjlav wrote:On August 05 2010 06:40 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:38 matjlav wrote:On August 05 2010 06:37 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:33 UniversalSnip wrote:On August 05 2010 06:31 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:23 Jayme wrote:
An opinion isn't immune from being called stupid, especially when there is no evidence to back up a statement. Why does he need evidence to back up his opinion that he believes in majority rule? It's not like it's a science formula where you could unequivocally prove that one is more correct than the other. It's completely subjective... The fact that you don't happen to personally agree with his opinion doesn't make it "stupid". His opinion isn't that he believes in majority rule, it's that majority rule is a good thing. And yeah, you probably should have evidence to back up a belief that's resulted in so much tragedy from socrates to segregation... Well, considering the fact that "good" itself is a completely subjective term, my point still stands... On August 05 2010 06:36 matjlav wrote:On August 05 2010 06:35 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:16 matjlav wrote:On August 05 2010 06:14 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:10 D10 wrote:On August 05 2010 06:08 Gatsbi wrote:
[quote]
...Why? He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs Yes I do. Yes, that too. What is the problem here though? They're just my beliefs, you act like yours are something better, its all an opinion. Yeah, but the difference is that your opinion is backwards and harmful. Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean it's not stupid. How do my beliefs harm anyone? And I don't know how an opinion can be backwards. Also, something may be stupid to someone, and something may be a brilliant idea to others. If you're not going to actually make an argument, just stop posting. Can we cut the semantic BS? It's getting really tiring. You're the one attacking someone else for their personal beliefs. Now why don't you provide a basis for that attack rather than assume that your views of how the world should be are absolutely correct and that someone who disagrees with you is "stupid"? Bear in mind that those beliefs that I'm attacking him for are really stupid. I (as well as other people) have already explained why. Read the thread. This is the last time I'm going to respond to any of your "IT'S JUST AN OPINION" posts, so actually argue please. (The other dude can get 1 more post out of me.) Yeah, I'm not going to sit here and take my time to read 34 pages of a thread just because you refuse to put any effort into responding to my challenge of your attack. Personally, I'm against Prop 8 and I don't believe that majority rule is necessarily best, but that doesn't mean that people for it are stupid. It just means they have a different view of the world and a different standard by which they measure what is, in fact, beneficial for the world. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion and defend it, but you can't reasonably expect everyone else in the world to hold the same priorities that you do or see the world the same way you do. If you can't understand someone else's sense of values or morals, then please just admit that, express your disagreement, and move on rather than ignorantly insulting them for their beliefs when your beliefs are just as subjective as his. Seriously, what does calling someone stupid or calling an opinion stupid actually accomplish?
There's nothing to say that you should have to respect other people's beliefs. If someone had a belief that child molestation was good, would you respect their belief? Obviously an extreme, but human rights issues are also somewhat on the "extreme" spectrum. And that's what majority rule allows - a potential shitstorm to those who aren't in the majority.
Look at how long it took for women to get the ability to vote - a major reason holding them back was because the majority rule was exclusive to men. Same with slavery, obviously if the slaves could vote, it would have been another story. Long story short, majority rule allows for large amounts of potential injustices if minority rights aren't maintained. And I think a lot of people would not respect someone who didn't care about minority rights, nor care if they called such an opinion "dumb." There are plenty of dumb opinions.
|
On August 05 2010 07:08 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:57 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:54 bearbuddy wrote:
Supporting Prop 8 is supporting the passage of laws the infringe upon people rights. This is not the same as personal believe in traditional marriage. In all fairness, most people I've seen supporting Prop 8 don't believe that homosexuals have a "right" to marry in the first place and until fairly recently, they really didn't so far as our federal and state governments were concerned... So in their opinion, they're not infringing on people's rights at all since they don't acknowledge the existence of those rights in the first place. This seems familiar ... And you wanna know why ? because the past is not a succesfull model for the future.
In reality, refusal to recognize the rights of homosexuals to marry is no more or less arbitrary than refusing to recognize the rights of a fetus to live. The fact is most laws in this country and across the globe are completely arbitrary... Why flame one side when you're equally guilty? Let it play out in the courts and in Congress, express your opinion, go out and vote, and leave it at that. Insults get you nowhere and it doesn't further your cause at all.
|
Abortion and gay marriage do not follow the same vein, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of limiting the rights of a minority group.
|
On August 05 2010 07:19 TOloseGT wrote:
Abortion and gay marriage do not follow the same vein, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of limiting the rights of a minority group.
How don't they?
There's social utility in being able to kill pre-birth children, which is the only reason its tolerable.
The question in the current instance then because whether or not restricting marriage to heterosexual couples has a social utility, which is quite debatable from both sides.
|
On August 05 2010 07:24 L wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:19 TOloseGT wrote:
Abortion and gay marriage do not follow the same vein, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of limiting the rights of a minority group. How don't they? There's social utility in being able to kill pre-birth children, which is the only reason its tolerable. The question in the current instance then because whether or not restricting marriage to heterosexual couples has a social utility, which is quite debatable from both sides.
because the rights of a freaking potato dont matter
|
IMO..
Anyone who wants to marry anyone should be able to do so, as long as both parties agree to it. If your particular church doesn't allow same sex marriage, then that's something you should take up with your church (if you wish to have a same sex marriage at a church). Marriage should me something somewhat regulated by the government because people's finances and possessions are vulnerable with dishonest people. Sometimes marriages don't work out (like half of them in US now), and people get divorced. If a couple can seperate with no issues of custody of property or children, then good for them and the government should have little to do with the divorce. However, there are disputes about possessions and the court should intervene to mediate and make sure things are fair.
+ Show Spoiler +no homo ![[image loading]](http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs170.snc4/37835_1346735508552_1236210106_30824881_720318_n.jpg)
|
On August 05 2010 07:15 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:08 D10 wrote:On August 05 2010 06:57 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:54 bearbuddy wrote:
Supporting Prop 8 is supporting the passage of laws the infringe upon people rights. This is not the same as personal believe in traditional marriage. In all fairness, most people I've seen supporting Prop 8 don't believe that homosexuals have a "right" to marry in the first place and until fairly recently, they really didn't so far as our federal and state governments were concerned... So in their opinion, they're not infringing on people's rights at all since they don't acknowledge the existence of those rights in the first place. This seems familiar ... And you wanna know why ? because the past is not a succesfull model for the future. In reality, refusal to recognize the rights of homosexuals to marry is no more or less arbitrary than refusing to recognize the rights of a fetus to live. The fact is most laws in this country and across the globe are completely arbitrary... Why flame one side when you're equally guilty? Let it play out in the courts and in Congress, express your opinion, go out and vote, and leave it at that. Insults get you nowhere and it doesn't further your cause at all.
fetus's don't vote and get married, hell they aren't even humans yet. They don't have a birth certificate, citizenship rights, a social security card, etc. Gay's don't gestate inside of people involuntarily for a period of time. It really is just fallacious baiting to bring up abortion issues in a civil rights discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
