Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Religion, God, and Theology Discussion of God, religion, faith, theology, and spirituality.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-06-2018, 02:56 PM   #526
craig1120
old hand
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,699
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeno View Post
Ditto for the Sermon on the Mount, a rag-tag blend of bland poetry and half-truths mixed into a feel good harangue to impress the ignorant. I could do just as well in a half drunk tirade after six pints in an Irish Pub.
I donít see anything about the SotM that was intended to be feel good or to impress the audience.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
What is inspiring in the Sermon on the Mount is not the language but its reordering from a hierarchy of values based on power, money, and strength to a moral community oriented around humility, love, and service to God.
I would say itís purpose was also to encourage the listener to refocus importance away from their persona and onto their character, and to look to be validated solely by ĎGodí rather than by the surrounding social world.
craig1120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2018, 04:01 PM   #527
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,452
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
Meh, I don't think this is true. I think few Americans have ever thought of presidents as having authority that derives from God directly rather than from the democratic process (which I'll grant many believe is guided by Providence). Manifest Destiny - the idea that the US as a country has a special mission from God - has obviously been a powerful religious justification for American imperialism and violence, but that is a different idea from the divine right of kings (maybe more like the divine right of the American government rather than any specific individual in that government).
I feel bad when someone gives such a good response to such a non-serious post.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2018, 05:21 PM   #528
Zeno
Le Misanthrope
 
Zeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Spitsbergen
Posts: 15,889
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Mathew records the longest segment of The Sermon on the Mount and it does contain some harangues and hell fire, along with the moral positives and aspect of community that OriP summarized so well. Blessed is he that posts well, for his name shall endure forever.

What the entire Sermon of the Mount all meant, within the context of a different world than ours, and how it would apply to a first-century Jewish peasant, is probably much different than how many Christians (and non-Christians) would interpret much of the text today. Although universals are employed it is mix and has much of specifics also. I have grown less fond of this text through the years. I think it deserves only moderate praise (Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Confucius, for example, exceed its worth by heaps and heaps). And although not a James Joyce, my dunken tirade at an Irish Pub would be worth a listen, despite OriP’s justified skepticism. Anyway, once a text grows with the power of faith and myth it takes on a life of its own and marches through history.

The same can be said of the American Dec. of Independence. The pursuit of happiness is a Myth Unstoppable.

The power of myth is a human universal (whether religious or political) - For good, or evil, or twisted ordering and results, or enlightenment, or awe, or the inevitable misunderstandings, along with the mixture of all the above.

Only Zenoism surpasses all human understanding.
Zeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2018, 05:53 PM   #529
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,452
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Irish pubs aren't typically the best place to blaspheme.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2018, 06:26 PM   #530
well named
poorly undertitled
 
well named's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: esse est coesse
Posts: 73,992
Re: Gay wedding cakes

FWIW it wasn't really even my intention to suggest that the Sermon on the Mount was true in any particular sense, only that it was formative for me. It's certain that the text "grows with the power of faith and myth", and that was also true of its impact on me personally. I find it interesting to reflect on because I no longer hold onto much (if any) of that faith, but the text still resonates, even as it did when it was so important to the formation of that same faith I no longer really possess.

But mostly I was just being skeptical about the idea that the inalienable rights of the Declaration were "self-evident", even though I've always found them quite powerful and meaningful. In the same way that I'm skeptical about a lot of things in Christianity despite a lot my core values being heavily informed by Christianity.
well named is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 04:29 PM   #531
Do0rDoNot
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 76
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
What argument? Your view is in shambles as far as I can tell. You are claiming/suggesting that the government doesn't have the right to enforce anti-discrimination laws. You based this on an account of universal human rights that includes the right to conduct or not conduct business with whomever you want.
They don't have a right to deprive business owners of free association, but they do have a right to regulate commerce. This is why the CRA was slipped into the commerce code; a roundabout way of depriving people of their rights. You can say this is ok from a strictly legal point of view, but I can make the same argument about the legality of miscegenation laws in Germany in the 1930s.

I think the CRA is unjust when applied to private business owners and should be limited to truly public goods and monopolies to maximize freedom. If someone doesn't want to bake you a cake? I know its awfully hard to get over a slight so egregious but get over it take your business to a Baker who will.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 05:13 PM   #532
neeeel
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,555
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
but they do have a right to regulate commerce.
How so?
neeeel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 06:58 PM   #533
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,452
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
I think the CRA is unjust when applied to private business owners and should be limited to truly public goods and monopolies to maximize freedom. If someone doesn't want to bake you a cake? I know its awfully hard to get over a slight so egregious but get over it take your business to a Baker who will.
Why are these arguments always in the abstract?

It's as if there's some doubt about what pre-CRA America looked like.

It wasn't filled with black people happily taking their business elsewhere.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 10:51 PM   #534
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 7,016
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
They don't have a right to deprive business owners of free association, but they do have a right to regulate commerce. This is why the CRA was slipped into the commerce code; a roundabout way of depriving people of their rights. You can say this is ok from a strictly legal point of view, but I can make the same argument about the legality of miscegenation laws in Germany in the 1930s.
I accept legal positivism, so I think that immoral laws are still legally binding law (including eg miscegenation laws). It is a matter for individual conscience whether to still obey those immoral laws. I'm a little surprised by your last sentence here as I thought you were presupposing a natural law view of law based on your view of natural rights.

Your view of rights is incoherent, so I don't follow your distinctions here between commerce and association.

Quote:
I think the CRA is unjust when applied to private business owners and should be limited to truly public goods and monopolies to maximize freedom. If someone doesn't want to bake you a cake? I know its awfully hard to get over a slight so egregious but get over it take your business to a Baker who will.
Laws against theft outlaw stealing $1 just like they do $100 million. I could criticize these laws for banning thefts under $10, because who really cares, but that would be dumb. Yes, selling and buying cakes in isolation is pretty minor, but unequal voter registration requirements and school segregation in schools and employment are not minor at all.

I like how John Rawls frames basic human rights in his theory of justice. His first principle of justice says that "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others." Jim Crow and the violence, racism, and discrimination common in American society before the CRA brought into question whether a system of basic rights that included a right for employers to discriminate on the basis of race is really compatible with other people having a similar liberty.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 11:03 PM   #535
Do0rDoNot
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 76
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel View Post
How so?
Constitutional authority granted to the federal government. They use it wherever possible. It's been a source of much controversy.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2018, 11:06 PM   #536
Do0rDoNot
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 76
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87 View Post
Why are these arguments always in the abstract?
Because concepts are abstract?

Quote:
It's as if there's some doubt about what pre-CRA America looked like.

It wasn't filled with black people happily taking their business elsewhere.
I doubt you know what it looked like any better than anyone else. Personally, I believe in freedom. The litmus test on whether or not someone really believes in freedom is if they believe others should be free to speak and act in ways that they personally find distasteful. Based on our conversations, you and others in this thread fail that test.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2018, 03:53 AM   #537
neeeel
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,555
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
Constitutional authority granted to the federal government. They use it wherever possible. It's been a source of much controversy.
No, I mean, you said, they had the right to regulate commerce. How did they get that right? From your answer, it sounds like they gave it to themselves.
neeeel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2018, 10:49 AM   #538
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,452
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
Because concepts are abstract?



I doubt you know what it looked like any better than anyone else. Personally, I believe in freedom. The litmus test on whether or not someone really believes in freedom is if they believe others should be free to speak and act in ways that they personally find distasteful. Based on our conversations, you and others in this thread fail that test.
In your mangled philosophy I'm not sure what "believing in freedom" even means. What I know is that, in the real world, life was both awful and less "free" for blacks prior to the CRA.

Yet again, I find your line here entirely disingenuous. Of course we know what the world looked like prior to civil rights.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 07:43 AM   #539
tame_deuces
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tame_deuces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,493
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Words aren't just empty symbols that bear no impact.

Democracies typically (with a few exceptions) resolves this issue of such things vs the freedom of speech, by allowing the speech but maintaining hate speech laws or sedition laws for those occasions when dangerous ideals blur the line between mere thought and encouragement to carry them out.

Thus, even if you are nazi - which means you are fundamentally opposed to democracy and individual liberty to begin with, as it is a fascist ideology - you get to talk, but you don't get to call to arms. Basically, you're allowed to spout your nonsense as long as you are harmless.

A few countries go further (like Germany), because they have direct experience with the cost of putting a blind eye to the rise of Nazism. Of course, if you're of the political ilk that thinks the democratic state has no right to protect itself from an ideal, that's fine... but now you're really arguing for a voluntarist society. I find the idea that a voluntarist society must allow for nazism naive, a bit like trusting your smile to save you from a knife robbery - but to each his own.

To claim that someone is opposed to freedom because they won't extend anti-discrimination laws to specific political directions, and political directions that are actually treasonous if carried out, is nonsensical. To claim that nobody needs anti-discrimination laws also flies in the face of everything we know from history. As evident in this thread, as the only counter-argument to actual historical evidence has been to question if such evidence is possible.

If you have to invoke the god of the gaps to defend a political argument, I'd say you cut the branch you are sitting on. "Nazis should be protected against discrimination just like gays because we can't know anything for certain!" is not a very compelling argument.
tame_deuces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 12:18 PM   #540
Do0rDoNot
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 76
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces View Post
Words aren't just empty symbols that bear no impact.

Democracies typically (with a few exceptions) resolves this issue of such things vs the freedom of speech, by allowing the speech but maintaining hate speech laws or sedition laws for those occasions when dangerous ideals blur the line between mere thought and encouragement to carry them out.

Thus, even if you are nazi - which means you are fundamentally opposed to democracy and individual liberty to begin with, as it is a fascist ideology - you get to talk, but you don't get to call to arms. Basically, you're allowed to spout your nonsense as long as you are harmless.

A few countries go further (like Germany), because they have direct experience with the cost of putting a blind eye to the rise of Nazism. Of course, if you're of the political ilk that thinks the democratic state has no right to protect itself from an ideal, that's fine... but now you're really arguing for a voluntarist society. I find the idea that a voluntarist society must allow for nazism naive, a bit like trusting your smile to save you from a knife robbery - but to each his own.

To claim that someone is opposed to freedom because they won't extend anti-discrimination laws to specific political directions, and political directions that are actually treasonous if carried out, is nonsensical. To claim that nobody needs anti-discrimination laws also flies in the face of everything we know from history. As evident in this thread, as the only counter-argument to actual historical evidence has been to question if such evidence is possible.

If you have to invoke the god of the gaps to defend a political argument, I'd say you cut the branch you are sitting on. "Nazis should be protected against discrimination just like gays because we can't know anything for certain!" is not a very compelling argument.
It boils down to the question of whether or not you believe private businesses have a right to free association. You obviously don't. It only goes one political direction. If you believe government should be limited from imposing upon that right, you believe in tolerance, freedom and rights. If you believe government can do whatever it wants, you believe in tyranny. You want the government to impose upon individuals freedom, just not the individuals you virtue signal for.

Just a hint: this political hypocrisy and malevolent doublemindedness put Trump in the white house.

Last edited by Do0rDoNot; 07-11-2018 at 12:26 PM.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 01:56 PM   #541
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,452
Re: Gay wedding cakes

This goes back to when I first said to you: I think you're equivocating but I'm fine with discrimination in the sense you use it.

It's rare I find anyone who calls my politics tyrannical but if that's how you use the word tyranny, then okay.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 05:28 PM   #542
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 7,016
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
It boils down to the question of whether or not you believe private businesses have a right to free association. You obviously don't. It only goes one political direction. If you believe government should be limited from imposing upon that right, you believe in tolerance, freedom and rights. If you believe government can do whatever it wants, you believe in tyranny. You want the government to impose upon individuals freedom, just not the individuals you virtue signal for.
I stand with Augustine:



Quote:
Just a hint: this political hypocrisy and malevolent doublemindedness put Trump in the white house.
So you're saying this is a good thing?
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 12:03 AM   #543
Do0rDoNot
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 76
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87 View Post
This goes back to when I first said to you: I think you're equivocating but I'm fine with discrimination in the sense you use it.

It's rare I find anyone who calls my politics tyrannical but if that's how you use the word tyranny, then okay.
I'm well aware you're ok with your own hypocrisy and special pleading. Having that pointed out to you multiple times and still being as obstinate as you are I question your moral fabric on this issue.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 12:20 AM   #544
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 7,016
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
I'm well aware you're ok with your own hypocrisy and special pleading. Having that pointed out to you multiple times and still being as obstinate as you are I question your moral fabric on this issue.
How is he being obstinate? You have provided no good argument for why we should accept your understanding of freedom and rights as either accurate or good for humans. Pointing out to someone that if they accepted your moral theory that it would be wrong to do x isn't persuasive to people who reject your moral framework.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 04:04 AM   #545
Do0rDoNot
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 76
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
How is he being obstinate? You have provided no good argument for why we should accept your understanding of freedom and rights as either accurate or good for humans. Pointing out to someone that if they accepted your moral theory that it would be wrong to do x isn't persuasive to people who reject your moral framework.
I don't need to do anything like that. What I have done is provided what is laid out in the constitution and how certain laws have created injustices we are seeing. Whether you're pro gay wedding or pro freedom of association for Christian proprietors, this issue is fundamentally a conflict of rights. Free association rights, which are by precedent held under the natural right of "liberty" in the DoI and Constitution, were unjustly removed by the government with the a
CRA under the guise of anti discrimination. Notwithstanding that core issue, it's up to defenders to justify how a government can detract from the natural right of religious expression and protect it at the same time. The major issue comes back once again to free association.

What he has done is held up rights for one side and dismissed the other. Further, he has said that it's ok to do so. That makes him a hypocrite and a special pleader, and you too if you agree with him.

I suspect underlying most of the defenders is a deep animosity towards religion, and Christianity in particular. That's fine. You're free to believe what you wish and Express your opinions. What you're not free to do without me exposing your hypocrisy is masquerade as defenders of liberty. You're pro gay rights and anti religious. If you could admit that I and others would gain some respect for your newfound consistency.

Most can't do that of course, because admitted bigotry would immediately destroy ones position and self proclaimed tolerance virtues.

In much the same way I would more respect an atheist who was also an admitted nihilist, instead of when challenged putting forth some opaque reference to Platonic realm moral laws that almost no one believes in, which in my integrity gave up the point on despite its clear disingenuousness to the pragmatic part of the conversation. I'd appreciate the favor returned, but based on history I don't expect it will be.

Last edited by Do0rDoNot; 07-12-2018 at 04:33 AM.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 05:15 AM   #546
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,452
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
I'm well aware you're ok with your own hypocrisy and special pleading. Having that pointed out to you multiple times and still being as obstinate as you are I question your moral fabric on this issue.
I never engaged in special pleading because I never made the argument you claimed I made.

You need to stop making stuff up when it comes to what other people say.

I've told you the whole damn time that I'm okay with discriminating as you use the term.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 05:18 AM   #547
Bladesman87
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,452
Re: Gay wedding cakes

I'm also baffled as to why I'm to be held to anything the constitution has to say about anything.

And as to why you think any case in which two things are treated differently is special pleading. That's not the fallacy.
Bladesman87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 06:35 AM   #548
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 7,016
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot View Post
I don't need to do anything like that. What I have done is provided what is laid out in the constitution and how certain laws have created injustices we are seeing.
What you've primarily done here is expose your ignorance of the philosophical underpinnings of the American system of government as understood by the founders. You've so far demonstrated that you don't understand Locke, Hobbes, natural rights, the state of nature, the impact of natural rights on government legitimacy and more. I've challenged you on nearly all these points and you've either ignored or minimized these problems with your own political theory.

Quote:
Whether you're pro gay wedding or pro freedom of association for Christian proprietors, this issue is fundamentally a conflict of rights. Free association rights, which are by precedent held under the natural right of "liberty" in the DoI and Constitution, were unjustly removed by the government with the a CRA under the guise of anti discrimination. Notwithstanding that core issue, it's up to defenders to justify how a government can detract from the natural right of religious expression and protect it at the same time. The major issue comes back once again to free association.
Right, so you just have no idea what you are talking about. How can inalienable natural rights conflict with each other? You are describing an incoherent (or maybe just very tragic) moral universe. I can't argue against a position that doesn't make sense any more than by pointing out this inconsistency.

Quote:
What he has done is held up rights for one side and dismissed the other. Further, he has said that it's ok to do so. That makes him a hypocrite and a special pleader, and you too if you agree with him.
This is neither hypocritical nor special pleading. You are assuming a belief in maximalist religious expression rights that most people probably do not share. If they don't hold that view of religious rights, then they are not being hypocritical when they support some constraints on religion (which everyone does anyway to some extent). I know you favor procedural attacks over substantive arguments, but try just arguing on the merits for your own view, that society would be better if we allowed racial discrimination against consumers or employees. It would be a more useful conversation.

Quote:
I suspect underlying most of the defenders is a deep animosity towards religion, and Christianity in particular. That's fine. You're free to believe what you wish and Express your opinions. What you're not free to do without me exposing your hypocrisy is masquerade as defenders of liberty. You're pro gay rights and anti religious. If you could admit that I and others would gain some respect for your newfound consistency.
This is self-serving BS. You have no interest in an open discussion here. You are looking for a rhetorical win and to denigrate people. If someone agreed with you that they supported gay rights because they hate Christians, you would then immediately switch to criticizing them for being biased and hateful towards Christians. Bladesman87 acknowledges that from your perspective he is supporting tyranny and you immediately criticize the "moral fabric" of his character for doing so.

On the substance, meh. It's hard to misrepresent my views or attitudes about religion or Christianity to the people in this forum. We mostly know each other here, so I'm content to let people make their own judgement about whether I'm biased or anti-religion (not that I think that is necessarily bad). And I'm not bothered by whether you think my support of liberty is hypocritical since the political theory underlying your view of freedom doesn't make any sense.

I'll also just point out how exactly your reasoning mirrors that of your political opponents who claim that all Christian opposition to gay rights is because of prejudice and hatred of gay people.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 09:20 AM   #549
carlo
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,661
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Freedom, equality and fraternity, each to its own realm such that ; man thinks, feels and wills.

In "freedom" we speak to the spiritual in man such that he frees himself from an ancient consciousness which included him as a toe on the foot. Included in this realm is education, medicine, knowledge,.. but to be clear there is no equality in this realm as each man proceeds within this realm with a true perspective , only limited by his characterological disposition. This means that there is only "one truth" but due to man's limitations in organicness or position (center) each of this "truth' is gained. this is the realm of thinking and thoughts.

In "feeling" we can speak to equality such that the "laws" to which we speak see men as "equals" which means that you and I can have different "feelings" concerning our worlds and in the realm of human and divine justice we are all equal. As an Irishman I do feel differently than a Frenchman or Englishman , this feeling of being within our nation, borne by "ego blood" but more like a panoply to which we all live within.

And oh yes I love vanilla as apposed to chocolate which in a manner, on the whole due to feelings but can be intellectually imbued. There can be and has been much world tragedy due to 'feelings" for it is certainly evident that the enforcement of 'feelings" upon another (even to those closest to you) can only bring conflict and i suppose that the political imbroglio of our times is evidence of this.

The third realm is "will" and brings to the fore movement and in this Man "tills the earth" and "the heavens". As a thought transfers to one's leg and one walks we have thinking the "magical essence of the will". the important point here is that in 'willing' we have our economic system to which the U.S.A. is paramount and the proper approach is "fraternity" . Using an aged example the period of drought, famine, economic dearth, etc. no matter how clever can not always be foreseen and in this economics becomes the "fraternity of men".

Just as grain was stored within the Egyptian silos to be used in times of famine as per Joseph, just so the the ennobling approach to "working the earth" is 'fraternity" .

As mankind displays these three realms we speak to the "head in thinking", the chest with its rhythms in "feeling and the willful extremities in "willing". Of course there is "willing" in the head as is "thinking and thoughts" in the foot . Physiologically there is no separation and the anatomy of the human being evidences this.

Just to be clear the route to community with others is through the realm of thinking as evidenced by the ideas of "treaties" which is a poor example but in no way can we come together with others through 'feelings" or "will" which is the individual aspect of the human soul. I build a bridge and you create a culinary delight etc...

Last edited by carlo; 07-12-2018 at 09:35 AM.
carlo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 07:18 PM   #550
Do0rDoNot
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 76
Re: Gay wedding cakes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
Right, so you just have no idea what you are talking about. How can inalienable natural rights conflict with each other?
Exactly. They shouldn't really be able to, which proves my point. The right to religious expression is a natural right. The right to not be discriminated against is a government mandated substrate law that violates the natural right of free association. That's where the conflict is. Anti discrimination laws violate natural rights, and are very thinly constitutional when wrapped in commerce legislation, as the CRA is.




Quote:
This is self-serving BS. You have no interest in an open discussion here. You are looking for a rhetorical win and to denigrate people. If someone agreed with you that they supported gay rights because they hate Christians, you would then immediately switch to criticizing them for being biased and hateful towards Christians.
I just said anyone who hates Christians and wants them to be deprived of their right to religious expression is free to Express their opinion, so you're quite wrong about this. I simply pointed out said persons are not going to be able to masquerade as defenders of liberty while advocating this in subterfuge.

All it takes is a cursory reading of pro-lgbt news sites to see this is precisely what most gay rights advocates desire. The very existence of Christianity is offensive to them.

Quote:
Bladesman87 acknowledges that from your perspective he is supporting tyranny and you immediately criticize the "moral fabric" of his character for doing so.
Correct. Anyone who advocates tyranny is lacking moral fibre.
Do0rDoNot is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online