Author Topic: Hillzilla vs Trumpenator  (Read 3660 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

theColonel

  • Guest
Reply #15 on: August 15, 2016, 09:07:58 PM
Quote
All I have to say is that, again, people who want a conservative court aren't aware of the fact that a progressive court does not affect them at all, and are most likely unaware of the ramifications of a court that seeks to reverse any progressive changes in the US.

They may not affect me personally, but they're still important issues. Isn't the law supposed to be concerned with things like justice or right and wrong? A Supreme Court in the direction Progressives favor basically means that it'll take the wrong positions on many of the items you listed. I don't believe in LGBTQ rights, and women rights nowadays is codeword for abortion (if you have something else in mind or wish to distance yourself from this, please tell me). So the ramifications of a Conservative court don't bother me at all, because I don't hail any of these things as legitimate rights or something to be celebrated and defended. As for race relationships, I have no opinion on that, though I have a feeling if I had a greater understanding of both approaches to this issue, I'd disagree with both of them.



Guy

  • The Resident Toxicologist
  • Posts: 20
Reply #16 on: August 15, 2016, 09:38:52 PM
"I don't believe in LGBTQ rights."

w e w l a d

First of all, no, the law isn't about right or wrong, or more specifically not about what you find as right or wrong. The law does not care about that. As an extreme example, a race supremacist (Asian, White, Black, whatever) might think it's morally right to segregate people because their race is simply better, but they have (or should have) no legal standing in the eyes of the law.

Second of all, you should be saying "take the wrong positions in my opinion." There is no moral absolutes in the law; everything is nuanced and the reason why these topic areas are controversial is precisely because there's no moral bright line for the law to follow. Maybe for you there's some absolutism, but there's no obligation from the law to follow any semblance of that sort.

Third, everything you're saying is basically the reason why I think people who want a Conservative Court have no idea what they're talking about, especially when rather than discussing actual issues, they resort to just name calling things. You don't "believe" in rights for people who are different than you? What, are they subhuman? Good to know that the difference in people's rights ends when their sexual orientation is different.

Furthermore, what's wrong with women's rights being a "codeword" for abortion? Does the word abortion trigger you? Or maybe there's a variety other issues on women's right (pay equity, the glass ceiling, rape culture, representation in business and academics) that you so gloss over because the only thing you can think of regarding women's rights is the atrocity of a supreme court not being able to tell women what they do with their reproductive organs.

Fourth, your last statement is such a perfect simulacrum with what's wrong with America. You literally just said "I don't know anything about it, but I have a preconceived bias about where I'll probably fall." So without knowing anything about racial tensions in this country or whether certain people are allowed to vote, you already suspect you will be the opposite of what progressives want. That's by far the most blatant example of willful ignorance.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2016, 09:42:18 PM by Guy »

"As he caught his footing, his head fell back, and the Milky Way flowed down inside him with a roar."


theColonel

  • Guest
Reply #17 on: August 15, 2016, 10:24:04 PM
I never said it would be the opposite of Progressives want, only that it might not be what Progressives or Conservatives want. Though I'll grant you that one point, so sorry.

As far as name calling is concerned, I don't see where I did that. 

Your response assumes that same-sex marriage and abortion are good things, and that it's wrong to disagree and not want to prevent these "rights" from being set back. Why else would you assume I think people with a different sexual orientation than me are subhuman? Or that abortion is nothing more than an issue of reproductive health, and not the muder of children? Cause if it is, than something should be done about that, right?

So, I don't see why going the Conservative approach is an injustice. Justice is about rendering to each what they deserve, and as far as I'm concerned not recognizing "marriage" between people of the same-sex, or that men can be women, or that you can kill your child are rights doesn't count as an injustice. No natural rights are being violated. You disagree, obviously, but it isn't obvious to me that any harm is being done.

I'll grant that I still have to go through the trouble of arguing about each of these points, but perhaps a separate thread can be made for those who want to discuss those particular issues?
« Last Edit: August 15, 2016, 10:30:42 PM by theColonel »



Guy

  • The Resident Toxicologist
  • Posts: 20
Reply #18 on: August 15, 2016, 10:58:46 PM
I make no such assumptions. I only labeled these as controversial issues. If you can find any part of my posts where I labeled these things as good or bad, then feel free to point them out. I don't see gay marriage or abortion as "good" things. I see them as any other right or privilege. Straight marriage isn't necessarily good, nor is bringing a child to maturity an inherent good. I don't see the world as something where automatically things can automatically be objectively valued as good or bad; context matters and that's why we have rights and privileges.

I didn't assume you thought they were subhuman, I merely asked a question because that's the logical conclusion of thinking other people (humans) do not deserve the same rights that are given to straight people. If we hold American values like equality to mean anything, then not giving rights to people who are biologically equivalent to you in all but sexual orientation is literally the definition of believing they are lesser than you, hence subhuman. You are free to believe this; I actually don't judge, but you have to own that belief if you follow all the other logical corollaries associated with it.

"As he caught his footing, his head fell back, and the Milky Way flowed down inside him with a roar."


theColonel

  • Guest
Reply #19 on: August 15, 2016, 11:03:44 PM
I guess I assumed and you know what assuming does to people right?  ;)

So, my bad. I guess I read into your "lew lad" reply and interpreted your "subhuman" comment or question as being hostile.

Though you say you aren't making any assumptions about my beliefs, why say that last comment? It's a bit confusing.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2016, 11:13:18 PM by theColonel »



Guy

  • The Resident Toxicologist
  • Posts: 20
Reply #20 on: August 15, 2016, 11:15:02 PM
Because it's relevant to the question. All I'm saying is that in the event that someone believes people who are LGBTQ do not deserve the same rights afforded to those who are not LGBTQ, that's the definition of saying one particular type of people is inferior to a superior category of people. If the argument is that people who are LGBTQ are inherently different to those who are not, then the argument is essentially saying that LGBTQ do not get rights because they aren't human.

Again, I don't really judge. The only thing I ever tell people is that if they do think this way, they have to inevitably own it.

"As he caught his footing, his head fell back, and the Milky Way flowed down inside him with a roar."


theColonel

  • Guest
Reply #21 on: August 15, 2016, 11:17:21 PM
I would say that's a false dichotomy, because the issue of whether those are rights are what is in dispute. If I acknowledged those as rights and denied them anyway, you'd have a point and that would be a true injustice, but I don't.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2016, 11:19:08 PM by theColonel »



Guy

  • The Resident Toxicologist
  • Posts: 20
Reply #22 on: August 15, 2016, 11:19:07 PM
I would say that's a false dichotomy, because the issue of whether those are rights are what is in dispute. If I acknowledged those as rights and denied them, you'd have a point, but I don't.
I mean, the rights we are talking about are all either by letter or spirit of the law afforded to straight people. I see no distinction.

Just on the topic of marriage, you are essentially saying a different category of people are not afforded the same tax, income, legal, economic, and social statuses as another group of people. Marriage is no longer a religious institution, there's a great set of legal implications to being married, one that until recently has not been afforded access to. There's no relevant difference here.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2016, 11:22:02 PM by Guy »

"As he caught his footing, his head fell back, and the Milky Way flowed down inside him with a roar."


BySt0rm

  • Posts: 8
Reply #23 on: September 05, 2016, 09:23:51 PM
I would say that's a false dichotomy, because the issue of whether those are rights are what is in dispute. If I acknowledged those as rights and denied them, you'd have a point, but I don't.
I mean, the rights we are talking about are all either by letter or spirit of the law afforded to straight people. I see no distinction.

Just on the topic of marriage, you are essentially saying a different category of people are not afforded the same tax, income, legal, economic, and social statuses as another group of people. Marriage is no longer a religious institution, there's a great set of legal implications to being married, one that until recently has not been afforded access to. There's no relevant difference here.
I do agree that anyone should be able to get united under a contract, regardless of sexuality, race ,or religion.  Marriage is a religious institution as well as a legal one. They're both completely separate instances that are basically called the same name. The issue with government is that it calls it's civil unions by religious terminology when in reality, either both should be called different names, or we get rid of all government recognition of what shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged.  Why should my tax dollars go to benefit anyone just because they decided to get hitched? That's their own personal problem if they need to be subsidized in order to get married. Why should a couple get preferential treatment over someone who decides to be single? And furthermore, what about the separation of Church and State?

I believe that  the only thing should be done is the secularize the terminology on the government end, and then eliminate the bloat and benefits. Just make it a legal contract that two or more people 18 or older can enter that protects property rights of all involved, as well as dividing up of children. If the Religious Right hates it, too bad.

...

That said, I can't exactly vote for either major candidate, but I'd never vote for Clinton, Johnson ,or Jill Stein. I've already mentioned the reasons why I'd never vote for her on the other board, but basically, I'm not going to touch her because she's a part of the corrupt machine, has utterly failed in her Secretary of State period, her email scandal, how she's kept Bill's rape victims quiet, and finally her questionable health record. Johnson's a kook and represents libertarian values as I represent Amy Schumer , and Jill Stein has an ignorant belief concerning vaccines that I won't touch with a 40 foot pole.

I'll more than likely vote for Trump because I won't buy what the news networks have to say about him, since they protect racism and criminality on a daily basis. CNN for instance censored the Milwaukee woman who was a sister of the armed criminal shot before she finished and said to burn down the suburbs* or when Colin Kaepernick condemned Hillary Clinton as well**. Or devalue the lives of 50 black people gunned down for a gorilla over Memorial Day weekend.  Not to say I value Fox News either really for the shenanigans that they sometimes get in [I only watch The Five on there as I get my news online]. I'm more for Trump because of the policies he has in place to actually create jobs and that he's probably the first Republican nominee not to be a sniveling piece of cardboard wimp. He knows how the media works and he plays it to his advantage. Those I've came across personally opposing him on him being ignorant or racist, tend to be projecting what they don't like about themselves onto the candidate, or basing their information on incomplete things taken out of context. And people tell me not to talk about things I don't know about,  lol.  ::)

I have no issue with people who oppose Trump based on them researching the guy and finding that they can't still support him. I'll respect those people I disagree with that actually invests actual time to be knowledgeable about the election candidate, over supporters who just support blindly based on party allegiance.

I virtually distaste those who tell anyone they should vote a certain way because of family. I'd rather have someone based on their own beliefs than be some robot that is told what to vote for.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA
** http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/dylan-gwinn/2016/08/30/sports-media-cuts-kaepernick-quote-protect-clinton-hide-insults