Discrimination is a fundamental human right.

[PratchettFan]

Yes, it is. Absolutely inalienable. It trumps everything. And I base that upon the exact same foundation you use.... because I say so. I don't need to point to the Constitution or even a local law. All I have to do is slap an adjective on it and it is true. It's amazingly convenient.

You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't want to understand it.

I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it. As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.

I understand what I mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what I mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?

I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean. You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across. I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient. And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is. So yes, we will keep going around in circles. From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry. So agreement is not going to happen. Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.

We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.

The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.

You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things were philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.

I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.

If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall. Because you are wrong on just about every level.

Philosophically, communism works perfectly. Capitalism, fascism, theocracy and anarchism all work perfectly. This is because the one thing philosophers never have to take into account is that a society is made up of human beings who are going to act like human beings no matter what philosophy is used. A position based upon a philosophical view may be attractive but it has about as much practical application as assuming chocolate unicorns will dance about handing out free toys. So I will of course be pragmatic, because I fully understand that philosophical liberties are a fairy tale.

I am thinking rights are explicit government guarantees because that is what they are. To deny that is to deny reality. And you are wrong about the founders. They were pragmatists to the core. They could not afford to be otherwise. So when they wrote the Constitution they included written rights in it, making them guaranteed by the government, because they understood that philosophical rights are useless for anything beyond a bullshit session over the port. What they did not include were phrases such as "inalienable rights" because they understood the phrase is a classic oxymoron. It is a pretty phrase, but it was and continues to be nothing more than propaganda.

If you live by yourself with no social contact, then you are certainly free - but you have no rights. Rights only have meaning in the context of a society. And they exist only to the extent the society allows them to exist. You have no inherent rights and you certainly have no inalienable rights. The moment society decides you don't have a right, that right disappears. You can call that right inalienable or fundamental if you please, but it does not change the reality. You are not, therefore, entitled to those rights but have a responsibility to ensure the society continues to recognize them.

Let me say that expressing yourself here is part of that responsibility. The free discourse of ideas, especially opposing ideas, is crucial to the maintenance of liberty. OTOH, so is the economic and social stability of the society. Placing individual rights over that stability is a pretty quick way to lose individual rights.

 

[dblack]

You simply don't understand what inalienable means when describing rights. I've given up trying to explain it to you, because you clearly don't want to understand it.

I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it. As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.

I understand what I mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what I mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?

I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean. You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across. I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient. And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is. So yes, we will keep going around in circles. From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry. So agreement is not going to happen. Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.

We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.

The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.

You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things were philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.

I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.

If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall. Because you are wrong on just about every level.

I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.

 

[PratchettFan]

I know the definition, it isn't my fault if you don't follow it. As I have already said, the real problem is you don't understand what a right is.

I understand what I mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what I mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?

I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean. You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across. I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient. And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is. So yes, we will keep going around in circles. From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry. So agreement is not going to happen. Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.

We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.

The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.

You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things were philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.

I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.

If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall. Because you are wrong on just about every level.

I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.

Did you actually read that post?

 

[dblack]

I understand what I mean when I use the term "inalienable right". I'm not sure if you do (understand what I mean), but you refuse to accept it. You're fixated on a popular misconception of the term that muddles the importance of the ideas. I don't know what to do with that when you ask follow up questions, because you're clearly not listening to what I'm saying. It seems pointless, don't you think?

I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean. You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across. I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient. And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is. So yes, we will keep going around in circles. From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry. So agreement is not going to happen. Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.

We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.

The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.

You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things were philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.

I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.

If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall. Because you are wrong on just about every level.

I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.

Did you actually read that post?

I did. You're still beating up on a strawman.

Getting back to the topic, I think most would agree that discrimination IS a fundamental right. The real question is whether curbing certain types of bigotry is a genuine "compelling interest" of government.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am sure you know what you mean, but for others to understand what you mean you need to use a word which meets what you mean. You may like the word inalienable, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to get across. I see no reason why I should just toss out the definition of the word just because you don't find it convenient. And that does not change the basic issue that you don't understand what a right is. So yes, we will keep going around in circles. From what I can see, you and I have diametrically opposed views of citizenry. So agreement is not going to happen. Whether disagreement makes it pointless is a matter of opinion.

We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.

The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.

You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things were philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.

I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.

If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall. Because you are wrong on just about every level.

I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.

Did you actually read that post?

I did. You're still beating up on a strawman.

Getting back to the topic, I think most would agree that discrimination IS a fundamental right. The real question is whether curbing certain types of bigotry is a genuine "compelling interest" of government.

Ok. I think most would agree it is not and that curbing it is a genuine compelling interest of government. Hence the laws.

 

[dblack]

We can still discuss ideas. I'm willing to engage in discussion based on definitions of words I don't adhere to - I just consider them different concepts. It's the inevitable equivocation that becomes a problem. We find ourselves constantly having to clarify what we mean.

The reason I keep using the term, regardless of the popular perception of its meaning, is that the popular perception makes no sense. And, given that the concept is a core part of the found of our nation, and the framework of the Constitution, that popular misconception renders the entire philosophy our nation is founded on meaningless. The only way to save it IS to clarify and correct the meaning of the terms. Either that, or rewrite the founding documents to resolve the disparity.

You seem to be looking at these concepts from a predominantly pragmatic view. You're thinking of rights as explicit government guarantees, rather than philosophical liberties. But the people who wrote about these things were philosophers. They thought deeply about the nature of free will and volition, and those thoughts influenced their political writings.

I don't know if I should bother going on. I feel a little like I'm banging my head against a wall. I enjoying discussing this stuff, but if you aren't interested, and no one else wants to discuss it, I guess there's not much point.

If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall. Because you are wrong on just about every level.

I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.

Did you actually read that post?

I did. You're still beating up on a strawman.

Getting back to the topic, I think most would agree that discrimination IS a fundamental right. The real question is whether curbing certain types of bigotry is a genuine "compelling interest" of government.

Ok. I think most would agree it is not and that curbing it is a genuine compelling interest of government. Hence the laws.

Oh, I know you do. I actually meant to type most judges would agree, but it doesn't really matter. You won't get the point anyway.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you expect agreement from me on this, you are certainly banging your head against a wall. Because you are wrong on just about every level.

I don't expect you to agree. But the discussion would be more interesting if you actually read and critiqued my ideas instead of stonewalling on definitions.

Did you actually read that post?

I did. You're still beating up on a strawman.

Getting back to the topic, I think most would agree that discrimination IS a fundamental right. The real question is whether curbing certain types of bigotry is a genuine "compelling interest" of government.

Ok. I think most would agree it is not and that curbing it is a genuine compelling interest of government. Hence the laws.

Oh, I know you do. I actually meant to type most judges would agree, but it doesn't really matter. You won't get the point anyway.

I get the point. You are just wrong. Most judges would not agree. The reason they would not agree is that judges base decisions upon the law. The courts have consistently ruled that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. But we run, yet again, into that conflict of philosophy vs pragmatism - or more correctly, fantasy vs reality. Just because you think something should be a certain way does not automatically mean it is.

 

[dblack]

I get the point. You are just wrong. Most judges would not agree. The reason they would not agree is that judges base decisions upon the law. The courts have consistently ruled that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. But we run, yet again, into that conflict of philosophy vs pragmatism - or more correctly, fantasy vs reality. Just because you think something should be a certain way does not automatically mean it is.

I'm not wrong, and you don't get the point.

Judges have consistently ruled PA laws constitutional on the claim that government has a "compelling interest" that justifies regulations infringing the rights of businesses owners - not because they believe rights aren't being infringed.

 

[PratchettFan]

I get the point. You are just wrong. Most judges would not agree. The reason they would not agree is that judges base decisions upon the law. The courts have consistently ruled that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. But we run, yet again, into that conflict of philosophy vs pragmatism - or more correctly, fantasy vs reality. Just because you think something should be a certain way does not automatically mean it is.

I'm not wrong, and you don't get the point.

Judges have consistently ruled PA laws constitutional on the claim that government has a "compelling interest" that justifies regulations infringing the rights of businesses owners - not because they believe rights aren't being infringed.

You are wrong, and you just stated why you are wrong. That seems to be the point you don't get.

 

[dblack]

I get the point. You are just wrong. Most judges would not agree. The reason they would not agree is that judges base decisions upon the law. The courts have consistently ruled that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional. But we run, yet again, into that conflict of philosophy vs pragmatism - or more correctly, fantasy vs reality. Just because you think something should be a certain way does not automatically mean it is.

I'm not wrong, and you don't get the point.

Judges have consistently ruled PA laws constitutional on the claim that government has a "compelling interest" that justifies regulations infringing the rights of businesses owners - not because they believe rights aren't being infringed.

You are wrong, and you just stated why you are wrong. That seems to be the point you don't get.

Wow.

 

[dblack]

You have a serious mental block regarding this issue. Please read the last line of my post again, and think about it before responding.

 

[dblack]

You seem to be firmly stuck on the idea that inalienable rights can't be infringed.

 

[ChrisL]

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!

 

[dblack]

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

 

[Slyhunter]

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!

Freedom of association.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!

Freedom of association.

Wrong.

'Freedom of association' has nothing whatsoever to do with necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.

 

[Ravi]

The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.

The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.

But that just ain't how this country rolls.

Not since 2008.

I can't deprive you of your human rights, but, I don't have to like you.

That is how I roll.

Exactly. If the bakers don't like gay people they are free to say so and be as offensive about it as they wish while ringing up the sale.

 

[Ravi]

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

She didn't want to publicly accommodate you, and since she wasn't in business to do so was well within her rights.

 

[Carla_Danger]

However it is all right to ban drag queens....

Drag queens banned from performing at Free Pride Glasgow event over fears acts will offend trans people - Home News - UK - The Independent

...from participating in a Free Pride rally because it might offend the trans genders without it being considered discrimination.

*****CHUCKLE*****

What does something happening in Glasgow have to do with this conversation?

 

[Carla_Danger]

There is no "right" to discriminate fools!

Really? So the girl who turned down my invitation to the senior prom because I wasn't cool enough had no right to do so?

Were you hiring a hooker?