But the South was essentially Mexico after the war. Economy in ruins, money worth nothing, and almost entirely based on slave labor which was going away at some point whether they liked it or not.

Only GTFO if you're going to be intolerant. If you're willing to be tolerant too, then more power to you, you can stay. But if you're not willing to be tolerant than you're like a disease...a cancer...and you should be excised from society, because your intolerance is infringing on other's rights.

There's that whole matter of the "social contract" and all.

Point me to the original episode. I'll work my way back from there.

Ummmmm.

hehe. i dunno if he was adressing you or me. i know jon and i had a discussion about the south + the civil war a ways back in this thread. not sure where the homosexuality episode was...

The thing that will ultimately doom the planet is overpopulation, so this might be exactly what we need, if it can be somehow be accomplished on a worldwide scale.

:+1:

I don't agree with Jon, but I think DT's stance was pretty intolerant.

That doesn't sound very tolerant.

Pretty much how I feel about those who claim tolerance for the intolerable.

Imagine how much happier would we be with one red & one blue instead of having to be miserable trying harder & harder to find ways to put up with each other in increasingly irreconcilable differences.

Ah, could be. No quote, so hard to tell. I'm sure Jon has discussed both previously at some point.

Jon has over 23,000 posts. I'm not digging through it all to find something for you. If you've missed his posts in the past about the moral decay of the country, then so be it.

No...it actually is justified, as i continue on to say.


If your intolerance infringes upon somebody else's life, liberty (read "civil rights"), or pursuit of happiness then you have removed yourself from the "social contract" and civil society, and thus you abrogate your rights under such and the only sensible thing for the "civil body" to do is to expel you.

If you're not willing to "play by the rules" of a given game, is everybody else going to sit by while you do whatever you want and ruin their game? Nope...they're going to tell you to go home.

That would make an awesome leather-bound coffee table book.

That's fine. I usually don't engage in many of the threads solely discussing moral issues, so that's likely where I've missed a lot of it. Thanks.

Somewhat OT, but this made me curious about what kind of debt countries aside from the U.S. have, so I looked it up: 404 Not Found

Countries with a greater debt as a percentage of GDP than the U.S. (39.7%):

1. Zimbabwe - 304.3
2. Japan - 192.1
7. Italy - 115.2
11. Belgium - 99.0
16. France - 79.7
17. Germany - 77.2
20. Canada - 72.3
22. United Kingdom - 68.5
30. Norway - 60.2
31. India - 60.1
32. Spain - 59.5
42. World Average - 53.6
54. Brazil - 46.8
62. Sweden - 43.2

Countries with a lesser debt as a percentage of GDP than the U.S. (39.7%):

69. Denmark - 38.1
73. Cuba - 34.8
90. New Zealand - 29.3
101. Ukraine - 20.7
105. Venezuela - 19.4
109. China - 18.2
124. Russia - 6.9
129. (last) Equatorial Guinea - 1.1


I'm not drawing any conclusions, as I'm not sure what conclusions to draw, but thought it interesting.

Chapter Seven: I Hope You Get Run Over By A Bus.

I think you can be intolerant and not infringe on other people's rights. I didn't see that as an option in your post, you seemed to be equating intolerance with trampling on others rights. Which, ironically, would put you in that same category. You, I'm sure, are happy to not infringe on others' rights despite being intolerant to their positions. I think others can do the same.

Aaah sorry. No, if you're intolerant and not infringing on other's rights then you're okay (at least in the sense of being a memeber of civil society...moral judgements aside)...I was probably too half-focused here (due to work) to make that clear.

The issue is of course that the vocal wing of the intolerant is so focused on infringing on the right's of others.

But here's the fallacy of both your position and DT's position: what makes you think the seperate countries would or could remain "pure" in their ideology for any length of time?

I think the scenario you're painting is more similar to the Scott Roeder situation. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Jon isn't actively executing gays in public places.

Jon, please correct me if I'm wrong on that assumption.

Don't tempt him.

So you can have your opinion, but you just shouldn't express it? You're sounding less liberal and more authoritarian with every post.

It's worth looking at but also can be misleading. You have to factor in the private sector too though since we offer less services than many of those countries with larger national debt ratios. So while as a government we may have a smaller percentage, our private individuals have higher debt since they are paying for those services individually. I'd rather look at External Debt per Capita.

I'm not sure if DT's intolerance of religious fundamentalists is all that hypocritical, really. While these people are certainly intolerant, they're also a great many other thing all of which (arguably) makes them a net negative on society (arguably).

Of course, if one makes the case to boot a group from the country not because you can't tolerate them, but because their actions actually detract from the common good, then one's not necessarily being intolerant, right?

Wrap your heads around those semantics, bitches!

:D

Except for the fact that it would spontaneously combust from the amount of hate contained in its pages.

He was suggesting this should happen to file sharers

But those people labled as "intolerant" also believe that certain behavior detracts from the common good.

So it all depends on what rights people think they have.

Are we intolerant because we don't allow "consensual" man/boy sexual relationships? Some people think so.

Are people who want ALL reference to religion out of schools intolerant when the constitution and supreme court doesn't require that? I would say yes, and those people that want that are often considered "tolerant liberals".

Isn't the Constitution essentially laws governing tolerance? Saying you have to accept the fact that everyone has these rights and you can't take them away from anyone.

I don't think DT is saying that you can't express your thoughts within those confines, I think he's saying you can't be intolerant to the point where you trample someone else's rights. In a crude way, the Constitution is saying " be tolerant or GTFO".

The question is "does your expression of it infringe on the life, liberty (read "civil rights"), happiness, or property rights" of others. If it doesn't infringe on those...express away. It's when it infringes upon those that it becomes unacceptable.

It depends on who's determining the common good. This is in essence the argument made by folks who wanted to send emancipated slaves back to Africa in the mid-19th century, and to a certain degree the same attitude professed by believers in eugenics in the early 20th century.

It's the difference between protesting at abortion clinics and blowing up abortion clinics.

Or, hey, the difference between advocating for gun rights and just shooting people who vote for gun control.

Honestly, let's use a little common sense here, people.

But the constitution doesn't contain a right to say, gay marriage.

But it certainly does appear to give states a right to determine that issue on their own.

So when "rights" people feel they have conflict - who's being intolerant?

You're probably going to want to find another way of phrasing that, or at least remove one of the criteria.

Expressions that claim some "right" to aberrant behavior (as one example, there are plenty of others but we'd be hear for days trying to list 'em) definitely infringe on my happiness. You'll probably need to remove the "liberty/civil rights" thing too since you're also attempting to infringe on my right to express a belief in a specific set of values, so that one is out too.

in the case of pedophilia - the argument would certainly be that the child is a minor in the eyes of the law, and lacks the maturity to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult.

And frankly...the pedophiles should all be strung up and castrated, and then impaled on stakes and left out to die when they come out to complain about "tolerance of them." That'd make the country a much much better place.

Nah, you're safe as there as ample options well short of that step.

You're still just making a moral judgment there, just like others do with homosexuality in general. It's just a moral judgment that almost all of agree with. Some other people have moral ideas that are less popular.

Yeah, but objectively these people were wrong.

If we sent the emancipated slaves back, we never have the NBA (OK, maybe a bad example). And as Star Trek taught us, if we have eugenics, we end up with a world-destroying civil war.

:D

And with this argument you would have told abolitionists to shut the fuck up about property rights.

Where do you get the phrase "life, liberty, happiness, or property rights" of others? And in a government of, for, and by the People, don't the People as a body determine whether or not something is a valid exercise of a civil right through either the legislative process or through a constitutional amendment?

It just sounds like your arguing in favor of a society that doesn't argue, which strikes me as exceedingly unrealistic.

no, we've already said, you're allowed to express a belief in it. just not allowed to express that belief in a way that infringes on someone else's rights (such as by outlawing it).

and the word "happiness" there is not my construct, but is of the "locke/jeffersonian" origin.

if you really want to get into that that's a whole nother hairy discussion, but suffice it to say (and i know you know this and are just trying to be difficult) that it doesn't mean "whether you're happy with your life."

So DT is just saying that we should all obey the law? Why didn't he just say so?

This was DT's original comment:
If you can find a "hey, let's all just obey the law" statement in that, you're better at reading between the lines than I am.

Those people are idiots because they don't understand the concept of informed consent.


Those people are idiots because they don't understand you can't teach a number of subjects without referencing world religions.

Go ahead, give me some more examples, but I'll bet for most there's a middle 75% of the country* who will say "of course not, that's dumb. Are you high?"

:D

*pure speculation

But outside the confines of what is specifically spelled out, the concept of "rights" is essentially a moving target determined by a variety of social & political influences. In other words, the majority of those "rights" are subject to change at any given moment subject to the applicable process (i.e. amendment) or sufficient influence by some point of view (i.e. political authority to appoint SCOTUS etc).

edit to add: Heck, because of the amendment process, even the ones that are spelled out really are subject to change as well (a point I didn't really take into consideration on the first typing)

We tried 8 years of conservative authoritarianism, and we all saw how that turned out, so let's now try 8 years of liberal authoritarianism. Change that I, at least, can believe in.

:D

It also doesn't contain a right for us to watch football on Sunday. Or fly a space shuttle to the moon.

It does give the states to determine issues that are not prohibited by the Constitution. Which is why a State can't ban black people from attending public schools because it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The same can be said for gay marriage.

Once it is outlawed that supposed "right" no longer exists.

"life, liberty, property" is a paraphrase of locke. throw happiness in there and it's jefferson.

Do not smoke in any public place that I am at, please.

Where do I fit in the spectrum?

But who "allows" the belief, and who says someone is "not allowed" to outlaw something? It's "The People" in both cases, but you're saying that "The People" have the power to allow something, but not the power to restrict something? Well, that's an interesting constitutional theory to say the least.

Taking this another direction:

Obama plans $33 billion tax credit for jobs and wages - Jan. 28, 2010

So we'll raise minimum wage and force you to provide healthcare for your employees, but we'll give you the money to offset that? What again?

It only infringes on your happiness if you are forced to do them. No one is forcing you to have gay sex. No one is forcing you to think about them either. You are the one who is infringing on your pursuit of happniess by allowing it to have a negative impact on you.

:D

Well said. An important point.

No, it's about doing what's objectively right. For instance, some states have laws that outlaw oral sex (and the bible thumpers would like to extend these). Objectively that's wrong, wrong, wrong and I'm sure and right-thinking person (or at least someone without scripture-derived self-hating issues) can see this.

:D

By that standard then, DT should not be bothered by religious fundamentalists. After all, I doubt DT is forced to attend their religious services or take an oath professing belief in a fundamentalist religion. No one is forcing DT to think about fundamentalists. He's the one infringing on his pursuit of happiness by allowing them to have a negative impact on him.

You are correct if we are strictly talking about someone's rights being violated. I don't think DT's rights have been violated because someone else chooses to be a Christian.

absolutely not violated. but the problem is that a significant percentage of them don't stop at just professing those beliefs to each other and trying to expand their services. they try to have their moral beliefs written into law and deny the rights of others.

LOL. You lost me at "objectively right". That's what this entire argument is about... the fact that you have roughly equal opinions on many issues in which there is no agreement on what is "objectively right".

so you're not a fan of blowjobs hmm?

So for the fundies it's just a matter of "belief", but for the people you support it's a matter of "rights".

I'm starting to see why you have such a problem with democracy.

The constitution allows that at the state level (in fact, its a right), unless we're talking about a individual constitutional right - and the identification of those is constantly up for debate.

I guess all I'm trying to say that people think differently, many prefer a different kind of government that the constitution, at the outset, certainly allowed. I can certainly understand the resentment then, when people (practically "foreigners", from the perspective of some in the south), decide that government is actually supposed to be this way, and if you don't change to be like us you're wrong.

Don't people have a right to do that, at least to some degree?

That's a REALLY important right to some people.

"Gays are evil and should be denied equal treatment" = belief

"Gay couples living together function financially in the same way as straight couples living together" = fact

ergo it is within their rights to be treated as such

I'm a fan of not getting bogged down in strawman arguments, but I'll tell you what... if they start rounding up people getting/giving oral sex in private, I'll gladly participate (on the receiving end, that is) in a "blow-in" on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial.

All of that is just a belief (not a religious belief, but a belief).

disagree.

i'm not about to spend my workday going and finding studies and numbers to support it, but from a common sense standpoint, the financial arrangement between two gay men living together under the same roof is independent of where they choose to stick their dicks at night. they share household expenses in the same way as any other couple.

I hate to tell you this, DT, but I know plenty of people that you'd consider to be fundamentalist who don't view gay people as evil. In fact, most Christians I know view all of us to be sinners. Now you may be thinking of the Fred Phelps of the world, but if you're honestly worried about the "God Hates Fags" brigade gaining political power I'd tell you to quit being paranoid. I don't even think they've been able to take over Topeka, much less Kansas, much less the United States.

Perhaps the first step towards real tolerance would be viewing your ideological opponents as real people, not cartoon caricatures.

Both of those are still beliefs and their rights have nothing to do with what people believe morally.

All that matters is that as long as they are a United States citizen, they are given equal rights that every other United States citizen receives. Regardless of whether people think they are evil or wonderful.

That's really good advice for the closed-minded people on both sides of this.

I can't believe that "tolerant liberals" don't see what they sound like when they start ranting against things they don't agree with.

i went with the cartoon caricature because i'm engaged in an internet argument/discussion, and that is the generally accepted thing to do in such discussions in order that one does not spend excess time in addressing all the nuances of a particular position. A degree of intellectual laziness, I concede that, but I'm also trying to do a little work while I'm here today.

I think you underestimate the anti-gay rhetoric. To just put it on the lap of Fred Phelps is not correct.

Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Ted Haggard carried the torch against homosexuality throughout their lives. They were not small ministers either, they had/have had power over millions of people. They are not secluded to a small town. These people not only had access to the homes of millions, but also were frequently meeting with the President to discuss issues.

Fred Phelps is certainly the extreme and so overboard that it's more humorous than evil. But anti-gay sentiment is very mainstream and those names are just a few examples of it.

Just as I'm sure others can't believe that "intolerant conservatives" don't see what they sound like when they start ranting against things they don't agree with.

Except the right to elect the government you want, if that government conflicts with someone else's idea of what the constitution means.

Yup, they both sound the same to me.

{scratches head}

I'm pretty sure I'm included in that group somewhere but I'm also pretty sure I have a reasonable idea of how it's perceived by the general groups within the audience as well.

The difference is that I make no false pretense about some imaginary tolerance (see sig file below)

Ah, but a viewpoint that is "objectively right" doesn't need people to agree with it, because it's objectively right.

:D

And despite these frequent meetings, it's still against the law to commit a violent crime against a homosexual, while it's perfectly okay for two consenting adults to put their genitals in consenting adult partner of their choice. Are you complaining about the results that these preachers have had, or their access? Because once again it sounds like the complaint is over the freedom of speech and religion rather than any results they've been able to obtain.

but they're not given the rest of rights that adult heterosexual partners have, as far as financial rights, medical rights, etc

Er, I'm pretty sure it's against the law to commit a violent crime against anyone. Even against the law to commit a crime.

Unless you're getting all meta on me (I won't blame you - it's a Friday).

Edit, sort of like how getting sick can kill you.

:D

Only recently though. Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003, IIRC.

Yep, right smack dab in the middle of 8 years of our "conservative authoritarianism"... which kinda makes my point.

I didn't realize federal judges were elected officials.

This is a pretty silly argument. Yes, states have the right to determine their marriage laws, but they don't have a right to determine them in a way that violates the 14th Amendment. See: Loving v. Virginia.

I know the caselaw, I've just saying I understand the resentment of people when the constitution is interpreted to impose one's moral beliefs on the rest of the country.

I mean, there's no limit to that. The constitution is meaningless. It will be interpreted however people want to leave, or not to live.

The Bush administration thought the constitution gave it the power to do all sorts of crazy stuff (or really, they didn't care what the constitution actually said, they just wanted to do what they wanted and then tried to justify it with the constitution). That's kind of the mirror image of overly expansive federal rights that are made up as we go. We decide gay sex is OK, so we decide the constitution says that too, and thus everyone is bound by our opinion.

Not really. The dissenters in the 6-3 decision (Scalia, Rhenquist & Thomas, dissenting opinion authored by Scalia) voted to uphold mainly on the basis of stare decisis (i.e. confirming Bowers), noting that the law itself was, in Thomas' words "uncommonly silly". When even Scalia & Thomas can't bring themselves to say that sodomy should be outlawed, I think it's safe to say that sodomy is "objectively right".

:D

And liberals love to cry "hate crime" just as often the other way. Or "racism" at the drop of a hat.

I like cranky, sarcastic Flere.

The Supreme Court deciding things based on what they personally feel is "objectively right" is great if you happen to agree with them, but pretty damn scary if you don't. (Remember Bush v. Gore?)

It's good for getting police officers convicted to appease the masses, it's good for obstructing debate on an issue or heading off an investigation, it's good for getting folks fired, it's good for getting politicians kicked out of office or blocking their election. But feel free to maintain your righteous moral highground...

That's not what I was suggesting, though.

No one in Lawrence based their decision on whether or not sodomy was "objectively right". The case revolved around whether or not states have the right to criminalize it.

My point was that when even the dissenters make special mention that they're not against sodomy, per se, instead basing their dissent on those damn liberal judges using stare decisis only when it pleases them, I think we can safely assume that sodomy, even when mistakenly criminalized by stupid states, is "objectively right".

Now if you want to argue that, then go ahead, but bear in mind you'll be arguing that, amongst other things, blowjobs are not "objectively right" and you'll (rightly) be a pariah.

Don't be a pariah.

:D

You're trying to trip me up, but it won't work. :p

Objectively, it was the correct decision as much as, subjectively, I disliked the decision. Al Gore lost the election long before the Florida voting system screwed things up.

The only issue I have with Bush vs. Gore was that SCOTUS didn't issue a finding to also light Katherine Harris on fire.

:D

That's what they have to say in the opinions, but no, the real driving force behind this decision was our society's more progressive ideas about sexual preference (and sex in general), otherwise, they could have decided this issue decades earlier or more.

But by the time of the case, 36 states had repealed their sodomy laws, and the other states rarely or never enforced the ones they had on the books. Seems like enough support for a constitutional amendment.

I think that's an unusually enlightened view. Bill Clinton called it "one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever made". I don't think he was talking about the legal analysis.

I didn't realize truly authoritarian regimes paid much attention to judicial decisions they disagree with.

They also noted the Court sidestepped the "central legal conclusion" of Bowers and did not find there to be a "fundamental right" to buttsex. So your subjective reading of the dissenting opinion does not lead to the conclusion that sodomy is objectively right. :)

i'm curious about why the court should have any say in whether there's a fundamental legal right to any type of sex between two consenting adults? I mean what's not...are they going to tell people they can't have furrysex? where would that leave all the furries? who are they all hurting as consenting adults?

dola-

BTW, I don't really care about oral sex, or buttsex, or your best friend Jimmy wanting to toss your salad. In fact, the more specific you get, the more it speaks to my original point that there's no easy way to divvy up this country along red state/blue state lines. Molson pointed out that by the time Lawrence v. Texas came around, some 36 states had taken anti-sodomy laws off the books. I don't think, however, that the people in all 36 of those states would vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage. So where would DT put those states? Are they in the union because they don't legally ban sodomy, or are they out of the union because they haven't legalized gay marriage?

It was right around that time that 'judicial activism' became a very popular term, and the topic of impeaching judges was brought up in direct reference to this case.

If not the courts, who will protect those poor horny furries when PETA convinces Vermont to ban sex while wearing animal fur? Who else would be able to determine such a law unconstitutional?

Oh yes, I forgot the caveat that when it comes to conservative authoritarianism, you don't actually need evidence of despotic action. An op/ed in Newsmax or World Net Daily, or the opinions of a non-governmental citizens group will suffice, even if no debate about impeaching a justice is ever held.

if they don't have either "gay marriage" or "marriage=civil union" & "civil unions" then they're out of my hypothetical union because they're discriminating.

it's not about the "sacred" institution of marriage, or legalizing what goes on in the bedroom. it's about the myriad additional benefits that go along with it, financial benefits in the eyes of the IRS, custody benefits of children or step-kids, healthcare decisions, etc.

So, while Tom DeLay was in Congress, he never called for the impeachments of any judges that made decisions he didn't agree with? You must not have remembered the rant he went off on after the whole decision around Terry Schiavo.