Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » How Libertarian are you? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: How Libertarian are you?
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Danzig,

You can't be serious? If you drug someone and then take advantage of the fact that they are impaired (because of you) and rape them, then you are guilty, not them. Is there anyone else on this widely diversive board that agrees with this insanity Danzig is spewing?

KE

[ December 30, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: JLMyers ]

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Danzig
Member
Member # 1358

 - posted      Profile for Danzig         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uh... you are guilty of intoxicating someone without their consent, which in my opinion is still a very serious crime. You are also a very bad person. But if you ask them, and they say yes, it is not rape. If they are impaired to a point where they are unable to say yes or no, and/or unable to physically resist, that is still rape, and I never meant to imply otherwise.

ATW - I second that private companies should be allowed to drug test and fire users. The government should be prohibited from doing the same, however.

Posts: 495 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stroll
Member
Member # 2219

 - posted      Profile for stroll   Email stroll       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, to reiterate, driving without "proper restraints and safety equipment" is frowned upon by insurance companies and their subsidiary the government, and even semi-criminalized. This is similar to many other forms of entertainment which have an inherent personal risk.
The government is a subsidiary of insurance companies? Driving is a form of entertainment? Which country do you live in, la-la-land?
quote:
Did anyone else have severe problems making this connection?
I have not perfected my telepathy skills yet, so I didn't make the connection between driving and bullfights as being seatbelts, either.
I suggest you get someone to check your comments for coherence before you post.

Posts: 23 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stroll
Member
Member # 2219

 - posted      Profile for stroll   Email stroll       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
flyedye: So, to reiterate, driving without "proper restraints and safety equipment" is frowned upon by insurance companies and their subsidiary the government, and even semi-criminalized. This is similar to many other forms of entertainment which have an inherent personal risk.
The government is a subsidiary of insurance companies? Driving is a form of entertainment? Which country do you live in, la-la-land?
quote:
Did anyone else have severe problems making this connection?
I have not perfected my telepathy skills yet, so I didn't make the connection between driving and bullfights as being seatbelts, either.
I suggest you get someone to check your comments for coherence before you post.

Posts: 23 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
velcro - North Korea is about as far from libertarian as you'll ever find.

What comes closest to libertarian today? I'd say Hong Kong. They're *very* successful.
In fact, on the index of economic freedom, everyone near the top has been an economic powerhouse or is rapidly becoming better off (Estonia).

Generally speaking, the lower the economic freedom, the worse it gets for the people in that country. There's always room for improvement, but the strong pattern here is that the freer your economy, the better off the area tends to get over time. The connection between private property and personal freedom is extremely strong.

That's how I know free markets work: the freer they get, the more they work. It's evident in the world today. Look at who is successful versus who limps back from disturbances in their economy. Look at whose workers are becoming more productive the fastest. Look at who's got the highest standards of living and whose standards are rising the fastest. The stagnant places, even within countries, are the places where income inequality is actually the highest... and guess what? They're the places where regulation is highest.

If there's a lack of transparency in the workings of government, you see people struggling more, especially in small business. Most well-intentioned government regulation that goes beyond protection of rights, globally speaking, hurts more people than it helps.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Danzig
Member
Member # 1358

 - posted      Profile for Danzig         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, more economic freedom means more money to bribe judges and/or hire defense attorneys when one is accused of violating a community standard.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... assuming that your lawyer is used as anything other than a threat to force an out-of-court settlement.

Read this from the WSJ's Opinion Journal (use kos@dailykos.com as login):
That 'Sluggish' Economy: It's Still the Strongest in the World
quote:
To look closely at international economic data is to be reminded that countries with comparatively low tax rates and regulatory burdens consistently outperform countries with high ones. Of course it's nice to know that America's "sluggish" economy remains a world-beater. It's even better to know why.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Danzig,

I'm glad you clarified. However, I still disagree with one point. If you drug someone without their knowledge even if they say yes, I believe you are guilty of rape.

Of course if they get themselves drunk or drugged and then say yes, it is not rape. Even if you encourage a girl to drink, but don't force her, IMO it is not rape. But now we're getting into the whole date rape argument; do girls allow themselves to get drunk so they can say yes and not feel guilty? Maybe this should be another thread?

KE

Edited to change to Danzig. Apologies to both parties.

[ December 30, 2004, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: JLMyers ]

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Danzig
Member
Member # 1358

 - posted      Profile for Danzig         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did you mean Danzig?

Maybe it should be another thread.

Posts: 495 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But if you ask them, and they say yes, it is not rape."

No, it's still rape.
They did not put themselves in a position in which they were unable to exercise better judgement; you put them there, without their consent or even knowledge.

If I strap you to a chair and subject you to brainwashing techniques in order to turn you into Zyne's love slave, does that mean that it's any less a rape than if we just left you strapped down all the time?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Danzig
Member
Member # 1358

 - posted      Profile for Danzig         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Invalid analogy; those involuntarily drugged can leave the situation. Usually it is immediate and physical, but even if they are stuck somewhere the drug is going to wear off in a few hours. Kidnapping and forcible imprisonment are not part of that scenario. Personally, I think involuntary intoxication is at least as bad as rape, but you always retain your core self when intoxicated. And if you are intoxicated enough for the drug to have an effect on your judgement, it is not without your knowledge.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but you always retain your core self when intoxicated.
I'm not sure that I can agree with you on this. Certainly when I have had a few drinks and I am a little more liberated than usual I can still make decisions that are generally consistent with my "core self". However, I have gotten much more drunk than that twice in my life. In both cases I did things that I would never have done were I sober. Nothing illegal. It is very easy to make a suggestion to someone who is that imparied and have them comply without thinking about it in the least. In my case it feels like I am a few seconds behind myself and when I catch up to the moment of the decision it has already been made and I cannot change it. In one of those cases, later when I had sobered up and was fighting a massive hangover, I realized what had happened and wondered why I was unable to say no to my friend's girlfriend. I didn't even like her and wasn't attracted to her in the least. While I think that the "core self", as you put it, is still there, I don't think that it is capeable of enforcing decisions when impaired to that extent by alchohol or other drugs.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is wrong with legislating cultural taboos, particularly when they are so broad based? I would also challenge the "cultural" part of your assertion. China, the Muslim nations, even Thailand all forbid such acts. While Europe is pretty free on public displays of nudity, I think even they draw the line at couples fornicating in front of children. Africa is a mixed bag as usual. In fact I would challenge you to name a nation which allows such public displays.

And as I said, let communities decide. Just as I would not impose the "church lady" standard be the norm for criminalizing behaviour, nor would I allow the "Larry Flynt" standard be the bar for allowing questionable behaviour.

And I gather from your comments you don't have kids.

BTW I had thought I had cut that comment for being a bit too confrontational, so sorry.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AWT -

The First through Tenth amendments are described as 'further declaratory and restrictive clauses'. With that in mind, I do not feel that they can be modified.

StormSaxon -

A ton of Libertarians are for this and that. This is one major reason why Badnarik didn't get many votes. Politics revolves around two things - basic unalterable principles and the will to compromise the small things. Many libertarians have the former quality, but not the latter.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, most people who vote Libertarian tend to be pretty solid in their pov in my experience. It's one of the things that seperates the 'big Ls' from the 'little Ls'. Private property, a weak state internally but with a strong retaliatory military. It's been the 'official' stance for Libertarians for as long as I've looked into them. Of course, not really being a Libertarian, but having a keen appreciation for them, I am certainly willing to be corrected on this. [Smile] I get most of my information about their beliefs from antiwar.com/cato.com/reason.com and from talking with a Libertarian of my acquiantance at work.

I do agree with you that a lot of people who have called themselves libertarians are basically just doing it do the cool independent thing, just to show their individuality or something, but really vote Republican 99% of the time.

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, fly, I've got a daughter. [Smile] Why do you assume that someone who believes that public sex is not inherently harmful is childless?

What inherent harm do you believe is present in witnessing sex?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I do agree with you that a lot of people who have called themselves libertarians are basically just doing it do the cool independent thing, just to show their individuality or something, but really vote Republican 99% of the time.
You're probably right, but I think becoming an Independant is an important step in distancing oneself from the two-party vitriol even if you vote the same.

I wanted to vote more Libertarian than I did last election, but unfortunately the guy running for Congress struck me as one of those kooky libertarians [Wink]

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My last post should say cato.org. Pardon.

Also, why is public sex harmful? I mean, I guess a stray bit of bodily fluid might hit someone in the eye, but other than that, what do you expect would happen if people were doin' it where other people could see them? I mean, if sex is bad, is even public kissing toxic after prolonged exposure, or is it just when we start to see a hint of tongue action that our immortal souls are in jeopardy?

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And Adam underlines the real reason why more people don't vote libertarian. The one that I hear most often. It's not because the Libertarian party has a chaotic plan or anything. Hell, of all the parties out there, theirs is the *least* confusing, I would think.

edited for grammatical and syntactical stupidity.

[ December 31, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am forced to retreat into an old cliche, "If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand anyway." Thus I will not waste my time. Good luck with that.

Following that doctrine, I assume that you would allow her to see the odd Shannon Tweed film at any particular age provided it is not violent. Why don't you try it as a social experiment with yourself. Get a nice soft core porn and watch it with your daughter. And even if you could, how is mom going to react?

It is easy to say things on the internet. It is another to live with the consequences. If you hope you are not unreflective enough to actually try that out.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Excuse me.

The last sentence should read "I hope you are not unreflective enough to actually try that out.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Part of the problem with this thread is that it seems to be focused around the notion of individual rights. Many here have argued as if rights are the foundation of our laws, they are not. Laws exist to ensure that society functions smoothly. Rights are merely those boundaries in which we declare that the law has gone too far.

To some of the points at hand...

Seat belt (and helmet) laws. While it is the right of a person to endanger themselves, it is not a right willfully use resources that could be rightfully used elsewhere. Here, in Arizona, we have something we call the "Stupid Motorist Law." Normally, our stream beds are dry, but, with a good rain, they can swell rapidly. Often times, motorists try and cross these washes only to get stuck and need to be rescued. Here, in Az, we charge those motorists for their rescue. Why? Because accidents also increase during rainstorms and here are rescue workings whose valuable time has been diverted from helping people in accidents, rescuing some moron he didn't need to be there in the first place.

The same is true for seat belts and helmets. Wear them, and you're less likely to need emergency care for your stupidity. Fail to wear them, and you are taking valuable time from those who genuinely need those services.

This law serves society by making the lives of emergency workers a little easier.

Public displays of sex. Sex is an act that needs to be, like fire, treated with respect. Like fire, it has consequences, chiefly disease and pregnancy. Treating sex casually reduces that respect, increases the likelihood for casual sex and, therefore, increases the consequences of disease and pregnancy. The aspect of disease should be obvious, once again, we have health care workers treating what need not be treated. Pregnancy is less obvious. In most cases, it is not a bad thing, but unwanted pregnancies lead to unnecessary abortions, an act which is abhorrent to some.

Trivialize sex and you make the undesirable consequences more likely. More disease, more abortion, more abandonment, etc... This creates a greater (and unnecessary) burden on social workers.

While I could care less whether or not some joker wears his safety belt, or if some foolish girl gets pregnant, I do care about overworking our health care workers or an unwanted child who deserves better than abortion or abandonment. And society can only benefit if we manage such issues.

Ed.

Corrected spelling.

[ January 01, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: EDanaII ]

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Following that doctrine, I assume that you would allow her to see the odd Shannon Tweed film at any particular age provided it is not violent."

Ah. You apparently do not believe in a distinction between condoning, promoting, or tolerating a behavior. [Smile]

Renting a Shannon Tweed video would, indeed, constitute "promotion." Walking past two people having sex is, at best, tolerance.

I would like you to explain why, exactly, public sex is more harmful than not wearing a seatbelt -- to the point that you would not legislate the former, which has never killed anyone, but would legislate the latter.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Renting a Shannon Tweed video would, indeed, constitute "promotion." Walking past two people having sex is, at best, tolerance.
No, walking past two people having sex would be tolerating, silently condoning and -- by failure to act -- promoting sex. If it isn't bad enough to stop, it can't be all that bad...

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed -

Hardly. If you walk by someone having a beer, but believe that alcohol is bad, you're not promoting alcohol. You're simply tolerating that person's ability to imbibe alcohol.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that the libertarian ideals are fantastic. My two issues are "objective harm" and the political ineptitude of the party.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ FiredrakeRAGE

What you say would be true, IF society currently condemned adult alcohol use. It doesn't. It does, however, condemn child alcohol use, and failure to act would not only be condoning its use, it could get you arrested.

No less true for Public Sex. It is currently condemned by society. Failure to condemn it is, in effect, condonement.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It does, however, condemn child alcohol use, and failure to act would not only be condoning its use, it could get you arrested."

Note that we've actually got a different crime here, though. [Smile]

Currently, society condemns alcohol use by children. In other words, society as a whole seeks to punish children who use alcohol. Moreover, it punishes people who promote the use of alcohol in children. And it even, because it considers childhood use of alcohol fairly serious, has chosen in some areas to make the toleration of childhood alcohol use punishable as a crime, as well.

This does not mean that toleration IS promotion simply because we choose to punish both behaviors; in fact, the mere fact that (in both Wisconsin and Indiana, for example) those are two different crimes should suggest to you that the behaviors are not equivalent.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed, you explained things clearly and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Yes, there is a difference between tolerance, promoting, and condoning. Every person seems to have a different place where they put the line.

When I walk by people smoking, I usually tell my kids that such behaviour is very bad for you. So, while I "tolerate" their right to smoke, I do not condone the action to my children, much less promote it. I would treat sex in public the same way, if it were legal. The fact that it is not states that those who are tolerant of such behaviour are in the (loud) minority.

It is also no stretch to state that sex, like alchol use, needs to be regulated and kept away from children because it is pleasureable. Since they have little judgement, children need protection. That is why violence isn't as big a risk in movies as sex. Being hit with a fist hurts. Getting a BJ doesn't. Which would you rather engage in?

The "tolerance" that Tom speaks of has led to 13 year old girls having "rainbow parties" with boys, even in such dull places as Ohio. Is that what tolerance has given us?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ TomDavidson

What you say is basically true, Tom, but you are, however, not abstracting your argument to the proper level.

To do so you would have to argue that... Condemning an action seeks to prevent it. Both tolerating and condoning an action DO NOTHING to prevent the action, making them both, by virtue of their effect, the opposite of condemn. None of them seek to prevent an action.

Ed.

Edited because I forgot to add... Since promoting IS the opposite of condemning, and, by virtue of their effect, tolerating and condoning can be considered in the same realm as promoting. I.e. None of them seek to prevent an action.

[ January 04, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: EDanaII ]

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Danzig
Member
Member # 1358

 - posted      Profile for Danzig         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I could just as easily say that condemning and tolerating an action are the same, since neither of them actively seek to cause an action.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It is also no stretch to state that sex, like alchol use, needs to be regulated and kept away from children because it is pleasureable. Since they have little judgement, children need protection."

Are you Mormon, fly? I've heard this argument from Mormons, but from few others. (It's worth noting, BTW, that "rainbow parties" are generally discredited as exaggerated urban legends.)

"tolerating and condoning can be considered in the same realm as promoting"

Nope. That's like saying that black and red are the same color as blue, since none of them are green.

[ January 04, 2005, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rolva
Member
Member # 2234

 - posted      Profile for rolva   Email rolva       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I may be off-topic here, but the thread being on Libertarianism and all, I was wondering whether there is an intrinsic foreign policy associated with it. Would a Libertarian government be isolationist in the international scene?
Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
(It's worth noting, BTW, that "rainbow parties" are generally discredited as exaggerated urban legends.)

That's funny, we just had a student suspended for hosting one.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Danzig
quote:
I could just as easily say that condemning and tolerating an action are the same, since neither of them actively seek to cause an action.
You could say that, yes, but it would not be true. Active or not, the intent of condemning is to stop the action in question.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Active or not, the intent of condemning is to stop the action in question."

Yes. And the intent of promoting is to encourage the action in question.

Whereas the intent of tolerance is to permit the action in question.

There is as big a difference between permission and promotion as between permission and condemnation.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Granted, Tom, but that is why I am arguing "by virtue of effect."

Danzig's point about activity does not change that argument. Condemning something -- condemnation is, by definition, active -- still seeks to prevent any further action. Tolerating -- by definition, passive -- still does nothing to prevent further action.

Permission, OTOH, supports my argument, as to permit something is to allow it to happen. And if you tolerate or condone it, you also allow it to happen. Not one of those three do anything to prevent further action. Ergo, _by virtue of their effect,_ all three are still the opposite of condemnation.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*laugh* So you're saying that there's no such thing as a shade of gray on your planet? That if we aren't actively pushing to make something illegal, we're effectively promoting it?

[ January 05, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It ain't just "my planet," it is _the law._ Laugh at me all you want Tom, but in so doing you are clearly demonstrating your lack of understanding concerning law.

You see, that is exactly why law exists, to render shades of gray into black and white. If it did not do this, it could not make judgements and, therefore, could not function.

Which is exactly why I was able to turn Firedrake's point around so easily. Society tolerates adult drinking, therefore, the law tolerates adult drinking, defining it only in black and white when drinking crosses a specific boundary. I.e. operating any type of vehicle. Society condemns child alcohol, so the law will not tolerate, condone or promote it. Instead, true to its function, it renders everything black and white where alcohol and children are involved. Tolerating or condoning such drinking is irrelevant because you have already crossed the boundary into black and white. Nothing else, as a result, matters.

Or, in other words...

  • Where Society promotes an action, the law will promote it.
  • Where Society condones an action, the law may promote it within specific boundaries.
  • Where Society tolerates an action, the law may condemn it within specific boundaries.
  • Where Society condemns an action, the law will condemn it.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Once again I am forced to admit how old I've become.

What is a "rainbow party"?

KE

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1