IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags arnold schwarzenegger , California issues , California politics , equal rights issues , gay rights

Reply
Old 21st September 2007, 12:23 PM   #41
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,863
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
A an aside, why is everything in California decided by referendum? In most states people elect legislatures and the legislatures enact laws.
Chicken politician syndrome

It happened here too, otherwise the Nicotene Nazis wouldnt have been able to sneak their Robert Wood Johnson enrichment program anti-tobacco laws in

Of course if they vote in something the government REALLY doesnt like (like voting against taxes for stadiums/ medical marajuana) theyll null the referendum results
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 12:43 PM   #42
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,464
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
Not sure if you caught this, but the guvernator is a republican, in case you got confused thinking ahhhhnold was in the same party as Sharpton/Jackson
Not sure if you caught this, but "Party of Jesus" usually refers to evangelical conservatives/republicans, in case you got confused thinking that it referred to any religious political figure.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 12:55 PM   #43
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 30,416
Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
There you go!

Drop the religious trappings, and the same things can be had with a civil contract.
Ironically, such legal do not, and cannot, depend on the religious trappings anyway. Hence there is really no difference -- you can even have the religous "half", anyway, if you want.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 01:23 PM   #44
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,345
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
It is self-evident that people are created with inalienable rights.
There are no self-evident truths (and even that truth does not seem to be self-evident). Any claim to self-evidence is basically just an Appeal to "Because I Say So!".
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 01:33 PM   #45
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)?
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 01:41 PM   #46
DoubtingStephen
Queer Propagandist
 
DoubtingStephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)?
I think if you asked most Americans if they thought everybody should be treated with equal dignity under the law the vast majority would agree.

If you then further asked if gay people should have the same rights as everyone else there might be a significant number of folks that would back away from their prior response.

There seems to be a percentage of Americans who think it is appropriate to identify certain people who will be treated as second class citizens.
DoubtingStephen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:20 PM   #47
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen View Post
I think if you asked most Americans if they thought everybody should be treated with equal dignity under the law the vast majority would agree.

If you then further asked if gay people should have the same rights as everyone else there might be a significant number of folks that would back away from their prior response.

There seems to be a percentage of Americans who think it is appropriate to identify certain people who will be treated as second class citizens.
On the contrary, I don't think that they really consider it as "violating their rights" to prevent homosexuals from being married. They might also point to such things as those "social contracts" instead of marriage as evidence that they follow the idea of marriage, just don't tread on the idea of religious marriage or somesuch.

Of course, I think it's all horse ****, but I think that many would say straight out that homosexuals should be granted rights. Just that getting them to accept that preventing them from marriage is a violating of said rights, is another thing altogether.
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:24 PM   #48
DoubtingStephen
Queer Propagandist
 
DoubtingStephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
On the contrary, I don't think that they really consider it as "violating their rights" to prevent homosexuals from being married. They might also point to such things as those "social contracts" instead of marriage as evidence that they follow the idea of marriage, just don't tread on the idea of religious marriage or somesuch.

Of course, I think it's all horse ****, but I think that many would say straight out that homosexuals should be granted rights. Just that getting them to accept that preventing them from marriage is a violating of said rights, is another thing altogether.
What you say rings true, sad, but most likely accurate I'm afraid.

Regardless of public opinion though, I'd be mighty pleased if my own government would get off my back. Preferably while I'm still alive too.
DoubtingStephen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:28 PM   #49
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,052
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights. Among these rights are life, liberty, and the purfuit of happineff."

It is self-evident that people are created with inalienable rights. These rights are not granted by the state, or by society. They exist with the property of being.
Can you provide me with a list of these inalienable rights?
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:29 PM   #50
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,052
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
I declare they are incorrect and disagree with that list. Now what?
Exactly.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:30 PM   #51
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,211
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Can you provide me with a list of these inalienable rights?
They are listed in the original document: Life, liberty, and perfuit of happineff, among others.

Don't take it up with me, take it up with the founders of the USA.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:32 PM   #52
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Can you provide me with a list of these inalienable rights?
Not that I agree with the whole "born rights" thing, but...

http://www.lonang.com/foundation/2/f21.htm

Just what I found with a google search.

As for the Founding Fathers, whom this is all based on, they pretty much went with the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness approach. That, I can get jiggy with it.
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:33 PM   #53
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,052
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)?
Depends what they are.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:33 PM   #54
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
They are listed in the original document: Life, liberty, and perfuit of happineff, among others.

Don't take it up with me, take it up with the founders of the USA.
Wasn't that in a letter to a King?

I had heard it was life, liberty, and property, and that the people referve all rightf, etc

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:35 PM   #55
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,052
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
They are listed in the original document: Life, liberty, and perfuit of happineff, among others.

Don't take it up with me, take it up with the founders of the USA.
Nothing makes me happier than burning down your home and killing your family and suffering no harm to myself as a result of my actions. So you agree that is my inalienable right?

Somehow I bet the answer is no.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:36 PM   #56
Fnord
Metasyntactic Variable
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
Right here:
Originally Posted by Fnord
It seems odd to me that people would claim the right to a religious union on the one hand, and condemn religion in general on the other. I guess its sorta like those folks who lay claim to a religion but only show up in its houses of worship for holidays, weddings, funerals, et cetera.


__________________
Cleon, since you are a Moderator, I will address your statement...

I said PEOPLE, not Gay, not Atheist ... PEOPLE, as in "people in general." That was all I intended, no more and no less.

How do you infer a conflation of Gay and Atheist issues from that kind of broad generalization?
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory;
Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things;
and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things.
Belief itself proves nothing.
Fnord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:37 PM   #57
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,052
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
Not that I agree with the whole "born rights" thing, but...

http://www.lonang.com/foundation/2/f21.htm

Just what I found with a google search.

As for the Founding Fathers, whom this is all based on, they pretty much went with the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness approach. That, I can get jiggy with it.
Then I can never be put in jail because that violates my right to liberty.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:57 PM   #58
FenrisWolf
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 60
The Central Scrutinizer: Do you have a point?

The authors of the declaration of independence came right out and admitted that they were making an assumption, right in the text:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

This means, "We're not going to argue about this, but instead we're going to make this our starting point. These are our basic assumptions and premises."

Now you could choose different assumptions or premises. But this isn't an ivory-tower term paper in theoretical philosophy, it's a practical real-world document with a very specific historical purpose, which is also spelled out right in the text:

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another [...] they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

This document isn't going to engage in any tedious first-year philosophy logical proofs. It's going to handwave all that in the interests of, y'know, getting to the actual point at hand: declaring political independence.

So I suppose you can ignore all the political context of the "unalienable rights" phase and try to twist it around to mean something other than what the authors meant by it. But don't pretend you've contributed anything positive or profound by doing so.

Last edited by FenrisWolf; 21st September 2007 at 02:59 PM.
FenrisWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 02:59 PM   #59
DoubtingStephen
Queer Propagandist
 
DoubtingStephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
Cleon, since you are a Moderator, I will address your statement...

I said PEOPLE, not Gay, not Atheist ... PEOPLE, as in "people in general." That was all I intended, no more and no less.

How do you infer a conflation of Gay and Atheist issues from that kind of broad generalization?
Your message was posted in a thread about marriage started by a gay atheist.

The concern I had with your message was the seeming implication, by its presence in this thread, that the gay atheist who started the thread was seeking to partake in a religious activity. Nothing could possibly make me feel more nauseous than a religious service, not even an accidental ingestion of wheat.

You may have noticed that in California and the rest of the United States persons wishing to marry, as in Marriage, must obtain a license from the government. Despite the Party of Jesus infestation in our government, it is not necessary to obtain the permission of a practitioner of ancient superstitions and bigotry, yet.

Thus marriage is clearly and undeniably a civil contract, and your reference to persons who condemn religion (Me, Me, Me!) seeking a religious union (yuch!) was without any basis in fact.
DoubtingStephen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 03:01 PM   #60
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Nothing makes me happier than burning down your home and killing your family and suffering no harm to myself as a result of my actions. So you agree that is my inalienable right?

Somehow I bet the answer is no.
Are you not capable of perceiving contradictions? I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your "right" does not supercede my right. Thus... your argument is soundly refuted. (By the way, the "pursuit of happiness" originally was meant as "the pursuit of property"... so you destroying my property, I.E., my home, is also arguably a violation of my rights. This would also include my dogs. Nope, looks like I'm covered completely!)

Try again, Kemo-Sabe.

Heh... I can imagine you, sitting at your computer, grinning like a fool as you think, "Oh, I got this guy THIS time! Hahahaha, this is gonna be so great... I mean, pursuit of happiness means any happiness, even that which supersedes other rights! I'm a GENIUS!" (No, don't worry, I don't actually believe that. My example required an actual thought...)

Seriously, 5 seconds of thought on the issue would have refuted the argument for you. Are you even trying?

I'd honestly LOVE to see this. Go ahead, Scrutinizer. Go ahead and demonstrate a single way you can simultaneously uphold your own rights to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, while simultaneously upholding mine and everyone else's, in a way that I could possibly disagree with. Here's a hint: You cannot contradict the idea. I.E., if you uphold your "right" to happiness by canceling my "right" to life or liberty, you lose the game. You up for it?

An ideal isn't a bad ideal merely because you misuse it and misunderstand it.
__________________
Writing.com Account

Last edited by Lonewulf; 21st September 2007 at 03:19 PM.
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 03:04 PM   #61
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,863
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Not sure if you caught this, but "Party of Jesus" usually refers to evangelical conservatives/republicans, in case you got confused thinking that it referred to any religious political figure.
In the same way that Hovind's " Ive never seen a dog come from a bannana" applies to evolution
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 03:15 PM   #62
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,516
Originally Posted by FenrisWolf View Post
The Central Scrutinizer: Do you have a point?

The authors of the declaration of independence came right out and admitted that they were making an assumption, right in the text:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
and so the assumptions made by a group of traitors centuries ago should be the basis of of political discourse today? The DoI forms no law, nor is it part of the US constitution, it was political pamphleteering- a call to arms
Quote:
This means, "We're not going to argue about this, but instead we're going to make this our starting point. These are our basic assumptions and premises."
and they should not be challenged? Especially when their ideas are inherently self contradictory.



Quote:
So I suppose you can ignore all the political context of the "unalienable rights" phase and try to twist it around to mean something other than what the authors meant by it. But don't pretend you've contributed anything positive or profound by doing so.
But waivign it abbout to deomnstreate eth exsisatnce of rights does contribute somthign eiterh profuound or positive?
really? what?


Scrut didn't bring up the DoI pgwenthold did, to "prove" that rights exsist seperate from the state.

One wonders why, if the the authors of the DoI beleievd that rights could come from without the state, they bothered going to the trouble of establishing one at all.
brodski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 03:21 PM   #63
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,516
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
Are you not capable of perceiving contradictions? I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your "right" does not supercede my right. Thus... your argument is soundly refuted.

Try again, Kemo-Sabe.

Heh... I can imagine you, sitting at your computer, grinning like a fool as you think, "Oh, I got this guy THIS time! Hahahaha, this is gonna be so great..."

Seriously, 5 seconds of thought on the issue would have refuted the argument for you. Are you even trying?

I'd honestly LOVE to see this. Go ahead, Scrutinizer. Go ahead and demonstrate a single way you can simultaneously uphold your own rights to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, while simultaneously upholding mine and everyone else's, in a way that I could possibly disagree with. Here's a hint: You cannot contradict the idea. I.E., if you uphold your "right" to happiness by canceling my "right" to life or liberty, you lose the game. You up for it?

But with no state to protect, uphold and in effect grat rights to those whose rights conflict with, or woudl be impinged on by, the righst fo oterhs, no rights exist.

Without state and soeity tehre are no rights, tehy are a fiction which can only exist in a civilisation, and by being in a civilisation they become artefacts of the society that civilisation is based on.
There is no one absolute correct way to determine where one persons “rights” end and another's begin, and how those conflicts of “rights”. If rights were a natural phenomenon, separate from society, that would not be the case, there would be clear, easy obvious and natural solutions.
brodski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 03:24 PM   #64
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by brodski View Post
But with no state to protect, uphold and in effect grat rights to those whose rights conflict with, or woudl be impinged on by, the righst fo oterhs, no rights exist.
Which has nothing to do with what Scrutinizer and I are talking about. He's attacking the idea of the rights of life, liberty, and happiness being good things. Not that they are "in-born rights".

Quote:
Without state and soeity tehre are no rights, tehy are a fiction which can only exist in a civilisation, and by being in a civilisation they become artefacts of the society that civilisation is based on.
There is no one absolute correct way to determine where one persons “rights” end and another's begin, and how those conflicts of “rights”. If rights were a natural phenomenon, separate from society, that would not be the case, there would be clear, easy obvious and natural solutions.
I don't disagree. It also has nothing to do with what I said.

Seriously, is it so much to ask that people on this forum actually read what I say?

Here, I'll tattoo it on my signature.

This is all I've said on the subject, besides what you quoted:

Originally Posted by Lonewulf
Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)?
And here, RIGHT here, on Post #52:
Quote:
Not that I agree with the whole "born rights" thing, but...
See? I don't agree with it. I said that. Right THERE. Where the quote is. Post #52. You're arguing with me on a non-issue.

However, the Founding Fathers stated that they considered these rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to be Good Things (tm). They also added in a creator, but I consider all that unnecessary. Remove the religion jargon, and take it as it is.

Now, can you provide a single reason why Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all human beings is a *bad* thing? Or why any society that actually upholds said ideals can be said to be a bad government?

A dictatorship, even a benevolent one, risks losing our liberty.

Death squads or wrongful executions or police actions that lead to death, violate the idea of the Life right.

And keeping people in their own station, and impeding their ability to become self-determined (I.E., keeping them from being able to "move up" in the world of capitalism), violates the Pursuit of Happiness/Property right.

ETA: Actually, I DO disagree on something. There is no "correct" way to determined rights? What about logic, morality, conscience, or just simply good ideas (which would trump bad ones)? Every human has a certain amount of desires. And, I don't hesitate to say, at LEAST 99% of human beings wish for: Life. Liberty. The Pursuit of Happiness.

I would say that any despotic government that treats it's people like **** are easily shown to be undesirable by the people that are stamped on by said government. It's easy to be casual about the violation of these rights, when you aren't the oppressed individual. How so many people in free countries seem to forget that simple fact.
__________________
Writing.com Account

Last edited by Lonewulf; 21st September 2007 at 03:52 PM.
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 03:40 PM   #65
FenrisWolf
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by brodski View Post
and so the assumptions made by a group of traitors centuries ago should be the basis of of political discourse today? The DoI forms no law, nor is it part of the US constitution, it was political pamphleteering- a call to arms
Those same assumptions made by a group of traitors centuries ago are in large part the same assumptions that underpin US law today -- and, to make this somewhat on-topic, CA law too.

Originally Posted by brodski View Post
and they should not be challenged? Especially when their ideas are inherently self contradictory.
I don't think they are self-contradictory, taken in context. As for challenging them, I have yet to see a better set of assumptions on which to base a state.

Quote:
But waivign it abbout to deomnstreate eth exsisatnce of rights does contribute somthign eiterh profuound or positive?
really? what?
I sincerely hope your keyboard is broken. Anyway, yes, it does contribute to the conversation, since it's very relevant when determining the rights of gays to consider the underpinning assumptions of the society in which those gays are living.

Quote:
Scrut didn't bring up the DoI pgwenthold did, to "prove" that rights exsist seperate from the state.

One wonders why, if the the authors of the DoI beleievd that rights could come from without the state, they bothered going to the trouble of establishing one at all.
If pgwenthold meant that rights exist separate from the state, I think he is wrong, and I know he is talking irrelevancies. The rights in question are not separate from a state but rather part of both the state of CA and the federal US government. So it's entirely unimportant to the discussion whether they would exist without a state when they are clearly in one.

I assume your "one wonders why" is rhetorical; if not, I refer you to the source text, it succeeds rather well as a justification for why they bothered.
FenrisWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 03:49 PM   #66
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,464
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
In the same way that Hovind's " Ive never seen a dog come from a bannana" applies to evolution
How do come to that conclusion, or are you just really stretching to make an association fallacy?

eta: Tell you what, I'll present my supporting evidence and you present yours. I'm sure we can resolve this like rational people.

Here is a thread on this board where Party of Jesus explicitly is being used to refer to a (hypocritical) fundamentalist Republican.

What do you have?

Last edited by Upchurch; 21st September 2007 at 03:56 PM.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 03:56 PM   #67
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,863
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
How do come to that conclusion, or are you just really stretching to make an association fallacy?
Both parties are "the party of jesus". It is fraudulent to apply the term to one and not the other.
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 04:00 PM   #68
Fnord
Metasyntactic Variable
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen View Post
Your message was posted in a thread about marriage started by a gay atheist.
Ah. There's the problem. I did not know that you are gay or atheist. Had I known, I would still have posted anyway, but included a caveat like "Nothing personal against the OP" or something like that.


Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen View Post
Despite the Party of Jesus infestation in our government...
"Party of Jesus"? Isn't this a "Straw Man" fallacy? If not, could you provide a link to their party headquarters?


Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen View Post
... and your reference to persons who condemn religion (Me, Me, Me!) seeking a religious union (yuch!) was without any basis in fact.
It is based in fact. Unfortunately for me, the facts are wholly experiential, and therefore subjective. I know people (in general) who condem religion (in general) and who also seek a religious ceremony officiated by a religious leader to confirm their relationship.


Bottom line: What I posted was not directed at any one person or group in particular, and was based only on my personal experiences.
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory;
Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things;
and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things.
Belief itself proves nothing.
Fnord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 04:09 PM   #69
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,464
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
Both parties are "the party of jesus". It is fraudulent to apply the term to one and not the other.
Oh, do you think so? Do you remember this?

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
Not sure if you caught this, but the guvernator is a republican, in case you got confused thinking ahhhhnold was in the same party as Sharpton/Jackson
Pretty much just walked into that one, huh?
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 04:12 PM   #70
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
"Party of Jesus"? Isn't this a "Straw Man" fallacy? If not, could you provide a link to their party headquarters?
Uh, if anything, it's a personal attack more than anything.

And seriously, the Republicans have a very very powerful reputation of being religious. The fact that any republican that goes against status quo (promotes stem cell research, abortion, etc.) gets attacked vigorously by his own party... well, that's actually status quo.

It's all part of the neo-conservative movement, mixed closely with the Evangelical movement. In fact, many evangelicals do praise Bush and the Republican party, and they usually tend to agree on gay marriage, abortion, etc.
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 04:22 PM   #71
DoubtingStephen
Queer Propagandist
 
DoubtingStephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
"Party of Jesus"? Isn't this a "Straw Man" fallacy? If not, could you provide a link to their party headquarters?
Why, yes, I certainly can provide a link and thank you very much for asking.
http://PartyofJesus.com/
DoubtingStephen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 04:54 PM   #72
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,863
By this nonsense reasoning we could call the Democrats "the party of hitler" since they pushed so many similar antismoking laws as the nazis did, even using the same terms

But that would be stupid
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:21 PM   #73
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,715
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
On the contrary, I don't think that they really consider it as "violating their rights" to prevent homosexuals from being married. They might also point to such things as those "social contracts" instead of marriage as evidence that they follow the idea of marriage, just don't tread on the idea of religious marriage or somesuch.
That is very much what I was trying to get at. This is a moral issue for both sides, and as a moral issue any method you can achieve a moral state is valid.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:24 PM   #74
Lisa Simpson
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 22,349
Would the Governator say "gol darn"? Seems more like that other bastion of the Party of Jesus, George W. Bush.
Lisa Simpson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:33 PM   #75
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 59,722
Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson View Post
Would the Governator say "gol darn"? Seems more like that other bastion of the Party of Jesus, George W. Bush.
I'd love to hear Arnold say "gol darn" in his accent.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 07:02 PM   #76
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
 
Skeptic Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,990
Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
There you go!

Drop the religious trappings, and the same things can be had with a civil contract. If fact, such a contract could have the same termination clauses and penalties built in as a pre-nuptual agreement. Keep in mind that marriage is the leading cause of every divorce ever committed.

It seems odd to me that people would claim the right to a religious union on the one hand, and condemn religion in general on the other. I guess its sorta like those folks who lay claim to a religion but only show up in its houses of worship for holidays, weddings, funerals, et cetera.
Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
Uhh ... where did I conflate the two issues? Don't presume more than the evidence can support.

But since you brought it up, I do know gay people who would not set foot in a church except to get married. They rail against institutionalized religion on the one hand, and then demand the blessings of those same institutions on the other. And then they call me a hypocrite when I try to explain church doctrine to them.

Some people just look for trouble, especially where there is none.
Bolding mine. It seems to me that you were tying atheism and religion together.

ETA: I know that Wikipedia can be suspect at times, but I was wondering if marriage had to refer to a religious ceremony and I don't think it does.

Quote:
A marriage is often declared by a wedding ceremony,[7] which may be performed by a religious officiator, through a similar government-sanctioned secular officiator, or (in weddings that have no church or state affiliation) by a trusted friend of the wedding participants.
__________________
"Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths" - Carl Sagan

Even Mother TeresaWP doubted.

Last edited by Skeptic Guy; 21st September 2007 at 07:08 PM.
Skeptic Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 08:08 PM   #77
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,863
Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson View Post
Would the Governator say "gol darn"? Seems more like that other bastion of the Party of Jesus, Jimmy Carter.
Fixed it for you to name the only president Ive ever actually seen/heard recorded say "gol durn"

We now return to the regular scheduled bigotry
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 09:20 PM   #78
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,464
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
By this nonsense reasoning we could call the Democrats "the party of hitler" since they pushed so many similar antismoking laws as the nazis did, even using the same terms

But that would be stupid
So, first you imply that the Democratic Party is the Party of Jesus. Then, you declare that both the Republican and Democratic parties are the Party of Jesus (anything else would be fraudulent, you said). Now, you're suggesting that the entire comparison is bogus and (I'm guessing) neither party is the Party of Jesus.

Why don't you take a moment to stop and think about what you actually mean and then get back to us. It might help clear up that persecution complex you have, too.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 10:36 PM   #79
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,863
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
So, first you imply that the Democratic Party is the Party of Jesus. Then, you declare that both the Republican and Democratic parties are the Party of Jesus (anything else would be fraudulent, you said). Now, you're suggesting that the entire comparison is bogus and (I'm guessing) neither party is the Party of Jesus.

Why don't you take a moment to stop and think about what you actually mean and then get back to us. It might help clear up that persecution complex you have, too.
wow! words in my mouth and a free psychoanalysis too!

skillz
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2007, 01:25 AM   #80
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
So, first you imply that the Democratic Party is the Party of Jesus. Then, you declare that both the Republican and Democratic parties are the Party of Jesus (anything else would be fraudulent, you said). Now, you're suggesting that the entire comparison is bogus and (I'm guessing) neither party is the Party of Jesus.

Why don't you take a moment to stop and think about what you actually mean and then get back to us. It might help clear up that persecution complex you have, too.
Originally Posted by Pipelineaudio
wow! words in my mouth and a free psychoanalysis too!
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio
Both parties are "the party of jesus". It is fraudulent to apply the term to one and not the other.


How the hell can it be "words in your mouth" when he said, practically word for word, what you actually said?
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.