User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 10:02:10 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol I guess that passes for an answer when you just don't have one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 10:05:57 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess that passes for an answer when you just don't have one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
lol I guess that passes for an answer when you just don't have one. I've kinda lost track of who said what at this point, so maybe I'm misattributing all this, but the argument earlier was that the government isn't "prohibiting" anything, it's just not "forcing" the "good moral people" (not a real quote, I'm just mocking) to "recognize" something they don't believe in. So when later the argument is directly acknowledged as being about prohibiting something, it gets a chuckle out of those of us that have been following it. Hope this clears things up for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 10:27:30 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've kinda lost track of who said what at this point, so maybe I'm misattributing all this, but the argument earlier was that the government isn't "prohibiting" anything, it's just not "forcing" the "good moral people" (not a real quote, I'm just mocking) to "recognize" something they don't believe in. So when later the argument is directly acknowledged as being about prohibiting something, it gets a chuckle out of those of us that have been following it. Hope this clears things up for you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lol I guess that passes for an answer when you just don't have one. I've kinda lost track of who said what at this point, so maybe I'm misattributing all this, but the argument earlier was that the government isn't "prohibiting" anything, it's just not "forcing" the "good moral people" (not a real quote, I'm just mocking) to "recognize" something they don't believe in. So when later the argument is directly acknowledged as being about prohibiting something, it gets a chuckle out of those of us that have been following it. Hope this clears things up for you. No, you're lost, as this sub-thread really has nothing to do with gay marriage specifically. He laid out a pretty specific guideline for allowing government intervention. All I did was describe an action that most people have no problem prohibiting yet falls outside his guideline and asked his opinion on it. I got non-answers and lols as a response. The reason (and I'm guessing here) is that his guideline is overly simplistic, as most hyper-libertarian proclamations are, and he doesn't want to admit it. But he also doesn't have a problem with outlawing pervs, so he just ignores the question. Lol! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 11:26:20 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess that passes for an answer when you just don't have one. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: lol I guess that passes for an answer when you just don't have one. "....So, no, I would not condone such behavior, nor would I choose to live in a community where such behavior was accepted."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 12:54:13 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, you're lost, as this sub-thread really has nothing to do with gay marriage specifically. He laid out a pretty specific guideline for allowing government intervention. All I did was describe an action that most people have no problem prohibiting yet falls outside his guideline and asked his opinion on it. I got non-answers and lols as a response. The reason (and I'm guessing here) is that his guideline is overly simplistic, as most hyper-libertarian proclamations are, and he doesn't want to admit it. But he also doesn't have a problem with outlawing pervs, so he just ignores the question. Lol! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lol I guess that passes for an answer when you just don't have one. I've kinda lost track of who said what at this point, so maybe I'm misattributing all this, but the argument earlier was that the government isn't "prohibiting" anything, it's just not "forcing" the "good moral people" (not a real quote, I'm just mocking) to "recognize" something they don't believe in. So when later the argument is directly acknowledged as being about prohibiting something, it gets a chuckle out of those of us that have been following it. Hope this clears things up for you. No, you're lost, as this sub-thread really has nothing to do with gay marriage specifically. He laid out a pretty specific guideline for allowing government intervention. All I did was describe an action that most people have no problem prohibiting yet falls outside his guideline and asked his opinion on it. I got non-answers and lols as a response. The reason (and I'm guessing here) is that his guideline is overly simplistic, as most hyper-libertarian proclamations are, and he doesn't want to admit it. But he also doesn't have a problem with outlawing pervs, so he just ignores the question. Lol! You got lols as response because you're "argument" is a reductio ad absurdum, and just plain dumb. ETA- One more time....recognizing gay marriage falls under the concept of equal protection under the law. This has jack and shit to do with masturbating in front of little girls, no matter how much you wish it did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 1:10:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Quick answer to Op's question: Hell No!
 PS: OP does not seem to know either what a Libertarian is or what they stand for.........
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 2:21:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"....So, no, I would not condone such behavior, nor would I choose to live in a community where such behavior was accepted." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lol I guess that passes for an answer when you just don't have one. "....So, no, I would not condone such behavior, nor would I choose to live in a community where such behavior was accepted." Then your original litmus test for law is obviously not adequate for a civilized people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 2:25:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You got lols as response because you're "argument" is a reductio ad absurdum, and just plain dumb. ETA- One more time....recognizing gay marriage falls under the concept of equal protection under the law. This has jack and shit to do with masturbating in front of little girls, no matter how much you wish it did. You should really stop using terms you don't understand. First you claimed that it was an analogy; it's not. Nor is it a reductio ad absurdum, because I'm not claiming that allowing gays to marry will result in anything. I'm showing that hyper-libertarians are inconsistent, which just isn't that difficult. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 3:01:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then your original litmus test for law is obviously not adequate for a civilized people. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: lol I guess that passes for an answer when you just don't have one. "....So, no, I would not condone such behavior, nor would I choose to live in a community where such behavior was accepted." Then your original litmus test for law is obviously not adequate for a civilized people. No it's not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 4:27:59 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should really stop using terms you don't understand. First you claimed that it was an analogy; it's not. Nor is it a reductio ad absurdum, because I'm not claiming that allowing gays to marry will result in anything. I'm showing that hyper-libertarians are inconsistent, which just isn't that difficult. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You got lols as response because you're "argument" is a reductio ad absurdum, and just plain dumb. ETA- One more time....recognizing gay marriage falls under the concept of equal protection under the law. This has jack and shit to do with masturbating in front of little girls, no matter how much you wish it did. You should really stop using terms you don't understand. First you claimed that it was an analogy; it's not. Nor is it a reductio ad absurdum, because I'm not claiming that allowing gays to marry will result in anything. I'm showing that hyper-libertarians are inconsistent, which just isn't that difficult. HAHA...terms I don't understand? Whatever you say hard charger. Your claim is that because libertarians don't want the government involved in marriage then we automatically should have a problem with laws banning masturbation in front of children. I know, you think you're so clever, but it IS in fact a reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps you should read the link I furnished you with earlier. Masturbating in front of kids has nothing to do with equal treatment under the law. Of course you could also apple the reasonable person standard to something like this too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 4:42:42 PM EDT
[#11]
the only similar scenario that could be used in comparison would be straight people being permitted to publicly masturbate (or expose themselves, or whatever) but gay people being prohibited.
otherwise, they're completely unrelated, Flats' desire to make them comparable notwithstanding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 9:33:26 PM EDT
[#12]
Bottom line is that libertarians want to legalize freedom. All freedoms. Even those freedoms we may not personally agree with.
Can Repubs and Dems say that? I know. Laughable even to think about, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2014 8:20:07 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it's not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Then your original litmus test for law is obviously not adequate for a civilized people. No it's not. And that was the point of bringing up the flasher example. Overly simplistic "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" philosophies may be a good starting point, but they are not sufficient; at least not for us. Therefore it's pretty pointless to use that as a litmus test when we already know we're going to prohibit things that fall outside those boundaries. It's a worthy consideration, but it's not the end-all be-all and never has been. Whether regulating marriage is a good idea or not is still arguable, but it's not automatically disqualified just because it doesn't physically impact others. For the short bus crowd who got lost and thinks I was comparing it to gay marriage, now you get it. Maybe. Some of you may be incapable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2014 8:36:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And that was the point of bringing up the flasher example. Overly simplistic "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" philosophies may be a good starting point, but they are not sufficient; at least not for us. Therefore it's pretty pointless to use that as a litmus test when we already know we're going to prohibit things that fall outside those boundaries. It's a worthy consideration, but it's not the end-all be-all and never has been. Whether regulating marriage is a good idea or not is still arguable, but it's not automatically disqualified just because it doesn't physically impact others. For the short bus crowd who got lost and thinks I was comparing it to gay marriage, now you get it. Maybe. Some of you may be incapable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then your original litmus test for law is obviously not adequate for a civilized people. No it's not. And that was the point of bringing up the flasher example. Overly simplistic "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" philosophies may be a good starting point, but they are not sufficient; at least not for us. Therefore it's pretty pointless to use that as a litmus test when we already know we're going to prohibit things that fall outside those boundaries. It's a worthy consideration, but it's not the end-all be-all and never has been. Whether regulating marriage is a good idea or not is still arguable, but it's not automatically disqualified just because it doesn't physically impact others. For the short bus crowd who got lost and thinks I was comparing it to gay marriage, now you get it. Maybe. Some of you may be incapable. Oh, no we "get it" which is why even us "short bus" people recognize it as stupid. Apparently you think that some guy masturbating in front of a little girl won't negatively affect her. Still, at the end of the day, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether or not the government should treat all people the same under a particular law. You don't think so, we do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2014 9:19:30 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh, no we "get it" which is why even us "short bus" people recognize it as stupid. Apparently you think that some guy masturbating in front of a little girl won't negatively affect her. Still, at the end of the day, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether or not the government should treat all people the same under a particular law. You don't think so, we do. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And that was the point of bringing up the flasher example. Overly simplistic "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" philosophies may be a good starting point, but they are not sufficient; at least not for us. Therefore it's pretty pointless to use that as a litmus test when we already know we're going to prohibit things that fall outside those boundaries. It's a worthy consideration, but it's not the end-all be-all and never has been. Whether regulating marriage is a good idea or not is still arguable, but it's not automatically disqualified just because it doesn't physically impact others. For the short bus crowd who got lost and thinks I was comparing it to gay marriage, now you get it. Maybe. Some of you may be incapable. Oh, no we "get it" which is why even us "short bus" people recognize it as stupid. Apparently you think that some guy masturbating in front of a little girl won't negatively affect her. Still, at the end of the day, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether or not the government should treat all people the same under a particular law. You don't think so, we do. Yep. That is what is at issue here. Not masturbation or pedophilia or brothers and sisters marrying or whether the government should be involved in "forcing" acceptance or any of the other red herrings that've been offered by the fish mongers here. Does the law as written treat all Americans equally? That is the test, and our marriage laws fail that test. We Americans like to think that what makes us "exceptional" is our pursuit of liberty. What we really mean is that we love only the liberties we approve of for whomever we decide is worthy of that approval. We can do better than that. And we should. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2014 12:24:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And that was the point of bringing up the flasher example. Overly simplistic "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" philosophies may be a good starting point, but they are not sufficient; at least not for us. Therefore it's pretty pointless to use that as a litmus test when we already know we're going to prohibit things that fall outside those boundaries. It's a worthy consideration, but it's not the end-all be-all and never has been. Whether regulating marriage is a good idea or not is still arguable, but it's not automatically disqualified just because it doesn't physically impact others. For the short bus crowd who got lost and thinks I was comparing it to gay marriage, now you get it. Maybe. Some of you may be incapable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Then your original litmus test for law is obviously not adequate for a civilized people. No it's not. And that was the point of bringing up the flasher example. Overly simplistic "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" philosophies may be a good starting point, but they are not sufficient; at least not for us. Therefore it's pretty pointless to use that as a litmus test when we already know we're going to prohibit things that fall outside those boundaries. It's a worthy consideration, but it's not the end-all be-all and never has been. Whether regulating marriage is a good idea or not is still arguable, but it's not automatically disqualified just because it doesn't physically impact others. For the short bus crowd who got lost and thinks I was comparing it to gay marriage, now you get it. Maybe. Some of you may be incapable. Despite what your own proclivity may be, masturbating in public, especially in front of children, isn't really all that prevalent. Most people have natural inhibitions preventing them from engaging in such acts. But it's a great big world, with lots of people in it, so I'm sure if I search hard enough I can find someone who has acted out your fanciful scenario and "... masturbated in front of girls waiting on a bus". (quite an imagination you have). What you are describing is an aggressive act, and a violation of an the individual's rights under natural law. The "actor" is attempting to force the "observer" to participate in a personally gratifying sexual act. How you can not see this as an aggressive act, that violates the observers natural rights, is somewhat disturbing. With that said, there is absolutely no comparison between two individuals voluntarily engaging in marriage and "...masturbating in front of girls waiting on a school bus". Your argument is absurd. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
