(April 6, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, you're not going to admit that you're okay with children dying, so long as christians get to do whatever they want? 

You see, these are post birth children, in which case conservatives say "fuck 'em". 

I can only assume that the only thing he'd require from Christian doctors is prenatal care? Or does government involvement only take place if she wants an abortion?

(April 6, 2015 at 2:51 pm)Heywood Wrote: I argued that all human beings have the right to life.  Not just the subset of human beings those in power declare have the right to life.  The Nazis did the same thing the proabortion movement advocates.  The proabortion movement advocates that only certain humans beings have the right to life just like the Nazis did.

You seem to have missed his point entirely.  I'd help you out by limning it clearly for you, but I have a sense I'm going to enjoy watching you helplessly flail. Let's see how long it takes you to figure it out, and let's see what sort of bullshit arguments you put up in the meantime.

(April 6, 2015 at 4:01 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 6, 2015 at 3:59 pm)Cato Wrote: Heywood's argument in this thread strongly resembles the argument some make about the cause of the U.S. Civil War; that it was a conflict about states' rights and had nothing at all to do with slavery.

Having lost the argument, Cato tries to change the subject to justifications for the Civil War.

You're a fucking moron. I have not lost an argument despite your declarations to the contrary, pigeon. Nobody reading this will mistake my observation for changing the subject. I was merely pointing out the similarities in the arguments used. This is just another one of your evasions. You remind me of a child that covers his ears, shuts his eyes and blathers some noise at 80dB to prevent receiving any input.

I'm also amused by the fact that you showed back up here to bless us with your unfathomable inanity as soon as Drich went on hiatus. AF.org must suffer from some as yet undiscovered Conservation of Stupidity Law.

Cato's Laws of Conservation of Stupidity:

The First Law: For every sensible statement, there is an exponentially more stupid statement that must be made.
The Second Law: Stupidity=P(Dogma*Insanity²) where P = Poe's Constant.
The Third Law: The amount of stupidity in a closed system asymptotically approaches a limit defined by the number of sources in the system.

(April 6, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 6, 2015 at 4:01 pm)Heywood Wrote: In many states it is already been and has been legal to refuse to serve someone because they are gay.  You're just trying to weasel out of backing up your claim with an excuse that doesn't hold water.

Please provide an evidence based reason why gay people should be discriminated against, or either backtrack you entire position, or stop insisting on evidence. You can't selectively require evidence for things.

Quote:The truth is, the only problem that exists is people like you are butthurt that there exist a few people like pizzeria owners who don't want to serve gays.  I am sorry, but your butthurt isn't a sufficient reason to start curtailing individual rights.

So, you're not going to admit that you're okay with children dying, so long as christians get to do whatever they want? 

I am not arguing that gay people should be discriminated against.  That is you making a strawman to save face cause you lost this argument.  I am arguing that people have the right to self determination and that right should never be curtailed by the state except in very extreme circumstances.  Preventing you from being butthurt is not an extreme circumstances which warrants curtailing another's right to self determination.

Now you have answered the argument I have made by making this ridiculous speculation that all doctors could now discriminate against gays.  Your counter argument is so stupid and laughable.  If you really take such silly arguments seriously, you should believe the argument that all same sex marriages should be banned because its possible that all of them will be fraudulent.

I know you don't believe such silly arguments and you are just trying to rationalized a failed position.

(April 7, 2015 at 2:22 am)Heywood Wrote: I am arguing that people have the right to self determination and that right should never be curtailed by the state except in very extreme circumstances.  

Do the laws forbidding discrimination based on skin color qualify as an 'extreme circumstance'? If so, what criteria are you using to qualify skin color, but not sexual orientation?

(April 7, 2015 at 11:54 am)Cato Wrote:

(April 7, 2015 at 2:22 am)Heywood Wrote: I am arguing that people have the right to self determination and that right should never be curtailed by the state except in very extreme circumstances.  

Do the laws forbidding discrimination based on skin color qualify as an 'extreme circumstance'? If so, what criteria are you using to qualify skin color, but not sexual orientation?

I look forward to seeing which horn Heywood chooses to be gored by: skin color doesn't qualify and shouldn't be protected against discrimination or the hoary old 'sexual orientation, unlike skin color, is chosen'?

Why do religious people have such a downer on gay people?
I just don't get it.
And why the reluctance to take their money, where do they think they keep it?

(April 7, 2015 at 11:54 am)Cato Wrote:

(April 7, 2015 at 2:22 am)Heywood Wrote: I am arguing that people have the right to self determination and that right should never be curtailed by the state except in very extreme circumstances.  

Do the laws forbidding discrimination based on skin color qualify as an 'extreme circumstance'? If so, what criteria are you using to qualify skin color, but not sexual orientation?

The necessity for anti-discrimination laws forbidding discrimination based on color of skin was a result of government interference.  Government created the problem by curtailing the individual freedom of people of color....but that is the topic of another thread. 

As to criteria?  I have already answered that question several times.  If the market would not serve a particular class of people then perhaps we need to compel it by law to serve that class of people.  I don't believe that is the case with gays.  I don't believe gays would find it difficult to find a baker willing to bake them a cake or a photographer willing the photograph their wedding.  Sure there will be the occasional photographer or baker who refuses to serve them, but the market as a whole will. Further i believe, as Mr Agenda claimed, that the market will economically punish those participants who discriminate against gays.

The reason people like you want these discrimination laws, is not to correct some massive societal injustice.  You simply want to force people to behave in a way that you want them to behave.  You need a very good reason, in my opinion, before you start curtailing individual freedom.  Your butthurt isn't sufficient.



 

(April 9, 2015 at 4:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: The necessity for anti-discrimination laws forbidding discrimination based on color of skin was a result of government interference.  Government created the problem by curtailing the individual freedom of people of color....but that is the topic of another thread. 

Fucking troll.