TakeYouToTasker Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 When you can't defend the indefensible what can you say? Gibberish. Perfect. Says the dope speaking in incoherent non-sequiturs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Rights are rights, and if you get to decide how I will or will not use my own property, then it is not my own property, but is rather communal property that you simply allow me to use, so long as I only use it in ways that you find desirable. What you describe aren't rights, they are privileges. With that stated, individual property rights are the singular concept upon which all rights are balanced. When you do away with property rights, you've done away with every ounce of the liberal progress of human kind since John Locke; and all because some fat billionaire doesn't like sp***s and n*****s. Seems like a lousy swap to me, on balance. Oh no! Civil rights laws are going to destroy all our liberty now? What hog wash. Laws against discrimination free more people. For every person being held back by the discrimination you support there is someone that has to be there holding them down. can't even believe you are trying to argue this trash Says the dope speaking in incoherent non-sequiturs. To you, arguing against discrimination and hate is incoherent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Oh no! Civil rights laws are going to destroy all our liberty now? What hog wash. Laws against discrimination free more people. For every person being held back by the discrimination you support there is someone that has to be there holding them down. can't even believe you are trying to argue this trash To you, arguing against discrimination and hate is incoherent. How can I have the right to property if others tell me what I am able to do with it? How can I have freedom of association if you can force me into contracts against my will? How can I have freedom of speech if you can penalize me for types of speech you deem hateful? As I've said many times before, freedom to act admirably is also, logically, the freedom to act poorly; and you cannot make one man more free by diminishing the freedom of another. If you disagree, detail the logical paths of your disagreements; or simply admit that your argument is emotional rather than logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 How can I have the right to property if others tell me what I am able to do with it? How can I have freedom of association if you can force me into contracts against my will? How can I have freedom of speech if you can penalize me for types of speech you deem hateful? As I've said many times before, freedom to act admirably is also, logically, the freedom to act poorly; and you cannot make one man more free by diminishing the freedom of another. If you disagree, detail the logical paths of your disagreements; or simply admit that your argument is emotional rather than logical. How can you have freedom of speech if you are not allowed to say you have a bomb in a crowded public place? Or to call someone up on the phone and say you are going to murder their child. We do not live in a world of absolutes. It's not all or nothing. Your rights and freedoms come with responsibilities. Rights are not absolute. Property rights come with many qualifications. You have to cut your grass or you will lower your neighbors property values. I can't collect raw sewage on my property because it's a health hazard. I have called the cops on my neighbors before because their dogs were creating a nuisance with their barking. Your idea that it's your universal sacred property and can have unlimited use of it is childish. If you are going to rent property, if you are going to open a restaurant or own a baseball stadium you can't say black people are not allowed. Why? Because we the people have determined that that is evil. If you don't like it, tough. But your argument that it's. Slippery slope to losing all liberty is plane old bunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 How can I have the right to property if others tell me what I am able to do with it? How can I have freedom of association if you can force me into contracts against my will? How can I have freedom of speech if you can penalize me for types of speech you deem hateful? As I've said many times before, freedom to act admirably is also, logically, the freedom to act poorly; and you cannot make one man more free by diminishing the freedom of another. If you disagree, detail the logical paths of your disagreements; or simply admit that your argument is emotional rather than logical. I understand your reasoning but here is where i think you are wrong: There are certain laws that were created for the benefit of everyone, and they affect your property. Should zoning laws be thrown out so someone can erect a 7/11 next to your house? If you live on the waterfront, isn't it good to have riparian rights and restrictions? Not so simple, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I understand your reasoning but here is where i think you are wrong: There are certain laws that were created for the benefit of everyone, and they affect your property. Should zoning laws be thrown out so someone can erect a 7/11 next to your house? If you live on the waterfront, isn't it good to have riparian rights and restrictions? Not so simple, is it? Alright 3rd! I wish there was a button where we could "like" posts. Like! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Alright 3rd! I wish there was a button where we could "like" posts. Like! Then go post on Facebook, you !@#$ing moron! Jesus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 When you can't defend the indefensible what can you say? Gibberish. Perfect. Since when do you have an issue with gibberish? Would you prefer if my nonsensical replies took the form of accusations of you of wanting to repeal the 13th amendment, as you're wont to do? Maybe I could respond to your opinions on the economy by calling you a neo nazi and then detailing why I think genocide isn't very good while expressing how much you disgust me? Only of course, if thats the manner of nonsense that you prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Alright 3rd! I wish there was a button where we could "like" posts. Like! After the above, I think I'll have to rethink my position. Please don't ever agree with me again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 NBA Commissioner is Jewish. Clippers owner is Jewish. This will be an interesting exchange. As someone who greatly appreciates Jewish faith it concerns me when a guy says the Jewish in Israel are extremely racist. It casts a bad light on the entire faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 After the above, I think I'll have to rethink my position. Please don't ever agree with me again. Can't do it, we agree! You are turning Liberal! Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 This story, and all it's history, is important for just this reason: to dispel the myth that in this day and age such laws are not needed. Again, not saying every story likes this deserves as much press as this one is getting, nor that very racist comment means that person is a racist and should somehow be punished by a governing body, but sometimes when people smell smoke there is a fire. Guys with histories like this who are also in positions of incredible influence and power need to have the light shined into their world views, if for no other reason than to educate the populace that there are still people who will use race to justify their wicked deeds as just. Funny, I took the exact opposite away from all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Can't do it, we agree! You are turning Liberal! Lol Good job. The first time on record that 3rd's going to think about something, and you made it happen. You've finally made a contribution to the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Its clear the guy is a douche bag. No one is disputing that but it is an interesting series of events... Why was the nba not worried about him until now? They knew his views and turned a blind eye they enabled him. Was sterling set to be presented some award from the naacp as an outstanding citizen?? I heard that too...peculiar. ... There is a report that this skeezy broad has 100 hours worth of taped recordings of sterling. Wtf?? Who does that and why? She clearly has her own agenda for significant personal monetary gain and is setting him up to achieve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) I understand your reasoning but here is where i think you are wrong: There are certain laws that were created for the benefit of everyone, and they affect your property. Should zoning laws be thrown out so someone can erect a 7/11 next to your house? If you live on the waterfront, isn't it good to have riparian rights and restrictions? Not so simple, is it? Zoning laws are problematic, which is why they are best administered at the local level. This ensures that they best serve the individuals in the locals they hold in, and if they become overly oppressive, or no longer serve the use or needs of the municipality, they can be swiftly changed or abolished. These sorts of laws are far less offensive to individual liberty at the local level for this reason, and because it is far easier for an individual to migrate to an area they find more palatable under these conditions. This is totally dissimilar to the laws being discussed now, as those laws are largely federal. Riparian Rights are different in nature, as the literally embody the notion that water is free flowing, in the exact same vein as air, and cannot be owned as property until it is harvested in reasonable quantity, without interfering with the ability of others to harvest that water in a meaningful way; so their inclusion really doesn't belong in this discussion. Edited April 29, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Good job. The first time on record that 3rd's going to think about something, and you made it happen. You've finally made a contribution to the board. Haha, calling someone an idiot 40,000 times doesn't qualify you for Mensa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Zoning laws are problematic, which is why they are best administered at the local level. This ensures that they best serve the individuals in the locals they hold in, and if they become overly oppressive, or no longer serve the use or needs of the municipality, they can be swiftly changed or abolished. These sorts of laws are far less offensive to individual liberty at the local level for this reason, and because it is far easier for an individual to migrate to an area they find more palatable under these conditions. This is totally dissimilar to the laws being discussed now, as those laws are largely federal. Riparian Rights are different in nature, as the litterly embody the notion that water is free flowing, in the exact same vein as air, and cannot be owned as property until it is harvested in reasonable quantity, without interfering with the ability of others to harvest that water in a meaningful way; so their inclusion really doesn't belong in this discussion. Zoning laws are created and enforced locally, but they certainly fit your prior definition of something that takes away your property from you. If you don't think Riparian rights are a good example then try Prior Appropriation Rights (Colorado Doctrine) that the states west of the Mississippi go by. There are no absolutes here, and that was what I was pointing out to you. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 regulated who you couldn't discriminate against. It was meant for properties that were not your own domicile and most states allow you to discriminate against people for any reason if you live on the same property where you are renting another unit out. Your idealism can't stand the realism test in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 So you're willing to strip individuals of their property rights and their right to freely associate? That's a terribly slippery slope you're sliding down. This story has done nothing at all to demonstrate that laws depriving invididuals of their property rights and their rights to freely associate are necessary. Freedom always has been, and always will be ugly; but it's far more moral that the alternative. Wasn't Sterling attempting to limit the freedoms of the mistress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Since when do you have an issue with gibberish? Would you prefer if my nonsensical replies took the form of accusations of you of wanting to repeal the 13th amendment, as you're wont to do? Maybe I could respond to your opinions on the economy by calling you a neo nazi and then detailing why I think genocide isn't very good while expressing how much you disgust me? Only of course, if thats the manner of nonsense that you prefer. Right, I guess you don't like the fact I'm calling out a person that is advocating for discrimination and so you are trying to turn it on me and make it look like I'm extremist or not making sense or whatever. I have not seen any firm opinion from you though, just criticism of my style of argument. That's a dodge. How about you stick to the topic and express an opinion on that. I'm thinking you are afraid to do that so you just attack me. That's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Wasn't Sterling attempting to limit the freedoms of the mistress? No because she can break up with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts