Ben Shapiro Explains The Transgender Conundrum

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

Are you really saying that Nazi=German? That is your defense? This is intellectually insane for you to make that comparison. The Nazi party was a political party that is defunct, that does in no legal or ethical sense qualify as discrimination of a protected class. I honestly can't believe you are arguing this. 

 

Are you seriously saying that a business that only wants to serve white people are slaves? If you are advocating for voluntary segregation fine but come out and say it. Don't be selective of what kinds of segregation you think is OK based on an absurd definition of slavery. 

 

Yeah, that's what I figured. You cry about the example, and refuse to answer the question (which is why I used the Nazi reference, you dunce.) You're not interested in a discussion. You've thus far used false information in your argument, and have twice now railed against strawmen that no one said.

 

The race card strawman was a nice touch.

 

However, you're still at least 1/1024th smarter than Gator, so I'll give you that.

[Paulus]

I really wish Ben lived in a normal body and came with a normal voice. 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Paulus

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Does your freedom of religion allow you to not serve black people if it goes against your religion?

 

It certainly should if one wants to assume a position that human freedom is a proper foundational principle, though religion doesn't even need to factor into it.  Freedom of association alone is sufficient.

 

The only counter argument is one which assumes that humans should not be free.  You're certainly free to make it, though I don't find arguments in favor of subjugation to be very compelling.

[billsfan89]

56 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yeah, that's what I figured. You cry about the example, and refuse to answer the question (which is why I used the Nazi reference, you dunce.) You're not interested in a discussion. You've thus far used false information in your argument, and have twice now railed against strawmen that no one said.

 

The race card strawman was a nice touch.

 

However, you're still at least 1/1024th smarter than Gator, so I'll give you that.

 

No a Jewish bakery shouldn't have to have to bake a custom cake with a Nazi flag on it if it finds that to be obscene or against their values. But the person requesting the cake would not have a civil rights violation case because Nazi is not a nation of origin thus not a protected class. Nazi does not equal German, that's a very big component of why your argument falls apart. So because Nazi does not equal German that makes your analogy faulty and not in anyway disproving of my point that you can't discriminate generally against a protected class.

 

For example if that gay couple wanted a cake depicting a gay sex act the baker could refuse and there would be no civil rights case because that baker would have refusing on obscenity grounds and grounds that the obscenity is not solely tied to the fact that they are just gay (The baker can rightfully claim that he would have declined to do a cake depicting any sex act.) 

 

The race card was not a Strawman because we are talking about the civil rights act and I am drawing a connection to it because on what grounds can you be forced to serve people? When does it tread into what you define as slavery? Are you saying that any business that is forced to serve people it doesn't want to serve is a slave? I am genuinely asking these questions because do you find that the civil rights act forcing people to not discriminate just on immutable characteristics that fall into a protected class an undue burden onto businesses? I find the comparison to slavery a very strong and loaded analysis because in what way is taking peoples money to do a service anything close to slavery. These business owners are getting compensated for their work. Are doctors that can't deny patients service if they are unable to pay slaves?

 

If you offer a custom service to the public you can't refuse that service only (key word only) on the basis of sexual orientation. If you offer that service to the general public you have to serve the general public the same. Yes there are many instances where one can refuse service but the civil rights act imposes reasonable (In my opinion) limits on why you can't serve people. I just fail to see where this falls into slavery.

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

It certainly should if one wants to assume a position that human freedom is a proper foundational principle, though religion doesn't even need to factor into it.  Freedom of association alone is sufficient.

 

The only counter argument is one which assumes that humans should not be free.  You're certainly free to make it, though I don't find arguments in favor of subjugation to be very compelling.

 

Living in a society requires you to give up certain freedoms. I give up my right to murder you and you give up your right to murder me. There is always a limitation of freedom unless you live in total anarchy (I am not saying you want to live in total anarchy, I am just establishing a baseline.) I am more than willing to give up my right to have a public business that openly discriminates against classes of people in order to live in a society where I know I can patronize any public business. 

 

If you feel the freedom to not serve people just based on Race, Sexual Orientation, or any other method you so choose supersedes peoples rights to have access to public businesses then we have fundamentally different opinions on the type of society we want to live in. I appreciate your honesty in what freedom you value and we just honestly see the value of that freedom differently.

[DC Tom]

16 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

No a Jewish bakery shouldn't have to have to bake a custom cake with a Nazi flag on it if it finds that to be obscene or against their values. But the person requesting the cake would not have a civil rights violation case because Nazi is not a nation of origin thus not a protected class. Nazi does not equal German, that's a very big component of why your argument falls apart. So because Nazi does not equal German that makes your analogy faulty and not in anyway disproving of my point that you can't discriminate generally against a protected class.

 

For example if that gay couple wanted a cake depicting a gay sex act the baker could refuse and there would be no civil rights case because that baker would have refusing on obscenity grounds and grounds that the obscenity is not solely tied to the fact that they are just gay (The baker can rightfully claim that he would have declined to do a cake depicting any sex act.) 

 

The race card was not a Strawman because we are talking about the civil rights act and I am drawing a connection to it because on what grounds can you be forced to serve people? When does it tread into what you define as slavery? Are you saying that any business that is forced to serve people it doesn't want to serve is a slave? I am genuinely asking these questions because do you find that the civil rights act forcing people to not discriminate just on immutable characteristics that fall into a protected class an undue burden onto businesses? I find the comparison to slavery a very strong and loaded analysis because in what way is taking peoples money to do a service anything close to slavery. These business owners are getting compensated for their work. Are doctors that can't deny patients service if they are unable to pay slaves?

 

If you offer a custom service to the public you can't refuse that service only (key word only) on the basis of sexual orientation. If you offer that service to the general public you have to serve the general public the same. Yes there are many instances where one can refuse service but the civil rights act imposes reasonable (In my opinion) limits on why you can't serve people. I just fail to see where this falls into slavery.

 

Living in a society requires you to give up certain freedoms. I give up my right to murder you and you give up your right to murder me. There is always a limitation of freedom unless you live in total anarchy (I am not saying you want to live in total anarchy, I am just establishing a baseline.) I am more than willing to give up my right to have a public business that openly discriminates against classes of people in order to live in a society where I know I can patronize any public business. 

 

If you feel the freedom to not serve people just based on Race, Sexual Orientation, or any other method you so choose supersedes peoples rights to have access to public businesses then we have fundamentally different opinions on the type of society we want to live in. I appreciate your honesty in what freedom you value and we just honestly see the value of that freedom differently.

 

"Right to murder?"

 

That is the strawiest of strawmen to ever straw. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

Living in a society requires you to give up certain freedoms. I give up my right to murder you and you give up your right to murder me. There is always a limitation of freedom unless you live in total anarchy (I am not saying you want to live in total anarchy, I am just establishing a baseline.) I am more than willing to give up my right to have a public business that openly discriminates against classes of people in order to live in a society where I know I can patronize any public business. 

 

If you feel the freedom to not serve people just based on Race, Sexual Orientation, or any other method you so choose supersedes peoples rights to have access to public businesses then we have fundamentally different opinions on the type of society we want to live in. I appreciate your honesty in what freedom you value and we just honestly see the value of that freedom differently.

 

...

 

"The right to murder"?

 

The above is nothing more than concrete proof that you have a total lack of understanding of what rights and freedom are.

 

The basic underlying principle of both is that you own yourself in an absolute sense, and that no one else has the right to compromise that self ownership without your express consent.

 

There is no such thing as "the right to murder" because it works outside of the logical framework of such a system.

 

This notion is, quite literally, the governing philosophy which dictates that human slavery is immoral.  Without the principal of self ownership, directly tied to self determination in the most raw sense, there is nothing wrong with owning another person, or ending their life.

 

These same principals when logically extended also dictate that compulsory labor of any sort is wrong; as even if you decide for yourself that you're comfortable surrendering your own freedoms, you don't get to make that decision for other individuals.

 

Insisting that you do is nothing short of oppression,  and one who acts as an oppressor content to violate the rights of others in fulfillment of their own desires cannot logically be said to have their own rights protected by a system they willfully violate.  IE In a society that rejects the nature of rights, no one has any rights, and no one can make just claim that their rights are being violated.

Edited October 18, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Koko78]

8 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

No a Jewish bakery shouldn't have to have to bake a custom cake with a Nazi flag on it if it finds that to be obscene or against their values. But the person requesting the cake would not have a civil rights violation case because Nazi is not a nation of origin thus not a protected class. Nazi does not equal German, that's a very big component of why your argument falls apart. So because Nazi does not equal German that makes your analogy faulty and not in anyway disproving of my point that you can't discriminate generally against a protected class.

 

For example if that gay couple wanted a cake depicting a gay sex act the baker could refuse and there would be no civil rights case because that baker would have refusing on obscenity grounds and grounds that the obscenity is not solely tied to the fact that they are just gay (The baker can rightfully claim that he would have declined to do a cake depicting any sex act.) 

 

The race card was not a Strawman because we are talking about the civil rights act and I am drawing a connection to it because on what grounds can you be forced to serve people? When does it tread into what you define as slavery? Are you saying that any business that is forced to serve people it doesn't want to serve is a slave? I am genuinely asking these questions because do you find that the civil rights act forcing people to not discriminate just on immutable characteristics that fall into a protected class an undue burden onto businesses? I find the comparison to slavery a very strong and loaded analysis because in what way is taking peoples money to do a service anything close to slavery. These business owners are getting compensated for their work. Are doctors that can't deny patients service if they are unable to pay slaves?

 

If you offer a custom service to the public you can't refuse that service only (key word only) on the basis of sexual orientation. If you offer that service to the general public you have to serve the general public the same. Yes there are many instances where one can refuse service but the civil rights act imposes reasonable (In my opinion) limits on why you can't serve people. I just fail to see where this falls into slavery.

 

So Jews can deny service because they find Nazi symbolism obscene or against their values, but a Christian cannot deny service because they find participating in a homosexual ceremony obscene or against their religious values? Can I force a Christian baker to create a cake utilizing religious symbols of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for use at a Pastafarian ceremony, even though their belief is that there is no God but God? By the way, that actually is a recognized religion, so answer the fookin' question.

 

Semantics aside, the real issue at play was whether there is a clear distinction between denying the individual and denying participating in a ceremony that the business owner deemed inconsistent with his values. The baker was quite clear that he was not refusing service based on the individuals (in fact, he declined to bake the same cake when their heterosexual mother requested it.) In fact, he was quite willing to sell them any pre-made goods in his store. The argument is that by creating a custom cake for their ceremony (which was essentially a party, since same-sex marriages were illegal in Colorado at the time) he was participating in a ceremony that was inconsistent with his religious beliefs.

 

Involuntary servitude - slavery - has nothing to do with whether or not you're paid. Slaves are usually compensated by way of food, shelter, etc. (though, obviously, for less-than-altruistic reasons.) Slavery exists when the individual's right to choose not to perform work is eliminated. That's why it's called involuntary. You're demanding that people, like the baker, have no choice but to perform custom services and participate in ceremonies that are not consistent with, and even offensive to, their beliefs.

 

Slavery is not, and never has been, confined to whites owning blacks. No one mentioned race in this thread. That's why your strawman arguments are strawman arguments. You're inventing positions to rail against.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Koko78

[billsfan89]

11 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

"Right to murder?"

 

That is the strawiest of strawmen to ever straw. 

 

Poor wording on my part (I should have said ability to, I wrote it late and choose poor phrasing), but the fact is that in any society you are giving up the ability to do things as a condition of you being able to live in that society. You do give up your ability to hurt or harm other people without repercussions by living in a society, no one really has any issue with that because we all understand the non-aggression principle and have common sense. Then there are other abilities/rights like the right/ability to segregate your business that we give up because we understand the tremendous negative impacts that can have. I would also argue that by excluding people based off of characteristics they have little to no control over is doing harm to them thus a violation of the non-aggression principle in some form (or though there is certainly room to argue that.)

[DC Tom]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

Poor wording on my part (I should have said ability to, I wrote it late and choose poor phrasing), but the fact is that in any society you are giving up the ability to do things as a condition of you being able to live in that society. You do give up your ability to hurt or harm other people without repercussions by living in a society, no one really has any issue with that because we all understand the non-aggression principle and have common sense. Then there are other abilities/rights like the right/ability to segregate your business that we give up because we understand the tremendous negative impacts that can have. I would also argue that by excluding people based off of characteristics they have little to no control over is doing harm to them thus a violation of the non-aggression principle in some form (or though there is certainly room to argue that.)

 

Really?  Last I checked, I can still murder you if I so choose.  I never gave up that ability.

[billsfan89]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Really?  Last I checked, I can still murder you if I so choose.  I never gave up that ability.

 

To do so without repression from the law you do not have that ability. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Poor wording on my part (I should have said ability to, I wrote it late and choose poor phrasing), but the fact is that in any society you are giving up the ability to do things as a condition of you being able to live in that society. You do give up your ability to hurt or harm other people without repercussions by living in a society, no one really has any issue with that because we all understand the non-aggression principle and have common sense. Then there are other abilities/rights like the right/ability to segregate your business that we give up because we understand the tremendous negative impacts that can have. I would also argue that by excluding people based off of characteristics they have little to no control over is doing harm to them thus a violation of the non-aggression principle in some form (or though there is certainly room to argue that.)

 

I would argue that removing a persons freedom is a violation of the non-aggression principal.

 

Aggression implies positive action.

 

I cannot be aggressive in refusing to act.

 

In your example the person being aggressed is the one being compelled, ultimately by a government force monopoly, is the shop owner.

 

Your example is not internally logically consistent.

[DC Tom]

13 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

To do so without repression from the law you do not have that ability. 

 

Yes, I do.

[billsfan89]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I would argue that removing a persons freedom is a violation of the non-aggression principal.

 

Aggression implies positive action.

 

I cannot be aggressive in refusing to act.

 

In your example the person being aggressed is the one being compelled, ultimately by a government force monopoly, is the shop owner.

 

Your example is not internally logically consistent.

 

I would argue that not serving someone because they are white or gay is an aggressive act. Who is more violated in a situation a person who steps into a business and is told that they are not good enough to purchase a good their with their money simply because of the color of their skin or a business owner forced to not segregate their business based off of racial or other lines that fall under the civil rights act? I agree that both are having their freedoms limited but who is having more harm done to them? 

 

That business owner is still allowed to kick people out for almost any reason, they are still allowed to have a dress code, they are still allowed to run their business to associate themselves with who they want as long as it isn't based off of lines that fall under the civil rights act, and there are many other ways besides blanket segregation they can control their clientele (You can even racially segregate a private club or business that requires membership and doesn't serve the public if you so choose.)  Whereas if you are white and the business is black only your only other option is to take your business elsewhere, you might have no way to access that service or good simply because you are who you are. 

 

If you still feel that a business owners freedom of association is a greater freedom than the ability for people to live in a society without segregation then we simply have a different view of the world. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I would argue that not serving someone because they are white or gay is an aggressive act. Who is more violated in a situation a person who steps into a business and is told that they are not good enough to purchase a good their with their money simply because of the color of their skin or a business owner forced to not segregate their business based off of racial or other lines that fall under the civil rights act? I agree that both are having their freedoms limited but who is having more harm done to them? 

 

That business owner is still allowed to kick people out for almost any reason, they are still allowed to have a dress code, they are still allowed to run their business to associate themselves with who they want as long as it isn't based off of lines that fall under the civil rights act, and there are many other ways besides blanket segregation they can control their clientele (You can even racially segregate a private club or business that requires membership and doesn't serve the public if you so choose.)  Whereas if you are white and the business is black only your only other option is to take your business elsewhere, you might have no way to access that service or good simply because you are who you are. 

 

If you still feel that a business owners freedom of association is a greater freedom than the ability for people to live in a society without segregation then we simply have a different view of the world. 

 

Again, you aren't being internally logically consistent, and are engaging in a special pleading fallacy.

 

You're making an argument in favor of compelling human beings to take positive action against their will, demanding they undertake labor they do not wish to under penalty of law (a use of aggression).

 

In doing to you are co-opting language, ascribing it new meaning, re-labeling inaction as aggression.

 

Your argument is an argument legitimizing forced servitude, of which human slavery is a logical, and not even far reaching, extension.

 

Your world view is one that legitimizes human slavery, and mine is one which exalts human freedom; and you are correct that those are strikingly different positions.

 

I like mine more.

 

[billsfan89]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Again, you aren't being internally logically consistent, and are engaging in a special pleading fallacy.

 

You're making an argument in favor of compelling human beings to take positive action against their will, demanding they undertake labor they do not wish to under penalty of law (a use of aggression).

 

In doing to you are co-opting language, ascribing it new meaning, re-labeling inaction as aggression.

 

Your argument is an argument legitimizing forced servitude, of which human slavery is a logical, and not even far reaching, extension.

 

Your world view is one that legitimizes human slavery, and mine is one which exalts human freedom; and you are correct that those are strikingly different positions.

 

I like mine more.

 

 

If it is slavery (And I do not think it is) to force business to not racially segregate than I am fine with that. If you genuinely think the civil rights act enslaves business owners then we are just not going to agree on this. I honestly did not know that the civil rights act was such an evil piece of legislation. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

If it is slavery (And I do not think it is) to force business to not racially segregate than I am fine with that. If you genuinely think the civil rights act enslaves business owners then we are just not going to agree on this. I honestly did not know that the civil rights act was such an evil piece of legislation. 

 

You're free to hold illogical opinions driven by your feelings, but that doesn't magically confer them with merit.

 

What do you believe slavery is, and what do you believe makes it wrong, if you do believe it to be wrong?

 

If you do believe it to be wrong, what moral priori are you referencing when doing so? 

[billsfan89]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You're free to hold illogical opinions driven by your feelings, but that doesn't magically confer them with merit.

 

What do you believe slavery is, and what do you believe makes it wrong, if you do believe it to be wrong?

 

If you do believe it to be wrong, what moral priori are you referencing when doing so? 

 

I don't think laws against segregating businesses that serve the general public are slavery. Sorry. 

Edited October 18, 2018 by billsfan89

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I don't think laws against segregating businesses that serve the general public are slavery. Sorry. 

 

Again:

 

You're free to hold illogical opinions driven by your feelings, but that doesn't magically confer them with merit.

 

What do you believe slavery is, and what do you believe makes it wrong, if you do believe it to be wrong?

 

If you do believe it to be wrong, what moral priori are you referencing when doing so?

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Again:

 

You're free to hold illogical opinions driven by your feelings, but that doesn't magically confer them with merit.

 

What do you believe slavery is, and what do you believe makes it wrong, if you do believe it to be wrong?

 

If you do believe it to be wrong, what moral priori are you referencing when doing so?

 

I am going to ask a baseline question, is any restriction on how a business owner may operate their business slavery? 

3 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

So Jews can deny service because they find Nazi symbolism obscene or against their values, but a Christian cannot deny service because they find participating in a homosexual ceremony obscene or against their religious values? Can I force a Christian baker to create a cake utilizing religious symbols of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for use at a Pastafarian ceremony, even though their belief is that there is no God but God? By the way, that actually is a recognized religion, so answer the fookin' question.

 

Semantics aside, the real issue at play was whether there is a clear distinction between denying the individual and denying participating in a ceremony that the business owner deemed inconsistent with his values. The baker was quite clear that he was not refusing service based on the individuals (in fact, he declined to bake the same cake when their heterosexual mother requested it.) In fact, he was quite willing to sell them any pre-made goods in his store. The argument is that by creating a custom cake for their ceremony (which was essentially a party, since same-sex marriages were illegal in Colorado at the time) he was participating in a ceremony that was inconsistent with his religious beliefs.

 

Involuntary servitude - slavery - has nothing to do with whether or not you're paid. Slaves are usually compensated by way of food, shelter, etc. (though, obviously, for less-than-altruistic reasons.) Slavery exists when the individual's right to choose not to perform work is eliminated. That's why it's called involuntary. You're demanding that people, like the baker, have no choice but to perform custom services and participate in ceremonies that are not consistent with, and even offensive to, their beliefs.

 

Slavery is not, and never has been, confined to whites owning blacks. No one mentioned race in this thread. That's why your strawman arguments are strawman arguments. You're inventing positions to rail against.

 

First off stop inferring things that I never said. I understand the history of human slavery is universal and not confined to one race over another. Stop projecting that I am implying otherwise please. Your semantic argument of Nazi imagery isn't valid because Nazi is not a protected class of people as defined in the civil rights act. The semantics of what is and isn't a protected class is well defined in the civil rights act, its amendments, and various court cases that have challenge the civil rights act or parts of the civil rights act. So please do not act like these aren't well defined terms. And I have repeatedly answered the question yes a bakery can refuse to bake a Nazi cake because it is obscene. Nazi is not a protected class of people (Nazi does not equal German and any lawyer familiar with civil rights law will tell you that, it is well defined.)

 

A bakery can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding simply because they find gay people getting married obscene. It is the same reason they can't refuse to bake a cake for an inter-religious wedding ceremony that they find goes against their values. If it is a service they would offer to anyone (A custom cake) then they can't refuse that service solely based off of someone falling into a protected class.  

 

As far as my comparison to race I make that comparison because under the civil rights act Race and Sexual Orientation are both protected classes. In the eyes of the law in this country both are offered the same protections. 

 

"Semantics aside, the real issue at play was whether there is a clear distinction between denying the individual and denying participating in a ceremony that the business owner deemed inconsistent with his values."

 

That is probably going to be how they argue it in a legal sense. But I don't think that argument is going to hold legal water because from a legal standpoint you couldn't refuse to bake a cake in a interracial or inter-faith wedding because participating in it would violate your values or your religious values. It is irrelevant as to wither or not you feel that the racial/religious comparison is valid or invalid because under the civil rights act they are afforded the same protections. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

I am going to ask a baseline question, is any restriction on how a business owner may operate their business slavery? 

 

You first, as I've answered every question you've asked; including laying out the underpinnings of an entire moral philosophy inextricable for the concepts of human freedom, and you've yet to reciprocate.

 

So, yet again:

 

You're free to hold illogical opinions driven by your feelings, but that doesn't magically confer them with merit.

 

What do you believe slavery is, and what do you believe makes it wrong, if you do believe it to be wrong?

 

If you do believe it to be wrong, what moral priori are you referencing when doing so?