What's next? Where do we go from here?

[Shadow2]

Discrimination laws are a bunch of BS ... For one if someone doesn't want to serve me for being "White Privileged Male" then I will bring my buying power to someone who does. Nobody has a right to live in a particular building, eat in a particular establishment or have someone respect them. A crime directed at you for what ever reason is a crime. "Hate speech" "hate crimes" are absolute hogwash and should never be distinguished from any other criminal acts. Acceptance doesn't come from forcing people to accept. Can anyone force you to be strait with a jail sentence? Then its absurd to think anyone can be forced to be tolerant with the threat of jail. Do I think people should do the things you speak of, no I do not, its fucked up IMO, but there should never be laws that force a belief system on anyone, it's dangerous.

Let's stick to the issue of serving gay people for sake of an example. Yes, there should be punishment for business owners who refuse to serve gay people, and it should be the exact same punishment for refusing to serve black people, or refusing to serve Jews, etc. Those punishments are already in place in our laws and no one seems to question them. Discrimination against gays falls in the exact same category.

Failing to address some properly? As in someone insisting on calling a trans-woman "he"? That's just rude, so no particular punishment, at least not any more than calling a black person the n word. It might in some circumstances be considered "fighting words", if it's part of a long tirade or some other actions it might be simple assault, but in general it should probably just be ignored.

I very much think that discrimination against LGBT people should be treated exactly the way we treat discrimination against someone because of their race or religion. The exact details of what happens are up to lawmakers.

If this thread existed on the LGC forum? Well, I'm a moderator there now, so I can speak with a bit of authority on that. Podmonkey would have been banned almost immediately, because his posts call for violence and that's a violation of the LGC forum rules. Steal2B *might* have been banned, because his post could also been seen as promoting violence, though that one would probably depend on how cranky the mod was feeling that day.

The rest of the posts? Well, they certainly don't violate the forum rules, and if you swap the political labels I've seen pretty much these same posts on the LGC forum. You guys would certainly get people angry, but as a moderator, I at least would not see any reason to intervene. Some of the other moderators over there are more trigger happy, though, and they might ban someone if they thought that person was just insulting liberals without good cause.

For example, going over there and saying that liberals are communists won't fly. That will be seen as just trolling and trying to get a rise out of people, because most liberals are quite simply not communists. We do have one forum member who I know identifies as a died in the wool "workers control the means of production" socialist, but most of us support regulated capitalism. Sure we want more regulations than exist in the US today, but not really that much more, and some of what we want is what we used to have, like some OSHA rules, or just variants on what already exists, like higher gas mileage rules.

 

[Shadow2]

MOOT! Nobody on this forum would deny anyone from the LGBT community the right to defend themselves with force.
"LGBTQ" Community gets no support from me when they run around crying about being victims when they vote in assholes who promise to keep them safe. Government can't keep you safe. Nor can they legislate equality.

*sigh*

I read that article, and I've read the posts here, and they sound so familiar. Former Sheriff Clarke complains about what the liberals are doing, yet everything he complains about is something that the conservatives did all throughout Obama's term in office. You guys talk about needing to defend yourselves with force, and I could point you to any number of threads on the LGC forum where people talk about needing to defend themselves from conservatives. Both sides are accusing each other of exactly the same faults and crimes.

I'm learning not to believe any of it.



Really? Are you seriously calling for conservatives to start gunning down liberals in the streets?

You are not helping by calling for violence. What you are doing only makes the left view conservatives as more and more of a threat. This kind of talk only furthers the divisions in our country, and pushes us closer to civil war. Is that what you want? Keep in mind that Democrats skew younger than Republicans, and while the Democratic politicians are very anti gun, the fact remains that 1/3 of Democrats are gun owners, so if conservatives really did start attacking liberals, there would be plenty of liberals firing back. Heck, I'd be one of them. There would be no quick and easy victory for anyone. We'd end up making Syria look like a vacation paradise.

Please, everyone go read liberal forums and see how much of a mirror they are to the article and this thread. It's all the same argument on both sides, with only the labels reversed. If I believed everything I hear about conservatives, I would not be on this forum, but this thread is only reinforcing the worst stereotypes of conservatives, and that's not good.

Every American who truly loves this country needs to take a deep breath, count to ten, and then get to know someone on the other side of the political spectrum. We should be trying to come together again, not pushing each other further away.

 

[Shadow2]

dupe post

 

[Dr. Evil]

I am a business owner. I am not required by law to treat anyone. I choose who I work with and who I don't. You don't have the right to be my patient. I may not decide to accept you as a patient. I choose who I want to play in my sandbox. If someone finds that offensive I guess I made the right decision.

 

[Shadow2]

You conveniently left out Pulse Night Club, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people and wounded 53 at a GAY night club. Why did you leave him out? 49 LGBTQ people. Because he didn't fit the narrative because he wasn't a white male.

Cherry picking reduces your credibility with having a legitimate discussion. Nobody on this forum dismisses the actions listed below. What we do not do is label them anything other them evil acts. The motive is irrelevant.

This is why antifa exists. Because conservative extremists have been calling for and committing violence and people on the far left decided to respond to it.

- Robert Bowers killed 11 people in a synagogue.
- Dylan Roof killed nine people in a church.
- Wade Page killed 6 people in a Sikh temple.
- James Fields plowed his car into a crowd and killed Heather Heyer.
- James von Brunn killed a guard at the Holocaust museum.
- Robert Dear killed 3 people at a Planned Parenthood clinic.
- Jeremy Christian killed 2 people on a train in Oregon.

I could go on.

Please, don't encourage more violence. It does no one any good. It won't make things better.

 

[Dr. Evil]

You conveniently left out Pulse Night Club, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people and wounded 53 at a GAY night club. Why did you leave him out? 49 LGBTQ people. Because he didn't fit the narrative because he wasn't a white male.

Cherry picking reduces your credibility with having a legitimate discussion. Nobody on this forum dismisses the actions listed below. What we do not do is label them anything other them evil acts. The motive is irrelevant.

This is why I am no fan of the term "Hate crime." What crime do you know is done out of love? A crime or evil act is a crime or evil act. Period. No different than "Gun violence." Just take the first freaking word out and you have the act.

 

[eris]

Legal Gun-Owning Harvard Graduate Evicted... Over Legally Owned Guns?!

Saw that. I think gun owners, and really any merely exercising their rights, should also be protected from shit like this.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Here's something I just read that dovetails nicely. The last answer is great in theory, but things aren't bad enough yet IMO.

Answers to Previous Post

 

[eris]

So here’s what I don’t get, you say you stand for individual liberty, but above you say you don’t have the same rights as everybody else. You cited being kicked out of your apartment as an example.

That was someone else, not me.

Is it not an infringement on the landlord to be forced to provide a service to somebody they don’t want?

It might be, but it is no more of an infringement than saying the landlord can't refuse black people, and we have laws that forbid that which no one seems to be complaining about. Why should being LGBT get less protection than race?

Marriage is not a right.

Marriage most certainly is a right. It is a religious sacrament and the government was previously only recognizing the marriages of some religions, not all. Wicca recognizes same sex marriage, as do some branches of Christianity and Judaism. When the government denied recognition of those marriages it was commiting religious discrimination. (I think the Obergefell ruling came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. I never understood why marriage restrictions weren't challenged as religious discrimination.)

Living in an apartment of your choice is not a right.

No, but living *somewhere* is. If people are free to deny me a place to live then I no right to live anywhere.

Being socially accepted is not a right. Forcing people to like you and agree with your lifestyle, choices, ect is an infringement on others liberties.

I don't demand acceptance and don't expect or want to force people to "agree" with my "lifestyle", so we agree on those points.

This is my biggest issue with liberals. You guys think everything is a right. Healthcare is a right, illegal migration and asylum is a right, repeat ad nauseum.

There is a tendency on the left to want to expand the list of what is considered a right, that's true. But for my part I make a distinction between natural rights that all humans share, and civil rights that are granted by the Constitution or by law. Civil rights can be created and taken away at will. Healthcare, migration, and asylum fall into the category of civil rights - whether or not we want to have them is a valid point of debate.

Natural rights, though, are not up for debate. The rights of speech, conscience (religion), and defense are among the inalienable human rights that are not (or should not be) subject to governments.

For the record I am one of those people an above poster mentioned that used to be a progressive liberal but soured on the worldview. My problem with the left is they have a certain view of how the world should look and believe in imposing it on others through the government, which translates to force and violence to ensure compliance. I have no problem with you attempting for advocate, for say trans issues to create normalization. I have a problem with those issues being imposed through force.

Governments make laws and take actions that are not going to be universally liked. You are seeing people want to use government to do things you don't like, and you have every right to try and influence to government to make different decisions. You even have the right to disobey if you choose, and to try and remove the government and replace it with another one. But the people you disagree with also have those same rights. They can try to influence the decisions of the government, they can refuse to obey, and they can try to replace the government. Only you can decide how much disagreement you are willing to accept.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Here's something I just read that dovetails nicely. The last answer is great in theory, but things aren't bad enough yet IMO.

Answers to Previous Post

Seems like a lot of people are asking the same questions these days...

 

[eris]

If I had my way all gun lovers, freedom lovers, And patriots, would put our differences aside, and realize we have a common enemy and unite together. We are deliberately being set up to fight with each other in a divide and conquer.


I don't realistically see that happening but it sure would be nice.

This is why I'm here, to try and mend some of the division.

 

[eris]

You conveniently left out Pulse Night Club, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people and wounded 53 at a GAY night club. Why did you leave him out? 49 LGBTQ people. Because he didn't fit the narrative because he wasn't a white male.

Cherry picking reduces your credibility with having a legitimate discussion. Nobody on this forum dismisses the actions listed below. What we do not do is label them anything other them evil acts. The motive is irrelevant.

I left him out because I was only listing attacks by people on the right. Mateen was an Islamic radical - that's not left or right, it's opposed to both.

But sure, there are other attacks that were not made by right wing people. Joe Strack, for example, the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX. He seems to have been more of a left libertarian.

 

[eris]

This is why I am no fan of the term "Hate crime." What crime do you know is done out of love? A crime or evil act is a crime or evil act. Period. No different than "Gun violence." Just take the first freaking word out and you have the act.

I tend to agree. I think "hate crimes" ought to be tracked for statistical purposes, just because it's useful to gather data on *why* crime is being committed, but I don't think we need special punishments for people based on their motivation. The criminal act itself is what should be illegal, not the motive.

 

[Acer-m14]

I tend to agree. I think "hate crimes" ought to be tracked for statistical purposes, just because it's useful to gather data on *why* crime is being committed, but I don't think we need special punishments for people based on their motivation. The criminal act itself is what should be illegal, not the motive.

nor the weapon used in that ACT ..

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

This is why I'm here, to try and mend some of the division.

And we're glad you're here. Hopefully you feel that you are being treated fairly. Not everyone will agree with you but I assume even those who disagree with you won't shout you down and will give you a chance to freely speak your mind.

We're not as bad as the fringe left makes us out to be. We don't have a PR department out there trying to spin things in our favor and 99% of the media and pundits wants us to all appear as being inbred intolerant haters of everything and it's just not true at all.

We aren't out to get anyone we just want to be left alone to live our lives and escape the ever increasing governmental encroachment.

It would be great if even on a small scale we can all have a better understanding and even increased cooperation on areas of mutual concern.

 

[Shadow2]

Why would you leave him out? If Antifa is about justice for wrong doing why isn't Antifa throwing rocks at Muslims at democratic rallies? To lump Skin heads with Republican party but dismiss the correlation with the lefts own extremist groups once again dis ingenuous.

Antifa seem to be really good at assaulting Mexican American Marines because they where apparently too white.

Nobody here is encouraging violence just making it know the cunting little social justice warriors are going to run into the wrong group of people and they are going to get fucked up.

Antifa doesn't exist because racism exists they exist to push Communist Agenda ...

I left him out because I was only listing attacks by people on the right. Mateen was an Islamic radical - that's not left or right, it's opposed to both.

But sure, there are other attacks that were not made by right wing people. Joe Strack, for example, the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX. He seems to have been more of a left libertarian.

This is why I'm here, to try and mend some of the division.

I left him out because I was only listing attacks by people on the right. Mateen was an Islamic radical - that's not left or right, it's opposed to both.

But sure, there are other attacks that were not made by right wing people. Joe Strack, for example, the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX. He seems to have been more of a left libertarian.

I left him out because I was only listing attacks by people on the right. Mateen was an Islamic radical - that's not left or right, it's opposed to both.

But sure, there are other attacks that were not made by right wing people. Joe Strack, for example, the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX. He seems to have been more of a left libertarian.

 

[Curmudgeon]

@eris regarding your longer post about 8 up from here. How is marriage a right? Its 2 things IMO... 1. Religious if you're of that ilk. Government has no business being involved. 2. A legally binding contract. Again, government overstepped here. Originally to stop inbreeding and now so much more.

If you're going down the "freedom of association" path I'd tend to agree with you but not sure I see "marriage" and "association" as the same.

 

[eris]

@eris regarding your longer post about 8 up from here. How is marriage a right? Its 2 things IMO... 1. Religious if you're of that ilk. Government has no business being involved. 2. A legally binding contract. Again, government overstepped here. Originally to stop inbreeding and now so much more.

If you're going down the "freedom of association" path I'd tend to agree with you but not sure I see "marriage" and "association" as the same.

I see it as a right because we observe in nature that many animals, including humans, form lifelong pair bonds. The care for each other, defend each other, and remain sexually monogamous with each other. (Not all animals do this, of course, just many.) Since this is behavior that is widespread in nature and is endemic to our species, I believe it therefore qualifies as a right.

In my view, rights can be observed in nature. We note that all animals defend themselves when attacked, and therefore I conclude that defense is a right. All animals eat, either plants or other animals, and therefore I conclude that eating is a right, and hunting is a right. Animals freely vocalize themselves, therefore speech is a right. Humans, at least, form belief systems about the origin of the world and existence after death, therefore religion is a right.

Now at this point, if you are smart, you are probably thinking "what about murder? That get's done by humans and other animals have been seen to kill for reasons other than food, so is murder a right?" One might conclude so until you realize that murder deprives the victim of it's rights. I hold it axiomatic that there is no right to deprive others of their rights.

It's a very rudimentary idea about natural rights, I'll admit, and I haven't seen anyone else think along similar lines, but this is how I view natural (not civil) rights.

 

[Podmonkey]

Gay marriage was about taxation, and it was attacked from the wrong end.
The proper course would have been to campaign against taxation based on marital status which is bullshit. Also bullshit is the need for a marriage license. Abolish those two things and the issue would have dissipated away.
As it is the issue of gay marriage has served as a wedge for the ruling class to further insert themselves, unjustly, into our private affairs.
The path to freedom is to have the government butt the fuck out.

 

[eris]

Gay marriage was about taxation, and it was attacked from the wrong end.
The proper course would have been to campaign against taxation based on marital status which is bullshit. Also bullshit is the need for a marriage license. Abolish those two things and the issue would have dissipated away.
As it is the issue of gay marriage has served as a wedge for the ruling class to further insert themselves, unjustly, into our private affairs.
The path to freedom is to have the government butt the fuck out.

I'd be quite happy if the government got out of the marriage business entirely, or at least only offered to record marriages that are presented to them, regardless of who it is that got married.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I see it as a right because we observe in nature that many animals, including humans, form lifelong pair bonds. The care for each other, defend each other, and remain sexually monogamous with each other. (Not all animals do this, of course, just many.) Since this is behavior that is widespread in nature and is endemic to our species, I believe it therefore qualifies as a right.

In my view, rights can be observed in nature. We note that all animals defend themselves when attacked, and therefore I conclude that defense is a right. All animals eat, either plants or other animals, and therefore I conclude that eating is a right, and hunting is a right. Animals freely vocalize themselves, therefore speech is a right. Humans, at least, form belief systems about the origin of the world and existence after death, therefore religion is a right.

Now at this point, if you are smart, you are probably thinking "what about murder? That get's done by humans and other animals have been seen to kill for reasons other than food, so is murder a right?" One might conclude so until you realize that murder deprives the victim of it's rights. I hold it axiomatic that there is no right to deprive others of their rights.

It's a very rudimentary idea about natural rights, I'll admit, and I haven't seen anyone else think along similar lines, but this is how I view natural (not civil) rights.

Interesting concept. That's like a "sit at a bar, have a few beers and unpack those ideas" kind of concept. I dont know if I agree, but its really an interesting concept.

I'm guessing we might diverge on the role of government in protecting these rights and creating others, but I'm not looking for a debate.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Dupe

 

[Podmonkey]

I'd be quite happy if the government got out of the marriage business entirely, or at least only offered to record marriages that are presented to them, regardless of who it is that got married.

Well the movement caused the government to move even further into the marriage buisness.
I'm not happy about that.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Well the movement caused the government to move even further into the marriage buisness.
I'm not happy about that.

True story. But you dont need to get government approval to love and live with the person of your choosing. Yeah, there are some downsides to it, but we're willing to accept those.

 

[GOPerfect]

It might be, but it is no more of an infringement than saying the landlord can't refuse black people, and we have laws that forbid that which no one seems to be complaining about. Why should being LGBT get less protection than race?

Because people cannot chose their race. Everything else being discussed is a choice.

 

[eris]

Because people cannot chose their race. Everything else being discussed is a choice.

Respectfully, I disagree. Being gay or trans is not a choice. It's something you are born with.

 

[Robin]

Actually, there is no, zip, zero, nada evidence of that. There are anomaly's in nature that we accept but do not base our culture, civilizations on them.
Robin

 

[Modean]

Respectfully, I disagree. Being gay or trans is not a choice. It's something you are born with.

A predisposition towards it could be inherent, although I don’t believe that science has established that, but acting on it is most certainly a choice.

 

[FrankenCub]

Not to mention pushing it on children that aren't even old enough to decide what color they like best. Sexuality shouldn't even be in conversation with young ones, at least till they are mid teens when they have a better understanding of life.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Worth a look again IMHO...