Search results

"But we are nowhere near destroying it, and that's why we need the it." ... Said Gollum reassuringly to himself. :p

Society has laid down what it saw as acceptable in the past. Jim Crow, Slavery, the criminality of homosexuality. We can prevent things like that from happening only when upon our receipt of power we diminish it, not merely use it for our own ideas and ends. In terms of using the Law to...

Dandyman The general point I have been trying to make is that what people are doing is saying that they know how things ought to be, and they should be able to use the Law to make it so. But what we should have learned through the experience of history is that nobody knows how things ought to...

We've moved on from all of the origins of Jurisprudence, I wouldn't abandon it just because it's old. Check out my sig. ;-)

People have a right, for example, to self defense. So force could be used in that sense, but that really is the protecting of a right. As for the state having a right to take your property for the good of the community, it doesn't really have that right in a free society, although it does act...

If I tell you that nobody has a right to take from you or to hurt you, I'm sure you would probably agree, with or without an explanation as to why that is the case. These questions are not super clear cut, I relate the concept of rights to the concept of Natural Law, and sometimes people refer...

Exactly my point. You don't know what rights are. By your logic, if a law is passed giving one group the "right" to kill another group, then they have that right. & if it is decided that another group doesn't have a right to their property, then they don't have that right. Rights are...

You don't have a right to a house, or a job, or an education or a social service or any goods or any services. That's not what rights are. If you have a right to a house, then someone with a house must give you a house. If you have a right to a job then an employer must give you a job. If you...

Like I said, nobody has a right to discriminate. It's not a right. The only time rights come into play is when you want to use force against someone. In this case the force is being used to try to prevent discrimination, but it's still force. Don't mistake my statement about people having...

Nobody has a "right to discriminate" and nobody has a right "not to be discriminated against". These things have little to do with rights. In fact, I cannot think of any circumstance in which a right can be abrogated by someone not doing something. Your rights mean that nobody can take away...

The truth is that a person refusing to sell a cake to someone for some arbitrary meaningless reason is baring a cost. No cake sold means no money. It's a transaction, it's voluntary on the part of both parties, it's not a right.

Duties infringing on peoples rights for the good of society is not supposed to be how we roll. Like I explained, we once had a duty to report homosexuals to the police. For the good of society. If I had been arguing back then for the rights of homosexuals to be defended, the very same "good of...

There is no extending of rights, a person has a right to make or not make a cake for anybody. It's just a question of whether that right will be defended or not. Nobody has a right to any product or service. I want everyone to have access to every product or service that they want. But every...

You need to consider what is passive and what is active. Doing something is active. Not doing something is passive. As for sending out messages, we can't legislate to control what "messages" are sent out. I agree with you that in this case it sends a bad message. But you are saying that...

Yes that's how the law works, but as I have said, it's not based on a correct understanding of what rights are. The end result of your logic is that a person can have a right to a cake, and so the baker must bake it or be denying someones rights. That's simply not true, and if you go down that...

If a baker decides that they don't want to make a cake for someone, anyone, that decision is not stopping anyone from living their lives, or most importantly, it is not using force against anyone. What you have to understand is that if you are for forcing the Christians to make the cake, then...

Do you consider that to be a "sexuality"? Do you think homosexuality and pedophilia are comparable? Because I don't.

This is the mentality of prejudice. "If your sexuality means that you cannot conduct your sexual activity in accordance with certain regulations, then simply don't engage in sexual activity." Your attitude is no different to those you would claim to be against.

You can't use Law to use force against other people. You have a right to your life, and you have a right to your property, and you have a right to live free from interference and force from anyone else, so long as you are not interfering with or using force against anyone else. You don't have...

The issue is force. Using the law to use force against a minority is something that everybody from every background and of every creed, color or sexuality should be against. Defending the Christians right not to make a cake they don't want to and defending a homosexual persons right to live as...