injurai Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 It's an existential situation. Not they only way a group, religious or otherwise, can be marginalized. You brought up having your identity inextricable intertwined with the faith, so unless you can put the goals aside that the faith endows you with fulfilling in relation to other humans, you need to leave them to their own freedoms and liberties. You mentioned true zealots, I'm articulating that situation back to you and saying why I don't think it's marginalization. Please knee jerk harder when someone answers your question.
Gromnir Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 we read rest o' post. "Further I object to your use of the world marginalized in the context of having a religious constituency which I remind has (or if we are talking ideals, should have) their right to private domains of life secured would somehow be marginalized because they don't dominate societal-wide legislation through the "democratic" ruse of never ceding the majority." feel better now that we know it were pretty much all straw man. please resubmit after releasing your grip on what is apparent your own dogma. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Guard Dog Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, Gromnir said: typical is not arbitrary. there is usually dollar amounts which may be attributed to those prohibited activities. in any event, 'cause we love how your example closes the circle, we will observe how it is the democratic process which is resulting in those kinda prohibitions which offend gd. either direct, or by elected representative, gd's fellow citizens decide whether or not the well-documented dangers o' marijuana use by folks who are still undergoing brain development is the kinda thing which deserves the body public's attention and/or action. does Constitution preclude drug use from review by the democratic process? under certain circumstances, yes it does. can't force a person to take drugs, even if such drugs would be beneficial. different than saying it ain't up to government to decide what a person is allowed to take into their body. even beyond the legal reasons, should be obvious how such is different. what are the costs o' airplane pilots getting drunk or using lsd before a commercial flight? is airplane pilot on lsd an extreme example? sure it is, but as soon as you allow yourself to begin a cost v benefit analysis to decide which behaviors should be prohibited, then you are no longer dealing either legal or Constitutional issues. value judgements is for lawmakers who can create committees and do studies... is not fodder for judges and courts is moot in any event. the dangers o' being compromised 'cause the politician is seripticious doing that which is illegal not change in the least 'cause gd has self-contradictory love-hate relationship with democracy. HA! Good Fun! I would not describe my relationship with democracy as love-hate. I'm not ambivalent at all about it... it's terrible system for selecting leaders. It just happens to be better than all the others. You vote hoping you get an Augustus, end up with a Caligula and just thank God it wasn't a Tiberius. I figure honest and ethical leadership is likely too much to hope fore from either political party anymore. Let's face it... all the good people are getting real jobs. But ironically the democratic process is moving steadily in the direction of drug legalization over the explicit objections, threats, and attempts to undermine by those exact same lawMAKERS (emphasis yours) who won during the same elections. Marijuana legalization (to one degree or another) won more states than Hillary Clinton did in '16. Booze is perfectly legal and people are still forbidden to fly or drive under it's influence. MJ is legal in CO & AK and it's still illegal to use it and drive. What's the problem? Last point, in response to your first, just because a thing is democratically popular or decided on does not exempt it from criticism, resistance, disobedience (civil or uncivil as a last resort) by people with an approving conscience or a moral objection or just a bug up their rear about it. After all American slavery was both legal and democratically popular. Just an aside. Liberty is not the child of democracy. Nor vice versa. They are like cousins at best. You definitely want both. If you have one you are more likely to get the other but they can exist without each other as well. But Liberty without democracy is fleeting. Democracy without liberty is indistinguishable from tyranny. Edited June 6, 2019 by Guard Dog And another thing "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Gromnir Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Guard Dog said: Booze is perfectly legal and people are still forbidden to fly or drive under it's influence. MJ is legal in CO & AK and it's still illegal to use it and drive. What's the problem? we didn't say there were a problem, seeing as how decision were reached democratic and don't violate the Constitution. you are the guy who wanted to make a parallel 'tween drug use and other activities. am also gonna note you are not addressing our marijuana example at all. if you believe you are making a point by mentioning legalization o' marijuana, please reread our example. and lord knows how many times Gromnir has pointed out how democracy and the tyranny o' the majority is the perceived evil which the Bill o' Rights and other fundamental freedoms is designed to protect. so, preach to the choir on that point. heck, in the post you quote we observe how groups with shared beliefs and experiences may be marginalized by the majority. you cannot keep having it both ways. you want government to stay outta your business, but you want protection o' those rights you believe is important. and who is gonna protect GD, hm? HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
injurai Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 (edited) Gromnir, you think you're calling a spade a spade but you're not. In this case a straw man. May I remind you I'm not refuting any of your points, I'm expounding upon my own position. You said you agree with my initial sentiment, then posed practical considerations and offered a question. Which I responded to. You introduced the aspects of a condition and I touched on examples of those aspect which I find salient. I'm detailing how my view would be applied to such an existential case. So I detail a condition by which I find claims of religious marginalization (especially in America) which I find to be farcical. It says nothing about disenfranchising minorities simply because they don't meet my secular humanist bar. I'm well aware that a democracy includes opening a nation to a pluralism that is often in tension. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4vHnM8WPvU By using language in a manner that allows me to drill down to a definite scenario, I instantiate a case that is new from your more broad general scenario. Expanding the scope of a subject or introducing one's own exemplars is not setting up straw men, especially when I'm not even arguing against the points that you made. I don't see why you'd have any problem with someone taking the "spikey" approach unless you are either only interested in goo, so it seems you somehow misread the context of the response itself. You want to call my view a dogma fine, but it's not final, it's not held as irrevocably true, and it's not being passed down or ordained. It's simply being argued as the best way to organize the conflicting desires at the level of a shared democratically representative nation. Edited June 6, 2019 by injurai
Malcador Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 21 hours ago, injurai said: That's a pretty sharp sword you have there. Wonder when he'll flounce next. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
smjjames Posted June 6, 2019 Posted June 6, 2019 5 hours ago, Guard Dog said: I would not describe my relationship with democracy as love-hate. I'm not ambivalent at all about it... it's terrible system for selecting leaders. It just happens to be better than all the others. You vote hoping you get an Augustus, end up with a Caligula and just thank God it wasn't a Tiberius. Trump is a LOT closer to Tiberius than Caligula, minus the fact that Tiberius didn't even want to be emperor. And really, had Caligula not flamed out so quickly, he could have turned out to be just as bad, or even worse than Tiberius.
Zoraptor Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 Tiberius was a decent emperor for most of his reign and in most respects- especially financially- and had a bit of an undeserved bad rep in popular media like 'I, Claudius' and from certain gossip monger ancient sources (hello, Suetonius). Most of his bad aspects were loaded into the last years of his reign when he was delegating to Sejanus and later Macro and most likely just wanted to retire. Same is true to a certain extent with Caligula as well, things like trying to make Incatatus a Consul were meant as calculated insults rather than serious suggestions, similarly, his 'Victory over Neptune' collection of sea shells was probably an insult to mutinous troops refusing to invade Britain. The monomania and profligacy are pretty well documented though. (If you want bad emperors probably Nero and Valentinian III take the cake, though for near completely different reasons)
Gromnir Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 6 hours ago, injurai said: Gromnir, you think you're calling a spade a spade but you're not. In this case a straw man. May I remind you I'm not refuting any of your points, I'm expounding upon my own position. so, non responsive and straw man? gotcha. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
smjjames Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 23 minutes ago, Zoraptor said: Tiberius was a decent emperor for most of his reign and in most respects- especially financially- and had a bit of an undeserved bad rep in popular media like 'I, Claudius' and from certain gossip monger ancient sources (hello, Suetonius). Most of his bad aspects were loaded into the last years of his reign when he was delegating to Sejanus and later Macro and most likely just wanted to retire. Same is true to a certain extent with Caligula as well, things like trying to make Incatatus a Consul were meant as calculated insults rather than serious suggestions, similarly, his 'Victory over Neptune' collection of sea shells was probably an insult to mutinous troops refusing to invade Britain. The monomania and profligacy are pretty well documented though. (If you want bad emperors probably Nero and Valentinian III take the cake, though for near completely different reasons) Yeah, the thing is that some of the things said about them were based on rumors or were criticisms of things, plus the fact for Caligula, there are few surviving accounts and even those accounts tend to be biased in some way or other. You really have the difference between someone whose madness seems to have been quite real and could give even Trump pause and someone whose main mistake, ignoring the rampant rumors of what he was doing in his island getaway, was choosing someone to rule in his stead that turned out to be corrupt and ended up plotting against him.
Gromnir Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 Trump plans to declare new national emergency to impose tariffs another national emergency to ignore Constitutional limits? ... am genuine hopeful this is misinformation. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
smjjames Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gromnir said: Trump plans to declare new national emergency to impose tariffs another national emergency to ignore Constitutional limits? ... am genuine hopeful this is misinformation. HA! Good Fun! It could be one of those ‘trial balloons’ that get whipped out every so often, but he’s obviously doing it to get around Congress, even using a law which has been used plenty of time in the past, but looking at Wikipedia, none of them have been for immigration related stuff. TBH, the whole Mexico tariffs and the fact that they are supposed to increase each month makes them sound far more like blackmail/extortion than any kind of economic reasoning. Edited June 7, 2019 by smjjames
Guard Dog Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Gromnir said: Trump plans to declare new national emergency to impose tariffs another national emergency to ignore Constitutional limits? ... am genuine hopeful this is misinformation. HA! Good Fun! Congress can stop this at any time. That is THEIR power he's abusing. My biggest hope for a Trump Administration would be for Congress to recall that it is in fact a co-equal branch of the government and looking the other way when the executive does things the executive cannot do is unacceptable. Still waiting on that one. Some of them do get it... not enough on either side though Edited June 7, 2019 by Guard Dog And another thing "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Guard Dog Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 Doesn't our trade agreements with Canada and Mexico prevent such shenanigans? Or have we finally reached the point when saying "The President can't do ______" is pointless? "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Gromnir Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Guard Dog said: Doesn't our trade agreements with Canada and Mexico prevent such shenanigans? Or have we finally reached the point when saying "The President can't do ______" is pointless? yes. both questions. for a few commentators, the talk o' mexico tariffs were the death knell for any kinda trade deal with china. after all, no doubt the chinese recognize how trump has zero interest in adhering to trade deals. HA! Good Fun! "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
smjjames Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 30 minutes ago, Gromnir said: yes. both questions. for a few commentators, the talk o' mexico tariffs were the death knell for any kinda trade deal with china. after all, no doubt the chinese recognize how trump has zero interest in adhering to trade deals. HA! Good Fun! It could even be the death knell for NAFTA 2.0
BruceVC Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 What do you guys think about corporal punishment? We banned it in South Africa since our first true democratic election in 1994 but there are several debates to bring it back due to the utter breakdown of discipline , unruly behavior and contempt for teachers we now experience in some of our schools I think it should be brought back for boys, I have heard several points about why its bad for kids but I am not convinced. I went through high school from 1988-1992 and I was canned most of my high school for legitimate reasons. I was never abused and it taught me to not cross certain lines. Yes it creates a sense of fear but its a good fear as you learn boundaries and I do believe it instills and helps people learn consequences Who went through corporal punishment and what do you think about it as an effective way of helping kids learn respect and what is correct behavior. Or you believe in other methods of discipline ? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
injurai Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 Corporal punishment is ****ed. I much prefer the American system of detention -> suspension -> expulsion. Expulsion is only a problem for kids that are so unruly that they are a problem for other and the teachers. At that point the kid either drops out and makes their own way through life, or enrolls in some sort of corrective program before being placed in a different school for a fresh chance. Often time the issue is that the kid is better suited to some trade/vocational path once they are better placed they begin to succeed on the new path. Of course it's done even better than America were in other countries the kid as some autonomy of which tract to pursue, so they don't entertain a destructive anti-social phase as much. Honestly sounds like you just want an excuse to beat the problem people into submission, what exactly is it you want them to submit to that is so much more important than allowing them to pursue a path of their own. They'll either find success in the market or fill low skill jobs until they figure themselves out, not need to make them submit at threat of violence and pain. 1
BruceVC Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, injurai said: Corporal punishment is ****ed. I much prefer the American system of detention -> suspension -> expulsion. Expulsion is only a problem for kids that are so unruly that they are a problem for other and the teachers. At that point the kid either drops out and makes their own way through life, or enrolls in some sort of corrective program before being placed in a different school for a fresh chance. Often time the issue is that the kid is better suited to some trade/vocational path once they are better placed they begin to succeed on the new path. Of course it's done even better than America were in other countries the kid as some autonomy of which tract to pursue, so they don't entertain a destructive anti-social phase as much. Honestly sounds like you just want an excuse to beat the problem people into submission, what exactly is it you want them to submit to that is so much more important than allowing them to pursue a path of their own. They'll either find success in the market or fill low skill jobs until they figure themselves out, not need to make them submit at threat of violence and pain. No corporal punishment is not about threatening kids with violence and pain, you misunderstand its instructive nature Its about understanding in life there are consequences for breaking the rules, its like that in RL isnt it ? Dont we have punishment for people who break the law. So why wait till you leave school before understanding this concept. Remember kids are great at learning things at an early stage...then they can carry these lessons into adult life "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
213374U Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 I much prefer the term "administrative punishment". 1 - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Guard Dog Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 25 minutes ago, BruceVC said: What do you guys think about corporal punishment? We banned it in South Africa since our first true democratic election in 1994 but there are several debates to bring it back due to the utter breakdown of discipline , unruly behavior and contempt for teachers we now experience in some of our schools I think it should be brought back for boys, I have heard several points about why its bad for kids but I am not convinced. I went through high school from 1988-1992 and I was canned most of my high school for legitimate reasons. I was never abused and it taught me to not cross certain lines. Yes it creates a sense of fear but its a good fear as you learn boundaries and I do believe it instills and helps people learn consequences Who went through corporal punishment and what do you think about it as an effective way of helping kids learn respect and what is correct behavior. Or you believe in other methods of discipline ? When I was a kid if you got in trouble you had a choice between after school detention or three licks with the paddle. Buddy, THAT is a no brainer. Three licks is over on ten seconds and you do not need to explain to your parents why you were late. I figured out early on corporal punishment is a joke. They cannot hit you hard enough to actually hurt you. My dad used to say "boy go cut me a switch" OK, coming right up. 10 seconds later all is forgiven and you don't have to spend an hour in your room or have your Atari (yes I'm old) taken away. If a punishment is not a deterrent how can it be effective? 1 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Skarpen Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 American system of elimination reminds me of creation of a sports team. You test a group and eliminate the weakest links and what is left should make a good team. The issue is those that are left don't just leave the team and go on their way. The team is your country and you are stuck with them. People that end up uneducated, unlawful and feeling cast out. There is no incentive, or very little, to get back into the system and "start fresh". But I think we would agree that the point should be to have educated, lawful and good mannered citizens. Corporal punishment might not be the ideal solution, but there should be some incentive to become a good citizen. And I think "forcing" some bad seeds to be better is better in the long run than just letting them go free.
injurai Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 TIL instilling a sense of fear to maintain boundaries (with physical pain) is not a looming threat. I also learned that it is the only way to maintain boundaries for some people, and no other solution or consideration has merit. Enjoy yourselves South Africa.
Gfted1 Posted June 7, 2019 Posted June 7, 2019 Hmm, an 8oz bar of soap accelerated to 25mph in a sock = 10.44 foot pounds. That probably equivalent to getting punched by a child? "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Recommended Posts