Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2014, 09:48 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 09:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As usual.
YOU putting words in my mouth, then you debating the lies you make me tell.
How boring. You really can't help yourself, can you ?
You can make up anything you like, and say I said it.
You are as intellectually dishonest as anyone I have ever known.
Troll.

Hello.... Bucky.... If you click the 'quote' link it'll take you to the post where you wrote that. This was a verbatim transcript of precisely what you said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 09:51 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 09:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 08:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  your illusions that government can do nothing good...

How many times do I need to pound this into your thick skull. I have NEVER been against government. I've been against violence. Read my posts where I talked about how GOVERNMENT, by stepping and stopping violence in the 17th century, transformed civilization almost overnight. I ONLY speak against government when government is initiating violence, and I am no more against government initiating violence than against a private party doing it. Unlike you, I treat all humans as equal. Violence is violence whether it's perpetrated by a police or a thug.

Therefore, your statement is “your illusions that VIOLENCE can do nothing good...” And the reason why I have reached this conclusion is that I've debated political issues hundreds of times, and every time someone defends government violence, it ends up being that they never considered the alternative.

The #1 instance where non-libertarians defend the use of violence is the civil war. They also rate Lincoln as being the best President, whereas libertarians typically rate him the worst and most tyrannical. When I ask the Lincoln/civil-war defenders if they approved of Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and imprisoning or exiling journalists who criticized him as well as his political opponents, the reaction is 'uh, I didn't know that'. When I ask if Lincoln made the right decision to spend $10 billion on the civil war and leave the South a destitute, steaming pile of rubble when he had the opportunity to spend $5 billion and buy the slaves freedom, I get the same blank stare. Then when I ask if the South would have ended up having so many poor, ignorant, backwards, hate filled, racist communities if Lincoln hadn't decimated them, the answer is 'I didn't think of that'.

As Winston Churchill said, 'history is written by the victors.' So, of course, every time the government uses violence the history books will talk about how great it was. You know in N. Korea the history books will read how the great Kim Jung Un heroically defeated his traitor uncle who sought to undermine the people's revolution.

So, if you're going to dispute my position that “violence can do nothing good”, come up with an instance where violence was used where you're willing to debate the pros and cons of it vs. a peaceful alternative and be willing to answer 'what might have been' if we didn't use violence.

I haven't read the full thread but if I may jump in. You just mentioned Churchill yourself in your post. The obvious answer is WWII. Europe and then the USA had no choice but to respond with violence.

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 09:52 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 04:48 PM)BnW Wrote:  No, I don't believe there should be gay affirmative action. I have no idea what the relevance is of that question to anything that was discussed previously, though.

The relevance is that if there was gay affirmative action, no matter how well intentioned, like all such intervention, there are unintended consequences. Blacks were in the same situation when affirmative action was imposed. Yes, it accomplished good things, and helped right some of the wrongs they had suffered. BUT, it also had unintended negative consequences, just like gay affirmative action would. You can't say that it was the right thing to do without considering the negative effects.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 09:55 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 09:48 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 09:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As usual.
YOU putting words in my mouth, then you debating the lies you make me tell.
How boring. You really can't help yourself, can you ?
You can make up anything you like, and say I said it.
You are as intellectually dishonest as anyone I have ever known.
Troll.

Hello.... Bucky.... If you click the 'quote' link it'll take you to the post where you wrote that. This was a verbatim transcript of precisely what you said.

I never said that. I challenge you to find it. It won't be the first time you've had to admit you have quated me WRONG.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 09:59 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 09:51 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I haven't read the full thread but if I may jump in. You just mentioned Churchill yourself in your post. The obvious answer is WWII. Europe and then the USA had no choice but to respond with violence.

"Respond with violence" is misleading. What I'm condemning is "initiating violence", namely what Germany did. Sure, if somebody is raping you, you fight back. And if Germany is invading you or your allies, you fight back. No problem there.

So, surely you're not saying that the INITIATION of violence was good in WWII, right? You're not applauding the Nazi's invasion of other countries, right?

In which case we're in total agreement. But that's a very different situation than when the South broke free from the North. The South didn't attack the North. The North attacked the South. The North is the side that initiated violence against the South.

The history books make it sound like it was because Lincoln wanted to liberate the slaves. But if you look past the propaganda, Lincoln was as much a racist as the Southerners. In fact, Lincoln's plan was not to free the slaves, but rather to ship them back to Africa since he felt it was improper for blacks & whites to share a continent. There's a good book about it link the intro is:

Beginning with the argument that the Emancipation Proclamation did not actually free African American slaves, this dissenting view of Lincoln's greatness surveys the president's policies, speeches, and private utterances and concludes that he had little real interest in abolition. Pointing to Lincoln's support for the fugitive slave laws, his friendship with slave-owning senator Henry Clay, and conversations in which he entertained the idea of deporting slaves in order to create an all-white nation, the book, concludes that the president was a racist at heart—and that the tragedies of Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era were the legacy of his shallow moral vision.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 10:02 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 09:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I never said that. I challenge you to find it. It won't be the first time you've had to admit you have quated me WRONG.

yes, you DID. Post #16. Here's the full text:

I already did. The Federal Marshals were REQUIRED in the Kennedy admin to forcibly desegregate the schools, and there is not a shred of indication they were in ANY WAY in the near future about to do that, and YOU have none. You are neither gay nor back, and have NEVER ONCE felt discriminated against. So you can stick your fatuous crap up you right wing glib ass, including your assumption (with NO evidence) that the thing that changed Obama's mind was political expediency, (and not his wife and children as he said). There was an Emancipation Proclamation in the 1800's. I suppose you're going to tell us THAT was well on the way to eliminating discrimination. The civil rights laws and voting rights laws of the 1960's were vehemently opposed. Very easy for a ass like you who NEVER ONCE experienced discrimination to say things were all about to change. What the fuck did YOU care ? How long EXACTLY are people supposed to wait to have WHAT YOU ALREADY have, to maintain your illusions that government can do nothing good ?

Yes, my quote of you was verbatim. And there's no trickery or out of context. You DID say that I had the illusion that government can do nothing good, which is obviously violence, when all I've spoken against is violence--not government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 10:06 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 08:12 AM)cjlr Wrote:  As a rule, most people would admit of a thing called nuance. Morally we call it utilitarianism.

The question being, "is the harm done by forcibly preventing the worst overt discrimination and oppression counterbalanced by the harm lessened by preventing said oppression"?

Possible answers being "yes" and "no".

Incidentally, I am not sure that "well, we asked him not to" is much consolation to the people mistreated by the likes of George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" Wallace.

For once we agree. I don't claim to know what would have happened if the government hadn't use violence, and I can't possibly say how non-violent alternatives would have worked out. You and I are on the same page. What I was speaking against was Chas's statement that "federal law and arms" were required. I'm saying what you just said, namely that nobody can use such absolute terms because nobody can know what would have happened with non-violent solutions.

The civil war to me, though, was a lot more clear-cut than the civil rights efforts of the 50's and 60's. I've yet to hear one argument for why the civil war was better than just buying the slaves freedom like the rest of the world did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 10:09 PM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2014 10:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 10:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 09:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I never said that. I challenge you to find it. It won't be the first time you've had to admit you have quated me WRONG.

yes, you DID. Post #16. Here's the full text:

I already did. The Federal Marshals were REQUIRED in the Kennedy admin to forcibly desegregate the schools, and there is not a shred of indication they were in ANY WAY in the near future about to do that, and YOU have none. You are neither gay nor back, and have NEVER ONCE felt discriminated against. So you can stick your fatuous crap up you right wing glib ass, including your assumption (with NO evidence) that the thing that changed Obama's mind was political expediency, (and not his wife and children as he said). There was an Emancipation Proclamation in the 1800's. I suppose you're going to tell us THAT was well on the way to eliminating discrimination. The civil rights laws and voting rights laws of the 1960's were vehemently opposed. Very easy for a ass like you who NEVER ONCE experienced discrimination to say things were all about to change. What the fuck did YOU care ? How long EXACTLY are people supposed to wait to have WHAT YOU ALREADY have, to maintain your illusions that government can do nothing good ?

Yes, my quote of you was verbatim. And there's no trickery or out of context. You DID say that I had the illusion that government can do nothing good, which is obviously violence, when all I've spoken against is violence--not government.

You DID change the (supposed) quote, and made it look like what YOU wanted it to say. I NEVER USED the word ''violence". You are a lying troll, which everyone can see.
The threat of, or implied ability to use force is NOT "violence". You twist things for your own purpose.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 10:37 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You DID change the (supposed) quote, and made it look like what YOU wanted it to say. I NEVER USED the word ''violence". You are a lying troll, which everyone can see.

No, YOU are the one lying, AND have a reading comprehension disorder, and here's the proof.

I quoted you verbatim. You DID clearly say I had "illusions that government can do nothing good". I then pointed out that I have been a VERY strong supporter of government when stops violence, and my only criticism of government is when it initiates violence, and it's the same criticism I make of individuals who use violence. Therefore, I am against violence--not government--and your corrected statement should be "illusions that violence can do nothing good". My post is crystal clear that you used the word government, and I changed it to violence because that's what we're debating. That's your reading comprehension problem.

Now as far as who is lying... Read for example my post #50 where I am praising the government for radically improving civilization. I just wrote that a couple days ago! So, you're claim that I have the "illusions that government can do nothing good" is a flat out lie. I never said that. It is YOU who is making up false statements and putting them in my mouth. I've only spoken against violence--not government.

(02-01-2014 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The threat of, or implied ability to use force is NOT "violence". You twist things for your own purpose.

Violence IS by definition the use of physical force against a person. Here's an official definition: "violence: the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

If you're going to tell me it's not violence when the government forces you to do something against your will and threatens to haul you off at gunpoint and lock you in prison if you don't comply, then will you accept it if I, as a private person, did the same thing to you or someone you love? What if I hauled your child or spouse off at gunpoint and locked them in my basement because they didn't do what I wanted them to. Are you seriously going to insist that's not violence?

You're just drinking the government propaganda cool-aid that says when the perpetrator of violence carries a badge, then it's not violence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 10:49 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 10:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  and your corrected statement should be "illusions that violence can do nothing good".

NO sir. My statement is my statement. You don't get to decide what my "corrected" anything is. Your ASTOUNDING arrogance that you get to do that, just shows what an intellectually dishonest troll you are. You are a lost cause. Thanks for proving it, again.

("Your *corrected statement* in-fucking-deed. LMAO)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: