This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2015, 03:10 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 02:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Except it is clear from meeting commentary and correspondence that was not what the majority of them meant.

Well, sure. Because back in the day security actually depended on militia, who were whatever random schmucks who showed up with whatever random weapons they happened to have.

Whether any "original" intent is even remotely relevant to today is a much better question.

It's a good question, but it's a different one.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-04-2015, 03:12 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 03:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:57 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  I'd say it's pretty relevant. As long as the American people are armed, even with only small arms like semi auto rifles, handguns, and hunting rifles, no foreign army would dare step foot on our soil. Maybe some lunatic terrorist lone wolf type combatant would try it, but a full scale foreign invasion is deterred by our "random schmucks" as you put it.

And that's an idiotic fantasy. What do small arms do against jet bombers and tanks? The realities of 220 years ago do not matter today.

Heck, you don't even need to ignore the fact that the United States hasn't fought a neighbouring land power since the 1840s, and then go on to ignore the difficulties of mounting a trans-oceanic military expedition against a larger state without intermediate logistical support (you know, the actual reasons they haven't been invaded).

What good did southern guerillas do against federal troops during Reconstruction?
(hint: nothing)

You know nothing of warfare. Jets, bombers, tanks, need fuel. They need troops. Troops need food, supplies. Supply lines can be cut off. Just look to how long the Afghan war has gone on with all our technology and a coalition of forces against simple combatants with small arms and crude explosives. If their numbers were greater we would have been crushed.

Death is a debt we all must pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 03:13 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 03:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, sure. Because back in the day security actually depended on militia, who were whatever random schmucks who showed up with whatever random weapons they happened to have.

Whether any "original" intent is even remotely relevant to today is a much better question.

It's a good question, but it's a different one.

Oh, absolutely!

But the obsession a lot of Americans seem to have with, "but what did the Founders (peace be upon them!) intend?" is staggeringly irrelevant and pointless.

So while I wholeheartedly approve of your pedantry in pointing out that in a lot of cases we do know just what they intended, they'd also shit themselves in incomprehension if they were faced with life in the year 2015 - and so, so far as policy is concerned, I don't see how it matters one way or the other.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-04-2015, 03:13 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 03:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:57 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  I'd say it's pretty relevant. As long as the American people are armed, even with only small arms like semi auto rifles, handguns, and hunting rifles, no foreign army would dare step foot on our soil. Maybe some lunatic terrorist lone wolf type combatant would try it, but a full scale foreign invasion is deterred by our "random schmucks" as you put it.

And that's an idiotic fantasy. What do small arms do against jet bombers and tanks? The realities of 220 years ago do not matter today.

The Viet Cong and Mujahideen prove you wrong on this.

Quote:Heck, you don't even need to ignore the fact that the United States hasn't fought a neighbouring land power since the 1840s, and then go on to ignore the difficulties of mounting a trans-oceanic military expedition against a larger state without intermediate logistical support (you know, the actual reasons they haven't been invaded).

What good did southern guerillas do against federal troops during Reconstruction?
(hint: nothing)

There weren't very many, so that is not comparable.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 03:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 03:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  It's a good question, but it's a different one.

Oh, absolutely!

But the obsession a lot of Americans seem to have with, "but what did the Founders (peace be upon them!) intend?" is staggeringly irrelevant and pointless.

So while I wholeheartedly approve of your pedantry in pointing out that in a lot of cases we do know just what they intended, they'd also shit themselves in incomprehension if they were faced with life in the year 2015 - and so, so far as policy is concerned, I don't see how it matters one way or the other.

The intent matters as history, obviously, but it helps cast or frame our understanding of the whole document and the intended structure of government.

Also, an agreed upon understanding is basic to amending it, I would think.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 03:19 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 03:12 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 03:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And that's an idiotic fantasy. What do small arms do against jet bombers and tanks? The realities of 220 years ago do not matter today.

Heck, you don't even need to ignore the fact that the United States hasn't fought a neighbouring land power since the 1840s, and then go on to ignore the difficulties of mounting a trans-oceanic military expedition against a larger state without intermediate logistical support (you know, the actual reasons they haven't been invaded).

What good did southern guerillas do against federal troops during Reconstruction?
(hint: nothing)

You know nothing of warfare. Jets, bombers, tanks, need fuel. They need troops. Troops need food, supplies. Supply lines can be cut off. Just look to how long the Afghan war has gone on with all our technology against simple combatants with small arms and crude explosives. If their numbers were greater we would have been crushed.

A jet with an operational range of thousands of kilometres doesn't particularly give a shit about a guy with a rifle in a target area.

A casualty ratio orders of magnitude in their favour would argue to the effectiveness of the NATO presence in Afghanistan. Political consequences are a parallel matter.
(see also: Vietnam)

The deranged "WOLVERINES FREEDOM FIGHTERS" fantasy is just that. Deranged fantasy.

You have two options if you're advocating it: either the nebulous, incoherent "foreign invader" (and exactly who is going to be invading the United States any time soon, so long as organised militaries exist, even if literally every single civilian weapon were destroyed?) is sufficiently brutal as to obviate small-time petty resistance, or else they're not, in which case even the necessary motives for the scenario collapse into the masturbatory delusion it always was.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 03:21 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 03:38 PM by cjlr.)
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 03:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 03:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And that's an idiotic fantasy. What do small arms do against jet bombers and tanks? The realities of 220 years ago do not matter today.

The Viet Cong and Mujahideen prove you wrong on this.

Each of whom had massive outside support.
(North Vietnamese SAM sites were sure as fuck not pre-existing civilian infrastructure)

And each of whom took massively disproportionate casualties due to their greater ideological and political commitment.

I'm still waiting to hear just what paranoid delusion will lead to similar circumstances on American soil. Tomorrow.

EDIT: Anyway, my argument was emphatically not "guerillas and asymmetrical warfare never accomplished anything"; I'd expect that much to be recognised. It was that private ownership of small arms as understood by the writers of the second amendment to the American constitution is militarily irrelevant and have been for a very long time.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 03:32 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 01:16 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  Decisions like this should always come down to the intent of the writers of the constitution ie the founding fathers. The way I look at things is, what would George Washington or Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson or James Madison think about a law or court decision. If those guys would have looked down upon it, its probably a bad decision. Would the founding fathers have taken the side of gay marriage at the time they lived? No. Would they support a business refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding? I’m fairly confident they would support the bakery refusing service.

Moot point. The founding fathers framed things within the scope of their times, times change and I’d like to think over time we’ve become more tolerant and less devisive as a nation, but alas it doesn’t feel like that.

(08-04-2015 01:16 PM)‘Patriot10mm Wrote:  The founding fathers had reasons for what they did, and although they didn't always agree on every issue, they worked together and came up with a document that was almost perfect. With the exception of slavery, nothing else really needed to be changed or added. But, societies evolve and they knew that. So, they included the option to amend the constitution through a specific process.

Well, there were a few things besides slavery, obviously sex and race don’t appear too important to you.

(08-04-2015 01:16 PM)‘Patriot10mm Wrote:  Instead of interpreting gay marriage through the constitution via free speech, or the equal protection clause offered by the 14th amendment (which was about race and nothing else) we should do the right thing and add the proper constitutional amendment.

The constitution as it is written, and the intent and the founders and the elected leaders after them, does not support gay marriage.

An amendment should be passed so that the constitution is clear.

(The 13th abolished slavery and the 15th gave citizens other than whites and women the right to vote, the 14th dealt with a myriad of things.)

I think the best part of the Constitution is that it allows for changes. I’m not sure an amendment is necessary or not for this issue, though I like the idea, but it would certainly clarify much and help put this to rest.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 03:42 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 03:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 03:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  The Viet Cong and Mujahideen prove you wrong on this.

Each of whom had massive outside support.
(North Vietnamese SAM sites were sure as fuck not pre-existing civilian infrastructure)

Wrong country. Those weren't a factor until the war expanded outside of South Vietnam.

Quote:And each of whom took massively disproportionate casualties due to their greater ideological and political commitment.

I'm still waiting to hear just what paranoid delusion will lead to similar circumstances on American soil. Tomorrow.

EDIT: Anyway, my argument was emphatically not "guerillas and asymmetrical warfare never accomplished anything"; I'd expect that much to be recognised. It was that private ownership of small arms as understood by the writers of the second amendment to the American constitution is militarily irrelevant and have been for a very long time.

Yabut, the invader withdrew in both cases. The populace/rebels/resistance was effective enough with existing arms until outside help arrived.

Just like the Colonies until the French helped.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 03:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 03:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Each of whom had massive outside support.
(North Vietnamese SAM sites were sure as fuck not pre-existing civilian infrastructure)

Wrong country. Those weren't a factor until the war expanded outside of South Vietnam.

But the fighters in South Vietnam could not have existed without North Vietnam - without which it would just have been a re-run of the Malayan emergency. Notwithstanding that even in 1975 it was large-scale combined operations in a direct military invasion that led to the South's collapse.

(08-04-2015 03:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:And each of whom took massively disproportionate casualties due to their greater ideological and political commitment.

I'm still waiting to hear just what paranoid delusion will lead to similar circumstances on American soil. Tomorrow.

EDIT: Anyway, my argument was emphatically not "guerillas and asymmetrical warfare never accomplished anything"; I'd expect that much to be recognised. It was that private ownership of small arms as understood by the writers of the second amendment to the American constitution is militarily irrelevant and have been for a very long time.

Yabut, the invader withdrew in both cases. The populace/rebels/resistance was effective enough with existing arms until outside help arrived.

Just like the Colonies until the French helped.

Yes, and that was a long-ass time ago. My point wasn't that that line of reasoning wasn't justified in its time (ie 1780s America), because it was, and it was based on direct experience. It was that that doesn't matter today, because the modern world is a very different place.

I still fail to see how that's remotely applicable to any remotely plausible scenario involving the home soil of the United States in the present day.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: