Transgender Problem

[liminal_luke]

 Would you accept someone calling you 'psychologically disturbed' ? Isn't that precisely what you would describe as discrimination  

 

I´ve been called worse.  But only by small-minded people.

[Karl]

I´ve been called worse.  But only by small-minded people.

 

Sticks and stones etc

 

For me, from the perspective of LGBT it's just a non subject. In other words I've never discriminated and never would. If I had a business ai would take anyone's money-even yours. If I owned a rental home, or hotel you are welcome to stay and will get the same care as any guest. I can't marry you and a partner because I'm not a priest/officer of the state, but if I was I certainly would. If you came for a job and were the best candidate then I'd employ you. I'm happy to have a meal with you, or take you for a blast on my bike as long as you are decent company.

 

My concern is immediately you go and get the state to force me at gun point to do all those things. Then I'm wondering what kind of person pushes a gun in my face and demands I hand over something that they have no right to. You see how that seems ? The only people I know who act that way are violent criminals.

[liminal_luke]

Although we disagree about so much, Karl, I´ll take you at your word that you wouldn´t discriminate.  You seem more principled than hateful, to me.  Not principles I´d espouse, mind you, but principles just the same.  I wouldn´t even call you small-minded.  A cyber rabble-rouser?  Hey, if the shoe fits...  

[Karl]

Although we disagree about so much, Karl, I´ll take you at your word that you wouldn´t discriminate.  You seem more principled than hateful, to me.  Not principles I´d espouse, mind you, but principles just the same.  I wouldn´t even call you small-minded.  A cyber rabble-rouser?  Hey, if the shoe fits...  

 

You are still missing the point. Is it a blindness or an evasion ? Your concern is whether you can trust that I would discriminate against LGBT or not ? If I had said I would discriminate then I certainly wouldn't apologise for doing so. I stated a personal view, I equally accept the views of those who do discriminate, even if I don't agree with them I defend their right to do so.

[dust]

The 'right' to discriminate, or the 'right' to not be discriminated against for something that affects nobody but you?

 

Free thought, free speech, and free action should be unimpeachable as long as they harm nobody else. If your speech leads someone to harm me, I reserve the 'right' to cut you both down.

[Karl]

The 'right' to discriminate, or the 'right' to not be discriminated against for something that affects nobody but you?

 

Free thought, free speech, and free action should be unimpeachable as long as they harm nobody else. If your speech leads someone to harm me, I reserve the 'right' to cut you both down.

 

Liberty is a right, that means liberty to discriminate against someone. It isn't logically possible to be free not to be discriminated against as it denies Liberty.

 

Speech IS being used to harm someone. SJW/LGBT activists have used their Liberty to speak to strip the Liberty from others.

 

 

[ralis]

Liberty is a right, that means liberty to discriminate against someone. It isn't logically possible to be free not to be discriminated against as it denies Liberty. Speech IS being used to harm someone. SJW/LGBT activists have used their Liberty to speak to strip the Liberty from others.

 

A number of anti LGBT laws allow a business owner to refuse service. These same businesses are granted a license by the people of a state or municipality to serve the public good for all. However, it is the right wing religious fanatics that use religion to institute religious freedom laws.

 

If you had the world your way, there would be utter chaos!

[liminal_luke]

You are still missing the point. Is it a blindness or an evasion ?

 

Neither.  Just the memory of a rather extensive (and not much fun) debate with you sometime back about this very same "point" in which nobody convinced anybody of anything.  If I thought things might go differently this time around I might give it a shot, but I don´t.

[Old River]

The liberty to discriminate?  Hardly a new idea:

 

 

 

 

What next? A revival of sundown towns? 

[Old River]

As regards the "free speech": bigots indeed have the right to their free speech, as do those who in turn call them out on their bigotry.  Free speech doesn't mean no one is allowed to challenge that speech.  That blade cuts both ways. 

[liminal_luke]

As regards the "free speech": bigots indeed have the right to their free speech, as do those who in turn call them out on their bigotry.  Free speech doesn't mean no one is allowed to challenge that speech.  That blade cuts both ways. 

 

This.

 

It´s been interesting to me to note that those in this thread who assert their "right" to discriminate against others are very quick to take offense and play the victim when challenged.

[ralis]

This.

 

It´s been interesting to me to note that those in this thread who assert their "right" to discriminate against others are very quick to take offense and play the victim when challenged.

 

 

So true!

[Flolfolil]

...

Edited July 3, 2016 by Flolfolil

[Karl]

A number of anti LGBT laws allow a business owner to refuse service. These same businesses are granted a license by the people of a state or municipality to serve the public good for all. However, it is the right wing religious fanatics that use religion to institute religious freedom laws.

 

If you had the world your way, there would be utter chaos!

 

It isn't a 'public good for all' and neither is a 'licence' a ticket to avoid going bankrupt. The license has to be bought, taxes have to be paid, regulations must be abided by and that all costs the business owner. This does not prevent black, LGBT or female starting a rival business either and then rejecting white, male heterosexuals.

 

The right wing religious fanatics are exactly the same as the LGBT right wing fanatics. Both are insisting they have a claim on other people's rights to liberty and to go about their businesses peacefully.

[Karl]

The liberty to discriminate? Hardly a new idea:

 

 

 

 

What next? A revival of sundown towns?

That's their right-as philosophically devoid of reason and warped as it is. Yet it is no different to those who are practising reverse racism. Both are examples of collectivism. They are the same kind of moral rent seeking. The only way to stop it is to attend to the philosophy not the use of force.

 

You won't see it, because you refuse to acknowledge the underlying issue.

 

It sometimes seems to me that I'm living amongst brute and unenlightened apes. That if this is their claim to intellect we are, as a race, doomed. If we are to have any hope at all we must use reason and logic, to stop looking at things through the eyes of the collective, the tribal group, either the majority or the minority and give up this altruistic ideology which is causing so much damage and misery.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Karl

[blue eyed snake]

 

Old River, on 07 May 2016 - 03:56, said:

The liberty to discriminate? Hardly a new idea:

 

 

 

 

What next? A revival of sundown towns?

 

 

That's their right

 

and as such you posted it, seemingly later changing your mind and adding more words. I fthat's their right, then this is too

 

 

 

 

I do not care for your philosophical arguments, the liberty of one human ends where the liberty of the other starts. that's some sort of basic that you've seem to forget.

You're drowning in your philosophical wordiness, sitting on the high horse of the white heteroseksual eddicated male.

 

well, it's the likes of you that created this society and are still doing their best to keep minorities in their place, it is a sign of deeprooted fear for humans that are different.

 

It'l probably end in bloodshed, again. and that's sad, for there is no need for that.

 

as i said before, every human body is home of the soul,  

ever heard of , for example, the inuit, they were the happiest and healthiest people of the world, until the whites came, they had no philosophy except for knowing and being nature, which seems to be the road to real humanity

 

-as philosophically devoid of reason and warped as it is. Yet it is no different to those who are practising reverse racism. Both are examples of collectivism. They are the same kind of moral rent seeking. The only way to stop it is to attend to the philosophy not the use of force.

 

You won't see it, because you refuse to acknowledge the underlying issue.

 

It sometimes seems to me that I'm living amongst brute and unenlightened apes. That if this is their claim to intellect we are, as a race, doomed. If we are to have any hope at all we must use reason and logic, to stop looking at things through the eyes of the collective, the tribal group, either the majority or the minority and give up this altruistic ideology which is causing so much damage and misery. 

 

and there is no use for logic or reason really, not on issues like this, whole groups of people are denied the normal rights of people, because somewhere, underlying, their humanity is denied, for instance by calling them mentally disturbed.

 

you've enough knowledge to know what happened in Europe some 70 years ago, several groups of people were first labeled as misfits and then killed in gaschambers, labeled as subhuman.

 

 

No need for any higher philosophy here.

 

just try for a little down to the earth humanity

[Karl]

Right to life, liberty, justice, property and the pursuit of ones own happiness.

 

That means respecting every person as an individual-something you are failing miserably at with your comment about "white heterosexual male" and so you confirm your own racism by that comment.

 

If a large group practice collectivism and irrationality against a smaller group, then that is called racism. When the smaller group practice the same collectivism and irrationality it is called ethnicity. Neither group has any right to force another group, just as one individual does not have the right to initiate force against another individual. Read the list of rights. None of those rights operate in a silo, or with any Cardinal order. One right is not subordinate to another and neither can any right be ignored or raised higher than any other.

 

You cannot prevent racism until you completely change the mentality which causes it. Racism doesn't end when a minority group forces a majority group, it's just liberal racism. No one should be forcing anyone, it's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Take the emotionalism out of your post and what remains is thinly disguised reverse bigotry. You should ask yourself how you came to think that way. That it is OK for a small group to beat up a majority because they are a small group. It is logically and morally deficient.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Karl

[Old River]

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." -MLK

[Karl]

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." -MLK

 

Seems like sage advice to me, pity most of you don't follow it.

[Old River]

Karl, you've missed the point why I quoted MLK.

Karl: "You cannot prevent racism until you completely change the mentality which causes it. Racism doesn't end when a minority group forces a majority group, it's just liberal racism. No one should be forcing anyone, it's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right."

MLK: "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."

Emphasis added.  We can't all be Randian ubermenches, I guess.

 

 

[Karl]

Karl, you've missed the point why I quoted MLK.

Karl: "You cannot prevent racism until you completely change the mentality which causes it. Racism doesn't end when a minority group forces a majority group, it's just liberal racism. No one should be forcing anyone, it's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right."

MLK: "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."

Emphasis added. We can't all be Randian ubermenches, I guess.

 

 

 

The law should prevent one person initiating force against another. As MLK made it clear, a law cannot end racism, it can only attempt to prevent the initiation of force. Justice should be blind and objective. If it forces one group to love another, then it is no longer objective or blind. It is therefore no longer just or lawful.

 

If you could see it, then you would know it. My wife isn't a philosopher, she has never read Rand, but she has her own philosophy and sense of justice. She says to treat and judge everyone as individuals, not by the colour of their skin, their race, creed, religion, sex or sexuality. It is neither right for a black majority to condemn a white minority, nor a white minority to condemn a black majority. This is two sides of the same racist tribalism.

 

 

The law should not speak to tribalism, it should only account for men's actions as unique individuals beyond any specific attributes-all men equal before the law and not the law to make all men equal.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Karl

[Bodhicitta]

Getting OT, but what else is new.

 

Karl has mentioned 'force' several times as the preferred (or is it natural) instrument for progressive individuals.

 

Here is are some ideas with their related words that spawned and today are spawning horrors:

 

Synonyms for totalitarian

adj dictatorial

• authoritarian
• autocratic
• monolithic
• oppressive
• tyrannical
• undemocratic
• absolute
• communist
• Nazi
• despotic
• fascistic
• one-party

[Karl]

 

 

 

 

If that isn't getting through to the force mongers then maybe this will.

[dust]

Liberty is a right, that means liberty to discriminate against someone. It isn't logically possible to be free not to be discriminated against as it denies Liberty. Speech IS being used to harm someone. SJW/LGBT activists have used their Liberty to speak to strip the Liberty from others.

 

There is discrimination in thought, and there is discrimination in deed. It is possible to deny someone the freedom to do a thing based on one's own prejudice against them. Your liberty doesn't give you the right to deny me my liberty. The liberty of someone full of hatred doesn't trump the liberty of someone they hate.

 

Many people of various 'races' around the world and through history would agree that discrimination in deed can impinge on one's liberty.

 

The simple freedom, for example, to exist in the same space as people of other 'races' -- eating in the same space in a cafeteria, drinking from the same water fountain, sitting in the same space on a bus, etc. Not to mention the freedom to not be burned on a crucifix.

 

 

Omg!! I'm so sad right now    The wiki article about him says he killed himself.  I met this guy when I was living in California and he was one of the friendliest folk I have ever met.  Not one bit of shame or fear in the smile on his face. RIP

 

It is sad that he ended up so sad. I hope he was happy for at least some of the time.

[C T]