Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago
    Yes. I can't stand it when politicians try to get neighbors of different religious who live in harmony to argue about religion. It seems like the cheapest way to get attention and votes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 10 months ago
    When my grandparents learned enough English to take citizenship classes, and they they found out about the separation of church and state, they stopped going to church. In the Austro-Hungarian Empire, church was a civic requirement. (Swiss cantons and communes still collect taxes for churches, by the way.) My grandmother said many times that "in the old country church and state were one." I finally understood it perceptually 40 years later, when as a numismatist, I saw a coin that said "Franz Josef Apostolischer Ko"nig." My grandparents were not religious; but to them, there was only one Apostolic King and surely was NOT Franz Josef of Austria.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
      Some good friends of mine are swiss, and teh church very much is hand in hand with the government. Every citizen must "tithe" to the church and mandatory religious education. It also highly influences their immigration policy which is very exclusionary. Really, it just creates a bunch of resentment-but not enough to change things, I guess.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 10 months ago
    The type of question and their sequence are a good example of the marketing skill of pre- determining an outcome. By a facade of objectivity in simply seeking opinions, not only are answers given as desired by the questioner, but the person being interviewed is influenced.

    Have you stopped beating your wife?
    [A] for yes, or
    [B] for no.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
    huh. I was thinking the same about the gay activist's "religion."
    actually, I thought this quiz was kind of vague. I didn't want to choose any of the "a"s either
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago
      What's the gay activists' religion? You're not talking about UU are you?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
        hi cg. no, I am using it like environmentalism as a "religion."
        I think businesses should be free to associate. I think that a business who would deny service based on someone's sexuality-which is beyond me how they would know in just providing their product or service-I mean, how does it come up? deserves to lose business and create opportunities for other businesses to thrive.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago
          I think of environmentalism as concern for the environment, not directly related to religion. Even if it is, what does this have to do with gay people?

          Regarding forcing them to serve gay people, it's hard to imagine that turning out well for anyone. I don't want to have anything to do with bigots, and they don't want me either probably. Why force us together?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
            I'm not comparing the two isms (gay activism), but the tending toward emotional belief rather than proceeding logically.
            and your last statements are logic Maph refuses to address. He chooses force instead
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago
              I don't know if I count as an environmentalist or gay rights activist, but I certainly believe in protecting the environment and treating everyone fairly.

              My notion of treating everyone fairly does start with an axiom that comes from an emotion, but I proceed logically without emotion from that axiom.

              My idea of environmentalism is not even founded on emotion. We can calculate the cost of a certain type of pollution by looking at rent prices in areas that are similar except for the the level of pollution. We can calculate the cost of medicine to treat problems shown to be caused by pollution. We can look at the costs of keeping the water out of low-lying urban areas like New Orleans or Rotterdam and project how much sea level changes would cost other coastal areas. We can look at those future cost estimates, and use the time value of money equation to work out the present value cost of emission. Then we tax people that cost, instead of taxing an activity we want such as working. If emitting that pollutant creates a product that creates billions of dollars of value, they can still do it and pay the tax. Otherwise they need to find ways to reduce emissions to avoid pushing their costs on other people in acts of unintentional vandalism.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago
          I don't think business transactions qualify as associations. The freedom to associate means people are free to join any group they want and talk to any person they want to talk to. It has nothing to do with business transactions, nor does it imply that government cannot ensure that businesses do not violate the rights of their customers and/or employees.

          I consider it to be an inalienable right of every individual to be free from persecution, whether at the hands of government or businesses, and therefore government is entirely justified in protecting that right, just as much as it is justified in protecting the rights to life and liberty.

          I haven't mentioned this, but I actually hold the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in very nearly the same degree of reverence as many people hold the Constitution itself. To me, these two documents are like twin pillars of freedom, established to ensure the defense of every individual's right to justice and equality under the law. And if either one of them is attacked, I will defend them with all the ferocity of the most fervent patriot.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago
            I would agree if not serving people were somehow tantamount to using force. Instead, though, it seems like someone puts himself out there to serve people in exchange for money. They want money as a medium of exchange to trade for other people's services and goods. It seems like they're hurting themselves only if they decide not make a transaction on account of bigotry.

            I'm not aware of what life was like in '64, but in my world I cannot imagine such a law changing anyone's mind.

            My father said people called him wop in the late 50s, which is something I cannot imagine today. I can't imagine the Civil Rights Act helped bring the positive change.

            I agree with you on following the law. A law can be changed easier than the Constitution. I would be fine with this law going away.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
            I've already shared my view on this. In the end, your position amounts to force
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago
              What's your point? It's not possible for people to peacefully cooperate in society at large without some level of government coercersion. And a government must occasionally engage in the initiation of force, otherwise it would become incapable of performing its essential functions, and would thus cease to be a government.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                bring it to a natural rights argument and we'll agree. it is not a natural rights argument to force association
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago
                  How about this: People have a natural right to be free from persecution. Does that meet your criteria?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                    people are assholes. I was ostracized in the cul de sac where we built our first house. I was raising babies, my husband's business had him gone from home a majority of the time. I was miserable. I did not fit in. what is my group maph? how could I have made them behave rationally with me?
                    I sold my property and moved away. there was much strife in doing so. I would never have even thought a law-force- would have changed their (some stupid ignorants) minds. btw-those people in my cul de sac who were so mean? progressives. I had not had ONE political discussion with any of them. The women were pure evil. no shit. their husbands- back door supportive and open arms
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ 10 years, 10 months ago
                      How do you know they were progressives if you never had any political discussions with them?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                        I listened. oh-and they always wanted someone else to watch their kids while they goofed around.
                        and they were always telling other homeowners, what fence, what color, no fence, too high fence, etc
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by $ 10 years, 9 months ago
                          Being nosy and controlling are characteristics not exclusive to progressives. Same goes for hiring babysitters.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
                            good point. hiring? heck, they asked and I offered. who turns down perfectly rational little kids just because their parents are nuts? trust me, they were progressive. AND law and order types. They'd be the ones to head up a charity drive for transgender operations, but no way would they let a transgender individual babysit. hypocrites. me on the other hand, I'd be what are your skills? you're hired! I don't give a shit about your gender. but that's me.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 10 months ago
            Value for value exchange should not be forced. If I am forced to do business with someone I know is a actively against liberty and freedom, whether unwittingly or not, then I am aiding the enemy. And we should all be free to make that judgement call. And I will fight for that right.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo