|
theshim posted:I think you will find that How is this the first time this has appeared in this thread?
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:How is this the first time this has appeared in this thread? I don't think it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I don't think it is. It definitely isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:I think that it's ok for LGBT people to be treated like subhuman monsters as long as the states decide it States aren't little kings, the people within those states can vote on issues of their state. Democracy doesn't die just because the federal government loosens its chokehold a little.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
However in this case the federal government serves to guarantee rights which states primarily want to take away. So, what you support is the removal of those particular rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Eh, jrodefeld at least put some effort into this posts. 2-Bit Student is just trolling, I think, and weakly at that. It's not breaking the NAP to encourage others to put him on ignore, right? Shunning is one of those lolbertarian-approved strategies, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:States aren't little kings, the people within those states can vote on issues of their state. Democracy doesn't die just because the federal government loosens its chokehold a little. Why should basic human rights be put up to a vote in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:States aren't little kings, the people within those states can vote on issues of their state. Democracy doesn't die just because the federal government loosens its chokehold a little. Ok and then when those people say that gay people don't deserve rights that's cool because it wasn't the Feds
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Devolving power to the states has always been great cover for nefarious poo poo. It gives an empty veneer of political principle to a completely obvious agenda for oppression and disenfranchisement. The federal government stranglehold is good when it's strangling oppressors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Devolving power to the states has always been great cover for nefarious poo poo. It gives an empty veneer of political principle to a completely obvious agenda for oppression and disenfranchisement. I disapprove of oppressing LGBTQXYZ people but I will defend to the death states' rights to oppress LGBTQXYZ people! My brave stance contains far greater moral rectitude, you see, than allowing evil federal MEN WITH GUNS to prevent downtrodden chokeheld state-level MEN WITH GUNS from oppressing LGBTQXYZ people. Thx and Mises bless, my fellow goodfree thinker
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I don't think it is. Oh, then I missed it and violated the NAP Darn
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Rectitude as in that's where you pulled it out of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Abjad Soup posted:I disapprove of oppressing LGBTQXYZ people but I will defend to the death states' rights to oppress LGBTQXYZ people! Then there's that great quote: "I don't want homeless gay kids to die because they're gay, I want them to die because they're poor" -Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative Guy
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Ok and then when those people say that gay people don't deserve rights that's cool because it wasn't the Feds What do you mean "those people"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:What do you mean "those people"? Libertarians and/or conservatives
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:What do you mean "those people"? Either fuckin argue a point or gently caress off, but don't do this nonsense here where you think you're being clever
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:States aren't little kings, the people within those states can vote on issues of their state. Democracy doesn't die just because the federal government loosens its chokehold a little. People also vote for the federal government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:So he's not anti-LGBT he's pro-States Rights, good to know you're talking nonsense That's some nice double-think, there. If he were in favor of letting states restrict gun rights, he'd be anti-gun rights. If he were in favor of letting states ban vaccines, he'd be anti-vaccination. If he were in favor of letting states ban 3rd parties, he'd be anti-third party. He's in favor of allowing states to discriminate against LGBT people, which makes him anti-LGBT. quote:I believe Johnson wants a viable legal drug market more than his donors' wishes will warrant honoring. I certainly believe that Johnson will end the War on Drugs where Hillary Clinton will sit on her hands about it for four to eight years. Johnson is predicting that Obama is going to legalize marijauna on his way out anyway so there goes your main reason for voting for Johnson. Federally legalizing marijuana also wouldn't change its legal status in many states, a problem that I'm sure that Johnson doesn't actually see as a problem. Also you're a dumbshit for even considering voting for a libertarian of all things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Either fuckin argue a point or gently caress off, but don't do this nonsense here where you think you're being clever At the mere mention of giving the states more autonomy, the thread immediately erupted into hysterics about how gays are going to be stamped out and everyone will vote for ethnic cleansing clauses. There's no point to be made, there's no arguing with such hyperbole. I'm just curious as to where this strange attitude, that every individual state is somehow being kept from enacting its racial/sexual purity legislations by the grace of the federal government alone. God forbid, maybe it'd be prudent to dial back federal programs and bolster local projects, try to revitalize small town economies. But, again, there's no actual libertarians in this thread, you've made this thread to argue with nobody about a philosophy you do not remotely espouse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:At the mere mention of giving the states more autonomy, the thread immediately erupted into hysterics about how gays are going to be stamped out and everyone will vote for ethnic cleansing clauses. Cool now address the fact that you are apparently cool with LGBT people not having rights as long as it's decided at the state level Which you have yet to do, in favor of these lovely half burns that just make you look dumber
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Because if you don't think there are absolutely states that will vote to treat gay folks like inhuman monsters you're loving stupid
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Devolved state power has very significantly been used to curtail gay rights, the federal government is an important guarantee of those rights across the country. Supporting state power is supporting, in this instance, the power for states to take away rights that the federal government has granted. I don't believe that is hyperbolic and it would be entirely possible to respond to it. Though I am skeptical of your ability to do so compellingly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's some nice double-think, there. Supporting any policy decision is, by extension, supporting whatever that policy decision would result in. Being in favor of massive tax cuts, reduced government spending, and the end of welfare is being in favor of dead children. Being in favor of repealing hate crime laws is being in favor of lynchings and gay bashing. Being in favor of trickle-down economics because freedom is being in favor of oligarchy and rampant poverty. Being in favor of repealing federal safety regulations is being in favor of people dying of things easily prevented. Being in favor of for-profit education is being in favor of a caste system. Being in favor of repealing medical assistance for the poor is being in favor of epidemics and children dying of preventable diseases. I don't give a drat what kinds of "but but but ARE FREEDUMZZZ!!!!" arguments people want to make in the face of what those policies actually produce. Libertarianism wouldn't usher in a magical utopia where everybody is rich and happy and immortal and has a flying car. It'd take us back to the 19th century and, put bluntly, gently caress. That.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Cool now address the fact that you are apparently cool with LGBT people not having rights as long as it's decided at the state level This is not even remotely a fair equivalency. I am cool with states' deciding how best to govern themselves in most issues--that doesn't mean that the bill of rights is completely thrown out the window. As far as I am concerned, the bill of rights is quite comprehensive and inclusive in who it assigns individual liberties to (it's everybody). It's contemptuous to think that the federal government is literally the only salvation homosexuals have from the frothing masses of hate-filled mobs. Literally The Worst posted:Because if you don't think there are absolutely states that will vote to treat gay folks like inhuman monsters you're loving stupid And there will likely be a lot of flack, criticism and general condemnation from other states and other international bodies and basically anyone else because every decision made today is publicly broadcast around the world. It's not a "freely genocide people" card.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:At the mere mention of giving the states more autonomy, the thread immediately erupted into hysterics about how gays are going to be stamped out and everyone will vote for ethnic cleansing clauses. It's not hyperbole though. Many states still have anti-sodomy laws on their books and refuse to repeal them despite the 14th amendment ruling that the SCOTUS handed down in 2003, which basically banned anti-sodomy laws. Nation-wide recognition of gay marriage was only enabled by the SCOTUS declaring that gay people are covered by the 14th amendment just like everyone else. This only happened a year ago and all of the regressive people went ape-poo poo over it because most of the states had either made gay marriage illegal or simply refused to recognize gay marriages. This same decision also allowed LGBT people to adopt children, which had previously been illegal in many conservative states. There are tons and tons of examples of states creating anti-LGBT laws
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:This is not even remotely a fair equivalency. I am cool with states' deciding how best to govern themselves in most issues--that doesn't mean that the bill of rights is completely thrown out the window. As far as I am concerned, the bill of rights is quite comprehensive and inclusive in who it assigns individual liberties to (it's everybody). It's contemptuous to think that the federal government is literally the only salvation homosexuals have from the frothing masses of hate-filled mobs. The Bill of Rights is one thing, but how do you feel about the 14th amendment? Because that's usually what's used to curtail discriminatory laws passed by states, and it's the one amendment that most states rights advocates would love to get rid of the most.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:This is not even remotely a fair equivalency. I am cool with states' deciding how best to govern themselves in most issues--that doesn't mean that the bill of rights is completely thrown out the window. As far as I am concerned, the bill of rights is quite comprehensive and inclusive in who it assigns individual liberties to (it's everybody). It's contemptuous to think that the federal government is literally the only salvation homosexuals have from the frothing masses of hate-filled mobs. I respect nazis and white supremacists more than you because they don't hide behind mealymouthed non-positions and will answer direct questions concerning their positions because they aren't loving privileged cowards like you. The primary people LGBT people need protection from is you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
^^^^ lol whatQuarkJets posted:The Bill of Rights is one thing, but how do you feel about the 14th amendment? Because that's usually what's used to curtail discriminatory laws passed by states, and it's the one amendment that most states rights advocates would love to get rid of the most. It's not a terribly well-written amendment or that sort of issue, is it? I don't see an issue with it, it seems to deal with issues of citizenship and I'm fine with anyone who is born here being a citizen. I'm not really concerned on immigration issues or anything like that either, I think that's kind of a non-issue. Security is fine, but creating elaborate camps and ankle bracelets is dumb and creepy. I think a new amendment wouldn't be remiss, in all honesty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:And there will likely be a lot of flack, criticism and general condemnation from other states and other international bodies and basically anyone else because every decision made today is publicly broadcast around the world. It's not a "freely genocide people" card. Revisionist history doesn't work when it's not history yet, I'm afraid. If you just say "the free market will prevent that sort of injustice" that isn't really a debatable position, it's just wrong because it wasn't doing that last year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:^^^^ lol what You're 'philosophy' of letting everyone say what they want and determine what is right is bad and enables white supremacy, homophobia, and sexism Congrats on being an rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:At the mere mention of giving the states more autonomy, the thread immediately erupted into hysterics about how gays are going to be stamped out and everyone will vote for ethnic cleansing clauses. This literally happened before, you know that right? There was a whole big kerfluffle about it and everything. quote:There's no point to be made, there's no arguing with such hyperbole. I'm just curious as to where this strange attitude, that every individual state is somehow being kept from enacting its racial/sexual purity legislations by the grace of the federal government alone. God forbid, maybe it'd be prudent to dial back federal programs and bolster local projects, try to revitalize small town economies. But, again, there's no actual libertarians in this thread, you've made this thread to argue with nobody about a philosophy you do not remotely espouse. We made this thread to mock and debunk libertarians. We've been very open about that from the start. Are you actually literate, or are your posts just the doings of an animal slapping at the keyboard that coincidentally, perhaps even miraculously, happen to look like semi-coherent thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:This is not even remotely a fair equivalency. I am cool with states' deciding how best to govern themselves in most issues--that doesn't mean that the bill of rights is completely thrown out the window. As far as I am concerned, the bill of rights is quite comprehensive and inclusive in who it assigns individual liberties to (it's everybody). It's contemptuous to think that the federal government is literally the only salvation homosexuals have from the frothing masses of hate-filled mobs. Where do you live dude, being gay is a crime in Texas right now, only a federal court order makes it unenforceable. The Fort Worth police bashed gays at Rainbow Lounge just a few years ago. Louisiana was defying that court order and locking up gay men just last year Mississippi is defending a new anti-gay-marriage law in front of the courts right now. North Carolina passed an infamous anti-trans bill this year, and overturned city ordinances protecting lgbt people. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:You're 'philosophy' of letting everyone say what they want and determine what is right is bad and enables white supremacy, homophobia, and sexism *your And I don't know what to tell you. Bear in mind, the eras of white supremacy were in a time when laws to restrict who could vote were still in active effect--these are laws that should never be tolerated by any democratic government of any size. The government does not get to decide what members of its democracy are "worthy" of participation. I'd even advocate for convicted criminals to be able to vote, although perhaps not while they are serving their sentences. I'm not interested in establishing fifty tiny tyrannies in favor of one large one, and I personally would strongly oppose any legislation with intention to dictate the sexual mores of consenting adults, just as much as I'd oppose legislation that would criminalize the act of consuming vegetation for recreation. Yes, people would have to take a more active role in their government to ensure that the vocal minority doesn't run things. But you're expected to do that now, and with rather reduced individual voice at that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:And there will likely be a lot of flack, criticism and general condemnation from other states and other international bodies and basically anyone else because every decision made today is publicly broadcast around the world. It's not a "freely genocide people" card. Name one single time in recent history that this actually worked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Name one single time in recent history that this actually worked. Kony 2012 fixed Africa.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Name one single time in recent history that this actually worked. Where WHAT has actually worked? Again, what exactly do you think I'm proposing here? We're not abolishing the federal government, we're loosening it. It's not an all or nothing situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Farting in my face doesn't seem better when you point out that you could poo poo on it instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Where WHAT has actually worked? Where "a lot of flack, criticism and general condemnation from other states and other international bodies and basically anyone else" has ever stopped discrimination, or civil and human rights abuses. You know, the thing we're talking about right now? Good god, you're almost as bad at basic reading comprehension as you are at comedy. Edit: Also, quote:and I personally would strongly oppose any legislation with intention to dictate the sexual mores of consenting adults, just as much as I'd oppose legislation that would criminalize the act of consuming vegetation for recreation. I'm not going to say that this is an outright lie, but I am going to heavily imply it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Where WHAT has actually worked? Again, what exactly do you think I'm proposing here? We're not abolishing the federal government, we're loosening it. It's not an all or nothing situation. Thank god when Texas puts me in prison for sodomy, it won't be a suffocating federal prison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Basically you're saying you want to give States the power to disenfranchise and take away the rights of minorities but that it'd be ok because you'd vote against that kind of thing. We're telling you that there's no good reason to give them that chance in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:52
|
|