• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Liberal Fallacies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
You call some State-mandated benefit a right and then assert that the principle of equal rights requires that everyone receive that benefit. Consider my example of property tax breaks for people who set land aside for wilderness. Does your equality principle require that owners of shopping malls receive the tax break? Ambulance drivers get to run red lights. Does the equality principle require that everyone get to run red lights?
Click to expand...
In order to discriminate against a group of people the state must have a compelling interest. There is no compelling interest to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
No. The cost/benefit considerations are not the same in both cases.
Click to expand...
Evidence? What are your numbers? Argument by assertion is fallacy.

  1. These are pathetically weak arguments to justify discrimination.
  2. These lack any basis in fact (you've provided no evidence for your assertion).
Do you have a logically valid, evidence backed, argument that would justify discriminating against gay and lesbian families?


 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
288.
388.
400.
Click to expand...
#288 does not address the issue. #388 is the very post that led me to ask the question in the first place, because it avoids the issue. #400 led me to ask it again for the same reason.

Now I happen to favor equal rights for the parents, but even if I did not, equal protection for the children is not its equivalent, and you have not directly addressed this except obliquely, referring to theoretical possibilities for children and not to children who exist.

So I put it again. Before there were any civil unions or gay marriages, there were families with children whose custodial parents were homosexual. These families were legal and functional and they existed. At least in Vermont they were legal. Laws already existed that prohibited housing, custody and employment discrimination, and that allowed gay couples to adopt as well as to retain custody of their own children. Back in what was a rather long time ago now, the Vermont Supreme Court heard an argument that denial of marriage rights to homosexual families was unconstitutional in part because it denies equal protection to the families themselves. You have argued with some vigor that marriage law exists, in part, for the purpose of providing stability and protection to children (e.t.a...in part, at least, through the indirect means of providing a stable and protected family unit). The Vermont Supreme Court, hearing the argument, agreed, in part, on the grounds of equal protection for children in families that legally exist.

It should be clear here that, whatever your intent, your previous posts have not answered the question in a way that in unequivocal. Can you not just do it? Do you, or do you not, believe that the children of homosexual-based families should enjoy equal protection under the law?

If you do believe so, which I hope you do, perhaps you can explain what method you would use to insure that this occurs that is cheaper for society as a whole than simply letting the parents marry.
 
Last edited:
Wow. Sad to see the usual Libertarian Malcom doesn't agree with equal rights. The case for gay marriage at the constitutional level seems pretty clear cut, and "redefining" marriage isn't a real issue (man & woman v. two consenting adults) from a legal pov, it's just more inner "ickyness" about the subject, but thankfully, demographics are changing and my generation isn't putting up with this nonsense.

Also, it's queer looking at the old anti-race mixing posters contrasted with today - am I the only one who thought that the posters were much more civil and gentile? Not really questioning whose beliefs are more vile, but seeing the anti-gay marriage posters featuring blood and "God hates FAGS" made the racists look tame by today's standards.
 
Bill Thompson said:
  1. The Iraqi War started about 10 years ago
  2. Obama is "African American"
  3. If we have a woman president, there won't be any wars
  4. If we are kind or tolerant to our enemies, they will be kind and tolerant to us
  5. 9-11 happened on "Bush's Watch" and that somehow means something
  6. Obama told the truth in Cairo about the Golden Age of Islam and that helped the USA somehow
  7. MSNBC repots the news more than gives opinions
  8. The invasion of Iraq was done to find Weapons of Mass Destruction
  9. The USA gassed the Kurds and the Irainians.
  10. Less people died because of Bill Clinton's war decisions and actions or inactions than George W. Bush's
  11. Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, the invasion of Iraq was wrong
I will add more when I think of or remember them.
Click to expand...

I sure am glad that the stupid, idiotic, liar known as Bill Thompson has finally been banned!

:)

I am very happy that JREF will no longer have to put up with his worthless nonsense.
 
ehcks said:
Taxes were also increased when blacks were counted as a whole person instead of three-fifths. Should we not have done that?
Click to expand...
How so? Taxes on whom? A tax is a State-mandated surrender of wealth. Slavery is compulsory, unpaid labor. Legal slavery gives title of one person's time to another person. That is a State-mandated surrender of wealth. Abolishing slavery lowered taxes (on slaves, who paid 100% of their income to their owners). We currently enslave felons (prison) and children (compulsory schooling).
 
IchabodPlain said:
Wow. Sad to see the usual Libertarian Malcom doesn't agree with equal rights.1 The case for gay marriage at the constitutional level seems pretty clear cut, and "redefining" marriage isn't a real issue2...

(man & woman v. two consenting adults) from a legal pov, it's just more inner "ickyness" about the subject, but thankfully, demographics are changing and my generation isn't putting up with this nonsense.3Also, it's queer looking at the old anti-race mixing posters contrasted with today - am I the only one who thought that the posters were much more civil and gentile? Not really questioning whose beliefs are more vile, but seeing the anti-gay marriage posters featuring blood and "God hates FAGS" made the racists look tame by today's standards.4
Click to expand...
1. "Equality" and "rights" are like "God", freighted with emotional impact for many people but hard to define with precision. Does President Obama have a right to fly Air Force One? Do you? Does the difference constitute a violation of your "equality" principle? Does "equal treatment of the law" mean that when a jury finds someone guilty of felony assault everyone in the court, defendant, defense attorney, prosecutor, judge, witnesses, and the jury themselves must spend time in prison? I look at the benefits that society and the law attach to heterosexual marriage as compensation for the couple's committment to raise children in a stable home. The fit may be loose (many hetero couples don't have children), but however that may be, the cost/benefit considerations that prompted the evolution of the marriage custom do not apply with anything like the same force to same-sex couples who are far less likely to have children and far more at-risk of an expensive medical condition.
2. Okay. "Equal rights" isn't the real issue; it's money (for some advocates) and cowardice (for those who submit to the pressure from the shills whom the Democratic Party pays to dominate discussion boards like Internet Infidels andf JREF). See how easy it is to dismiss argumenmts you don't like?
3. Your "generation" attended unionized government schools.
4. Yah. Randfan makes arguments out of pure ad hominem and guilt by association and your "generation" thinks that's peachy.
 
Last edited:
Crossbow said:
I sure am glad that the stupid, idiotic, liar known as Bill Thompson has finally been banned!

I am very happy that JREF will no longer have to put up with his worthless nonsense.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that arguments like the above are still accepted. I'm sorry that JREF moderators still tolerate this worthless nonsense.
 
RandFan said:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
You call some State-mandated benefit a right and then assert that the principle of equal rights requires that everyone receive that benefit. Consider my example of property tax breaks for people who set land aside for wilderness. Does your equality principle require that owners of shopping malls receive the tax break? Ambulance drivers get to run red lights. Does the equality principle require that everyone get to run red lights?
Click to expand...
In order to discriminate against a group of people the state must have a compelling interest. There is no compelling interest to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
No. The cost/benefit considerations are not the same in both cases.
Click to expand...

Evidence? What are your numbers? Argument by assertion is fallacy.

  1. These are pathetically weak arguments to justify discrimination.
  2. These lack any basis in fact (you've provided no evidence for your assertion).
Do you have a logically valid, evidence backed, argument that would justify discriminating against gay and lesbian families?
Click to expand...
How is that "pure ad hominem" (whatever the hell that means)?
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
A tax is a State-mandated surrender of wealth.
Click to expand...

Yes, and slaves, being wealth, were surrendered by the owners of that particular personal property after being so mandated by the State. It was a huge tax increase for all those slaveowners in the South.

We currently enslave felons (prison) and children (compulsory schooling).
Click to expand...

Your equating of compulsory education for children with actual slavery would be insulting if it weren't so laughable.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
I'm sorry that arguments like the above are still accepted. I'm sorry that JREF moderators still tolerate this worthless nonsense.
Click to expand...

Well, if you really feel so strongly about this issue, then please check for yourself just what a stupid, lying, idiot Bill Thomposon was for yourself and you will soon learn why he has been banned.

By the way, here at JREF it is acceptable to personally critize people who are 'Banned Members'.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
1
2. Okay. "Equal rights" isn't the real issue; it's money (for some advocates) and cowardice (for those who submit to the pressure from the shills whom the Democratic Party pays to dominate discussion boards like Internet Infidels andf JREF). See how easy it is to dismiss argumenmts you don't like?
Click to expand...

And the evidence that those who disagree with you and say it is an equal rights issue are doing so because they "submit to the pressure from the shills whom the Democratic Party pays to dominate discussion boards like Internet Infidels andf JREF"

Maybe this isn't the CT fora.

Who exactly are the shills paid by the Democratic Party?
 
RandFan said:
I've not been uncivil to you Malcolm.
Click to expand...
Bigot.

We obviously have different standards. "Dodging" is an accusation of bad faith. I thought I addressed the question. I could explain at length, in a civil or impartially moderated forum. In JREF, the signal to noisy abuse ratio makes the cost/benefit ratio too low.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Bigot.

We obviously have different standards. "Dodging" is an accusation of bad faith.
Click to expand...
A.) I haven't pointed out your bigotry for awhile now. B.) Pointing out that you are arguing in bad faith and that you are a bigot isn't uncivil. These are simply the facts. There is no rational basis to discriminate against the families of gays and lesbians. You have made it clear that you don't care if marriage equality would help them. Without any evidence for your claims you would happily keep from them what others enjoy.

Own it Malcolm.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom