Nothing changes with the left.....

Damocles said:
"Widening Marriage"...

This is an example itself. In order to "widen marriage" you are still working within the framework of laws, the government is blessing these things and from the government all things flow.

I am on the side of negative rights... The government doesn't have a right to mess in this stuff, unless there is a victim. (Always ask first, "where is the victim?") If you cannot find one, then the government's role should also be "none". The "weaker party", in what way? What exactly do you mean? Folks can sign contracts, and contract law can apply, so long as both parties are informed and there is no coercion, but that has nothing to do with Marriage.

As a social libertarian I say: The government should not be involved in this at all, unless there is a child involved as they are not old enough to give consent, or if all parties involved are not informed because then you have fraud, but a list of government approved relationships should not exist. Laws that protect victims should exist, not ones that define marriage, folks have religions for that and they can follow or not as they believe.
Click to expand...
shouldn't the government be in the business of defining gender?
 
Bai Lan said:
shouldn't the government be in the business of defining gender?
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean. A government entity out there defining the 72 different genders for nothing other than to force people to have a dropdown with 72 pronoun sets in it on websites? No. Recognizing Title IX protections for women's sports and keeping out folks that misconstrue the difference between gender and sex? Yes. In the latter set there is a direct victim, in the former set there is not.
 
Damocles said:
It depends on what you mean. A government entity out there defining the 72 different genders for nothing other than to force people to have a dropdown with 72 pronoun sets in it on websites? No. Recognizing Title IX protections for women's sports and keeping out folks that misconstrue the difference between gender and sex? Yes. In the latter set there is a direct victim, in the former set there is not.
Click to expand...
this is correct.
 
Earl said:
You think it's humorous to be cheap?

Your friends don't think it's funny.
Click to expand...
I do not know what you mean by cheep, but I am not. Your childish insults, unrelated to politics, say a lot more about you than me. Keep going, I love the MAGA example you are displaying.
 
Damocles said:
"Widening Marriage"...

This is an example itself. In order to "widen marriage" you are still working within the framework of laws, the government is blessing these things and from the government all things flow.

I am on the side of negative rights... The government doesn't have a right to mess in this stuff, unless there is a victim. (Always ask first, "where is the victim?") If you cannot find one, then the government's role should also be "none". The "weaker party", in what way? What exactly do you mean? Folks can sign contracts, and contract law can apply, so long as both parties are informed and there is no coercion, but that has nothing to do with Marriage.

As a social libertarian I say: The government should not be involved in this at all, unless there is a child involved as they are not old enough to give consent, or if all parties involved are not informed because then you have fraud, but a list of government approved relationships should not exist. Laws that protect victims should exist, not ones that define marriage, folks have religions for that and they can follow or not as they believe.
Click to expand...
Yet, there are usually children involved in any marriage (man and wife). The problem with gays or lesbians getting 'married' is that it's a sham. They are incapable of producing children.

So, doesn't it stand to reason the government has interest in creating laws about marriage?
 
Ross Dolan said:
Yeah...and people like you guys ran Germany during the mid 20th century. How'd that work out?

Like this.
Click to expand...
He didn't run Germany in 1941, Rosin. It was run by the Nazi party, a bunch of socialist and fascists and bigots and racists with violent tendencies...just like the Democrats today.

You cannot blame your socialism on Earl or anybody else. The Democrats WANT socialism. The DEMOCRATS despise the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.
 
Ross Dolan said:
So you think it was not the far right that was running Germany in he mid 20th century?

C'mon. Your side would have loved Hitler.
Click to expand...
You cannot blame socialism and fascism on conservatives, Rosin. It is DEMOCRATS that want socialism and fascism and communism. It is DEMOCRATS that are racist and bigots. It is DEMOCRATS that are violent.
 
Bai Lan said:
libertarians are most fascist now.
Click to expand...
How NoName??
Bai Lan said:
they utterly refuse to acknowledge corporate capture of any aspect of government.
Click to expand...
Corporations are not government. Redefinition fallacy.
Bai Lan said:
and just keep bleating on about free markets, and bitcoin.
Click to expand...
Free markets isn't fascism. Redefinition fallacy. A currency isn't fascism. Redefinition fallacy.
Bai Lan said:
libertarians also used to be for sound currency now you're all bitcoin tards.
Click to expand...
Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone.

Go learn English.
 
Ross Dolan said:
If the disgusting assholes of the American right would just stop being such jerkoffs, I suspect the American left would stop referring to them as a bunch of jerkoff assholes. But since there seems to be such an infinitesimally small chance of that happening, it makes sense that the left remind the right of what they are.

And, I might add, they are a bunch of crybabies constantly crying, "Mommy, make them stop."

Jesus H. Christ. The American right is getting exactly what it deserves. If you asshole jerkoffs had any class at all, you would stop your whimpering and sobbing...and just say, "THANK YOU."
Click to expand...
That Depends frankie.

1746798688182 (2).png
 
Stone said:
You mean the national SOCIALIST party in Germany? Those guys? Yep,....socialists= worthless pieces of shit.
Click to expand...
The American right wing has been pushing that "SOCIALIST PARTY of Germany" for so long, I guess they actually accept it as true.

It was a ruse...that Hitler used to sucker his people...and it appears that the suckers who where not his people were also taken in. The NAZIs were not socialists by any means.

NAZIs...and American Right Wing...fucking worthless pieces of shit.
 
Yes, Trump will want trans and gays to wear pink triangles on their shoulders. There is a precedence for that from an earlier Nazi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top