Division-
Moveny, one thing you’re gonna have to learn to accept about ZAROVE is that he operates on very blatant prejudices, which he’ll justify (and deny) with twisted logic that is very narrow-scoped in nature. Therefore you will never get him to stop calling you religious, because in his world this would be wrong. At best if you asked him nicely he might stop, but he will still conceive of everyone (and by extension you) as religious whether he verbalizes it to you or not. He does not think of communication as one person exchanging ideas with another person, he sees it as his ego’s idea of absolute facts and rights and wrongs. Subsequently, no matter what you say, he will generalize the idea of “religion” to fit whatever it is that makes you so adamant about gay rights. The substantial reasons will not matter to him, because you’re playing in his ego. The only thing that will matter to him is that it still fits the “fact” that it’s driven by your “religion.”
AND... Here is a Link for you.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.htmlI suggest you read it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Becaue at this point is has undercut anyoen elses rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do better at explaining how gay rights undercuts anyone else rights. The right to be a bigoted *beep* is not an acceptable answer.
Actually it is an answer. If we triuly beleive in a Spcety of Free Association, then peopel shoudl be able to choose who they cotnract business with.
It really is that simple.
Oh and, begn morlaly opposed to Homosexuality is not really Bigoted. Homosexuality is a behaviour, not a Race, and is a Sexual practice, not a Religion or Culture or Nationality. Usign the term "Bigotry" to describe opposition to Homosexuality may generate emotional responces, but its actulaly not accurate and it also really ignores the concerns of those hwo are so opposed. It also leads tot he misconception that thoe ho ar eopposed ot such somehow hate individual Homosexuals, which isn't always True either.
EG, one can oppose Homosexual Behaviour whilst still beign close friends with a Homosexual, in the same way that oen cna oppose SMokign or Drinkign yet be friends with a smoker or a Drinker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws that make Hoosexuality into a category like Race and say one can't discriminate agsisnt someone base don Sexual prientation ultimatley violate peopel s Freedom fo Association and Freedom of Speech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you serious? Really?
Yes, I am serious.
What do you mean “Freedom of Association?” I can associate white people as pompous pricks all I want in spite of race being categorized by the government. It might make me ignorant, but it doesn’t make me a criminal.
I mean, if I own a store I shoudl have the right to refuse business ot whomsoever I want. THis shoudl be my inviolable righjt becuase I own the Store and its mine. If you are black and hate white peopel you shoudln't be forced to do business with them either.
This is simply Libertarianism.
Free Association also means I can be friends with whomsoever I like, or avoid tlakign to whomsoever I like.
Freedom fo Speech means I can say what I will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've always been a large supporter of limited Governance, and alloing peopel who own somehtign to have direct power over how said osmethign is used. This means if they want ot hire only redheads, they can. Also, they can refus4 buisness to redheads if hey want. its thier store, they own it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let me get this straight. You actually think a legitimate reason for being against the rights of gays is so that other business owners can freely discriminate against them without the government telling them to stop being *beep* And in your world view, you think that this is not only acceptable, but ideal.
I never aid it was ideal, but if you follow the claims made by Modern society, its the only real means to accomplish what is promised.
If I own somehting, I shoudl have power over it, and if I have Free Association as a Right, then I should be able to excesise this on my own property.
You think that all business should arbitrarily discriminate on anything based on the sole fact that they own the business? And you really don’t see the problem with this?
I see it this way. They own the Store and the Land, its theirs, they may do wiht it as they please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gay Rights Legislation hinders this, as it forced people to act againt heir own will, and often agaisnt thier ocncinece.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it’s the will of gays to receive the same benefits as straight couples do when married.
They can't anyway since Marriage is a Natural Institution not one created by Society. Society can't decree that Hoosexual Couples can produe Offspring from now on, for example.
The whoel "Marriage Equality" isuse is pure RHetoric.
They are forced into being denied their will.
Which doens't really touch on what I've said since Store Owners are too. Under current Laws Store Owners must serve peopel the the Government has clssified as Protected whether they want ot or not.
So what?
If you were actually so concerned about people’s wills, like you claim you do in your logic, then what makes the will of straights trump the will of gays?
Presumption on your part.
By the way, I shoudl remidn you that I am also a Monarhcist, not a Democrat.
I think peopel shoudl have the power over that which is their own, whih is nto the same as the right to exersise their will on everything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain the relevance to this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s relevant because it establishes that the term “hater” fits you perfectly (about Zeitgeist).
Rejetign the claism of a DOcumentary Film, and explaining how the Films claims are bogus, is not Hatred.
It also establishes that the distinction you made, to attempt to make me looking foolish, was completely sad and lacking in wit.
Wit wans't the intention, but the distinction is Valid.
I am not a Hater, I simply reject the claism of this Film, because I have evidence that shows it to not be True.
reply
share