Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Didn't Colorado try to force a baker to make a cake?
Aren't we being forced to buy a product from corporations just because we are alive?
You just don't get it.
Nope. Colorado required that places of public accommodation treat protected classes equally. The baker chose to open a bakery. He then chose not to bake a care for homosexuals. No one requested a mandatory injunction (for a court order requiring him to bake a cake). Instead, he was sued for money damages.
Lesson: if you open up a business, you will have have to abide by the law or you will get sued. I didn't think it was that difficult a concept, frankly.
First of all, a business isn't a public place (unless they think either the government or "everyone/no one" owns it, which would need some explanation). It's "open to the public", but it's a privately owned place. So that already disqualifies it.
Secondly, if you hold a principle that says every person "has the freedom to fully participate in society", that can't coexist with the principle of ownership or property. The two contradict, because a person can't have a right to force their way onto your property and make you serve them, and at the same time you have ownership rights over your own goods, your own establishment, and your own labor.
You can have one or the other, but not both. If you apply either one inconsistently, that isn't principled thought.
Unfortunately, under the law a store open to the public is a place of public accommodation. In fact, in the Colorado case, the baker's lawyer even conceded that it was without argument. So despite your feelings on that point, you're wrong as a matter of law.
Nope. Colorado required that places of public accommodation treat protected classes equally. The baker chose to open a bakery. He then chose not to bake a care for homosexuals. No one requested a mandatory injunction (for a court order requiring him to bake a cake). Instead, he was sued for money damages.
Lesson: if you open up a business, you will have have to abide by the law or you will get sued. I didn't think it was that difficult a concept, frankly.
It's not, but we're saying it shouldn't be that way. I don't think it's that difficult a concept that the owner of something should have a higher claim over it than someone who doesn't own it.
Unfortunately, under the law a store open to the public is a place of public accommodation. In fact, in the Colorado case, the baker's lawyer even conceded that it was without argument. So despite your feelings on that point, you're wrong as a matter of law.
Well, it's not my feelings, it's my thoughts which are based on reason and logic rather than subjective feelings...and as I said above, we're saying the law is wrong and should not exist, not that it doesn't exist.
It's not, but we're saying it shouldn't be that way. I don't think it's that difficult a concept that the owner of something should have a higher claim over it than someone who doesn't own it.
Seems to me, marketing &/or selling a pseudo-religious-philosophy that one knows or should know doesn't work (in reality) is pretty much the definition of unprincipled.
Marketing &/or selling such demonstrates the black/white (all or nothing, "you're either with us, or against us") thinking that is, imho, underlying or at root cause of some of our most pressing problems.
When an individual excessively evidences this type of black/white thinking, particularly when it proves to be dysfunctional in everyday living, psychologists tend to refer to it as 'splitting'. Our 2 party, 'winner takes all' systems tend to do the same, they 'split' or divide the American people nearly evenly into 2. This might not be as bad (as it is) if it didn't influence our (naturally occurring) abilities to cooperatively solve or resolve or trouble-shoot problems or issues that effect us all & pretty much evenly (in real-time reality).
Selling &/or marketing a Nirvana Fallacy is pretty much the definition of unprincipled, not only because it's not reality-based but because of the inherent opportunity costs:
Quote:
The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.
By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better". ...
Well, it's not my feelings, it's my thoughts which are based on reason and logic rather than subjective feelings...and as I said above, we're saying the law is wrong and should not exist, not that it doesn't exist.
Well, the beauty of the living in a society is that you can make efforts to have the law changed and, if enough people agree with you, it will be changed. However, if not enough people agree, then you have to live with it or move. Based on the comments on this forum, I don't think you're going to reach critical mass
Well, the beauty of the living in a society is that you can make efforts to have the law changed and, if enough people agree with you, it will be changed. However, if not enough people agree, then you have to live with it or move. Based on the comments on this forum, I don't think you're going to reach critical mass
We don't want to change the law because the same inconsistent immoral paradigm will remain.
Well, it's not my feelings, it's my thoughts which are based on reason and logic rather than subjective feelings...and as I said above, we're saying the law is wrong and should not exist, not that it doesn't exist.
Seems to me, marketing &/or selling a pseudo-religious-philosophy that one knows or should know doesn't work (in reality) is pretty much the definition of unprincipled.
Marketing &/or selling such demonstrates the black/white (all or nothing, "you're either with us, or against us") thinking that is, imho, underlying or at root cause of some of our most pressing problems.
When an individual excessively evidences this type of black/white thinking, particularly when it proves to be dysfunctional in everyday living, psychologists tend to refer to it as 'splitting'. Our 2 party, 'winner takes all' systems tend to do the same, they 'split' or divide the American people nearly evenly into 2. This might not be as bad (as it is) if it didn't influence our (naturally occurring) abilities to cooperatively solve or resolve or trouble-shoot problems or issues that effect us all & pretty much evenly (in real-time reality).
Selling &/or marketing a Nirvana Fallacy is pretty much the definition of unprincipled, not only because it's not reality-based but because of the inherent opportunity costs:
So only using force defensively "wouldn't work"...
And it's unprincipled to believe that it would... (no idea what that's even supposed to mean)
And apparently believing that something is never justified - like rape, or slavery, or theft, or murder - is "splitting" and is hindering our ability to cooperate and resolve problems (apparently finding a balance of some of those things is ideal)
And the alternative to that - one group forcefully imposing it's will on the others - leads to cooperation.
And the idea that forcefully imposing the correct central plan on everyone will lead to the ideal society, something that's been tried throughout all of human history and fails every time, is not an unrealistic and insane solution...
By the way, it's BECAUSE we accept that we'll never have a perfect society that we support letting people live as they wish. We've never claimed that a perfect society is possible, just one based on more consistent principles. The Nirvana fallacy is CONSTANTLY used against our arguments...it's one of the most common statist tactics honestly.
And just to be clear, principled means you begin with a foundational idea and follow a consistent chain of logic from that foundation. Not sure if that's how you're using it.
Finally, I miss the days where we got along better. You've been very aggressively anti-individual liberty lately.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
