If we weren’t, would we even understand the concept, and would our ancestors have fought, sometimes giving their lives, for tens of thousands of years, across all civilizations for it?
When we think we have it, we’ll give up bits and pieces, when we don’t think we have it, we’ll fight until we have no breath in our lungs to get it. [/quote]
Does this mean that anything we fought for is a natural right?
Is it a natural right to want to take things from other people? Because a lot of people fought over the ages to take things from other people.
If we weren’t, would we even understand the concept, and would our ancestors have fought, sometimes giving their lives, for tens of thousands of years, across all civilizations for it?
When we think we have it, we’ll give up bits and pieces, when we don’t think we have it, we’ll fight until we have no breath in our lungs to get it. [/quote]
Does this mean that anything we fought for is a natural right?[/quote]
Yes, because freedom doesn’t hurt anyone else. Earning may, but the actual act of being free doesn’t.
Natural desire? Yes. Natural right? no. It harms another.
If we weren’t, would we even understand the concept, and would our ancestors have fought, sometimes giving their lives, for tens of thousands of years, across all civilizations for it?
When we think we have it, we’ll give up bits and pieces, when we don’t think we have it, we’ll fight until we have no breath in our lungs to get it. [/quote]
Does this mean that anything we fought for is a natural right?
Is it a natural right to want to take things from other people? Because a lot of people fought over the ages to take things from other people.[/quote]
Think about it in universal terms. Either we are all born to be free, or we arent’. If we aren’t, how are we to know the rulers from the ruled?
It only makes sense if everyone is born to be free, and chooses not to be if they aren’t. The inverse doesn’t make sense.
If a gay couple supposedly received death threats from Christians would you remain similarly nonchalant?[/quote]
Hell no. I take all death threats seriously.
That post was meant to reflect my incredulity with the seeming possibility that people only take them seriously when they affect people that they sympathize with.
Plus I wrote the post only because Countingbean’s post reminded me of that and I found it amusing.
Yes, because freedom doesn’t hurt anyone else. Earning may, but the actual act of being free doesn’t.[/quote]
This is silly, and essentially a meaningless statement.[/quote]
huh? Seems it has plenty of meaning to me.
No, it means you are free. And you are free to do as you see fit as long as you don’t create a victim. As long as you don’t hurt another, make them unfree, you can do as you please.
But, yes you are free to do nothing as well.
See above. If one of the requirements of something being a natural right is “doesn’t harm anyone”, then we cannot do anything.
Unless we are literally incapable of desiring what others have.[/quote]
Voluntary exchange? I know you live in Cali, but they haven’t totally given up on capitalism yet.
One person having life does not prevent another from having life.
One person’s liberty does not prevent another from having the same liberty.
Property is the product of one’s life and liberty.
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Nazi bacon cheeseburgers are NOT hyperbole!?
Being compared to a skinhead is not irksome?
What about the social contract? If you enter the protection of the group, you have to abide by the norms of the group?
Earlier my tone was super disrespectful. I dont want to attack anybody, or derail just to be a douche. I’m sorry.[/quote]
It’s hard for me to follow what your argument is on this issue, because you’ve had a combination of rhetorical questions and statements that were loosely connected to the issue. I’m not being condescending or acerbic, just trying to help you frame your argument so the readers can understand your position and why.
Perhaps state it in simple terms - you do or do not feel that private businesses should have the right to refuse service to customers, either a) in general and/or b) for closely held, legitimate religious reasons, e.g., not servicing same-sex weddings to avoid complicity in compromising principles of faith? Why or why not in regards to the above?
Framing your opinion according to those questions would make it easier to understand where you’re coming from - just giving you some honest feedback here. If you were a student writing a paper or an essay for me, I’d say state your thesis and support it with arguments, but don’t take the scenic route and wander into amorphous territory - make sense?
EDIT: that’s over 100k in two hours… Two fucking hours… wow[/quote]
You know, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if this was a calculated decision on the pizzeria’s part for publicity.
The bakery also got a flood of customers and quite a bit of moral support after the incident.
Though I’m not sure if the pizzeria planned to make quite this much money.[/quote]
That would be the biggest set of brass balls I’ve ever seen. Because one fo these days, one of the Tolerance Crusaders is going to make good on their death threats… [/quote]
It’s amazing how intolerant the tolerance crowd is. They want others to tolerate them without them having to tolerate anybody. It’s hypocrisy in the highest order.
No, it means you are free. And you are free to do as you see fit as long as you don’t create a victim. As long as you don’t hurt another, make them unfree, you can do as you please.[/quote]
And this sounds incredibly arbitrary to me. Your entire logic sounds incredibly arbitrary.
We’re free to do anything… as long as you don’t harm another.
How can this rationally exist without a higher power telling us that it’s undeniably true and we must absolutely follow it?
The rationale you gave that seemed to not require a higher power was- “We desire it and fight for it”.
But that rationale can be applied to a million other things. When I brought this up, you just hand-waved those off as “natural desire”, and not actually “natural right”.
This seems silly.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Voluntary exchange? I know you live in Cali, but they haven’t totally given up on capitalism yet.
[/quote]
When you voluntary choose to give your hard-earned good away for a lesser price than some other fellow because you hold some sort of advantage, you are harming the other fellow.
Voluntary exchange sounds good. Except the entire system of bartering and capitalism must create a victim. The victim may not be the people actually engaged in the exchange at the time.
How can this rationally exist without a higher power telling us that it’s undeniably true and we must absolutely follow it?[/quote]
Because the converse can’t logically exist.
No one is free to do anything. But, alas, we have freewill, thought and rational minds.
You’re confusing my examples of its existence with justification. Maybe I didn’t communicate it clearly.
No, I laid out a very specific and simple red line. Once it hurts someone else, it no longer can be a right. As it isn’t universal.
[quote]
When you voluntary choose to give your hard-earned good away for a lesser price than some other fellow because you hold some sort of advantage, you are harming the other fellow.
Voluntary exchange sounds good. Except the entire system of bartering and capitalism must create a victim. The victim may not be the people actually engaged in the exchange at the time.[/quote]
You might want to unplug from the commie rhetoric as well.
Your last sentence is utter and complete garbage, and you’re smart enough to know it. You can’t even be serious here.
EDIT: that’s over 100k in two hours… Two fucking hours… wow[/quote]
You know, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if this was a calculated decision on the pizzeria’s part for publicity.
The bakery also got a flood of customers and quite a bit of moral support after the incident.
Though I’m not sure if the pizzeria planned to make quite this much money.[/quote]
I have no idea if this is true or not, but it undoubtedly will be at some point. You look at these little culture battles whether it’s Chick Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, whatever. Look what happens on both sides when a business or an individual comes out as a “victim” of intolerance. Money just pours out and these type of situations are going to be ripe for fraud if they haven’t already.
I’m NOT saying memories did this intentionally as I have no idea, but you’ve got to think the temptation for places and people (no matter what side of the fence they are on) to play the “look what happened to us because we are gay or Catholic or transgender or Baptist, etc.” It’s so easy to send people money and when people have strong convictions about issues (as they do with gay rights/religion/racism/sexism/etc.) their will be that idea to make a point by donating money.
If this hasn’t happened already at some point (which it probably has) it undoubtedly will at some point in the future. You could play the victim and end up a millionaire. Culture wars and social media could be the new lottery
