Gay marriage debate

[NEO]

Float isnt a straight evolutionist either.

He is debating.

For kicks.

 

[fl0at]

About as dumb as believing in evolution by itself when science has given it zero chance.

You started the games by changing theories into facts.

You also clearly stated long ago that you could debate the creation of life by God and not by macro evolution as easily as you could the other ... so who's playing games?

Science has given evolution zero chance?

I was unaware "Science" had a single mind. However, given the possibility, and I simply wasn't included, where do I find such a statement by "Science" ?


Which theory have I claimed as absolute, non changing fact, other than that populations change over time?

I'm sorry, I was unaware that the ability to defend two positions on opposite sides was "playing games."

 

[fl0at]

Float isnt a straight evolutionist either.

He is debating.

For kicks.

You find this wrong?

 

[NEO]

Not defend ... believe.

You yourself arent even sure how we got here.

But the scientific "community" as a whole has ran the numbers on more than one time and found it to be zero chance of evolution without intervention.

This brings us smack dab back to our first conversation where we ended it.

It comes down to faith.

And please dont wikipedia a link to a lizard again.

 

[VOLatile]

Gonna need proof for the "zero chance" claim.

And here we go with the faith bs again.

 

[NEO]

You find this wrong?

Not really.

 

[fl0at]

Not defend ... believe.

You yourself arent even sure how we got here.

But the scientific "community" as a whole has ran the numbers on more than one time and found it to be zero chance of evolution without intervention.

This brings us smack dab back to our first conversation where we ended it.

It comes down to faith.

And please dont wikipedia a link to a lizard again.

I linked to a lizard? Which lizard?


The fact that I am not sure how we got here... means pretty much nothing. It is regrettable, however, that I am not "part of the plan," but, alas, I wasn't worthy.

But the scientific "community" as a whole has ran the numbers on more than one time and found it to be zero chance of evolution without intervention.

What, some dude in his basement ran some jankety computer model and you believed it?

I am interested in this, though, who, where, when, and link? Probably Bob Jones University.

Faith? Nah. What good is "faith" in evolution?

 

[NEO]

Gonna need proof for the "zero chance" claim.

And here we go with the faith bs again.

Gonna need to take the time to google it yourself there sparky.

And I'm not Milo so theres not going to be a let me google if for your lazy azz link below this.

 

[NEO]

I linked to a lizard? Which lizard?


The fact that I am not sure how we got here... means pretty much nothing. It is regrettable, however, that I am not "part of the plan," but, alas, I wasn't worthy.



What, some dude in his basement ran some jankety computer model and you believed it?

I am interested in this, though, who, where, when, and link? Probably Bob Jones University.

Faith? Nah. What good is "faith" in evolution?

Not a chance someone as in the science realm as you are is oblivious to the zero chance reports by mutliple scientist.

Nice try float. Try harder to deflect.

Anyways, I'm out. Hit me up tomorrow and we'll debate why the scientist (I know you'll have info on why the are quacks) are wrong in their studies.

 

[fl0at]

I have one question, though, before you go.

Why do you always say "scientist" and not "scientists" ?

I'm not making fun of your grammar, because I haven't called you out on it in the last 4,000 posts, or so, you've made with that same mistake.

Just been curious. For a while.

 

[fl0at]

Not a chance someone as in the science realm as you are is oblivious to the zero chance reports by mutliple scientist.

Nice try float. Try harder to deflect.

Anyways, I'm out. Hit me up tomorrow and we'll debate why the scientist (I know you'll have info on why the are quacks) are wrong in their studies.

If I'm around tomorrow, trust me, you won't ever, Not. Ever., want me as a doc. Not even in Gibb's world. Because it means I've f'd something major up.

However, I have one, final jab. If any scientist claims absolute certainty of anything... I'd question them.

And, while I'm clear, "zero" chance... is an absolute.

Science likes wiggle room. I would have bought "1% change." Zero... no way. Dude was a ringer for the SBC. Had to be.

 

[NEO]

I have one question, though, before you go.

Why do you always say "scientist" and not "scientists" ?

I'm not making fun of your grammar, because I haven't called you out on it in the last 4,000 posts, or so, you've made with that same mistake.

Just been curious. For a while.

if that is the best you can do at getting a rise out of me it's sad.

i didnt add the s at the end because i didn't.

why i did not? i do not honestly know.

you caught my error. bravo.

you have shamed me now before all volnation.

 

[NEO]

If I'm around tomorrow, trust me, you won't ever, Not. Ever., want me as a doc. Not even in Gibb's world. Because it means I've f'd something major up.

However, I have one, final jab. If any scientist claims absolute certainty of anything... I'd question them.

And, while I'm clear, "zero" chance... is an absolute.

Science likes wiggle room. I would have bought "1% change." Zero... no way. Dude was a ringer for the SBC. Had to be.

it likes wiggle room because it makes mistakes. placing dino head here on wrong dino body there.

i remember when evolution first came out in the main stream school books. you guys needed a few millions and million of years.

now you need billions and billiions of years.

just flip the dino head. nothing to see here people.

scientistS at work.

 

[RespectTradition]

Which laws have the judiciary created? Not interpreted, not reviewed, not ruled upon, but set precedent, but created.

Name... I don't know... two.



The bolded is important. There is no guarantee that they lose. Should they lose, however, there is no guaranteed "punishment."

If, however, they do lose, then this situation is no different than any other lawsuit, ever. Not. At. All. Different.

However, since I persist in my erroneous viewpoints, maybe you can school on how the end ruling is different from... let's say... any two other civil lawsuits.

If there is no difference, you are applying a slippery slope.

There, I added something to the conversation. Or have I already added that, I can't remember. Long day.

Here is a little insight about what the legal profession thinks about your opinion that courts don't make law:
WHY COURTS ARE ALWAYS MAKING LAW Most judges hate to admit that they make social and political choices. It's time to get the truth out in the open. - September 25, 1989
Kevin Baine - Making Law on the Supreme Court
"Where Policy Is Made": Sotomayor's Court Comment Explained

A couple of examples are forced busing, miranda, roe v wade.

The fact that it is the same as any other lawsuit is my point and in no way detracts from the merits. All lawsuits are a case of government based coercion. Does that mean that all lawsuits are bad? Nope. Sometimes our rights are violated and the courts are obliged to step in and make amends. That doesn't change the fact that their interference is coercive in nature. The trick is to make sure we don't stack the deck in favor of that coercion. When one can settle an issue without setting up a situation that requires adjudication, then you are maximizing freedom and minimizing coercion.

And I don't think anyone buys the whole Orwellian "slavery is freedom" line you were trying to sell earlier. "to maximize freedom, you must also increase coercion"


Freedom - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of FREEDOM
1
: the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence

 

[KiffinKiller]

ITT, NEOCON will ignore the "unnatural" occurrences of homosexuality in species other than Homo sapien.

:lolabove:

 

[lawgator1]

The two main sources of law in this country are statutes and the "common law." The common law came over from England and has its foundations in things like the Magna Carta and many, many generations of tradition and, yes, judge-made law.

If the standard for judging a law is whether it came solely from the legislative branch of whatever government we are talking about (federal, state, or local), then the reality is that you still have to have someone apply that law in practice.

Those who don't like how it was written applaud judicial interpretations that leave some ambiguity. Those who want it applied exactly as written criticize the judiciary as having overstepped its bounds.

There is no point in debating this because how you view the judiciary versus the legislative branch on ANY GIVEN issue is a direct function of how you feel about the issue, itself.

 

[fl0at]

Here is a little insight about what the legal profession thinks about your opinion that courts don't make law:
WHY COURTS ARE ALWAYS MAKING LAW Most judges hate to admit that they make social and political choices. It's time to get the truth out in the open. - September 25, 1989
Kevin Baine - Making Law on the Supreme Court
"Where Policy Is Made": Sotomayor's Court Comment Explained

A couple of examples are forced busing, miranda, roe v wade.

The fact that it is the same as any other lawsuit is my point and in no way detracts from the merits. All lawsuits are a case of government based coercion. Does that mean that all lawsuits are bad? Nope. Sometimes our rights are violated and the courts are obliged to step in and make amends. That doesn't change the fact that their interference is coercive in nature. The trick is to make sure we don't stack the deck in favor of that coercion. When one can settle an issue without setting up a situation that requires adjudication, then you are maximizing freedom and minimizing coercion.

And I don't think anyone buys the whole Orwellian "slavery is freedom" line you were trying to sell earlier. "to maximize freedom, you must also increase coercion"


Freedom - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of FREEDOM
1
: the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence

Again, interpretation is not creation. If the SC interpreted the 1st Amendment does not play to a specific action, it has not created the law that brought the case to the bench in the first place.

Show me two laws that originated with the bench. Drafted by the bench, presented to the bench, and passed by the bench straight into U.S. Code.

That the judge can review the law, interpret the law and apply it as they see fit, does not mean they are creating law. It means they are, funnily enough, interpreting law.

I asked "Which laws have the judiciary created? Not interpreted, not reviewed, not ruled upon, not set precedent, but created."

----------------------------------------

Again, since this is painfully difficult for you: coercion has to be accepted.

All lawsuits are not government coercion, only those in which the person complies.

The end result of coercion is compliance, correct? If the individual doesn't comply, were they coerced?

I'll ask this, if you are walking down the street chewing bubble gum, and I tell you to spit it out or I'll arrest you, and you tell me to "f*** off," and keep going. Have you been coerced?

If you were arrested, were you coerced? Did... you... spit... the... gum... out?

----------------------------------------

As to my maximize freedom requires increased coercion, do you honestly feel that it would take less coercion to get everyone to where you think they should be (as far as maximized freedom goes), than where we are today?

Or do you think, it would, in fact, take more coercion to move from where we are today, toward maximized freedom?

Answer truthfully, or not. I don't care. Your integrity, not mine.

 

[RespectTradition]

Again, interpretation is not creation. If the SC interpreted the 1st Amendment does not play to a specific action, it has not created the law that brought the case to the bench in the first place.

Show me two laws that originated with the bench. Drafted by the bench, presented to the bench, and passed by the bench straight into U.S. Code.

That the judge can review the law, interpret the law and apply it as they see fit, does not mean they are creating law. It means they are, funnily enough, interpreting law.

I asked "Which laws have the judiciary created? Not interpreted, not reviewed, not ruled upon, not set precedent, but created."

----------------------------------------

Again, since this is painfully difficult for you: coercion has to be accepted.

All lawsuits are not government coercion, only those in which the person complies.

The end result of coercion is compliance, correct? If the individual doesn't comply, were they coerced?

I'll ask this, if you are walking down the street chewing bubble gum, and I tell you to spit it out or I'll arrest you, and you tell me to "f*** off," and keep going. Have you been coerced?

If you were arrested, were you coerced? Did... you... spit... the... gum... out?

----------------------------------------

As to my maximize freedom requires increased coercion, do you honestly feel that it would take less coercion to get everyone to where you think they should be (as far as maximized freedom goes), than where we are today?

Or do you think, it would, in fact, take more coercion to move from where we are today, toward maximized freedom?

Answer truthfully, or not. I don't care. Your integrity, not mine.

You confuse legislation with law. They are not the same. Common law, for example, is rooted entirely in court rulings, has never been legislated, and yet is considered law. Again, ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. Or just keep spouting your own opinion if you prefer that to the truth.

All lawsuits that are not dismissed are coercion. At the very least you are forced to appear to contest or a summary judgment is rendered against you for failure to appear and then the government will indeed force you to comply or punish you. If this is not true, don't just say so, prove it. A lawsuit by its nature is where someone asks the government to force someone else to do something. If this is not true, what is it?

Repealing laws increase freedom. It requires no use of force to do that. None. I absolutely do not see how you can logically arrive at a different conclusion when the very definition of freedom is the absence of coercion. Are you now going to assert, without any proof, that the dictionary is wrong?

 

[fl0at]

You confuse legislation with law. They are not the same. Common law, for example, is rooted entirely in court rulings, has never been legislated, and yet is considered law. Again, ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. Or just keep spouting your own opinion if you prefer that to the truth.

I was using legislation interchangeably with law, which was a grievous error in word choice. However, as I noted that I was not speaking in terms of precedent, I thought I was being clear. But, when I went back and looked one said "but set precedent" and one said "not set precedent." So, I don't even know.

When I refer to law, I am not referring to precedent. However, yes, you are correct and I am wrong. Precedent is law.

My point, was that government did not force the woman to do anything, the court did. Though the courts are a branch of government, they do not have the power to create legislation (thank you), and it is only through legislation that the courts have power.

So, to clarify my mistaken point of view, government, in that I mean legislation, which gives all branches their power, did not force the ruling, the court did. Simply because government, and I again I mean the legislative branch, and to some extents the executive branch, grant power to the courts, does not mean they always grant approval.

Although, I'm not quite sure what the hell we were discussing, so... no idea if this clarification is worthwhile or not.

All lawsuits that are not dismissed are coercion. At the very least you are forced to appear to contest or a summary judgment is rendered against you for failure to appear and then the government will indeed force you to comply or punish you. If this is not true, don't just say so, prove it. A lawsuit by its nature is where someone asks the government to force someone else to do something. If this is not true, what is it?

Ok, this I feel like I remember. You are not forced to appear. You have the option to not appear. You will be punished. I do not consider this coercion, unless the individual complies.

If the individual complies, then yes, it is coercion. It may appear to be semantics, and might actually be semantics. However, unless compliance is obtained, there was no coercion.

If you tell your child to clean their room, or you will spank them... and they don't clean their room, and you spank them... did you get them to comply with cleaning their room? No. Therefore, your use of force was not coercion, because it didn't obtain compliance.

Am I ridiculous enough to think that most, many, or even "bunches" won't comply. Hell no. Damn near everyone complies. But they don't have to comply. It is entirely within their freedom to not comply.

Repealing laws increase freedom. It requires no use of force to do that. None. I absolutely do not see how you can logically arrive at a different conclusion when the very definition of freedom is the absence of coercion. Are you now going to assert, without any proof, that the dictionary is wrong?

There are many definitions of freedom. That is one of them, and we'll use it.

the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

Freedom, in this same definition, is absence of constraint of choice, as well. If you have a system in place, where there are no limitations, are your choices constrained? Yes, but only by one constraint... the limitation that there are no limitations. It is odd, but defensible: an individual who desires oppression... can't get oppression in this definition. He or she is not free to be oppressed, in the huge super-government way.

So, yes, I would argue that this definition is flawed. I would not say freedom is the absence of coercion. I would, in fact, use your previous definition, in that freedom is the limitation of coercion.

But my point was not that you have to have maximum coercion at all times, in order to be free. My point was that you have to have maximum coercion to go from where we are today, our government, today, to where we should be, freedom wise.

I agree with many of your ideas on freedom. But I feel that we are in the minority. And because we are in the minority, to move our system to maximum freedom, we must increase coercion of the majority, that feel compelled to remain in their system.

Can we do this by repealing laws? Absolutely. That should be the first start. However, how likely do you find that this can occur without increased coercion, either by the people (revolution) or to the people (government mandated change)?

If you feel that you are in the majority when it comes to types of freedom, then yes, I can see why you would think you would need less coercion to move our system to those freedoms. However, I do not feel that the things we agree on: legalization of drugs, legalization of prostitution, removal of entitlements, removal of marriage as a governmental subsidized institution or even those we may disagree on, such as removal of restrictions on discrimination, can be accomplished without increased coercion.

 

[fl0at]

After some thought, I have one or a few more questions for you, if you will indulge me.

Give our current state of freedom and government, both of which are at the whims of elected officials, do you find that the election process is a form of coercion?

Either comply with the wishes of the voting population, or we vote you out.

If you do find that it is indeed coercion, how can you rectify the inconsistencies regarding modifying law to increase freedom, and the coercion applied by the voting populace necessary to institute such changes?

If you conclude that it is a minimal amount of coercion, what would the general "ballpark" figure on amount of coercion needed to bring government in line with the freedoms you feel are evident? An entire Congressional class removed from office? Two?

If you don't conclude that it is coercion, why?

Lastly, if our first start is to repeal law, then should we not begin by coercing those in elected positions to repeal the law?

 

[RespectTradition]

In your explanation, coercion of any kind becomes impossible, because every action you take is one you take by choice. Taken to a logical extreme, if you point a gun at a woman and demand sex, you did not rape (coerce) her because she chose to perform for you rather than be shot. That takes such an extreme view of free will that I can't fit it in my logical framework.

All government action is coercion. That is why I am at heart an anarchist. In practice, anarchy is not totally practical. Trying to get as close to it as possible is my goal. I think education is the correct method to achieve change, not force. If we explain our ideas long enough, to enough people, then I think people will voluntarily accept them. If they refuse, I will not try to force them. I would rather be unfree than force my will on others.

Democracy is not better and no worse than any other form of government. The tyranny of the masses can actually be horrible because whatever oppressions happen occur at the consent and instigation of the masses. We feel righteous in our oppressions when 50.1% of us agree that it should be so.

I think there are various forms of coercion. Political, religious, social, economic and physical. Physical force is the one I am most concerned about because it is the only one that can harm the individual without the individuals consent. IE, if you don't care what other people think, then ostracism can't hurt you. All government action is backed by guns. Since this can't be totally eliminated, lets get it to the bare bones minimum.

No time, for more. Gotta get ready for work, will be back later.

 

[fl0at]

In your explanation, coercion of any kind becomes impossible, because every action you take is one you take by choice. Taken to a logical extreme, if you point a gun at a woman and demand sex, you did not rape (coerce) her because she chose to perform for you rather than be shot. That takes such an extreme view of free will that I can't fit it in my logical framework.

This gave me pause, because it questions choice. However, the ability to choose is not what differentiates coercion from non. It is compliance. If there is compliance for a choice one does not desire, then there is coercion.

In the rape case, if the woman desired rape, then she was not coerced. Or... simply put, you can't rape the willing. If she did not desire rape, but complied because of force, then she was coerced.

Coercion is always compliance by force. It does not involve choice, although choice is used to move away from coercion.

All government action is coercion. That is why I am at heart an anarchist. In practice, anarchy is not totally practical. Trying to get as close to it as possible is my goal. I think education is the correct method to achieve change, not force. If we explain our ideas long enough, to enough people, then I think people will voluntarily accept them. If they refuse, I will not try to force them. I would rather be unfree than force my will on others.

Democracy is not better and no worse than any other form of government. The tyranny of the masses can actually be horrible because whatever oppressions happen occur at the consent and instigation of the masses. We feel righteous in our oppressions when 50.1% of us agree that it should be so.

I think there are various forms of coercion. Political, religious, social, economic and physical. Physical force is the one I am most concerned about because it is the only one that can harm the individual without the individuals consent. IE, if you don't care what other people think, then ostracism can't hurt you. All government action is backed by guns. Since this can't be totally eliminated, lets get it to the bare bones minimum.

No time, for more. Gotta get ready for work, will be back later.

Interesting viewpoint. Anarchy is a hard position to maintain, even if it does increase individual freedoms. However, it puts a lot of constraint on the weak.

It seems that such constraint on the weak would be anti to the concept of freedom. Without protections in place for the weak and the poor, the strong and the rich can impose their will, and force the poor and weak, out of necessity, to perform actions on the behalf of the strong.

Democracy being no better or no worse than any other form of government is pretty out there, but I won't touch on it.

I will ask, though, if you consider voting to be immoral.

 

[RespectTradition]

This gave me pause, because it questions choice. However, the ability to choose is not what differentiates coercion from non. It is compliance. If there is compliance for a choice one does not desire, then there is coercion.

In the rape case, if the woman desired rape, then she was not coerced. Or... simply put, you can't rape the willing. If she did not desire rape, but complied because of force, then she was coerced.

Coercion is always compliance by force. It does not involve choice, although choice is used to move away from coercion.



Interesting viewpoint. Anarchy is a hard position to maintain, even if it does increase individual freedoms. However, it puts a lot of constraint on the weak.

It seems that such constraint on the weak would be anti to the concept of freedom. Without protections in place for the weak and the poor, the strong and the rich can impose their will, and force the poor and weak, out of necessity, to perform actions on the behalf of the strong.

Democracy being no better or no worse than any other form of government is pretty out there, but I won't touch on it.

I will ask, though, if you consider voting to be immoral.

The way you are using coercion is correct. I am being imprecise. I am using it in the context of forcing or attempting to force, to achieve your goals. However, since I view coercion and force as equally wrong, it doesn't change the conclusion. You either do as told (coercion) or you receive physical force. Both results are immoral and one that we try to avoid.

The need for protecting the weak is why I concede that anarchy is impractical in practice. That is why, in my philosophy, the only valid functions of government are: 1) preventing/responding to the initiation of force to people or property 2) preventing/responding to fraud 3) preventing/responding to theft.

I am ambivalent about the morality of voting. I can see both sides of this one. I have decided, that in a practical sense, the government exists and will continue to exist. Since it will continue to limit freedom, with or without my participation, then if by participating I can vote for candidates that will give more freedom, I will do so.

 

[fl0at]

The way you are using coercion is correct. I am being imprecise. I am using it in the context of forcing or attempting to force, to achieve your goals. However, since I view coercion and force as equally wrong, it doesn't change the conclusion. You either do as told (coercion) or you receive physical force. Both results are immoral and one that we try to avoid.

The need for protecting the weak is why I concede that anarchy is impractical in practice. That is why, in my philosophy, the only valid functions of government are: 1) preventing/responding to the initiation of force to people or property 2) preventing/responding to fraud 3) preventing/responding to theft.

I am ambivalent about the morality of voting. I can see both sides of this one. I have decided, that in a practical sense, the government exists and will continue to exist. Since it will continue to limit freedom, with or without my participation, then if by participating I can vote for candidates that will give more freedom, I will do so.

Respectable take. All of it.