Skip to main content

View Diary: Ideology vs. Practicality: Antidiscrimination Laws (29 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Legal and moral (0+ / 0-)

    are not synonymous. We don't make murder, theft, rape, you name it, illegal because they're immoral. We make them illegal because they infringe on another. Whenever we make something illegal, we are pointing a gun to the head of anyone who wishes to do it. As Mao said, "All government power comes from the barrel of a gun."

    Can you justify pointing a gun at a storeowners head to make him sell to someone?

    •  Can you justify taking (0+ / 0-)

      the outlier example of .05% in a standard distribution in theoretical conjectures without knowing the actual numbers just to prove a point?
         There is the Liberal ''I'm smarter than you are.'' argument in a nutshell. Think hard, by all means, think hard. But we're struggling and I don't see your conjectures providing solutions, so think a little harder, please. We need you to do that.
         

      Liberty Valence Keep your eyes on the prize.

      by libertyvalence on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 07:15:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ENGLISH (0+ / 0-)

        Speak English! What you're saying probably has importance, but we're not getting anywhere because I'm not understanding what you're saying

        •  This is English (0+ / 0-)

          and exhausting. You should be honored, instead you are pretending to not understand me and then finally asking me to explain myself. Maybe you should have done that in the first place.

          You're saying people somehow have a right to trade with other people, even when not consensual. I disagree

           That was totally your construction. I did not say what I did not say.
             You put words in my mouth, then acted like you did not understand me. Then asked me to dispel your confusion.
             Fess up, admit your game. I won't tattle on you. Who would believe me when that seems to pass for shuffleboard on this cruise.
             Conjecture only goes so far. At some point action has to take place. It is an iterative process. Mistakes get made. Analogies work after a solution is formed not before. It is not possible. Maybe you would like to think you are that wise, no one is.
             The 'chefs' who pretend that they are sharpening a knife by constantly passing the blade against a honing steel don't know what they are doing. They just like this look. It only takes a pass or two to set up a microscopic edge on an already sharpened edge. That is what all of this back and forth resembles. He has to make a cut based on his best estimate and own it and correct it, if it does not work.
             Answering the chuck meat vs steak thing when the person is selling horse meat , (sidewalk economics) was just asinine.
             How is that for English, not so silent one?

          Liberty Valence Keep your eyes on the prize.

          by libertyvalence on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 08:13:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not going to bother (0+ / 0-)

            with someone who questions my motives. I misunderstood you, I didn't put words in your mouth, so I asked for clarification, which you still haven't given me. The fact that you are accusing me of all these things tells me far more about you than me

            •  Yes, my nose is out of joint, (0+ / 0-)

              you can e-mail me. I won't continue this thread. I can still learn, I usually do, once I calm down. A few too many troll references, so I'm on my muscle.
                 I'm mostly interested in social justice and how to achieve it. I am not a cynic or anyway I say that I don't think that cynicism is correct. An ascerbic tongue and a sardonic sense of humor often belies my persona.  I am not about to change.
                 Guess what? Obama did not want anyone to question any body's motives. Good advice from a consummate politician. I do not like almost all politicians, I like Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders, I just wish they weren't politicians.
                  Questioning motives is part of the deal unless in the unlikely circumstances one is pure and without defenses.
                 I am talking, are you listening? Not reading, listening.
                 I can be concrete if I have to, it makes me very nervous to have to. Marriage and fatherhood has tempered that somewhat. But, my old world heart is not so easily penetrated.
                Anyway, as long as the block quote is there, the appropriate thing to say when one misunderstands and doesn't want motives to be questioned is, ''I'm sorry, I misunderstood.'' not

              I misunderstood you, I didn't put words in your mouth,

                   So, don't bother if it is too much bother to be challenged in such a mild way. What else have I done wrong?

              Liberty Valence Keep your eyes on the prize.

              by libertyvalence on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 05:08:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site