ClumsyMonkey.net

Random Name wrote:but its only drawing attention to differences and singling out certain groups. While we are at it, why don't we have black-only cruises? Doing things like this only create a wider gap. Its basically the opposite of equality.

you don't think they have this things- Blacks only.

just because something isn't advertise doesn't mean it isn't happening.

It is no different then going to an all white club, Black, Latin club etc. They don't say it, but you know that is what it is.

You all would be against the gay school here then. Which opened last year for gay kids to attend. Unless you are gay you could never know the real discriminations against them. I have seen it more then I care to or want to.

I will end this here because you see it as segregation, where I see it as an alternative. All things catering to one sex, race. color. religion are segregating. It is in our society everywhere you turn.

They have things like this all over the place. Ladies only, singles only, etc etc.

Doug -

So... my hypothetical corporation is going to stop exploiting and poisoning people because Ayn Rand says that's not in line with her philosophy? Right.

I understand that people almost uniformly act in their own self-interest in some way, shape, or form. It's that part wherein Rand says they can only do so if they don't harm others that people constantly ignore, and that's your philosophy's fatal flaw.

No, I don't think most people refrain from murder simply because they fear the law. But plenty of people do, and others commit crime anyway. And furthermore, when there is no threat of retribution, murder (and other crimes) would start looking more and more like something that would be in a person's self-interest. Because if you've got a nagging wife who you just can't stand, and a mistress you'd rather move in with, but the wife refuses to move out and isn't keen on sharing you, well... murder's going to start looking like a more and more desirable option. And hell, that sort of thing happens all the time in our governed society. You honestly think it'd happen less often in your anarchic utopia? Or that it would be punished better?

mosaik wrote:Come on. yes they do. The fear of the law is not what keeps my co worker Trent at work in favor of commiting crimes. It's his own "moral compass" that says he should earn his living the honest way.

For the billionith fucking goddman time, what do you do about those people who are physically unable to act within the bounds of rational self-interest? The mentally retarded, the insane, the senile, even those who are simply too young to have the mental capacity to act in their own self-interest? I'm not talking about those who choose to be vile people, I'm talking about those people who, through no fault of their own, are not capable of being rational.

Despite the number of times I've asked this, you've never given me a straight-forward reply.


PS: This debate goes round and round in circles because you love to skirt issues you can't resolve. Hint, hint.

One-Eye wrote:Doug -

So... my hypothetical corporation is going to stop exploiting and poisoning people because Ayn Rand says that's not in line with her philosophy? Right.

Not quite. But what consumer in their right mind is going to support a company that poisions?

I understand that people almost uniformly act in their own self-interest in some way, shape, or form. It's that part wherein Rand says they can only do so if they don't harm others that people constantly ignore, and that's your philosophy's fatal flaw.

Why isn't it yours as well? Because you have the police? Please see my chart in the other thread illustrating the effectiveness of the police.

People misbehave. period. in a democracy, they just get to misbehave in the government and convince you folks that it's legal, when in fact they are doing the same thing that you're worried will happen in anarchy.

And hell, that sort of thing happens all the time in our governed society. You honestly think it'd happen less often in your anarchic utopia? Or that it would be punished better?

Does it matter? As you yourself said, it happens lots as it is. Do i believe that an armed and independent populace would have fewer criminals? Yes, for a number of reasons. But this is all speculation. And it has nothing to do with whether or not natural law is rational.

Narbus - what exactly do you want me to say about the mentally retarded? I don't see the problem they pose. I don't know what so-called issue there is that you want me to address.

The issue is - what's to be done with them? Let's say I work at a center with them, and I am in charge of their medications. One of them, not understanding that the medication is keeping him alive, refuses to take it. Do I have the right to force him to take it since he's physically incapable of making a rational decision himself?

for once, a question i actually like!

narbus i'm inclined to say no, they don't have the right to force him. maybe he wants his life to end.

if he's aware enough to refuse the drug, then i'd be inclined to accept his refusal.

i'd like to give it some thought and maybe pass it around to some of my peers too though.

good question.

Narbus wrote:The issue is - what's to be done with them? Let's say I work at a center with them, and I am in charge of their medications. One of them, not understanding that the medication is keeping him alive, refuses to take it. Do I have the right to force him to take it since he's physically incapable of making a rational decision himself?

I'd say that it depends on who put him in the center. Was he put in their by family? Did he agree to being placed in the center?

If a contract was signed between the center and the patient then the center has every right to administer the medications.

J-Neli wrote:I'd say that it depends on who put him in the center. Was he put in their by family? Did he agree to being placed in the center?

If a contract was signed between the center and the patient then the center has every right to administer the medications.

This is simply a step removed from my example, but it's the same question. This person, due to the way his brain is physically formed, is incapable of making rational decisions. It's unfortunate, yes, but that's the way it is. Is he even in a state of mind to agree to be placed at the center? Do his parent have the right to put him there? He's incapable of making these decisions. So what's to be done with him?

psycho groupie wrote:

Random Name wrote:but its only drawing attention to differences and singling out certain groups. While we are at it, why don't we have black-only cruises? Doing things like this only create a wider gap. Its basically the opposite of equality.

you don't think they have this things- Blacks only.
just because something isn't advertise doesn't mean it isn't happening.
It is no different then going to an all white club, Black, Latin club etc. They don't say it, but you know that is what it is.
You all would be against the gay school here then. Which opened last year for gay kids to attend. Unless you are gay you could never know the real discriminations against them. I have seen it more then I care to or want to.
I will end this here because you see it as segregation, where I see it as an alternative. All things catering to one sex, race. color. religion are segregating. It is in our society everywhere you turn.
They have things like this all over the place. Ladies only, singles only, etc etc.

this is a matter of self-segregation. the latin club plays latin music because the owners like latin music, and they want everyone who enjoys listening/dancing to latin music to come in and enjoy themselves. most of the people in the building are latin, simply because in many cases many non-latin households do not actually listen to latin music, so they might not like it. they'll go to the club that plays rap music because they prefer that music, they might go to a club that plays alot of electronic music because that is their preference. no one is at the door telling you you can't come in, of course you can, no matter what race you are.

however if you do go into a club that your not familiar with, and you walk in and your different, yes you will get stares and you will be looked at. simply because of this reason: you look awkward. if you go into the club dancing and singing along with the music, regardless of race, they'll see that your comfortable in this enviroment and that individual will be looked at as a peer. it's when you come in and look lost that one becomes outcasted. that is why if you look at neighborhoods they tend to be self segregated, simply because people natually look to be in a place they feel comforatable in. that place is usually with their own with people who grew up similarly like themselves and have the same traditional values. for a long time and in many instances today, this country was more of a mosaic than an actual melting pot. that is because of the self segregation. in today's times where you have the 1/4 irish, 1/4 black, 1/4 cuban, and 1/4 anglo young men and women, you truly become aware that slowly this country is becomming a melting pot.

ok guys back to the political debate/gay debate. i just had to step in here, carry on.

Narbus wrote:

J-Neli wrote:I'd say that it depends on who put him in the center. Was he put in their by family? Did he agree to being placed in the center?

If a contract was signed between the center and the patient then the center has every right to administer the medications.

This is simply a step removed from my example, but it's the same question. This person, due to the way his brain is physically formed, is incapable of making rational decisions. It's unfortunate, yes, but that's the way it is. Is he even in a state of mind to agree to be placed at the center? Do his parent have the right to put him there? He's incapable of making these decisions. So what's to be done with him?

If his condition became worse as time went on, and at the time of being placed in the home he was rational enough to understand the contract then he's obliged to follow it until his condition improves. This would probably be the case in a situation involving alzheimers.

Now, if the patient is mentally disabled, and has depended on a caregiver for much of his life (at least into his adult years, where a normal individual is capable of living on his own), and the caregiver is a parent, they should have the right to hand him over to any institution that can provide better care. By allowing the parents to take care of him, he has agreed that they are responsible enough to know what is best for him.

I'm probably far from what Doug had in mind, but that's just what I think...

Denied!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/ ... index.html

Corey wrote:Denied!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/ ... index.html

yes!...oh sorry...*goes back to reading the other posts*

Well we knew it was just a matter of time.

Saw this in the paper today:

First Wives Wanna Split

Toronto- Tow Women who broke legal ground a year ago and were legally married now want what's belived to be Canada's first same sex divorce.
The women, ages 61 and 41, were married in June 2003, a week after Ontario court legalized same-sex marriage. they had been together for mearly a decade but separated after just five days.
the women are again seeking new legal rights: in addiction to asking a court to grant a divorce, they want the Canadian Divorce Act's definition of spouse declared unconstitutional.

I do not know what I make of this. Why after 10 years would you want to break up aftrer 5 days of marriage.? YOu would think after a decade you would know the person you are marrying. I am for gay Marriages, but feel this was some how some kind of stunt to prove a point.

I would feel the same if it was a straight couple. I would think after 10 years I would know what the person was like. I know people break up after spending years together. My brother got divorce after being married for 15 years. I just think in the case above it is like that got married cause they could, and now wanted to try to get the first Gay Divorce. I am willing to bet after the divorce they will still be a couple.

Like i said I really don't kknow what to make of this. You get married, then divorce. Wouldn't this actually be an annualment since they were together as Marrieds 5 days. I don't know much aobut marriage or annualments.

I just thought you would find this interesting.

meh they can do what they want. If they want to divorce let them. And hell, let them do it all over again 10, no wait 20 times! If straight people can do it than they can too!

I've read this entire thread, and i still don't understand how people can say they are against same sex marriage because of religious views. Can someone with these religious views please explain this to me?

yeah me too

Yeah right.

Cole wrote:I've read this entire thread, and i still don't understand how people can say they are against same sex marriage because of religious views. Can someone with these religious views please explain this to me?

My mom's against gay marriage, and her reasoning is that marriage is supposed to be sacred. The Bible is against homosexuality, and so if you let gay people get married, you ruin the sanctity of it all.

*shrugs*

lemonphile4 wrote:

Cole wrote:I've read this entire thread, and i still don't understand how people can say they are against same sex marriage because of religious views. Can someone with these religious views please explain this to me?

My mom's against gay marriage, and her reasoning is that marriage is supposed to be sacred. The Bible is against homosexuality, and so if you let gay people get married, you ruin the sanctity of it all.

*shrugs*

hmm... *ponders*