Food for thought, as re: Liberalism in America

[vidcc]

liberals believe it can be legislated.

It isn't being legislated into law, The law is already there, they go to court when a law is broken

As to your last, Conservatism's motto is more aptly if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

But if equality is being denied then doesn't that mean it IS broken?

[j2k4]

J2 you say that judges are not interpreting the law properly, However i do. They are saying that just because one may find a certain lifestyle distasteful that is no reason to deny them equality that is rightfully theirs as set out in the constitution.

What is happening is that they are not bowing down to the pressure of intollerant discrimination.....the constitution doesn't define marriage as just between man and woman...so the rulings of the court are correct. You don't have to like it, however it is still correct. If it was incorrect why would we need to add an amendment to change it?

If you wish to live in the land of the free, make sure it is free....

Who knows, someday you may find that a right wing extremist is trying to deny YOU freedom..... If that day comes i hope you stand next to the "liberal" that is fighting to stop him

A liberal, fighting?

What a novel thought...

I was under the impression all they could do is march, or carry signs, or some such.

Your garden-variety liberal hasn't a clue about fighting unless he/she is directed (with very precise instruction) by a professional protest organization, such as MoveOn.org, and even then, said liberal "fighter" doesn't know what he's protesting unless he's told.

Hobbes-

While we are not finding common ground on this subject, I respect (as you well know) that you do your own thinking, and, in any case, do not lump you together with liberals of the knee-jerk stripe, like vidcc.

[j2k4]

It isn't being legislated into law, The law is already there, they go to court when a law is broken



But if equality is being denied then doesn't that mean it IS broken?

It is apparent many who are in the business of determining what does or does not constitute equality have no qualification for that particular activity.

Quickly, vid:

Construct for me a rationale by which pedophiles can plausibly be denied "equality".

[hobbes]

The courts are there to interpret our laws.

As an example:

Lots of people don't like blacks, but the courts went against popular sentiment to attempt to legislate that they are treated equally. We all know that laws don't change racism and blacks are still not equal, but the courts did what they were supposed to do.

We don't need people with pitchforks and torches deciding that "freedom" is a white mans priviledge. We need a place where people can step out of their skins, to look at the law and determine what IS right or fair, and ignore their personal feelings on the matter.

When people are oppressed or denied rights, explain to me how then things are not broken.

[hobbes]

It is apparent many who are in the business of determining what does or does not constitute equality have no qualification for that particular activity.

Quickly, vid:

Construct for me a rationale by which pedophiles can plausibly be denied "equality".

Equality in what way? What does that even mean?

Do you mean the right to molest children?

Firstly, that is involving a minor AND a non-consenting or understanding individual.

This is, of course, illegal.

[vidcc]

A liberal, fighting?

What a novel thought...

I was under the impression all they could do is march, or carry signs, or some such.

Your garden-variety liberal hasn't a clue about fighting unless he/she is directed (with very precise instruction) by a professional protest organization, such as MoveOn.org, and even then, said liberal "fighter" doesn't know what he's protesting unless he's told.

Yawn..... not worthy of any other comment

It is apparent many who are in the business of determining what does or does not constitute equality have no qualification for that particular activity.

oh so unless one is the "common man" one isn't qualified? or do you mean that only those that make rulings by popular conservative ideals instead of the actual word of the law as it exists are qualified?

Quickly, vid:

Construct for me a rationale by which pedophiles can plausibly be denied "equality".

Firstly tell me what liberal is fighting or wishes to fight to make pedophilia legal. this is a tiresome tactic used by "conservatives", it is not a liberal goal... no matter how many times you try to suggest it is

secondly hobbes already pointed out why it wouldn't happen.

A pedophile is, of course, violating the rights of others to seek his pleasure, which is strictly forbidden.

why would i need to expand on that...it's very clear

[hobbes]

I think we need to clarify "liberalism".

I personally don't like the label. I like to judge the merits of a situation and make an individual choice.

I tend to agree with "liberal thought" when it is about something logical.

Group A is denied the same rights as Group B, but both are supposed to have the same rights as dictated by law.

Well, I go with the liberal ideal that the playing field should be leveled, something is broken.


I tend to migrate back to more Conservative thinking when we get into "Carebear" issues.

These are not really arguments in logic, but more personal preferences about how things "ought to be".

At one time I described the mock birthday spanking we got in grade school. One member said that they would sue the school board for laying hands on her child and perhaps causing emotional harm because there was abuse at home.

In this instance, my reaction is to say, "step back", we can't micromanage people's lives. We can't live in fear of possible offense. The case in point was done in "good fun" and was play spanking, just like the roadrunner and coyote are "play". Kids know the difference between attempting to injure and being playful.

I really get irritated when people try to micromanage everything to protect kids from reality. Life is hard. Sometimes you just have to say "Suck it up, Sally". I have a fondness for the expression, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"

So I see myself more as logical liberal, but a conservative when it comes to carebear issues.

[j2k4]

The courts are there to interpret our laws.

As an example:

Lots of people don't like blacks, but the courts went against popular sentiment to attempt to legislate that they are treated equally. We all know that laws don't change racism and blacks are still not equal, but the courts did what they were supposed to do.

If racism still exists (no argument there) and blacks are still not equal, then precisely what good has all of this hand-wringing accomplished?

The courts properly "deleted" any constitutional/legal language stipulating that blacks were anything other than equal to, or undifferentiated from, whites.

Subsequent "social codes" (quotas, etc.) are of questionable worth, but boy, they sure make the libs feel good, which is important, I guess.

We don't need people with pitchforks and torches deciding that "freedom" is a white mans priviledge. We need a place where people can step out of their skins, to look at the law and determine what IS right or fair, and ignore their personal feelings on the matter.

I haven't seen a crowd wielding pitchforks or torches since my last Frankenstein movie, and I think you do your felow citizens a slur by referring to them as such, and the courts are not where the people go to step "out of their skins" in order to chart the course of the society they would choose, rather it is the polling place.

Hear this:

The courts are not empowered to MAKE law, merely to determine the propriety of such laws as the people and/or their representatives make.

THAT is what the constitution says.

When people are oppressed or denied rights, explain to me how then things are not broken.

The rights being well-and-truly denied are those abrogated by the courts.

[j2k4]

Firstly tell me what liberal is fighting or wishes to fight to make pedophilia legal. this is a tiresome tactic used by "conservatives", it is not a liberal goal... no matter how many times you try to suggest it is

Last I looked, the ACLU (who is doing a whole LOT of the trench-work for NAMBLA) was viewed as an integral tool in the liberal fight for expanded "rights".

I believe you regard the ACLU as somewhat beyond reproach?

In any case, I was serious:

Tell me why YOU think pedophiles should be denied equality.

Call it an exercise.

I must adjourn for the nonce; I am informed a Chinese cook wishes to titilate my palate with some savory recipes.

[vidcc]

The rights being well-and-truly denied are those abrogated by the courts.

Who are you refering to?

Hear this:

The courts are not empowered to MAKE law, merely to determine the propriety of such laws as the people and/or their representatives make.

THAT is what the constitution says.

And that is just what they are doing....you just don't like it so you think they are not.

In the case of gay marriage they made the ruling because the constitution doesn't stipulate marriage as between just men and women.
if the biggots get their way and amend it so that it does stipulate it then the courts will rule thusly