shame he wasted all those years making movies . My respect for the man has grown greatly in that 2:52. Rumor on the blogosphere yesterday was that Obama may offer him Secretary of Energy.

Did you hear that kids? Never, ever, give up! And also, stay in school, 'cause it's cool!

Yeah, there's no need to worry about that whole equality thing. I'm sure it will work itself out. Or maybe they should pray! That always works!

For the record, I support same sex marriage. It's only he's last comment that I thought sounded like he was talking to a 10 years old kid.

What is prop 11?

Prop 11 fights gerrymandering by creating an bipartisan/independent board to create voting districts.

I love arnold schwarzeneggar as an action hero so much, that even despite the good work he's done as a politician, i'd be saying - why has he wasted all those years in politics when he could have been making terminator 4-23, predator 3-17, etc.

when the majority fails to give the "right answer", "oppress" via a different means.

is it really hard to see how much of joke democracy is? its a bullsh*t system. if someone can just "undo" the results, whats the point of even taking it to a vote.

why don't you just give some dictator the executive powers and military force to make sure gay marriage is legal. stupid sh*ts.

^Fundamental rights aren't subject to abridgment by a simple 51% majority. The constitution matters. This is an example of democracy working as it's supposed to.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Gay-Marriage-9-11#comment-566474

democracy is the rule of the majority. if 51% of people vote for something, it becomes the "law". here, the majority voted for something and 1 person is trying to undo that....

that is most definitely democracy NOT working as its supposed to. if democracy had came up with "the right answer" you wouldn't be complaining because you think its the right answer. what about all the people who don't think its the right answer?

democracy has nothing to do with fundamental rights. the constitution has nothing to do with democracy, and democracy nothing to do with the constitution.

^The founding fathers of the US weren't the simpletons you suggest they were. For obvious reasons, they were wary of the idea of a 51% majority dominating a 49% minority.

When people refer to "democracies," they're generally referring to "constitutional democracies."

The popular and democratic government of the United States, however, is limited by the higher law of the Constitution in order to secure, as the Declaration of Independence says, the “unalienable rights” of every person. These legal limitations on the people's government make the United States a constitutional democracy, not an unlimited democracy. - http://www.answers.com/topic/constitutional-democracy

BTW, it's intellectually petty to always downvote comments made in goodwill simply because they're not on your side of a debate .

Using democracy to protect your own freedoms and way of life is one thing.

Using democracy so the majority can oppress/control how other people live their lives is another.

Democracy that takes away freedoms rather than protecting them is questionable.

Raverman,

Why exactly is it okay to use democracy for good, but not okay to use it for bad? Who decides what is "good" or "bad"...the majority?

ruh roh...

Majority opinion (democracy) says nothing about morality or what is "good" or "right". It is a theory of numbers: the law is whatever the most people believe because the most people have the numbers to enforce it. A monarchy is the opposite: the law is whatever the most powerful person believes because they have the power to enforce it. Both result in the same thing: oppression.

This is precisely why democracy is not a valid basis for a system of law. Laws are supposed to be based on what is "moral" or "right", and majority opinion cannot possibly define such things.

chillaxe,

are you saying that a 75% majority is somehow more legitimate than a 51% majority?

what exactly does "constitutional democracy" mean? how can you simultaneous have a rule of law and a rule of majority? it is a contradiction of terms. if there is a law, it doesn't matter what the majority thinks. if there is a majority rule, it doesn't matter what the laws are.

if in even one case, the majority overrules the rule of law--you no longer have a "rule of law" you have lawlessness. there is no gray area here. the "gray" is just a trick to make you feel better about living in lawlessness. pretty good trick huh?

as far as me being "petty". the road to hell is paved with good intentions. don't expect me to give a thumbs up to anyone paving it . i didn't downvote your comment because your opinion is different than mine (i never do this) i downvoted it because your statement was wrong (i explained why). ill upvote a comment just as soon as i downvote one, but neither is ever arbitrary or personal.

*worldaffairs *humanitarian

Adding video to channels (Humanitarian, Worldaffairs) - requested by nibiyabi.

^imstellar

Democracy doesn't have to be good or bad, it is simple the idea that the majority of the voices are allowed to be heard over a small cadre, so if that majority decides that bombing Iraq and Afghanistan against terrorism is the right course of action then it's going to happen, regardless if the rest of the world or alot of the population don't agree with it. However democracy does not exist in the US, as its a federal constitutional republic.

In other discussions here you said that the solution would be governing by stringent law, you fail to realize that laws are not created in a vacuum with regards to the society. They are written to appease the society or demographic, DOMA was written by republicans under a fast track through house and congress to protect marriage. Thus it becomes law. It is not lawlessness it is law decreed by elected officials, who represent voters views and opinions.

In general society today same sex marriage is not acceptable to certain majority population demographics, thus this is expressed through elected officials who claim to push forward laws that limit gay marriage and so on, this was shown in the 2004 elections and this was shown in the passing of Prop 8.

However in the same way newly elected officials can revoke those laws as societies acceptance to these issues changes, Obama for example wants to revoke the Defense of Marriage Act.

^Democracy doesn't have to be good or bad, it is simple the idea that the majority of the voices are allowed to be heard over a small cadre

can you even read? thats what i just said.

don't try to lecture me on laws, your hateful ass (http://www.videosift.com/video/Huge-Prop-8-Protest-outside-of-Mormon-Temple-in-Utah#comment-574501) doesn't have any clue what "laws" are.


9/10 people electing someone to write on a piece of paper "murder is legal" is not a legitimate law. its just words on a piece of paper. it doesn't matter WHO makes the law it matters what the laws are BASED on. having one person (monarchy) or 100 (democracy) agree on what words to write on the paper doesn't make that "law" any more legimiate.

What is a legitimate law then? Laws created by you?

^no you hateful piece of sh*t

laws are supposed to based on unalienable human rights. that is the ONLY legitimate basis for a system of law.

Imstellar, the modern world uses constitutional democracies because the use of a constitution puts necessary constraints on the use of power. Surely, as a libertarian, you can see some need for constraints on government.

"Checks and balances" is a central concept in the design of the US government, so that's one way you can think of the "contradiction" posed by the constitution's limits on mob rule. Since the constitution is not an infallible document, it's necessary to allow the will of the people to modify the constitution, if there is an overwhelming majority (2/3).


Your comments tend to seem unreflective and obdurate, and are a reminder that good books (your truly excellent reading list) aren't enough to create a sincere intellectual.

^i understand why the modern world uses it. the modern world is wrong. how can either you or the modern world refute the points i raise?

you confuse unreflectiveness with quickness of wit. my philosophy is extremely simple, which makes it very easy to recognize errors and refute them. as far as being harsh, there was a time on this website where i was soft with people's views.

that time is LONG gone because the posters here can no longer claim ignorance. they have been exposed to alternative viewpoints and have chosen to dismiss them. i can sympathize with naivety, but i cannot sympathize with evil.

^You're arguing with mainstream intellectualism, so the burden of proof is on you to convince us, not the other way around. Behaving poorly will tend to make people dismiss your comments.

^you asserted that the US is a constitutional democracy, and i refuted your assertion with this:

"how can you simultaneous have a rule of law and a rule of majority? it is a contradiction of terms. if there is a law, it doesn't matter what the majority thinks. if there is a majority rule, it doesn't matter what the laws are."

you didn't reply to it. all you did was repeat the label you got from the modern world.

i could care less if hateful, evil people dismiss my comments. i don't have any interest in talking to people like that--my only interest with people like that is with the gallows or a jail cell.

>> ^imstellar28:
^no you hateful piece of sh t
laws are supposed to based on unalienable human rights. that is the ONLY legitimate basis for a system of law.


The word republic comes form the word res publica which means a public matter, in political science a republic refers always to a state where power is given via consent by the people governed. Nowhere does it say that a republic comes with laws that come from unalienable human rights. This is simply a system of government over a populace.

If the people governed choose to have slavery, no womens rights and abolition of gay rights this is what the republic would have as laws. Changes with regards to these come from social change as a whole, as people realize that oppression by color by sex and by sexual preference is not right or inhumane and so on.

The modern world is not wrong, it is simply the result of recursive adjustments to how society changes its views over the course of history. In the 20th Century we gained womans right to vote, civil liberties and this all culminated in an election where a woman and black man ran for President. Obama became president. That's in a span of less then 50 years since the civil rights movement.

You are basically saying that we should have imposed laws. I agree that the Bill of Rights is a great Law to impose unequivocally. But this never happens in separation, it always leaves room for new laws that simply tools of oppression. That's why checks and balances exit.

That's why the US is constitutional republic, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."

i have a lot of work to do to get to the level of rationality of the thinkers i admire. clearly, i still have a lot of learning to do. i wish i had the ability to remain completely calm in the face of such comments, but i dont. at this point in my life, i don't have the patience to deal the personality of your comments.

farhad, your comments are extremely frustrating.

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."

- Cicero

^my inability to remain calm in the face of frustrating or hateful comments is no excuse for the weak and erroneous arguments you present, nor does it excuse the refutations, evidence, and information you ignore.

I see you conveniently edited out the comment when you called me a motherfucker and a bunch of other nasty things. Now my comments are simply frustrating are they? I see your edited your reply to Chillaxe as well.

My comments are not hateful, they are only weak or erroneous because they disagree with your view.

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."

- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ right that.

>> ^Farhad2000:
I see you conveniently edited out the comment when you called me a motherfucker and a bunch of other nasty things. Now my comments are simply frustrating are they? I see your edited your reply to Chillaxe as well.
My comments are not hateful, they are only weak or erroneous because they disagree with your view.



I asked Imstellar in a PM discussion to take out the insults that were there, and I thank him for doing so. Maybe including some ***edit*** notes would have helped avoid any confusion. In fairness, though, Farhad is a (badass) motherfucker

Just remember the constitution is supposed to protect UNpopular people more than popular ones. We dont need laws that say that 'yes, straight people can get married' it kind of goes with the turf. The constitution is there to protect the equality of everyone (among other things) so no 51% of people voting against something that is going to have a major impact on the 49% should not go straight into law, and this IS democracy at work.

I really don't understand why the concept of a democracy within the framework of the constitution is so hard to understand. There is a reason it isn't a true democracy... If it were we'd like no longer be a Union, have slavery, probably end up some kind of 'christian nation'.

Jigga in my opinion is completely correct... it is a democracy... but when the majority votes to negate one of our founding principles... to the detrement of a minority... I think of the constitution as a check against our own human nature at times...

What I really can't understand is the system your ridiculing so much... in this example... is basically an illustration of the checks ensuring that the 'majority' can't simply override a minorities rights by virtue of their being the majority...

And Imstellar again... i find you the ONLY one making hatefull insulting comments... i see no one else doing anything of the sort... you seem to apply those terms to anyone who does not agree with you, completely ignore your own behavior which bordered on little more than a tantrum... and it detracts from any points your trying to make...

Just my opinion

There's no liberal fascism, you say? Then what is mexifornia?

Any time Californians make their voice heard, an activist judge simply throws it out. Why waste people's time voting if you're already a dictatorship?

Blacks were fighting for the same rights as Whites, gays are fighting to redefine the very definition of marriage.

I guess next up it's marriage "rights" for pedophiles. After all, they too, are an "oppressed minority".

Schwarzy is a worthless RINO. Enjoy your new 5 billion in tax hikes to pay for illegals, CA.

.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, November 10th, 2008 11:35am PST - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

Imstellar... How many people need to tell you the same thing for you to listen to it?

>> ^chilaxe:
BTW, it's intellectually petty to always downvote comments made in goodwill simply because they're not on your side of a debate .

US Constitution:

Right to Freedon of Speech: Everyone defends it
Right to bear arms: Nearly everyone defends it
Seperation of Church and State: Um......

>> ^quantumushroom:
There's no liberal fascism, you say? Then what is mexifornia?
Any time Californians make their voice heard, an activist judge simply throws it out. Why waste people's time voting if you're already a dictatorship?
Blacks were fighting for the same rights as Whites, gays are fighting to redefine the very definition of marriage.
I guess next up it's marriage "rights" for pedophiles. After all, they too, are an "oppressed minority".
Schwarzy is a worthless RINO. Enjoy your new 5 billion in tax hikes to pay for illegals, CA.


QM, I normally just ignore your comments, but you lobbed such a softie at us (and a very common one at that), that I couldn't resist.

Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?

Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people? Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.

The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality. Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).

I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.

Nibiyabi wins. ImStellar got owned in another thread. Here's the answer to unrelenting egregiousness which can be copied and pasted (be sure to credit thinker247):

If you insist on stretching this as far as it will go, the ultimate answer is silence in an empty universe.
-written by thinker247 to imstellar.

PS being mean to people is not nice; what did the gays ever stick up your ... ?

I remember a time, I was 10 years old, when I suddenly realized that my mind had the power to analyze information and come to a conclusion without the assistance of an authority figure. For a short period of time, perhaps a day or two, I literally thought I was infallible. It was an amazing feeling. Then I realized how ridiculous that was.

Only fools think they are perfect, and that the world should conform to their opinions.

On the other hand, it is those same fools who sometimes end up changing the world.

Whenever I see homophobes now, I can't help but think of haider, head of a right wing conservative Austrian political party. He has professed long about family values, and has legislated against gay rights for the length of his career.
Ends up his right hand man in the party was his boyfriend.

now, more than ever, the possibility that monkeys can not be fully civilized must be questioned. i honestly had hoped that monkeys had the possibility to achieve a state of legitimate human rights. i'm really starting to doubt whether that is true.

clearly, it is possible as some have managed to achieve it, but what is standing in the way for the rest? are there really physiological differences in the brain which prevent this from occurring? i don't want to believe that. is there a mental barrier? the ego? indoctrination? societal pressure?

i'm confused and i don't know what else to conclude. is my message honestly that cryptic and hard to understand? have you tried to check my assertions for yourself, deriving the principles on paper with your own pencil? is it really not working? do you not understand what i am saying because it is hard to understand, or because you aren't really giving it a fair chance? are you simply failing to absorb the information? are we just miscommunicating? is it a poor presentation on my part?

can someone here who agrees with me at least to an extent (banshee maybe?) try to shed some light on the issue? if it is only a mental barrier, than we can overcome it.

i don't know what thought is like for anyone else. i only know how words, phrases, and concepts form and are connected and associated in my brain. i really want to believe that we all have the potential to think the same way. if there are honest, physiological barriers then that is a truly frightening premise.

Is imstellar an idiot? Let's figure it out democratically.

Upvote this comment if yes. Downvote if no.

Imstellar is a firm believer in 50% +1 rule, so I'm sure he will not contest our Democratic conclusions.

Breaking: As of 2:00AM, the voting is very close, but the "Yes on Prop imsteller is an idiot" camp has pulled off a very narrow 1 point victory, which is a tough break for the 'No, Imstellar is not an idiot' camp. The proponent of this initiative was wrong to trample on imstellars equal rights and to publicly question harmless personal aspects of his being, but the people have spoken, and their wishes need to be respected.

(note to the irony impaired: This is an allegory, with Iamstellar28 playing the part of a gay Californian, DFT as the Mormon Church and the rest of you playing the electorate. Nice work people. See you at the cast party.)

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Is imstellar an idiot? Let's figure it out democratically.
Upvote this comment if yes. Downvote if no.
Imstellar is a firm believer in 50% +1 rule, so I'm sure he will not contest our Democratic conclusions.


Hahaha, the optimistic "do what I say please!" Only on Atheisift...ah the shelter.

No imstellar... your point is VERY clear... your right... always and in all things... and anyone who does not agree with your views and opions... well lets see... "hatefull fucker, doesn't know shit, monkey, etc..." At least in the end it's the only point you really seem concerned with... your 'correctitude' vs. everyone elses ignorance.

Now... downvote away... as i'm clearly way off the mark... with no basis in fact.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Is imstellar an idiot? Let's figure it out democratically.
Upvote this comment if yes. Downvote if no.
Imstellar is a firm believer in 50% +1 rule, so I'm sure he will not contest our Democratic conclusions.

Hahaha, the optimistic "do what I say please!" Only on Atheisift...ah the shelter.


Dystopianfuturetoday - Sorry, but Sarah Palin, CaptainPlanet and I only do what magical entities tell us to do, and you don't look like a fucking unicorn to me. Atheists lose again!

>> ^quantumushroom:
I guess next up it's marriage "rights" for pedophiles. After all, they too, are an "oppressed minority".

Oh, c'mon, QM. I might disagree with just about everything you say, but I didn't think you were stupid. Surely you can see how absurd that argument is?

DFT, I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE AN A$$HOLE.

the question: "what is the best form of government" is an opinion. it depends on what qualities you value in a government. different governments excel at different things. some are good at consolidating power, distributing wealth, fostering economic progress, or protecting human rights. the answer to this questions depends on what quality you desire most in a government. it cannot be proven, and is completely dependent on personal opinion.

the question "does a particular government protect human rights" is not an opinion. it is a question of science. it is answered through reason, rationality, logic, theory, experiment, and evidence. it is a scientific question with a definitive yes or no answer. it is not a question which is answered through consensus, or convincing someone of your opinion.

i am not trying to argue against your opinions, that is impossible. i am arguing against your answer to a scientific question.

not once on this entire site have i ever argued against someones opinion. . you can call me an idiot. you can say that im hateful, ignorant, a polygamist, or whatever label or name you want. you can say i am "harsh" or claim in sarcasm "i'm always right" . you can take offense to my words, but you don't understand the difference between an opinion and a scientific fact.

why is that? i don't know and i wish i did. i know it has to be either a physical or mental barrier. i hope for the sake of humanity it is the latter.

nobody answers my assertions, nobody refutes them. all they do is attack me or some abstraction or digression or unrelated interpretation of what i've said. why is that? why is it so hard to understand my train of thought? someone please explain that because i honestly want to know. why are my arguments as clear as mud when they enter your mind? why are words used in a strict sense and in logically and grammatically correct order misinterpreted?

imstellar, I have read most of your posts, and I honestly can't figure out where you are coming from or what you are trying to say. You seem to be all over the place, making unfounded assertions and insulting anybody who would question them. It was clear for a while there that you had lost your composure, and I was on the verge of ignoring you. However, it seems that you are calming down and I want to give you another chance.

Perhaps as a starting point, you could tell us how you define "human rights", and where you believe those rights come from. After that, we might have a way to talk about how different governments treat those rights.

>> ^imstellar28:
when the majority fails to give the "right answer", "oppress" via a different means.
is it really hard to see how much of joke democracy is? its a bullsh t system. if someone can just "undo" the results, whats the point of even taking it to a vote.
why don't you just give some dictator the executive powers and military force to make sure gay marriage is legal. stupid sh ts.


Your first point... sarcastic.... your second... an assumption based on your opinion which you now conceed... there were at least half a dozen posts directly arguing against the comment, including a couple of excellent posts from chillaxe immediatly following... if you chose to ignore them, so be it... but you cannot then say you were just ignored as though your points were untouchable in their validity and people just... i don't know disagreeing out of spite or something?

Your last another sarcastic comment ending with you referring to to anyone who disagrees with you as "stupid shits"

I'll remind you this is how you BEGAN this discussion... your last posts would suggest that you were always so willing to discuss this... but the reality is not so.

You follow this up with posts about how your a victim of others close mindedness and somehow suggest that you've made only positive contributions and wand intelligent discussion...

Here is a thought... try not leading off by saying anyone who doesn't agree is a 'stupid shit'. You talk about being thick headed... try taking your own advice and realize YOU turn yourself into a cartoon figure to be ignored... no one does it to you.

MaxWilder,

Here is my personal definition and derivation of human rights:

The "right to life" is derived from the law of identity: X is X. In other words, a living being is a living being. Living beings exist only as long as they remain alive, or have life. As such, living beings must constantly sustain their own life through self-generated action.

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning an individual's freedom of action in a social context. Social interaction exists only through living beings. As such, social interaction is possible if and only if living beings have the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action. This right, the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, exists only for individuals in a social context--and is what I term "the right to life."

Thus, "the right to life" is the most fundamental right of an individual. In a social context, freedom of action is violated only by means of physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. So, for every individual, "the right to life" specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action. To pursue the property which enables one to sustain their life, and the happiness which makes life worthwhile. Consequently, an individual's "right to life" imposes no restrictions or obligations on the actions of other individuals, only to abstain from violating their "right to life."

to paraphrase, it is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". From the above, many corollaries directly follow: such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom from slavery, etc.

>> ^imstellar28:
This is precisely why democracy is not a valid basis for a system of law. Laws are supposed to be based on what is "moral" or "right", and majority opinion cannot possibly define such things.


Morality is not a science. It's not something that can be tested or measured, proven or disproven; It's based on opinion and it's the majority opinion that holds sway. Any morality argument can eventually be traced back to how someone feels. You'll find no hard supporting evidence behind any of it unless you try the "God said so" argument, and then there's no supporting evidence for that either.

Laws are based on what is moral or right. It just so happens that they're based on what the majority feels is moral or right.

^i made a claim, and i backed it up. "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is essentially self-evident. it follows directly from human nature. however, someone people have a hard tome conceptualizing it, so i provided a technical essay in logic.

you made a claim, are you going to back it up with anything?

^We want to love you, buddy. We want to be on your side and see your point of view even when we disagree, but you need to respect us in return.

At some point, whether it be here or in the real world, you need to put the pieces together and realize we are trying to help you.

We are also trying to get you to realize that you need to change how you talk to people. You need to listen to us. (I know you say you do, but latching on to a single phrase or sentence and constructing an entire rebuttal is not listening. It is just waiting to talk, and that is not a discussion.)

You need to try and see why we think what we think, instead of assuming that the person talking to you is retarded if they have a different world view.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^imstellar28:
This is precisely why democracy is not a valid basis for a system of law. Laws are supposed to be based on what is "moral" or "right", and majority opinion cannot possibly define such things.

Morality is not a science. It's not something that can be tested or measured, proven or disproven; It's based on opinion and it's the majority opinion that holds sway. Any morality argument can eventually be traced back to how someone feels. You'll find no hard supporting evidence behind any of it unless you try the "God said so" argument, and then there's no supporting evidence for that either.
Laws are based on what is moral or right. It just so happens that they're based on what the majority feels is moral or right.


Son, son, son...even I know a faulty and sweeping generalization when I see one. So, not so good.

i'm all ears mycroftholmz,

what would you like to say? i thought i addressed the opinion/fact dichotomy with my above post. do you disagree?

Ims can you give me an example of the particular brand of government anywhere in human history?... not being critical?... Just looking for clarification?

>> ^imstellar28:
to paraphrase, it is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". From the above, many corollaries directly follow: such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom from slavery, etc.


I heartily agree with this statement. I'm glad you could break it down for me like this.

But as the term "happiness" is very vague, I would go with Locke's original version, "Life, Liberty, and Estate (or property)".

From this point, you could say that any activity is, and must be, legal as long as it does not interfere with another person's life, liberty, or estate.

The problem is, not everybody will agree with you. There are many who say that the right to life does not extend to pursuing "one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action". There are those who believe that the good of society must come first, and if your liberty must be restricted for the good of society, then so be it. I wish it were not so, but there are many, many people who feel that way. The statement you made above rings true to me, but what if you are surrounded by people who can't be convinced? Even if they are totally being dipshits, you can't just kill them, that would be violating your own rule. So you have to figure out how to get along with them.

my pleasure, MaxWilder. I'm glad we've reached an understanding.


sorry about my loss of composure--to all those involved.

The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." The pledge of allegiance to the flag says "...to the republic for which it stands" Someone asked Ben Franklin what form of government we were. He said "a republic, if you can keep it."

The fact of the matter is, academia introduced a plethora of new terms and redefined old ones to the point that people are completely confused what they really mean. There is no such thing as a constitutional democracy, it's a god-damned oxymoron. The proper term is "republic" for a nation that has plurality votes, but institutes a constitution to prevent majority consensus from infringing on rights. Democracy is unrestricted plurality votes. Political science profs have completely fucked this one up.

Adding to the confusion is that our two major parties are called "Democratic" and "Republican." They're just names of parties with different social platforms, people, they don't correspond to the lower case terms.

Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?

That's the difference between fake "rights" like the "right" for gays to marry and real rights like the right to a fair trial.

Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people?

First of all: "people like you?" I know you'd take offense to that, as do I. And once again, let's try to keep focus on the issue at hand and not make everyone who opposes gay marriage into a nazi.

Segregation versus gay 'rights' is Apples and Oranges. As segregation ended, the right for people of different races to marry became "self-evident". Both those who opposed and supported mixed race marriages knew what marriage meant: a covenant between one man and one woman.

Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.

Gay people cannot get married because marriage is legally and culturally defined as between one man and one woman. You're free to drive on the freeway if you're driving a car. You're not free to drive a bicycle on the freeway; if you change the law to make bicycles equal to cars on the freeway, then you have changed the purpose and use of a freeway into something else entirely.

The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality.

Well, I know you won't like the following arguments, but they're valid. You say two consenting adults is the only criteria? So incest is OK? And why the bias towards human primates? A scientist can't marry his lab monkey?

And what do you say to the polygamists in line right behind you? Don't they have a right to marry who THEY want? Shouldn't the love between THREE people outrank your gay-between-only-TWO people?

Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).

I know all this, but let me act out the next phase in this phony "rights" game: "But don't you see, age is just an arbitrary and artificial limit set by an evil, heartless society! There are some 10-year-olds with the intelligence of 18-year-olds! And besides, every day you meanies make us wait to get married is a day that either of us could die! We're in love NOW!"

I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.

I voted for Schwarzenegger because he was replacing an absolute, corrupt turd. But I knew even on Schwarzy's first day unless he had the same endoskeleton as the T-101, he would be eaten alive. He was: he devolved into a useless R.I.N.O. Republican In Name Only. Recently he suggested tax hikes of around 5 billion. He didn't suggest sealing California's border against invaders or ending welfare for illegals the way the citizens of California voted in the 1990s, a vote overturned by a single corrupt activist judge.


But back to the issue of marriage: I'm for civil unions for gays and even binding contracts for polygamists; I think traditional marriage, as one of the foundations for society, should be left alone.

For the record, I think gay marriage will eventually become legal in all 50 states, because the pillars of society as well as the foundation are crumbling. How long the USA remains a free country under the weight of all these made-up 'rights' remains to be seen.

That's weak, Governator.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?
That's the difference between fake "rights" like the "right" for gays to marry and real rights like the right to a fair trial.
Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people?
First of all: "people like you?" I know you'd take offense to that, as do I. And once again, let's try to keep focus on the issue at hand and not make everyone who opposes gay marriage into a nazi.
Segregation versus gay 'rights' is Apples and Oranges. As segregation ended, the right for people of different races to marry became "self-evident". Both those who opposed and supported mixed race marriages knew what marriage meant: a covenant between one man and one woman.
Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.
Gay people cannot get married because marriage is legally and culturally defined as between one man and one woman. You're free to drive on the freeway if you're driving a car. You're not free to drive a bicycle on the freeway; if you change the law to make bicycles equal to cars on the freeway, then you have changed the purpose and use of a freeway into something else entirely.
The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality.
Well, I know you won't like the following arguments, but they're valid. You say two consenting adults is the only criteria? So incest is OK? And why the bias towards human primates? A scientist can't marry his lab monkey?
And what do you say to the polygamists in line right behind you? Don't they have a right to marry who THEY want? Shouldn't the love between THREE people outrank your gay-between-only-TWO people?
Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).
I know all this, but let me act out the next phase in this phony "rights" game: "But don't you see, age is just an arbitrary and artificial limit set by an evil, heartless society! There are some 10-year-olds with the intelligence of 18-year-olds! And besides, every day you meanies make us wait to get married is a day that either of us could die! We're in love NOW!"
I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.
I voted for Schwarzenegger because he was replacing an absolute, corrupt turd. But I knew even on Schwarzy's first day unless he had the same endoskeleton as the T-101, he would be eaten alive. He was: he devolved into a useless R.I.N.O. Republican In Name Only. Recently he suggested tax hikes of around 5 billion. He didn't suggest sealing California's border against invaders or ending welfare for illegals the way the citizens of California voted in the 1990s, a vote overturned by a single corrupt activist judge.

But back to the issue of marriage: I'm for civil unions for gays and even binding contracts for polygamists; I think traditional marriage, as one of the foundations for society, should be left alone.
For the record, I think gay marriage will eventually become legal in all 50 states, because the pillars of society as well as the foundation are crumbling. How long the USA remains a free country under the weight of all these made-up 'rights' remains to be seen.


Everything you just said is totally wrong. This country has never been more aware of its roots and morality. We've never been more free, the future looks bright with this new president, and I foresee no problems in the next 4 to 8 years. Also, I hate my life and Oprah is hot.

"...I think traditional marriage, as one of the foundations for society..."

Cute, considering the entire Western civilization is founded on the ideas of gay Greek men.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I guess next up it's marriage "rights" for pedophiles. After all, they too, are an "oppressed minority".

Oh, c'mon, QM. I might disagree with just about everything you say, but I didn't think you were stupid. Surely you can see how absurd that argument is?

Fifty years ago, no one in their right might mind would have believed "gay marriage" was anything but a joke; homosexuality was medically defined as abnormal behavior.

Nowadays you can be jailed in Canada just speaking out against homosexuality, and the radical gays here in America equate any disapproval of the gay lifestyle as 'nazism'.

If you want to be one of those it-can't-happen-here types who gets steamrolled by ignorance of history, that's your problem-o.

Why is it a covenant between a man and woman? And don't say, "because that is the way it is defined", that is begging the question.

If it is the word marriage then you should advocate that the state only be able to grant civil unions, and religious institutions have the ability to perform marriage.

Your bicycle analogy is a non sequitur. Marriage again is a legal contract between two people; that maintains the equal division of assets, right to medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment, and several others see below.

etc. http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

Your incest and primate arguments are examples of reductio ad absurdum: the slippery slope logical fallacy.

Polygamy is not a legal agreement between two people, therefore the rights hitherto are not so clearly defined. See http://www.videosift.com/video/Huge-Prop-8-Protest-outside-of-Mormon-Temple-in-Utah#comment-572747

Your next series of comments are non sequitur and the evil dictator argument.

Look it is simple, they want the right to form a specific legal contract (without having to write a 1000 page document and have ridiculous legal fees) do you really care? And how can you justify not allowing two consenting adults not having the rights? If it is the word, then fine... but then no one should be married.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

Ahhh yes... the good ol' days right QM?... back when we didn't let those dark people vote... Oh the memories... If only we could turn back the clock and all be hetrosexual old white men...

I dunno about anyone else but this has officially made The 6th Day watchable for me.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^imstellar28:
to paraphrase, it is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". From the above, many corollaries directly follow: such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom from slavery, etc.

I heartily agree with this statement. I'm glad you could break it down for me like this.
But as the term "happiness" is very vague, I would go with Locke's original version, "Life, Liberty, and Estate (or property)".
From this point, you could say that any activity is, and must be, legal as long as it does not interfere with another person's life, liberty, or estate.
The problem is, not everybody will agree with you. There are many who say that the right to life does not extend to pursuing "one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action". There are those who believe that the good of society must come first, and if your liberty must be restricted for the good of society, then so be it. I wish it were not so, but there are many, many people who feel that way. The statement you made above rings true to me, but what if you are surrounded by people who can't be convinced? Even if they are totally being dipshits, you can't just kill them, that would be violating your own rule. So you have to figure out how to get along with them.


Thanks for helping bridge the divide MaxWilder.

I'm sorry I didn't spot this comment thread earlier, it's fascinating.

imstellar, I have to say I'm shocked to see you opposed to gay marriage. Don't we all hold the highest claim to our own lives? Isn't liberty all about voluntary associations?

Don't we also have the right to give our own name to those associations part of our freedom? Isn't there some level of respect that we demand others have for the choices of others?

I started this thread almost laughing at how people were attacking you for opposing gay marriage, thinking that you were (once again) being misunderstood by people here -- that your beef was with democracy trumping individual rights, and that democracy stealing a right like this was what you were angry about.

I get nearly to the end though, and it turns out you're a "social" conservative, who thinks that there are absolute rules to human behavior beyond preserving life, liberty, and property.

Who are you to tell me which side of the road I'm to drive on? By what right do you limit my freedom to ride a bike up the left side? I'll live with the consequences of going against convention -- maybe I'll get crushed by a truck, or maybe people will avoid me and I'll have a nice ride. Success and failure are a natural part of living, aren't they? Isn't it my life to do with as I please, and with who I please?

(edit: imstellar clarified to me in a PM that he does support gay marriage)

I'm amused at how people were initially attacking you for opposing gay marriage, thinking that you were (once again) being misunderstood by people here -- that your beef was with democracy trumping individual rights, and that democracy stealing a right like this was what you were angry about. Glad to see I was right about that, even if you did later cross the line in your arguments.

As for your comment about monkeys being civilized, I had to laugh -- I often wonder if we can really do it, or just forever try to roll that stone up the hill. Personally, I think the key is to balance individual rights with general societal concerns. You think that second half is slavery.

How do we settle our differences? I'm not irrational, I don't need your philosophy explained better, I just demand proof of your hypothesis that demanding our government ignore societal concerns will be better for society.

The traditional way of settling things was with rocks, knives, swords, arrows, and guns. These days we have internet forums and ballot boxes. Bitch all you like about using elections as a conflict-resolution device (and Prop 8 certainly highlights a big flaw), but I'd rather we settle this through petitions, court battles, and ultimately another future vote than a civil war in California.

Lastly, please, please, please get one message from everyone here: We want to understand you, we want to discuss things with you, and we want to see if we can't find some common understanding. Don't assume you have the answers to everything, and that all those who disagree with you are "wrong" in some absolute sense, or somehow physically or intellectually flawed. As confident as most of us are in our beliefs, we understand that not everyone agrees with us, and that if they present their views in a respectful manner, they deserve some respect in return.

In short, loosen up, find a few ounces of humility, inject it, take some deep breaths, and try to find a better way to explain your views to people who aren't already sold on your ideology, or you're just going to wind up ostracized.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^imstellar28:
This is precisely why democracy is not a valid basis for a system of law. Laws are supposed to be based on what is "moral" or "right", and majority opinion cannot possibly define such things.

Morality is not a science. It's not something that can be tested or measured, proven or disproven; It's based on opinion and it's the majority opinion that holds sway. Any morality argument can eventually be traced back to how someone feels. You'll find no hard supporting evidence behind any of it unless you try the "God said so" argument, and then there's no supporting evidence for that either.
Laws are based on what is moral or right. It just so happens that they're based on what the majority feels is moral or right.

Son, son, son...even I know a faulty and sweeping generalization when I see one. So, not so good.


Ha! Captain, you're the absolute KING of sweeping generalizations!

We have an indirect democracy, in that we vote, and then the electoral college is used.

Democracy is not mentioned once in the constitution, and it also does not appear in the declaration of independence.

There is a saying that the founding fathers were against the Rule By the Rabble idea. Which is what a Direct Democracy is.

We should be worried about our Privacy, our rights, and our soldiers who are buried in the same holes they had to dig.

>> ^chilaxe:
^The founding fathers of the US weren't the simpletons you suggest they were. For obvious reasons, they were wary of the idea of a 51% majority dominating a 49% minority.
When people refer to "democracies," they're generally referring to "constitutional democracies."

The popular and democratic government of the United States, however, is limited by the higher law of the Constitution in order to secure, as the Declaration of Independence says, the “unalienable rights” of every person. These legal limitations on the people's government make the United States a constitutional democracy, not an unlimited democracy. - http://www.answers.com/topic/constitutional-democracy

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^imstellar28:
This is precisely why democracy is not a valid basis for a system of law. Laws are supposed to be based on what is "moral" or "right", and majority opinion cannot possibly define such things.

Morality is not a science. It's not something that can be tested or measured, proven or disproven; It's based on opinion and it's the majority opinion that holds sway. Any morality argument can eventually be traced back to how someone feels. You'll find no hard supporting evidence behind any of it unless you try the "God said so" argument, and then there's no supporting evidence for that either.
Laws are based on what is moral or right. It just so happens that they're based on what the majority feels is moral or right.

Son, son, son...even I know a faulty and sweeping generalization when I see one. So, not so good.

Ha! Captain, you're the absolute KING of sweeping generalizations!


Well, really just lots of misquotations...it comes with being royalty.

The people have spoken.

I love how the Govenator brings it back to weightlifting...

I would love to hear one of the gay-haters explain how gay marriage would weaken the institution of marriage, which already fails approximately half the time.

Also, if you are repulsed by "the gay lifestyle" (defined as lots of casual sex, and perhaps lots of other degenerate stuff) then please explain why you aren't trying to encourage more gays to enter committed, loving, stable relationships.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I would love to hear one of the gay-haters explain how gay marriage would weaken the institution of marriage, which already fails approximately half the time.
Also, if you are repulsed by "the gay lifestyle" (defined as lots of casual sex, and perhaps lots of other degenerate stuff) then please explain why you aren't trying to encourage more gays to enter committed, loving, stable relationships.


Youngling, your question doesn't even begin to make sense. Why would people who oppose the gay lifestyle want gay people to enter into gay relationships? I guess gay logic has its pitfalls.

Good point Cap'n. People who oppose the gay lifestyle would much rather gay people were miserable, alone, and in suffering. Such charitable folk. I guess your voluminous intellect has its benefits.

i support gay marriage.

as i mentioned earlier, the right to marry a homosexual follows directly from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". i believe in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to the fullest extent a human being can.

if you ever want to know my stance on any issue, just ask yourself: does this violate a person's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? if it violates this axiom, i am against it. if it does not, i support it.

^ I was pretty sure your rules were:

1. I may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. I must obey orders given to me by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. I must protect my own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.

Ahhh yes... the good ol' days right QM?... back when we didn't let those dark people vote... Oh the memories... If only we could turn back the clock and all be hetrosexual old white men...

Ad hominem attacks based on no evidence? Why not just say you're a typical racist liberal?

Look it is simple, they want the right to form a specific legal contract (without having to write a 1000 page document and have ridiculous legal fees) do you really care? And how can you justify not allowing two consenting adults not having the rights? If it is the word, then fine... but then no one should be married.

Society has the right to proclaim certain unions more important than others. Based on centuries of experience, trial and error, society has chosen traditional marriage as the one proven to work better than all others and which serves society the best.

Placing any other type of union on par with traditional marriage renders the latter meaningless and ordinary.

Thems just my opinions based on experience. I can't control whether they upset or please others.

>> ^imstellar28:
when the majority fails to give the "right answer", "oppress" via a different means.
is it really hard to see how much of joke democracy is? its a bullsh t system. if someone can just "undo" the results, whats the point of even taking it to a vote.
why don't you just give some dictator the executive powers and military force to make sure gay marriage is legal. stupid sh ts.


Ahh, so if 51% of an electorate voted to have you bent over and have a dozen pineapples shoved up your ass, you'd be okay with it because "it's a vote"...

Moron...

How about if 51% voted that using the word "nigger" to address African American's was fine, would you be okay with it?

51% said raping women was fine?

Voting on it doesn't make it right, which is why courts exist so peoples rights are not infringed upon. Given that you are such a pulpit junkie, I'm sure you have a copy of the first amendment tatooed yourself. Perhaps you forgot the bit that said "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I think gay couples have quite a grievance at this point. Their relationships have no bearing on the greatest majority of the 50+ %. They have the right to petition for redress. It's good to see that Arnie has taken a strong stand on this.

I do not care who fucks who, or who marries who. Its not me they are fucking, and its not me they attempting to marry.

I do not even care much for the institutions of marriage. Its mundane when you think that all we do is:

Try to make ends meet,
You're a
Slave To money
Then you die.
- Bittersweet Symphony - The Verve

Oh man, I gotta put on my sunglasses and go all Matrix to avoid the shitstorm in here... yeehaaw. *ducks*

/\ I got shovels... we could clean this place up a little.

.... Thread closed!

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by therealblankman.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.