Jesse Ventura - A vote by the people would lead to slavery

applecorped · 4th November 2009, 10:10 AM

Jesse Ventura was on Larry King and he remarked (in reference to Maine's voting no to legalize same sex marraige) that:

"If you put it up to a vote by the people, we'd have slavery again".

WildCat · 4th November 2009, 10:13 AM

Why isn't Jesse helping fund a new investigation into 9/11?

Darth Rotor · 4th November 2009, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by applecorped

"If you put it up to a vote by the people, we'd have slavery again".

Jesse Ventura: the opposite of eloquence.

Darat · 4th November 2009, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by applecorped

Jesse Ventura was on Larry King and he remarked (in reference to Maine's voting no to legalize same sex marraige) that:

"If you put it up to a vote by the people, we'd have slavery again".

Whilst I doubt you'd have slavery I thought part of the rationale behind the system of USA government was indeed to prevent the "tyranny of the masses"?

JoeTheJuggler · 4th November 2009, 10:23 AM

There is a valid point hidden in the wrestler's distorted thinking, though. That point is, we shouldn't allow the majority to take away the Lockian "natural rights" of any minority.

We just passed a ban on smoking in restaurants and many other businesses, and some smokers are making this same argument. Of course, in this situation the question is about whose rights are being taken away. You're free to smoke, but you are not free to require me to smoke.

Your religion is free to define marriage however it wants, but it is not free to force others to accept that definition (especially if in doing so, they want to take away the rights of a minority).

ETA: I see Darat said the same thing with a lot fewer words.

ponderingturtle · 4th November 2009, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

There is a valid point hidden in the wrestler's distorted thinking, though. That point is, we shouldn't allow the majority to take away the Lockian "natural rights" of any minority.

Sure he is attempting to address the Tyranny of the Majority. He just is doing it in a remarkably ineloquent fashion.

applecorped · 4th November 2009, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Whilst I doubt you'd have slavery I thought part of the rationale behind the system of USA government was indeed to prevent the "tyranny of the masses"?

Those damn, tyrannical Maine-iacs.

Eyeron · 4th November 2009, 10:31 AM

So marriage is slavery. Who'd a thunk it.

applecorped · 4th November 2009, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

So marriage is slavery. Who'd a thunk it.

ever been married?

Eyeron · 4th November 2009, 10:37 AM

Has nothing to do with the statement. It was a paraphrasing of Ventura's words.

JoeTheJuggler · 4th November 2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Sure he is attempting to address the Tyranny of the Majority. He just is doing it in a remarkably ineloquent fashion.

Maybe so. It wouldn't take much to clean it up. If we'd allowed the states to vote on slavery in the 1950s (and later) it's very likely several states would legalize slavery.

I don't find his version of it so remarkably ineloquent. Especially not if we consider what the people opposed to gay marriage say. (It's "unnatural"; the Bible condemns it, etc.--you know, all the stuff the pro-slavery people said about abolition.)
----------------------

Originally Posted by Eyeron

So marriage is slavery. Who'd a thunk it.

I think rather the point is that refusing to allow certain groups of people to get married is a restriction of the natural rights of a minority by a majority just as slavery would be (at least at certain times in history) if we left it up to the states to let a majority vote decide that issue.

GStan · 4th November 2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

So marriage is slavery. Who'd a thunk it.

Reply deleted; I think my wife might read JREF sometimes.

Cicero · 4th November 2009, 10:45 AM

Lary King is defintely a fan of vapid and venal wrestlers. He was equally deferential to Hulk Hogan's rantings last week as he is to Ventura's this week.

Cain · 4th November 2009, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

There is a valid point hidden in the wrestler's distorted thinking, though. That point is, we shouldn't allow the majority to take away the Lockian "natural rights" of any minority.

Locke wrote the state charter for North Carolina, which allowed for slavery. People tend to underestimate the power of the status quo bias. If we had a system of medicare for all in place, then it would take Republicans generations to destroy. People are inherently conservative in that we're resistant to change, unless things are manifestly bad. What I'm saying is... people probably wouldn't vote slavery back in.

Eyeron · 4th November 2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Reply deleted; I think my wife might read JREF sometimes.

You realize there is some irony in that statement, don't you?

ZirconBlue · 4th November 2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Has nothing to do with the statement. It was a paraphrasing of Ventura's words.

Then you're doing a very poor job of it. He wasn't in any way comparing marriage to slavery. Even if he was, it would be comparing a vote against marriage with a vote for slavery.

ponderingturtle · 4th November 2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

Locke wrote the state charter for North Carolina, which allowed for slavery. People tend to underestimate the power of the status quo bias. If we had a system of medicare for all in place, then it would take Republicans generations to destroy. People are inherently conservative in that we're resistant to change, unless things are manifestly bad. What I'm saying is... people probably wouldn't vote slavery back in.

Hell I heard the rather strange thing of republicans objecting to cuts in medicare spending. What happend to personal responcibility? Shows how the status quo trumps ideology with out them even realizing that it is doing it.

dudalb · 4th November 2009, 11:04 AM

Robert Heinlein made the same point about Tyranny Of the Majority, but made it much better then Ventura did.

parky76 · 4th November 2009, 11:16 AM

slavery? no.

segregation? yep.

pipelineaudio · 4th November 2009, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Whilst I doubt you'd have slavery I thought part of the rationale behind the system of USA government was indeed to prevent the "tyranny of the masses"?

Yep, and any time this gets changed, like in our ever so popular lately ballot measures in certain, more populist areas they lead to reductions of personal freedom, in every single case where a reduction in personal freedom is a choice.

Cicero · 4th November 2009, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Robert Heinlein made the same point about Tyranny Of the Majority, but made it much better then Ventura did.

You mean:

"Does history record any case in which the majority was right?"

He also said:

"An armed society is a polite society."

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

"First, what is it you want us to pay taxes for? Tell me what I get and perhaps I’ll buy it."

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

JoeTheJuggler · 4th November 2009, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

Locke wrote the state charter for North Carolina,

John Locke died in 1704, so I think you mean to say that he contributed to the writing of the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas (which predated the formation of the United States).

At any rate, the fact that Locke's political views on slavery were inconsistent with his philosophy of natural human rights is irrelevant.

ETA: Or maybe not irrelevant. It shows again the tyranny of the majority in his day and age.

The Central Scrutinizer · 4th November 2009, 12:11 PM

If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean.

INRM · 4th November 2009, 12:26 PM

The US System of Government is supposed to be a Representative democracy in which majority is generally supposed to rule, with protections for the minority against a tyranny of the majority.

INRM

daredelvis · 4th November 2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean.

Unfortunately for you, the way I read the proposed law you would end up being my slave, which kind of sucks for me since you can't even keep your place clean.

Daredelvis

Snide · 4th November 2009, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Whilst I doubt you'd have slavery I thought part of the rationale behind the system of USA government was indeed to prevent the "tyranny of the masses"?

Agreed, and I don't think he literally meant today people would bring back slavery with a vote, but rather if slavery had been left up to popular vote, it may never have completely gone away.

Snide · 4th November 2009, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Lary King is defintely a fan of vapid and venal wrestlers. He was equally deferential to Hulk Hogan's rantings last week as he is to Ventura's this week.

I don't doubt that, but then I've yet to see a guest to whom Larry was not deferential.

Skeptic · 4th November 2009, 02:57 PM

Oh yeah, the unruly peasants had once again (like in every state they were actually allowed to state their opinion, no pun intended) decided not to recognize gay marriage.

Clearly they got the wrong answer. Isn't there a judge somewhere who will overrule the peasants and declare their view "unconstitutional"? There usually is.

Of course this begs the question why the people were even asked in the first place, when there is only one correct answer allowed and everything else is unconstititonal and evil and not at all nice.

Such a waste of taxpayer's money.

Darth Rotor · 4th November 2009, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean.

So long as she is named Rebecca.

Skeptic · 4th November 2009, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean.

He said slavery, not torture....

casebro · 4th November 2009, 03:36 PM

As I understand anti-prejudice concepts, We The People have decreed that we should not discriminate against folks who have natural differences. A Black man didn't choose to be black. A child with birth defects didn't make that choice. Nor other handicapped. No job/housing/schooling discrimination based on male/female genes.

Discrimination is legal, if based on choice, NOT genes. You choose to rob banks, you become a felon and lose rights. You choose to molest children, your life turns to crap.

So, until there is a proven scientific cause for homosexuality, I don't see how the choice of sexual partners counts towards discrimination, or the lack there of. (Hmm, if homosexuality were once more considered a disease, ADA might help out?)

Of course, the simpler way around the question of gay marriage might be to abolish any legal distinction for marriage at all. No "married filing jointly", no automatic inheritance. Parenthood decided by genes except by contract. Prostitution legalized. Marriage would be a personal contract.

Contract "til death do you part", or for a chosen term? Hmm, with prenups as they are, "Term Marriages" are probably legal now, aren't they?

Of course all that I said is subject to the laws passed by We The People. Not many people seem to want to change the gay marriage situation. Or the hetero rules either.

MattusMaximus · 4th November 2009, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Jesse Ventura: the opposite of eloquence.

He ain't got time to bleed

MattusMaximus · 4th November 2009, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

So marriage is slavery. Who'd a thunk it.

I'm my wife's love slave... and it's AWESOME!

Ladewig · 4th November 2009, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

As I understand anti-prejudice concepts, We The People have decreed that we should not discriminate against folks who have natural differences.

You have made a flaw in your reasoning. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Religion is a choice.

Dr Adequate · 4th November 2009, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

So, until there is a proven scientific cause for homosexuality ...

I dub this the Philip Morris Fallacy ...

Moreover, consider how this line of reasoning affects the exemptions you make for race and sex. Would sexism have been OK until the XY system of sex determination was worked out? Was racism OK until the genetics of human skin pigmentation were understood (in fact, this is not yet completely understood, so I guess we can be a little bit racist). You mention handicaps --- would it have been OK to discriminate against a "thalidomide baby" before the causal role of thalidomide had been discovered?

hgc · 4th November 2009, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

He said slavery, not torture....

I'm pretty sure that if torture were put up for a vote, it'd be in like a flash.

pipelineaudio · 4th November 2009, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Of course this begs the question why the people were even asked in the first place, when there is only one correct answer allowed and everything else is unconstititonal and evil and not at all nice.

Such a waste of taxpayer's money.

Its amazing that these state senators and councilmen and other jerks continue to draw a salary when they are too afraid to do their jobs and then just make them ballot measures. Clearly unconstitutional, but noone cares

It didnt help that when the people voted down a tax increase to pay for some rich guys' stadium down here (who still has the nerve to charge us admission!) the council put it thru anyway, resulting in someone shooting one of them in the ass

Dr Adequate · 4th November 2009, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Its amazing that these state senators and councilmen and other jerks continue to draw a salary when they are too afraid to do their jobs and then just make them ballot measures. Clearly unconstitutional, but noone cares

Could you elaborate a little on this theme? So that we know what you're talking about?

Puppycow · 4th November 2009, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Could you elaborate a little on this theme? So that we know what you're talking about?

I think he's saying that decisions should be made by representative bodies rather than by plebiscite.

Skeptic · 4th November 2009, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I think he's saying that decisions should be made by representative bodies rather than by plebiscite.

Perhaps; but in that case why the charade? Why ask the people at all? It's not like those suddenly against ballots oppose all popular ballots about everything. They just oppose those ballots (and praise to the sky the "moderating influence" of "representative democracy", etc.) where they fear public opinion is not "advanced" enough to see "the truth" that the courts and the left-leaning legistlature had recognized.

To hear these folks, the fact that in every single state where gay marriage was legalized, it happened after legistlative or -- usually -- court action, and that in every single state where the people were asked in a ballot what they think, they rejected it, can mean only one thing: the people are stupid and racist, and should be forced to do the right thing by their betters.

A rather surprising view from those who, on every other matter whatever (the war in Iraq, say), keep praising public opinion polls as "the people's will", while claiming that congress not deciding to agree with them immediatelly is just proof of how "corrupt and out of touch" politicians are.

4th November 2009, 10:10 AM	#1
applecorped Rotten to the core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 5,680	Jesse Ventura - A vote by the people would lead to slavery Jesse Ventura was on Larry King and he remarked (in reference to Maine's voting no to legalize same sex marraige) that: "If you put it up to a vote by the people, we'd have slavery again".
	__________________ It's all in the mind.

4th November 2009, 10:13 AM	#2
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 24,973	Why isn't Jesse helping fund a new investigation into 9/11?
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76

4th November 2009, 10:19 AM	#3
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 26,802	Originally Posted by applecorped "If you put it up to a vote by the people, we'd have slavery again". Jesse Ventura: the opposite of eloquence.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon

4th November 2009, 10:23 AM	#4
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 47,689	Originally Posted by applecorped Jesse Ventura was on Larry King and he remarked (in reference to Maine's voting no to legalize same sex marraige) that: "If you put it up to a vote by the people, we'd have slavery again". Whilst I doubt you'd have slavery I thought part of the rationale behind the system of USA government was indeed to prevent the "tyranny of the masses"?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th November 2009, 10:23 AM	#5
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,989	There is a valid point hidden in the wrestler's distorted thinking, though. That point is, we shouldn't allow the majority to take away the Lockian "natural rights" of any minority. We just passed a ban on smoking in restaurants and many other businesses, and some smokers are making this same argument. Of course, in this situation the question is about whose rights are being taken away. You're free to smoke, but you are not free to require me to smoke. Your religion is free to define marriage however it wants, but it is not free to force others to accept that definition (especially if in doing so, they want to take away the rights of a minority). ETA: I see Darat said the same thing with a lot fewer words.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

4th November 2009, 10:28 AM	#6
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,768	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler There is a valid point hidden in the wrestler's distorted thinking, though. That point is, we shouldn't allow the majority to take away the Lockian "natural rights" of any minority. Sure he is attempting to address the Tyranny of the Majority. He just is doing it in a remarkably ineloquent fashion.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th November 2009, 10:28 AM	#7
applecorped Rotten to the core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 5,680	Originally Posted by Darat Whilst I doubt you'd have slavery I thought part of the rationale behind the system of USA government was indeed to prevent the "tyranny of the masses"? Those damn, tyrannical Maine-iacs.
	__________________ It's all in the mind.

4th November 2009, 10:31 AM	#8
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	So marriage is slavery. Who'd a thunk it.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

4th November 2009, 10:32 AM	#9
applecorped Rotten to the core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 5,680	Originally Posted by Eyeron So marriage is slavery. Who'd a thunk it. ever been married?
	__________________ It's all in the mind.

4th November 2009, 10:37 AM	#10
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Has nothing to do with the statement. It was a paraphrasing of Ventura's words.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

4th November 2009, 10:45 AM	#11
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,989	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Sure he is attempting to address the Tyranny of the Majority. He just is doing it in a remarkably ineloquent fashion. Maybe so. It wouldn't take much to clean it up. If we'd allowed the states to vote on slavery in the 1950s (and later) it's very likely several states would legalize slavery. I don't find his version of it so remarkably ineloquent. Especially not if we consider what the people opposed to gay marriage say. (It's "unnatural"; the Bible condemns it, etc.--you know, all the stuff the pro-slavery people said about abolition.) ---------------------- Originally Posted by Eyeron So marriage is slavery. Who'd a thunk it. I think rather the point is that refusing to allow certain groups of people to get married is a restriction of the natural rights of a minority by a majority just as slavery would be (at least at certain times in history) if we left it up to the states to let a majority vote decide that issue.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

4th November 2009, 10:45 AM	#12
GStan Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Wheeling, WV Posts: 1,195	Originally Posted by Eyeron So marriage is slavery. Who'd a thunk it. Reply deleted; I think my wife might read JREF sometimes.
	__________________ On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling "Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate

4th November 2009, 10:45 AM	#13
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Lary King is defintely a fan of vapid and venal wrestlers. He was equally deferential to Hulk Hogan's rantings last week as he is to Ventura's this week.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

4th November 2009, 10:46 AM	#14
Cain Contrarian Join Date: May 2002 Location: S. California Posts: 3,958	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler There is a valid point hidden in the wrestler's distorted thinking, though. That point is, we shouldn't allow the majority to take away the Lockian "natural rights" of any minority. Locke wrote the state charter for North Carolina, which allowed for slavery. People tend to underestimate the power of the status quo bias. If we had a system of medicare for all in place, then it would take Republicans generations to destroy. People are inherently conservative in that we're resistant to change, unless things are manifestly bad. What I'm saying is... people probably wouldn't vote slavery back in.
	__________________ Well, well, well. If it ain't the serious, elusive Leroy Green. I've been waitin' a long time for this, Leroy. I am sick of hearin' these ***** Superman stories about the "wassah" legendary Bruce Leroy catchin' bullets with his teeth. Catches bullets with his teeth?! ***** pleeze.

4th November 2009, 10:54 AM	#15
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Quote: Reply deleted; I think my wife might read JREF sometimes. You realize there is some irony in that statement, don't you?
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

4th November 2009, 11:00 AM	#16
ZirconBlue Your Last Cup of Sorrow Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Zebulon, North Carolina Posts: 4,549	Originally Posted by Eyeron Has nothing to do with the statement. It was a paraphrasing of Ventura's words. Then you're doing a very poor job of it. He wasn't in any way comparing marriage to slavery. Even if he was, it would be comparing a vote against marriage with a vote for slavery.
	__________________ "It's always best to be offended by things you haven't read. That way you keep your mind uncluttered by things that might change it." - Neil Gaiman ". . . you should still always try to be fair to people's stupid beliefs." - UserGoogol

4th November 2009, 11:00 AM	#17
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,768	Originally Posted by Cain Locke wrote the state charter for North Carolina, which allowed for slavery. People tend to underestimate the power of the status quo bias. If we had a system of medicare for all in place, then it would take Republicans generations to destroy. People are inherently conservative in that we're resistant to change, unless things are manifestly bad. What I'm saying is... people probably wouldn't vote slavery back in. Hell I heard the rather strange thing of republicans objecting to cuts in medicare spending. What happend to personal responcibility? Shows how the status quo trumps ideology with out them even realizing that it is doing it.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

4th November 2009, 11:04 AM	#18
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,444	Robert Heinlein made the same point about Tyranny Of the Majority, but made it much better then Ventura did.

4th November 2009, 11:16 AM	#19
parky76 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 15,493	slavery? no. segregation? yep.
	__________________ 9-11 Truther: "We don't need facts. We only need doubt."

4th November 2009, 11:25 AM	#20
pipelineaudio Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Wickenburg, AZ Posts: 2,205	Originally Posted by Darat Whilst I doubt you'd have slavery I thought part of the rationale behind the system of USA government was indeed to prevent the "tyranny of the masses"? Yep, and any time this gets changed, like in our ever so popular lately ballot measures in certain, more populist areas they lead to reductions of personal freedom, in every single case where a reduction in personal freedom is a choice.
	__________________ Can someone give me a better name for SLAG FAIRY?

4th November 2009, 11:35 AM	#21
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by dudalb Robert Heinlein made the same point about Tyranny Of the Majority, but made it much better then Ventura did. You mean: "Does history record any case in which the majority was right?" He also said: "An armed society is a polite society." "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." "First, what is it you want us to pay taxes for? Tell me what I get and perhaps I’ll buy it." "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins Last edited by Cicero; 4th November 2009 at 11:37 AM.

4th November 2009, 11:36 AM	#22
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,989	Originally Posted by Cain Locke wrote the state charter for North Carolina, John Locke died in 1704, so I think you mean to say that he contributed to the writing of the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas (which predated the formation of the United States). At any rate, the fact that Locke's political views on slavery were inconsistent with his philosophy of natural human rights is irrelevant. ETA: Or maybe not irrelevant. It shows again the tyranny of the majority in his day and age.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

4th November 2009, 12:11 PM	#23
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 21,721	If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean.
	__________________ "I got to play with (Michael Goudeau's balls) briefly, and they are primo quality. Heavy, soft, and pliant." - Jeff Wagg "You are always so helpful, rational, and polite." - SaulOhio http://www.stopsylvia.com

4th November 2009, 12:26 PM	#24
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571	The US System of Government is supposed to be a Representative democracy in which majority is generally supposed to rule, with protections for the minority against a tyranny of the majority. INRM
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571

4th November 2009, 02:13 PM	#25
daredelvis Muse Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 820	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean. Unfortunately for you, the way I read the proposed law you would end up being my slave, which kind of sucks for me since you can't even keep your place clean. Daredelvis
daredelvis Muse Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 820	__________________ We all like to think we are like Jez, or Super Hans but in reality we are all more like Mark than we would ever admit.

4th November 2009, 02:50 PM	#26
Snide Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: A 6x6 cube Posts: 2,707	Originally Posted by Darat Whilst I doubt you'd have slavery I thought part of the rationale behind the system of USA government was indeed to prevent the "tyranny of the masses"? Agreed, and I don't think he literally meant today people would bring back slavery with a vote, but rather if slavery had been left up to popular vote, it may never have completely gone away.

4th November 2009, 02:53 PM	#27
Snide Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: A 6x6 cube Posts: 2,707	Originally Posted by Cicero Lary King is defintely a fan of vapid and venal wrestlers. He was equally deferential to Hulk Hogan's rantings last week as he is to Ventura's this week. I don't doubt that, but then I've yet to see a guest to whom Larry was not deferential.

4th November 2009, 02:57 PM	#28
Skeptic Sum, ergo cogito Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 13,322	Oh yeah, the unruly peasants had once again (like in every state they were actually allowed to state their opinion, no pun intended) decided not to recognize gay marriage. Clearly they got the wrong answer. Isn't there a judge somewhere who will overrule the peasants and declare their view "unconstitutional"? There usually is. Of course this begs the question why the people were even asked in the first place, when there is only one correct answer allowed and everything else is unconstititonal and evil and not at all nice. Such a waste of taxpayer's money.
	__________________ CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all terrible, all do the exact same thing: take news wire reports, add a bunch of unnecessary opinion, and then re-brand it as "infotainment" as if this were some sort of useful service. It is akin to paying me to read a newspaper to you, while interrupting frequently with my own opinion. -- Zaphod2016

4th November 2009, 03:14 PM	#29
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 26,802	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean. So long as she is named Rebecca.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon

4th November 2009, 03:15 PM	#30
Skeptic Sum, ergo cogito Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 13,322	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean. He said slavery, not torture....
	__________________ CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all terrible, all do the exact same thing: take news wire reports, add a bunch of unnecessary opinion, and then re-brand it as "infotainment" as if this were some sort of useful service. It is akin to paying me to read a newspaper to you, while interrupting frequently with my own opinion. -- Zaphod2016

4th November 2009, 03:36 PM	#31
casebro Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,728	As I understand anti-prejudice concepts, We The People have decreed that we should not discriminate against folks who have natural differences. A Black man didn't choose to be black. A child with birth defects didn't make that choice. Nor other handicapped. No job/housing/schooling discrimination based on male/female genes. Discrimination is legal, if based on choice, NOT genes. You choose to rob banks, you become a felon and lose rights. You choose to molest children, your life turns to crap. So, until there is a proven scientific cause for homosexuality, I don't see how the choice of sexual partners counts towards discrimination, or the lack there of. (Hmm, if homosexuality were once more considered a disease, ADA might help out?) Of course, the simpler way around the question of gay marriage might be to abolish any legal distinction for marriage at all. No "married filing jointly", no automatic inheritance. Parenthood decided by genes except by contract. Prostitution legalized. Marriage would be a personal contract. Contract "til death do you part", or for a chosen term? Hmm, with prenups as they are, "Term Marriages" are probably legal now, aren't they? Of course all that I said is subject to the laws passed by We The People. Not many people seem to want to change the gay marriage situation. Or the hetero rules either.
casebro Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,728	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

4th November 2009, 03:55 PM	#32
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Jesse Ventura: the opposite of eloquence. He ain't got time to bleed
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

4th November 2009, 03:56 PM	#33
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by Eyeron So marriage is slavery. Who'd a thunk it. I'm my wife's love slave... and it's AWESOME!
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

4th November 2009, 04:11 PM	#34
Ladewig Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 8,961	Originally Posted by casebro As I understand anti-prejudice concepts, We The People have decreed that we should not discriminate against folks who have natural differences. You have made a flaw in your reasoning. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Religion is a choice.
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?"

4th November 2009, 04:28 PM	#35
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by casebro So, until there is a proven scientific cause for homosexuality ... I dub this the Philip Morris Fallacy ... Moreover, consider how this line of reasoning affects the exemptions you make for race and sex. Would sexism have been OK until the XY system of sex determination was worked out? Was racism OK until the genetics of human skin pigmentation were understood (in fact, this is not yet completely understood, so I guess we can be a little bit racist). You mention handicaps --- would it have been OK to discriminate against a "thalidomide baby" before the causal role of thalidomide had been discovered?