Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Gospel]

Challenging traditions isn't exclusive to "the left" or "the right"

Not exclusive, perhaps, but as it's one of the differences that defines them, it's certainly massively biased towards "the left".

"The right" is in part defined by its conservatism, which actually means the defence of tradition. Challenging traditions us, by definition, the exact opposite of conservatism, and therefore is one of the the aims of "the left", and is one of the things "the right" are typically fighting against.

If what you're saying is that even people on "the left" occasionally take a conservative stance on things that traditionally benefit them, then you're right, but by doing so they are no longer acting in the ways that normally define them as "the left".

If a Broncos fan is cheering for the Titans to win, because a Titans victory over the Panthers would put the Broncos into first place in the league, that doesn't make him a Titans fan.

Challenging traditions has been a constant in human history, It's a tradition in its own right.

Generally conservatives stick with the past, it is why they are called conservatives, which is based on the Latin word "conservus" which roughly translates to "stick in the mud".

Liberals/progressives are much more likely to challenge tradition, see the 0th to 21st centuries as an example.

You always crack me up man. I must say though that it's really not as black & white this conservative/liberal thing. I believe that we are complex people who do not neatly fit into either category for our entire lives on every issue. Unfortunately many Americans are lead by shepherds & tend to gravitate towards either the liberal or conservative side based on the type of wolf they fear. Meanwhile, the real world is vastly different from their personal beliefs about it.

 

[Toni]

Challenging traditions isn't exclusive to "the left" or "the right"

Not exclusive, perhaps, but as it's one of the differences that defines them, it's certainly massively biased towards "the left".

"The right" is in part defined by its conservatism, which actually means the defence of tradition. Challenging traditions us, by definition, the exact opposite of conservatism, and therefore is one of the the aims of "the left", and is one of the things "the right" are typically fighting against.

If what you're saying is that even people on "the left" occasionally take a conservative stance on things that traditionally benefit them, then you're right, but by doing so they are no longer acting in the ways that normally define them as "the left".

If a Broncos fan is cheering for the Titans to win, because a Titans victory over the Panthers would put the Broncos into first place in the league, that doesn't make him a Titans fan.

Challenging traditions has been a constant in human history, It's a tradition in its own right.

Generally conservatives stick with the past, it is why they are called conservatives, which is based on the Latin word "conservus" which roughly translates to "stick in the mud".

Liberals/progressives are much more likely to challenge tradition, see the 0th to 21st centuries as an example. Conservatives today are only challenging recent traditions from the last two to six decades and want to turn back the clock further and return to when things were better and we have public pools that blacks couldn't swim in, before we had to privatize that shit up.

Well, to be very fair, conservatism has also meant preserving the status quo. Today, most people who call themselves conservative are all about preserving white ( heterosexual, male) power but it is possible to be a fiscal conservative and liberal on social issues.

I understand the reasoning behind conservative belief that providing too much ‘for free’ will undermine work ethic and that taxing too high a rate will drive businesses to restructure their assets to avoid taxes or else drive them beyond the borders of the taxing entities.

I also understand how ‘compromises’ with regards to entitlement programs exacerbated the problems and introduced additional social problems, in particular the lack of support for young two parent families. Making state support contingent on absentee fathers guaranteed absentee fathers. Making continued support contingent on not accumulating any kind of financial safety net ensures a permanent welfare class. People who see little way to improve their circumstances often…fail to improve their circumstances. Especially when the support system creates and perpetuates obstacles to change. Throw in enough drugs and alcohol and make effective treatment difficult and expensive to access and the people with money never have to worry about finding someone to feel superior to.

 

[Bomb#20]

Sorry about the long delay.

Where in the constitution does it say laser printers have first amendment rights? Nowhere. Do you think that means if you run off a hundred copies of "Vote Marjorie Taylor Greene out of office" on your laser printer instead of finding some collector on eBay who'll sell you a literal printing press, then a Republican-run government should get to shut you down and confiscate your pamphlets? A corporation is a tool. Attributing human writing to the tools humans use instead of to the humans themselves is a reality-avoiding rationalization -- you will enforce your censorship laws by punishing humans for speech by humans, not by punishing tools for speech by tools. Tools don't suffer and tools don't talk.

The wrongness of your argument aside, be careful what you wish for. "Where in the constitution does it say corporations have first amendment rights?", the man says. Do you really want Richard Nixon to have the authority to stop the Washington Post and the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers? The Washington Post and the New York Times are corporations.

News journalism is already a protected right specifically mentioned in the first amendment. Seems strange you didn't know that.

Seems strange that you're just repeating an argument you already made in post #1003, when I already answered it and explained why it doesn't support your case in post #1096 and you never replied to the counterargument.

Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

I think she's expressing it fine and you just don't want to see it. She and I are taking approximately the same position: Creativity is involved in providing the good. Not merely in producing a standard good. Medical treatment is no less a creative activity than web design, so your response...

iidb.org

Again, where in the constitution does it say corporations have first amendment rights?

It doesn't. What's your point? Where in the constitution does it say humans lose their first amendment rights if the government pretends what a human wrote was written by a tool she used and pretends it's punishing the tool and not her?

Good argument.

It fit the silliness of yours.

What was silly about it? Elixir made an unsound argument and I proved it was unsound by exhibiting the implications of assuming it was sound. This is called "reductio ad absurdam"; it's a perfectly standard logical form. It's the same way Euclid proved there are infinitely many prime numbers.

Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

And some of us believe that the Klan has a constitutional right to march in public streets ( assuming they obtained relevant permits) however disgusting, un-American, hateful, immoral and horrifying we find their bigotry. And whether the Klan members are gay or not should have no bearing on...

iidb.org

 

[Bomb#20]

Do you think that means if you run off a hundred copies of "Vote Marjorie Taylor Greene out of office" on your laser printer instead of finding some collector on eBay who'll sell you a literal printing press, then a Republican-run government should get to shut you down and confiscate your pamphlets?

Should? ... no. Let's not forget what's actually going on though.

What's actually going on is the SCOTUS held that the government can't take away your First Amendment rights just for using a legal tool. (They shouldn't have taken the case in the first place because it was a fake case, true; but that's a whole separate issue from whether the case was decided correctly given that they agreed to take it.)

The Republican quiet part: "If we get our way this time, we will do that to anyone printing 'vote for the Dem'."

Do what to them, enforce their First Amendment rights?/[sarcasm] What they did to Smith because they got their way this time is exactly what they ought to do to anyone printing 'vote for the Dem'.

You appear to be mixing up who is doing what to whom. It's if the Democrats had gotten their way this time that the same legal reasoning would have made it possible for the Republicans to do what I described above to anyone printing 'vote for the Dem'.

Right now it's only if you print truth about race massacres in Floriduh.

The Florida government is shutting you down and confiscating your pamphlets if you print truth about race massacres on your laser printer, is it? I take it you're referring to the Florida government's policies about what it's willing to hire employees to print on the Florida government's laser printers and shove under the noses of children the Florida government sends to them. Never mind whether those policies have any merit -- that's immaterial to the legal issue. Do you think the First Amendment guarantees a person's right to have the taxpayers pay her to say whatever she pleases to a government-supplied captive audience?

Gotta say, Bomb, I find your version of bothsidesism quite sophistocated and pretty persuasive on a lot of fronts.

Um, thanks, I guess? What did I say that you think is "bothsidesism" and why the bejesus do you perceive it that way?

I'd have found it much more so back in say, 2014.

You mean, back in the days when the SCOTUS split four-to-four between leftist politicians and rightist politicians, so Anthony Kennedy as the only remaining real live judge got to make all the decisions? The quality of legal reasoning coming out of the court does seem to have deteriorated, yes. (Heck, even the politicians on the court wrote better opinions back when they still needed to persuade a judge.)

 

[Bomb#20]

nor is anything made for commerce @ expression”,

Whereas a lot of posts you make are for word @ salad.

No, he's right.

Do tell. In order to be right, ld would need to have expressed a proposition, yes? He appears to be disinclined to translate "nor is anything made for commerce @ expression" into English. If you think you can do so, go for it.

 

[Bomb#20]

If you took me to be saying what JH is advocating is a step on a slippery slope to lawless government, no, you misunderstand. I'm saying what JH is advocating is lawless government.

The current SCOTUS and the former Trump Administration exposed how much our system of governance depends on the adherence to tradition and precedence and that coloring outside the lines, while not prohibited, should be kept to only cases of absolute necessity.

Absolutely. So why the heck don't you grasp that the government ordering a citizen to do creative writing or artwork promoting a cause she opposes is very much a case of "coloring outside the lines"? When has a SCOTUS ever upheld such a requirement? When has the government even tried to impose such a requirement until the recent era of progressive-captured regulatory bodies? What tradition and precedent for such a demand do you see? Tradition and precedent has gone heavily against making citizens speak out for causes they oppose even when it's just mechanical recital of government-supplied text -- see the Pledge of Allegiance cases.

"Lawless Government" is a bizarre term for you to use in an assumption made by another that all people should have access to all rights and privileges.

In the first place, you are begging the question. Whether a right to other people's creativity exists in the first place is one of the main points in dispute; don't just casually include that in the set of "all rights and privileges" without making a case for it.

And in the second place, I was already perfectly clear upthread that what I called "lawless government" is your argument

This whole, "But it is expression...." is such a hyper technical excuse​

and not your contention that all people should have access to a right to other people's creativity. If you propose to let the government infringe the citizens' current right to free expression in order to give all people access to this alleged right you believe they have, by amending the Constitution to partially repeal the First Amendment, then that would make what you're asking the government to do legal, so you'd be advocating lawful government. But I do not take you to be advocating a constitutional amendment. People who complain about the government paying heed to technicalities rarely are. I took you to be proposing that the government should just ignore the fact that "But it is expression....", on account of it being such a hyper technical excuse. Is that not what you're advocating? You appear to be advocating the government do something illegal.

The government ignoring technicalities when they become obstacles to officials getting the outcomes they want is precisely what the phrase "lawless government" refers to.

Federal District Judge William Mehrtens has dramatically illustrated how seriously the Nixon Administration's disregard for constitutional restraints has interfered with the orderly process of law enforcement. In eleven Federal gambling, narcotics and bribery cases before Judge Mehrtens in Miami, the evidence of guilt contained in wiretaps submitted by the Justice Department was “overwhelming.” Yet the judge found himself compelled “with the greatest reluctance” to suppress that evidence because the taps had been illegally authorized. ...
...By reluctantly taking this course, Judge Mehrtens underscored the danger of permitting the Government to fight lawlessness with lawlessness.​

Lawless Government (Published 1973)

Ed maintains recent decision by Fed Dist Judge Mehrtens, which disallowed use of wiretap evidence submitted by Justice Dept to bolster its narcotics indictments, demonstrates 'dramatically' how seriously Nixon Adm's disregard for const restraints has interfered with the orderly process of law...

www.nytimes.com

Did you think it means a government that obeys no laws? Would you go back in time and explain to Judge Mehrtens that suppressing evidence from illegal wiretaps is a hyper technical excuse for letting criminals off on a technicality, and illegal wiretaps aren't lawless government because Richard Nixon never held up a Seven-Eleven?

The Government's role would only be in as far to ensure said access. Instead, it seems that you appear to be asserting that it is government over-reach to ensure equal protection

Let's suppose for the sake of discussion that Smith had a real live Jane Doe would-be client. How do you figure the government requiring Smith to write up a claim that one of Doe's unscientific opinions is correct is "ensuring equal protection"? Is the government also going to require Doe to write up a claim that one of Smith's unscientific opinions is correct? Are you advocating that they also require Doe to?

I am asserting that it is government overreach to ensure unequal protection, by protecting Doe's First Amendment rights while brushing aside Smith's First Amendment rights as such a hyper technical excuse.

You try to smear the entire objection as calling it a slippery slope, but you and others have failed to demonstrate how the very arguments used in the web site or cake cases can't apply to race.

Come again? In the first place, it wan't a smear -- your argument that I called a slippery slope was absolutely a slippery slope.

And in the second place, no, I didn't call "the entire objection" a slippery slope. What I called a slippery slope was specifically "Your argument is hedging towards publicly acceptable Jim Crow...". What, do you think the awful thing about the Jim Crow era was that so many white artists and writers weren't creatively celebrating what black people wanted celebrated? It's ridiculous. The very arguments used in the web site or cake cases can't bring back the Jim Crow era because there's no freedom of drinking fountains and freedom of sandwich shops and freedom of motel rooms in the Constitution. This isn't rocket science. When you accused Toni of "hedging towards publicly acceptable Jim Crow", that was the smear.

So if you're up for presenting your objection to Toni's and my position without calling up the specter of Jim Crow, instead using fact-based criticisms that don't sweep under the rug the fact that the US legal system takes seriously the "hyper technical" distinction between expression and non-expression, knock yourself out, and you won't be making a slippery slope argument.

 

[Bomb#20]

You try to smear the entire objection as calling it a slippery slope

It is. In fact it’s a knife edge, and we’re going off one side or the other. I see a difference in long term outcomes. If we go off to the left (democracy) the excesses that result are going to be at least somewhat correctable. If we go off to the right (autocracy) the excesses will be a feature- the very point for those in charge, and any effort directed at correcting them will be considered criminal.

Hey, if you're talking about the right's coup attempt, the "Will Trump finally be indicted in Georgia?" thread is in a whole other subforum. But if you're talking about this thread's topic, you appear to have the direction of the spectrum backwards. It's the left trying to autocratically shove their will down everyone's throat and it's the right trying to democratically give the people what they want. If you seriously imagine making Christian web designers compose celebrations of gay marriages would win if the question were put to a nationwide referendum, you seriously need to get out of your bubble chamber.

 

[Jarhyn]

You try to smear the entire objection as calling it a slippery slope

It is. In fact it’s a knife edge, and we’re going off one side or the other. I see a difference in long term outcomes. If we go off to the left (democracy) the excesses that result are going to be at least somewhat correctable. If we go off to the right (autocracy) the excesses will be a feature- the very point for those in charge, and any effort directed at correcting them will be considered criminal.

Hey, if you're talking about the right's coup attempt, the "Will Trump finally be indicted in Georgia?" thread is in a whole other subforum. But if you're talking about this thread's topic, you appear to have the direction of the spectrum backwards. It's the left trying to autocratically shove their will down everyone's throat and it's the right trying to democratically give the people what they want. If you seriously imagine making Christian web designers compose celebrations of gay marriages would win if the question were put to a nationwide referendum, you seriously need to get out of your bubble chamber.

Except for that whole "trying to outlaw being gay" thing.

 

[Elixir]

It's the left trying to autocratically shove their will down everyone's throat and it's the right trying to democratically give the people what they want.

“People” WANT the government to outlaw abortion?
No, that’s just the right.
The left wants to leave choice in the hands of women.

“People” WANT to ban books on American history?
No, that’s just the right.

“People” want to defund the FBI and DOJ, and throw Ukraine over to Putler?
No, that’s just the right.

“People” want to shut down the government? No, just the right.

You may have exceeded your allotment of RW nonsense today, B20. But surely you can provide some concrete examples of Dems “shoving their will” down your (or”people’s) throat?

 

[Bomb#20]

Hey, if you're talking about the right's coup attempt, the "Will Trump finally be indicted in Georgia?" thread is in a whole other subforum. But if you're talking about this thread's topic, you appear to have the direction of the spectrum backwards. It's the left trying to autocratically shove their will down everyone's throat and it's the right trying to democratically give the people what they want. If you seriously imagine making Christian web designers compose celebrations of gay marriages would win if the question were put to a nationwide referendum, you seriously need to get out of your bubble chamber.

Except for that whole "trying to outlaw being gay" thing.

That sentence no main verb. What "trying to outlaw being gay" thing are you referring to, and what claim are you making about it, and what does it have to do with the post you're taking exception to?

 

[Jarhyn]

Hey, if you're talking about the right's coup attempt, the "Will Trump finally be indicted in Georgia?" thread is in a whole other subforum. But if you're talking about this thread's topic, you appear to have the direction of the spectrum backwards. It's the left trying to autocratically shove their will down everyone's throat and it's the right trying to democratically give the people what they want. If you seriously imagine making Christian web designers compose celebrations of gay marriages would win if the question were put to a nationwide referendum, you seriously need to get out of your bubble chamber.

Except for that whole "trying to outlaw being gay" thing.

That sentence no main verb.

Your whole post was the main verb. Learn to context.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hey, if you're talking about the right's coup attempt, the "Will Trump finally be indicted in Georgia?" thread is in a whole other subforum. But if you're talking about this thread's topic, you appear to have the direction of the spectrum backwards. It's the left trying to autocratically shove their will down everyone's throat and it's the right trying to democratically give the people what they want. If you seriously imagine making Christian web designers compose celebrations of gay marriages would win if the question were put to a nationwide referendum, you seriously need to get out of your bubble chamber.

Except for that whole "trying to outlaw being gay" thing.

That sentence no main verb.

Your whole post was the main verb. Learn to context.

My whole post wasn't a verb; and appending your sentence fragment to my whole post doesn't clarify what your objection to it is. Learn to express yourself comprehensibly.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That sentence no main verb.

Error. Error. Does not compute. We cannot ascertain meaning without a v-*blows up*

 

[Bomb#20]

It's the left trying to autocratically shove their will down everyone's throat and it's the right trying to democratically give the people what they want.

“People” WANT the government to outlaw abortion?
No, that’s just the right.
The left wants to leave choice in the hands of women.

“People” WANT to ban books on American history?
No, that’s just the right.

“People” want to defund the FBI and DOJ, and throw Ukraine over to Putler?
No, that’s just the right.

“People” want to shut down the government? No, just the right.

You may have exceeded your allotment of RW nonsense today, B20. But surely you can provide some concrete examples of Dems “shoving their will” down your (or”people’s) throat?

Dude! Exactly which part of "But if you're talking about this thread's topic," didn't you understand when you were snipping it out to make my statement look categorical? You were the one who made the categorical claim.

Obviously there are a bunch of issues where the right is trying to shove its will down everyone's throat and a bunch of other issues where the left is trying to shove its will down everyone's throat. Neither party gives a rat's ass about democracy; they just appeal to it as window dressing when the topic is one the majority supports them on while behaving as autocratically as they can get away with on topics the majority opposes them on. For concrete examples of the left trying to shove its will down the people's throats, pay attention. This thread is almost fifteen hundred posts long and an awful lot of those posts were leftists supporting the Colorado regulatory agency's unpopular policy.

Now, as far as "ban books" and your categorical claim go...

If we go off to the left (democracy) the excesses that result are going to be at least somewhat correctable. If we go off to the right (autocracy) the excesses will be a feature- the very point for those in charge, and any effort directed at correcting them will be considered criminal.

That's not how it works. The right isn't "banning books on American history"; it's declining to pay for the ones it doesn't like. That's something the left has been doing for decades. Every history book used in American schools that the right is trying to remove for being too "woke" is only there in the first place because progressive school boards replaced some earlier history book that wasn't "woke" enough for them. The right liked the old kind of books better so it's trying to make the schools go back to those. The point is, if they succeed, the excesses that result are going to be at least somewhat correctable. We know that, because we've been through it before -- the right used to be in charge of school curricula, and that was corrected.

In contrast, we don't know that the excesses of the left are correctable and we don't know efforts directed at correcting them will not be considered criminal. It wasn't the right that sicced the Justice Department on parents protesting curricula at PTA meetings.

 

[Elixir]

we don't know that the excesses of the left are correctable and we don't know efforts directed at correcting them will not be considered criminal.

Hmmm. Rhetorical slants as an art form? “We’re not banning any books, just keeping kids from reading them!”

We do know that in a democracy, changes in the makeup of the government are designed in. Dems try to preserve that feature while Republicans try to make their power permanent by illegal and violent means. But yeah - both sides are trying to shove either their dictatorial or egalitarian ideals down each others throats. You can’t have both, so take your pick*. The only difference is that - oh, wait- there is no difference between a democracy and dictatorship, because in both cases someone gets something “shoved down their throat”.


* It wasn’t always like that. “The Right” used to concede when they lost elections, like the left still does.

 

[Gospel]

Both the left and the right engage in similar strategies, the consequences diverge in how they shape the perspectives of future generations regarding history, politics, and social issues. Stating that Black people benefited from slavery can potentially rationalize its existence, while emphasizing the profound injustice of slavery may make some individuals who cherry pick the parts of American History they acknowledge feel uncomfortable.

 

[Elixir]

Stating that Black people benefited from slavery can potentially rationalize its existence,

Hey, if ya wanna bring it back, ya gotta put plenty of lipstick on that pig.

while emphasizing the profound injustice of slavery may make some individuals who cherry pick the parts of American History they acknowledge feel uncomfortable.

That could be the 35ish percent of the American public that Hillary lost for calling “deplorables”. Must keep them happy, at all cost or suffer another loss like 2016!

 

[Emily Lake]

we don't know that the excesses of the left are correctable and we don't know efforts directed at correcting them will not be considered criminal.

Hmmm. Rhetorical slants as an art form? “We’re not banning any books, just keeping kids from reading them!”

Mmmm.... Lemme ask you a question. Do you think it would be appropriate for a school library to keep a full stock of Hustler, Playboy, and various other porno mags on their shelves?

 

[Elixir]

No.
Why do you ask?
Do you think they should ban Huckleberry Finn?
In fact, if you’re trying to get at the inevitability of drawing a line somewhere, I agree. If that means there is a tempest in a teapot here, I disagree. Exposure to different perspectives should be encouraged IMO. Historical facts of the past should not be selectively swept under the rug of budget constraints, to satisfy the racist or religious views of administrators.

 

[Toni]

Stating that Black people benefited from slavery can potentially rationalize its existence,

Hey, if ya wanna bring it back, ya gotta put plenty of lipstick on that pig.

while emphasizing the profound injustice of slavery may make some individuals who cherry pick the parts of American History they acknowledge feel uncomfortable.

That could be the 35ish percent of the American public that Hillary lost for calling “deplorables”. Must keep them happy, at all cost or suffer another loss like 2016!

Well, that lets the left avoid the hard look in the mirror at its own foibles and prejudices.

Don’t worry: I’m not claiming that bigotry against people who live in more rural settings or who work producing food and cars and other goods we all need and desire: people whose hands get very grimy and bloody and whose bodies wear out barely past middle age from the hard work and harder lives they live compared to the relative gentility of urban elites compares to the bigotry against people whose skin color or hair texture or first language is…not British Isles based. It’s not—not by a very long shot.

After all, people like me who grew up a generation off of the farm, raised by a father who busted his ass to make it to white color —we’ll all we have to do is dress a little nicer than our mothers could afford to do, go to school a little longer and presto: no one knows you spent some of your childhood without an indoor toilet. Poor is so easily hidden in a way that black is not. Especially if you like to read or are attractive and marry ‘well.’

As much as I wanted her to win, the instant I heard that basket of deplorables remark, I knew Hillary had lost—and deserved to lose, as painful as I feel it.

What I find regrettable and damn near unforgivable is the inability of my felllow leftists to look hard in the mirror and to recognize that smug superiority deserves to lose. Too bad too many of us can’t or won’t climb down ooff our high horses abd actually talk with those whose opinions we disagree with. We’ve been so secure in our moral ( and class) superiority that we refuse to listen to people’s real pain and real struggle or to face why it is that they are so willing to identify with a cheap charlatan who apes their prejudices.