Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Bomb#20]

... Trade unionists who think socialists are their friends are being "useful idiots". But debating the evil of capitalism is off-topic here so let's not have another derail.

You say strikes have to be based on more than rednecks freaking out to be reasonable and valid. ... So then what are you going to do about it when you have an unreasonable invalid strike by a bunch of freaked-out rednecks on your hands? ...

Name the essential features of socialism before this derail gets shut down.

1. Collective ownership of the means of production.
2. There is no 2.

Capitalism does not just have independent trade unions.

Anti-capitalists imposed them onto a system without them.

And free-traders imposed imports onto a system without them too, against the wishes of local producers. And union guys have been known to beat up scabs. Nobody likes being competed with; consequently, every system is plagued by participants who try to corrupt the rulers into letting them suppress competition by force. Whoop-de-do. It's the duty of rulers to resist such temptations.

A union is an anti-capitalist institution. It has nothing to do with capitalism.

Nonsense. A union is just another competitor in the free market. It's a group of producers coordinating their productive action for mutual benefit -- exactly what a corporation is. When a bunch of people pool some of their money to start an organization, and they authorize the organization to hire them out, and the organization makes a single contract to supply some company with the labor it needs, whether you call that organization a "union" or a "temp agency" and those people "dues payers" or "share holders" is a mere metaphysical distinction.

It is a necessary evil to protect people from the constant abuses from capitalists.

Why do you call it an evil? According to you only harming a victim is immoral. If some workers choose to unionize and negotiate as one party rather than many, there's no victim. Unless you count General Jaruzelski.

Enough of that. Back on topic...

You say strikes have to be based on more than rednecks freaking out to be reasonable and valid. ... So then what are you going to do about it when you have an unreasonable invalid strike by a bunch of freaked-out rednecks on your hands? ...

<crickets>

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have given you the only possible way to recognize objective immorality. If there is harm and a victim then the act was immoral. Victim meaning somebody the act was directed against and someone who's actions do not justify the harm.

You simply won't engage with it.

"...do not justify the harm..."

You have a subjective condition in a supposedly objective rule.

And what constitutes "harm" anyway? I do not believe simple nudity is harmful, period. (I can see situations where it's harmful, but not as a general rule.) A minority of people do, however. Who decides if it's harmful or not?

 

[untermensche]

Name the essential features of socialism before this derail gets shut down.

1. Collective ownership of the means of production.

That's a part of Anarchism. A goal of Anarchism.

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

A union is just another competitor in the free market.

It is an anti-capitalist measure.

Unions are only needed because capitalist owners have no respect for real workers.

They want to treat them like slaves.

 

[untermensche]

I have given you the only possible way to recognize objective immorality. If there is harm and a victim then the act was immoral. Victim meaning somebody the act was directed against and someone who's actions do not justify the harm.

You simply won't engage with it.

"...do not justify the harm..."

You have a subjective condition in a supposedly objective rule.

And what constitutes "harm" anyway? I do not believe simple nudity is harmful, period. (I can see situations where it's harmful, but not as a general rule.) A minority of people do, however. Who decides if it's harmful or not?

Who decides now?

Who makes the laws now?

Harm is something a jury could decide upon. It can also be something clearly seen, such as an injury.

It is something people could discuss and reach conclusions about.

How does one person celebrating a gender transition cause harm?

Who is the victim of this harm?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Unsurprisingly, you are mistaken.

I mean, what does Jason think "advocating the toleration of bigots" is, if not "support"?

Jason has equivocated support and toleration, in the same post they açuse someone else of it.

To be clear, Jason is here, doing more than nothing (speaking is more than 'nothing' as is voting to the ends of instatement of politicians and justices that will drive the law in this direction). He is not just quietly suffering a bigot to deny service, he is here on these forums making noise on their behalf.

So pointing out that LD is equivocating, that means I'm equivocating.

If we are to have laws, it is to be about thing that "pick my pocket or break my leg". If you want to shoot up heroin with dirty needles, I won't approve but won't lift a finger to stop you. If you want to raw-dog prostitutes, I won't approve but won't lift a finger to stop you. That means, according to those with absolutely no grasp of the English language, that I support you in that activity.

So I put "bakers who are bigots" in the same category as "people who shoot up heroin with dirty needles" and "people who raw-dog prostitute". Suddenly, that means I "support" (sic) them.

It would make sense ... if speech is not your native tongue.

 

[laughing dog]

Unsurprisingly, you are mistaken.

I mean, what does Jason think "advocating the toleration of bigots" is, if not "support"?

Jason has equivocated support and toleration, in the same post they açuse someone else of it.

To be clear, Jason is here, doing more than nothing (speaking is more than 'nothing' as is voting to the ends of instatement of politicians and justices that will drive the law in this direction). He is not just quietly suffering a bigot to deny service, he is here on these forums making noise on their behalf.

So pointing out that LD is equivocating, that means I'm equivocating.

If we are to have laws, it is to be about thing that "pick my pocket or break my leg". If you want to shoot up heroin with dirty needles, I won't approve but won't lift a finger to stop you. If you want to raw-dog prostitutes, I won't approve but won't lift a finger to stop you. That means, according to those with absolutely no grasp of the English language, that I support you in that activity.

So I put "bakers who are bigots" in the same category as "people who shoot up heroin with dirty needles" and "people who raw-dog prostitute". Suddenly, that means I "support" (sic) them.

It would make sense ... if speech is not your native tongue.

Your babbling straw man argument indicates that perhaps speech is not your native tongue. For some reason, you ignore the difference between toleration (i.e. doing nothing) and defense (defending the right to).

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So pointing out that LD is equivocating, that means I'm equivocating.

If we are to have laws, it is to be about thing that "pick my pocket or break my leg". If you want to shoot up heroin with dirty needles, I won't approve but won't lift a finger to stop you. If you want to raw-dog prostitutes, I won't approve but won't lift a finger to stop you. That means, according to those with absolutely no grasp of the English language, that I support you in that activity.

So I put "bakers who are bigots" in the same category as "people who shoot up heroin with dirty needles" and "people who raw-dog prostitute". Suddenly, that means I "support" (sic) them.

For some reason, you ignore the difference between toleration (i.e. doing nothing) and defense (defending the right to).

For some reason you ignore the difference between toleration (i.e. not stopping them) and defense (i.e. saying they are right to do what they are doing). Try again, in English this time.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Just to clarify, when I said " 1. You believe that forcing an anti-black racist to serve black customers is to force him to express a message he disagrees with (unless you are lying; but I do not believe you are, so you believe it).", I meant I reckon you're not lying, so you do believe what you claim (I'm not saying that it follows that you believe it because I believe you're not lying of course, but that I reckon that you're not lying, and so it's almost certain that you believe it given that you claim it is true.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So pointing out that LD is equivocating, that means I'm equivocating.

If we are to have laws, it is to be about thing that "pick my pocket or break my leg". If you want to shoot up heroin with dirty needles, I won't approve but won't lift a finger to stop you. If you want to raw-dog prostitutes, I won't approve but won't lift a finger to stop you. That means, according to those with absolutely no grasp of the English language, that I support you in that activity.

So I put "bakers who are bigots" in the same category as "people who shoot up heroin with dirty needles" and "people who raw-dog prostitute". Suddenly, that means I "support" (sic) them.

For some reason, you ignore the difference between toleration (i.e. doing nothing) and defense (defending the right to).

For some reason you ignore the difference between toleration (i.e. not stopping them) and defense (i.e. saying they are right to do what they are doing). Try again, in English this time.

Good points. And there is a further difference to be considered: there is a difference also between defending their right to do what they're doing, and defending what they are doing. Purely for example, I believe Marxists behave unethically when, under years of studying it, continue to defend Marxism. But I think the government (in realistic cases) would act unethically by forcibly preventing said Marxists from defending Marxism.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yet, you assume that which causes a “harm” is immoral. Is it? How do you know?...

...
Show me immorality where there is no harm and no victim.

Then prove it is immorality.

You keep implying it's immoral for your political opponents to celebrate winning -- that's your justification for exempting their messages from the "You have to write everyone's messages" rule you want to impose on bakers. But celebrating the Jews owning the West Bank does no harm and makes no one a victim -- it merely gives pleasure to people you look down on. So you prove it's immorality.

 

[untermensche]

Yet, you assume that which causes a “harm” is immoral. Is it? How do you know?...

...
Show me immorality where there is no harm and no victim.

Then prove it is immorality.

You keep implying it's immoral for your political opponents to celebrate winning -- that's your justification for exempting their messages from the "You have to write everyone's messages" rule you want to impose on bakers. But celebrating the Jews owning the West Bank does no harm and makes no one a victim -- it merely gives pleasure to people you look down on. So you prove it's immorality.

Israel has been a brutal tyrant in the West Bank.

Killing and raping and kidnapping and torturing.

For decades.

No harm?

 

[Bomb#20]

It is the fact that the benefits of specialization are only realized when the whole community has access to all provisions of all specializations. All partake of the community; all most serve the whole community.

Except for Zionists? When all must serve the whole community excluding Zionists, and the whole community minus the Zionists have access to all provisions of all specializations, that's when the benefits of specialization are realized? That's the "fact" you're appealing to?

When Christians push Divine Command Theory, they label it Objective Morality, but actually it's as subjective as the "art standards" of the Académie des Beaux-Arts. You aren't pushing Objective Morality. You're pushing Jarhyn Command Theory.

Take your relativism and stuff it. The christians got that part right, at least.

You would think so -- they're your model for what objectivity looks like.

 

[Bomb#20]

You keep implying it's immoral for your political opponents to celebrate winning -- that's your justification for exempting their messages from the "You have to write everyone's messages" rule you want to impose on bakers. But celebrating the Jews owning the West Bank does no harm and makes no one a victim -- it merely gives pleasure to people you look down on. So you prove it's immorality.

Israel has been a brutal tyrant in the West Bank.

Killing and raping and kidnapping and torturing.

For decades.

No harm?

No harm from the cake. The Zionists who want "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel" on their cake are going to eat it. They aren't going to kill, rape, kidnap and torture people with cake. You have repeatedly failed to exhibit any harm from writing the message on the cake. Therefore your objection to the cake is not really that it's harmful. That's window-dressing. Your actual objection is that in spite of its harmlessness you think it's immoral; and you think it's immoral because you hate Zionists.

Therefore you don't actually believe in the "No victim, no harm, no immorality" principle you keep proclaiming. You think you believe in it, because the principle sounds nice to you when you contemplate it in the abstract; but it will always lose when it comes up against the actual gut-level intuitive moral sense you apply to concrete situations. You're as hypocritical as an anti-choice "libertarian".

 

[untermensche]

My opinion is that if any cake does not have an explicit message written upon it that cake does not have a message.

If some Jew wants to celebrate Israeli immorality and inhumanity in their mind that is entirely their business.

I do not believe in thought crime.

Mere thoughts may be evil if carried out but the thoughts themselves are not evil.

None of your thoughts are evil.

A thought hurts nobody but perhaps the thinker.

But if the thinker is not claiming to be a victim of the thoughts you have no immorality.

 

[Bomb#20]

If you think doing harm to a victim is not immoral you are worthless.

I.e., to you, your outgroup are subhuman. You are as tribal as Martin Luther, a man who decried antisemitism right up until he figured out the reason Jews wouldn't convert wasn't because of Catholicism. When he realized they wouldn't convert to Protestantism either, he morphed into an antisemite himself.

Louis Jourdan has planted a nuclear warhead in a West German city. He's driving away at 90 MPH and will detonate the bomb by remote control as soon as he gets around a mountain that will protect him from the blast. That will be in about 45 seconds. Roger Moore is dead and will not swoop in to save the day. There is no longer anyone who can possibly stop Jourdan. Except you. You are on the hillside, next to the freeway, about a hundred yards ahead of him. You have one chance.

You have a bazooka. He has a hostage.

 

[TomC]

I would love to see anyone PROVE beyond doubt they are doing deliberate harm to save people.

That's a pithy way to express why I find Scardina such a scumbag.
Phillips hasn't harmed anyone. Scardina baited him into a lawsuit, causing Phillips a great deal of harm.

Scardina is lying. In the way that lawyers are trained, licensed, even expected to do. And I sincerely doubt that trans folks will benefit, but Scardina will.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have given you the only possible way to recognize objective immorality. If there is harm and a victim then the act was immoral. Victim meaning somebody the act was directed against and someone who's actions do not justify the harm.

You simply won't engage with it.

"...do not justify the harm..."

You have a subjective condition in a supposedly objective rule.

And what constitutes "harm" anyway? I do not believe simple nudity is harmful, period. (I can see situations where it's harmful, but not as a general rule.) A minority of people do, however. Who decides if it's harmful or not?

Who decides now?

Who makes the laws now?

Harm is something a jury could decide upon. It can also be something clearly seen, such as an injury.

It is something people could discuss and reach conclusions about.

How does one person celebrating a gender transition cause harm?

Who is the victim of this harm?

You're not addressing my point. You claimed it was an objective standard. Pointing out that we don't have an objective standard now in no way makes your standard objective.

 

[Jarhyn]

Who decides now?

Who makes the laws now?

Harm is something a jury could decide upon. It can also be something clearly seen, such as an injury.

It is something people could discuss and reach conclusions about.

How does one person celebrating a gender transition cause harm?

Who is the victim of this harm?

You're not addressing my point. You claimed it was an objective standard. Pointing out that we don't have an objective standard now in no way makes your standard objective.

Saying things are a way is not an adequate defense of that way things are done.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

For some reason you ignore the difference between toleration (i.e. not stopping them) and defense (i.e. saying they are right to do what they are doing). Try again, in English this time.

Good points. And there is a further difference to be considered: there is a difference also between defending their right to do what they're doing, and defending what they are doing. Purely for example, I believe Marxists behave unethically when, under years of studying it, continue to defend Marxism. But I think the government (in realistic cases) would act unethically by forcibly preventing said Marxists from defending Marxism.

Good point - defending the right to do something and defending the action itself are two different things. Yet LD wants to equivocate them. To him my not doing anything to stop that baker means I must be defending the action itself.

 

[laughing dog]

For some reason you ignore the difference between toleration (i.e. not stopping them) and defense (i.e. saying they are right to do what they are doing). Try again, in English this time.

Good points. And there is a further difference to be considered: there is a difference also between defending their right to do what they're doing, and defending what they are doing. Purely for example, I believe Marxists behave unethically when, under years of studying it, continue to defend Marxism. But I think the government (in realistic cases) would act unethically by forcibly preventing said Marxists from defending Marxism.

Good point - defending the right to do something and defending the action itself are two different things. Yet LD wants to equivocate them. To him my not doing anything to stop that baker means I must be defending the action itself.

You have an uncanny ability to persistantly “misunderstand” the written word.to generate yiour stupid straw men.