The Jim Crow Fallacy

[thesometimesaint]

So what? We’re talking (at least I am) about current circumstances and events... and not the refusal of churches to perform weddings (and the LDS does not perform ceratin kinds of marriages/weddings), but the refusal of business owners or employees to tacitly approve and participate in weddings that are religiously objectionable.

 

I can't speak for "some fundamentalists" or portray them as representative of an argument for the general rule.

 

I don’t see an “identity discrimination” issue at all in the discussion of business owners or employees refusing to tacitly approve and participate in weddings that are religiously objectionable to them.

 

Why? These articles have nothing to do with supporting your argument.

 

The exact same arguments were used to discriminate against blacks.

[longview]

In Scandinavia it isn't forced.

The very definition of socialism is confiscation through heavy taxation (as well as government ownership of production or indirect control of businesses by onerous regulation).  Socialism lives and breathes coercion.  The very definition of Satan's Plan.

[longview]

How sweet and condescending.

    - - -

There are many more. So come back after you read "Baby's First Guide to Economics" and we can talk. Okay, I did slip into condescending. Whoops.

Your response to Stargazer is extremely disjointed.  He made very cogent points but you have ignored most of them.

 

I would give you minus 10 rep points and Stargazer plus 100.   You need to take your meds.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In Scandinavia it isn't forced.

Really, so if I don't want to pay taxes they are not compulsory? I can opt out of what ever government program there is? So if I don't want my money going to the state run health insurance programs I can opt out of that?

 

On top of that, can I charge what I ever I want if I open a practice up in Sweden?

 

Nope nothing is forced there.

[thesometimesaint]

The very definition of socialism is confiscation through heavy taxation (as well as government ownership of production or indirect control of businesses by onerous regulation).  Socialism lives and breathes coercion.  The very definition of Satan's Plan.

 

The old right wing trope of heavy taxation. We in the US pay twice as much for health care as any industrialized nation on earth. Yet our outcomes rank at or near third world nations. I guess you want dirty water, bad food, and snake oil for medicine. Just to name a few regulations that make our lives better.

[The Nehor]

Your response to Stargazer is extremely disjointed.  He made very cogent points but you have ignored most of them.

 

I would give you minus 10 rep points and Stargazer plus 100.   You need to take your meds.

D-

Vague assertions and ending burn is infantile. See me after class.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The old right wing trope of heavy taxation. We in the US pay twice as much for health care as any industrialized nation on earth. Yet our outcomes rank at or near third world nations. I guess you want dirty water, bad food, and snake oil for medicine. Just to name a few regulations that make our lives better.

I wonder why that is Saint? Did you not know that you are making the case against socialized medicine? WE have freaking Obama care in this country. You really think things are going to getting better? You got your wish for "health care reform". Is it working?

 

And your talking points are just that. Talking points. Stop watching MSNBC and stop reading Media Matters.

[The Nehor]

The old right wing trope of heavy taxation. We in the US pay twice as much for health care as any industrialized nation on earth. Yet our outcomes rank at or near third world nations. I guess you want dirty water, bad food, and snake oil for medicine. Just to name a few regulations that make our lives better.

Absolutely impossible. The free market is ALWAYS more efficient then any other system. This holds true even when you have evidence that proves the opposite.

[The Nehor]

I wonder why that is Saint? Did you not know that you are making the case against socialized medicine? WE have freaking Obama care in this country. You really think things are going to getting better? You got your wish for "health care reform". Is it working?

 

And your talking points are just that. Talking points. Stop watching MSNBC and stop reading Media Matters.

This was also true before Obamacare. Nice try though.

[thesometimesaint]

Really, so if I don't want to pay taxes they are not compulsory? I can opt out of what ever government program there is? So if I don't want my money going to the state run health insurance programs I can opt out of that?

 

On top of that, can I charge what I ever I want if I open a practice up in Sweden?

 

Nope nothing is forced there.

 

Our "divinely inspired" Constitution provides for taxation, and the means to collect them. I'm sure you'd love that Libertarian Paradise Somalia. I hear it is quite lovely this time of year..

SEE

[thesometimesaint]

I wonder why that is Saint? Did you not know that you are making the case against socialized medicine? WE have freaking Obama care in this country. You really think things are going to getting better? You got your wish for "health care reform". Is it working?

 

And your talking points are just that. Talking points. Stop watching MSNBC and stop reading Media Matters.

 

The nations that actually have some type of socialized medicine have lower costs and better outcomes that the US. The Affordable Care Act is not socialized medicine. It merely allows more people to buy private health insurance. Yes for millions of people things are better. It is not what I wished for. I wished for the same quality insurance as our Congress critters enjoy. Yes it is working. The actual rate of increases in health insurance costs are going down.

[Gray]

Your response to Stargazer is extremely disjointed.  He made very cogent points but you have ignored most of them.

 

I would give you minus 10 rep points and Stargazer plus 100.   You need to take your meds.

 

 

Very disjointed.   It is interesting that you have not responded directly to the points in Mystery Meat's post #58 page-3 that came out of D&C student manual.  Nehor was wrong:  God is NOT authoritarian, nor is He a dictator.  He actually presides with meekness.

 

 

 

Your arguments are disjointed. Jim Crow laws were institutionalized through force of government (state and local). It only took a vocal minority to bring it about. I am guessing a third of the population had positive feelings for the blacks but were cowed by the noisy and belligerent one fourth. The remainder were uncaring or too complacent.

 

 

 

Do you have a word of the week calendar or something? That's three times in two days that you've said someone's argument is "disjointed"

Edited July 9, 2015 by Gray

[Bob Crockett]

I have read Arrington's book "American Moses".  Do you happen to have a reference to where he makes his definition of communal arrangements.  Thanks!  In the meantime I will try to find it.

As has been pointed out, it is Great Basin Kingdom, Arrington's published dissertation.

[ERayR]

The nations that actually have some type of socialized medicine have lower costs and better outcomes that the US. The Affordable Care Act is not socialized medicine. It merely allows more people to buy private health insurance. Yes for millions of people things are better. It is not what I wished for. I wished for the same quality insurance as our Congress critters enjoy. Yes it is working. The actual rate of increases in health insurance costs are going down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you have a word of the week calendar or something? That's three times in two days that you've said someone's argument is "disjointed"

 

 

When it fits use it.

[CV75]

Right, and the issue is very similar to the issue of mixed-race marriage.

 

The religious objection is to the identity of the couple. Specifically the genders of the couple.  There's no getting around that.

 

Your question about who opposes mixed-race marriage for religious purposes didn't have anything to do with my argument either, but it answered the question anyway.

It only appears to be similar on the most superficial and simplistic level, and certainly not similar enough to be the same. The religious objection relates to a person not wanting to show tacit approval of and participation in same-sex marriage – such would be the case irrespective of the gender or races of the spouses involved. You improperly conflate that with racism, which is why, yes, what you consider answering my question shows that racism and religious objections to same-sex marriage are two different things.

 

Why did you not comment on how D&C 101 pertains to the topic?

 

The exact same arguments were used to discriminate against blacks.

Your comment comes across as a cheap drive-by.

 

I think your prejudices are preventing you from paying attention. I make no argument that a person’s race is a sin such that same-race marriage is a sin; only that same-sex marriage is a sin. I make no argument that a person’s degree of homosexual orientation is sin or that his traditional marriage is a sin; only that same-sex marriage is a sin.

 

The translation of religious doctrine into individual exercise of religion can be called discrimination or perceived as such, some of it crossing a legal line and some of it not. I am not arguing for illegal or immoral forms of discrimination.

 

How do you think D&C 101 relates to this subject?

[Thinking]

Absolutely impossible. The free market is ALWAYS more efficient then any other system. This holds true even when you have evidence that proves the opposite.

 

We still need socialist elements mixed in (police, fire, roads, etc.).

[Zakuska]

D&C 121 has more to do with this situation than D&C 101.

 

The goverment is exercising unrighteous dominion when they fine a Backery owner for following their contience.

[Gray]

It only appears to be similar on the most superficial and simplistic level, and certainly not similar enough to be the same. The religious objection relates to a person not wanting to show tacit approval of and participation in same-sex marriage – such would be the case irrespective of the gender or races of the spouses involved. You improperly conflate that with racism, which is why, yes, what you consider answering my question shows that racism and religious objections to same-sex marriage are two different things.

 

People have religious objections to mixed-race marriages too. In both cases it's about the identity of the couple, either the racial makeup or the gender makeup. You can't get around that. 

 

Why did you not comment on how D&C 101 pertains to the topic?

 

D&C 101 talks about the redress of grievances against the saints. I think the lesson to learn is not to make the same mistake and persecute another minority as we were once persecuted. 

 

In any case, I don't think fundamentalists have any reduced moral agency in this issue. They can be as opposed to gay marriage now as ever they were. 

 

 

 77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

 78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agencywhich I have given unto him, that every man may beaccountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2015 by Gray

[CV75]

 

People have religious objections to mixed-race marriages too. In both cases it's about the identity of the couple, either the racial makeup or the gender makeup. You can't get around that.

LOL, that is ridiculous! You’re suggesting that wrongdoers are identified and discriminated against because of their gender, and not for what they have allegedly done!

 

Without the marriage and requests to provide wedding services to serve as lightning rods, there wouldn’t be an issue at all about their gender or sexual orientation, and no request to provide wedding services. It’s clearly about the nature of the marriage.

 

D&C 101 talks about the redress of grievances against the saints. I think the lesson to learn is not to make the same mistake and persecute another minority as we were once persecuted. 

Of course that is all it talks about… to you!

 

I think “just and holy principles” includes religious freedom and traditional marriage but especially refers to those princples that serve as the basis for the U.S. Constitution and related instruction in D&C 101. From there, redress (and I think for anyone, not just the saints!) is rightfully sought.

[Stargazer]

Good thing too, as they were attempting to use satanic force to compel obedience. 

 

In any case, a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. Not that majorities have the right in this country to take away rights of minorities, but even if they did, there is no longer enough public support to do it by vote.

Wouldn't be the first time that an entire nation rolled over and accepted unrighteousness.

 

Here's the thing that you seem to be glossing over: gay marriage has never been right, and it has never been a right.  I might as well complain that the majority is suppressing my right to spell cushion with a T: "cution".  That's my right, yet every time I attempt to spell it that way the spellchecker objects, and my English teacher marked the answer wrong!  That is a violation of my right!

 

You're not the only one, Valentinus being another, who makes a big deal about the majority unrighteously taking away rights, when it isn't a right, has never been a right, and in thousands of years nobody in any culture or nation ever conceived of it as something that was inherent to humanity and could not be abridged away because it was a right.  Somebody just picked up a rock somewhere and inexplicably found it lying there, and whaddya know, A New Right! 

 

I don't care if SCOTUS just lately declared that it is a right -- SCOTUS has an uneven reputation about such things and has been wrong before -- I seem to recall that SCOTUS once declared that black men and women had no rights that whites were bound to respect.  A decision that was NEVER overturned, by the way, until a constitutional amendment removed the right to own slaves.  That's a right that the majority took away, too, isn't it?  Still think that simply calling something a right magically confers that dignity upon it?  It. Does. Not.  There might be rights not enumerated in the Constitution, which the Constitution itself acknowledges as a fact, but you utterly cannot with a straight face suggest that the right to marry someone of the same sex was anticipated by the Constitution.  There is no way, nohow.

 

I want to pop the next person in the face who claims that the majority cannot take away a nonexistent right.  Because gay marriage is not a right, and I don't care how many times it's called one.  That's the principle, by the way, discovered by a certain Mr. Goebbels, that a lie, often enough repeated, becomes easily mistaken for the truth by the gullible masses.  And the masses have swallowed this one hook, line, and sinker.  Along with the apparently brain dead SCOTUS.

 

I think I am done with this topic of discussion.  No matter how logically one attempts to argue there is no real response, except a flurry of ad hominems (you bigot!) and non-sequitors (you're offending my dignity!).

Edited July 10, 2015 by Stargazer

[Guest]

When expressing my opinion that businesses should be able to discriminate against whoever they want, I often hear "So, you want to go back to the Jim Crow days when businesses discriminated against blacks!"No. I do not want to go back to the days when laws mandated that businesses segregate between whites and blacks. Government should not be in the discrimination business.

What I want is days where business people are free to run their companies as they see fit. The market will determine whether they are making smart decisions or not. We should not force business to make good decisions or prevent them from making poor ones.

"Jim Crow" laws did more that allow for businesses could discriminate, but went on to require separate schools, hospitals and even book that could not be shared between schools. White nurses could not be forced to assist black male patients...etc.

[sunstoned]

 

Good thing too, as they were attempting to use satanic force to compel obedience. 

 

In any case, a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. Not that majorities have the right in this country to take away rights of minorities, but even if they did, there is no longer enough public support to do it by vote.

Wouldn't be the first time that an entire nation rolled over and accepted unrighteousness.

 

Here's the thing that you seem to be glossing over: gay marriage has never been right, and it has never been a right.  I might as well complain that the majority is suppressing my right to spell cushion with a T: "cution".  That's my right, yet every time I attempt to spell it that way the spellchecker objects, and my English teacher marked the answer wrong!  That is a violation of my right!

 

You're not the only one, Valentinus being another, who makes a big deal about the majority unrighteously taking away rights, when it isn't a right, has never been a right, and in thousands of years nobody in any culture or nation ever conceived of it as something that was inherent to humanity and could not be abridged away because it was a right.  Somebody just picked up a rock somewhere and inexplicably found it lying there, and whaddya know, A New Right! 

 

I don't care if SCOTUS just lately declared that it is a right -- SCOTUS has an uneven reputation about such things and has been wrong before -- I seem to recall that SCOTUS once declared that black men and women had no rights that whites were bound to respect.  A decision that was NEVER overturned, by the way, until a constitutional amendment removed the right to own slaves.  That's a right that the majority took away, too, isn't it?  Still think that simply calling something a right magically confers that dignity upon it?  It. Does. Not.  There might be rights not enumerated in the Constitution, which the Constitution itself acknowledges as a fact, but you utterly cannot with a straight face suggest that the right to marry someone of the same sex was anticipated by the Constitution.  There is no way, nohow.

 

I want to pop the next person in the face who claims that the majority cannot take away a nonexistent right.  Because gay marriage is not a right, and I don't care how many times it's called one.  That's the principle, by the way, discovered by a certain Mr. Goebbels, that a lie, often enough repeated, becomes easily mistaken for the truth by the gullible masses.  And the masses have swallowed this one hook, line, and sinker.  Along with the apparently brain dead SCOTUS.

 

I think I am done with this topic of discussion.  No matter how logically one attempts to argue there is no real response, except a flurry of ad hominems (you bigot!) and non-sequitors (you're offending my dignity!).

 

Call it what you want, but the highest court in the land declared gay marriage a right, just the same as any marriage.   

[Gray]

 

LOL, that is ridiculous! You’re suggesting that wrongdoers are identified and discriminated against because of their gender, and not for what they have allegedly done!

 

What they have done is get married to someone of the "wrong" gender. Just like with people who are against mixed race marriage - they're against people who have married someone of the "wrong" race

 

Without the marriage and requests to provide wedding services to serve as lightning rods, there wouldn’t be an issue at all about their gender or sexual orientation, and no request to provide wedding services. It’s clearly about the nature of the marriage.

 

Ditto for opposition to mixed race marriage, right?

 

 

Of course that is all it talks about… to you!

 

I think “just and holy principles” includes religious freedom and traditional marriage but especially refers to those princples that serve as the basis for the U.S. Constitution and related instruction in D&C 101. From there, redress (and I think for anyone, not just the saints!) is rightfully sought.

 

Religious freedoms have not been constrained in the least. 

 

[Gray]

 

Wouldn't be the first time that an entire nation rolled over and accepted unrighteousness.

 

Here's the thing that you seem to be glossing over: gay marriage has never been right, and it has never been a right. 

 

In your opinion

 

I might as well complain that the majority is suppressing my right to spell cushion with a T: "cution".  That's my right, yet every time I attempt to spell it that way the spellchecker objects, and my English teacher marked the answer wrong!  That is a violation of my right!

 

You're not the only one, Valentinus being another, who makes a big deal about the majority unrighteously taking away rights, when it isn't a right, has never been a right, and in thousands of years nobody in any culture or nation ever conceived of it as something that was inherent to humanity and could not be abridged away because it was a right.  Somebody just picked up a rock somewhere and inexplicably found it lying there, and whaddya know, A New Right! 

 

The supreme court ruled long ago that it is a right. 

 

I don't care if SCOTUS just lately declared that it is a right -- SCOTUS has an uneven reputation about such things and has been wrong before -- I seem to recall that SCOTUS once declared that black men and women had no rights that whites were bound to respect.  A decision that was NEVER overturned, by the way, until a constitutional amendment removed the right to own slaves.  That's a right that the majority took away, too, isn't it?  Still think that simply calling something a right magically confers that dignity upon it?  It. Does. Not.  There might be rights not enumerated in the Constitution, which the Constitution itself acknowledges as a fact, but you utterly cannot with a straight face suggest that the right to marry someone of the same sex was anticipated by the Constitution.  There is no way, nohow.

 

Rights are human constructs. You're just pitting one construct against another. 

 

I want to pop the next person in the face who claims that the majority cannot take away a nonexistent right. 

 

Then your approach to the matter is all wrong. It's bearing bad fruit

 

Because gay marriage is not a right, and I don't care how many times it's called one.  That's the principle, by the way, discovered by a certain Mr. Goebbels, that a lie, often enough repeated, becomes easily mistaken for the truth by the gullible masses.  And the masses have swallowed this one hook, line, and sinker.  Along with the apparently brain dead SCOTUS.

 

Again, your opinion. Marriage has been a right for many decades now. 

 

I think I am done with this topic of discussion.  No matter how logically one attempts to argue there is no real response, except a flurry of ad hominems (you bigot!) and non-sequitors (you're offending my dignity!).

 

Speaking of fallacies, this is 100% straw man

Edited July 10, 2015 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

 

Good thing too, as they were attempting to use satanic force to compel obedience. 

 

In any case, a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. Not that majorities have the right in this country to take away rights of minorities, but even if they did, there is no longer enough public support to do it by vote.

Wouldn't be the first time that an entire nation rolled over and accepted unrighteousness.

 

Here's the thing that you seem to be glossing over: gay marriage has never been right, and it has never been a right.  I might as well complain that the majority is suppressing my right to spell cushion with a T: "cution".  That's my right, yet every time I attempt to spell it that way the spellchecker objects, and my English teacher marked the answer wrong!  That is a violation of my right!

 

You're not the only one, Valentinus being another, who makes a big deal about the majority unrighteously taking away rights, when it isn't a right, has never been a right, and in thousands of years nobody in any culture or nation ever conceived of it as something that was inherent to humanity and could not be abridged away because it was a right.  Somebody just picked up a rock somewhere and inexplicably found it lying there, and whaddya know, A New Right! 

 

I don't care if SCOTUS just lately declared that it is a right -- SCOTUS has an uneven reputation about such things and has been wrong before -- I seem to recall that SCOTUS once declared that black men and women had no rights that whites were bound to respect.  A decision that was NEVER overturned, by the way, until a constitutional amendment removed the right to own slaves.  That's a right that the majority took away, too, isn't it?  Still think that simply calling something a right magically confers that dignity upon it?  It. Does. Not.  There might be rights not enumerated in the Constitution, which the Constitution itself acknowledges as a fact, but you utterly cannot with a straight face suggest that the right to marry someone of the same sex was anticipated by the Constitution.  There is no way, nohow.

 

I want to pop the next person in the face who claims that the majority cannot take away a nonexistent right.  Because gay marriage is not a right, and I don't care how many times it's called one.  That's the principle, by the way, discovered by a certain Mr. Goebbels, that a lie, often enough repeated, becomes easily mistaken for the truth by the gullible masses.  And the masses have swallowed this one hook, line, and sinker.  Along with the apparently brain dead SCOTUS.

 

I think I am done with this topic of discussion.  No matter how logically one attempts to argue there is no real response, except a flurry of ad hominems (you bigot!) and non-sequitors (you're offending my dignity!).

 

 

You can spell any word any way you want, but the purpose behind standardized spelling is to effectively communicate. So spell away but don't expect to be understood.

 

The right to own slaves in the US is established in our Constitution. It was changed by the 14th Amendment. BTW slavery has a long and infamous history not only in the US but world wide back into antiquity. So yes some somebody's looked under a rock and found a new "Right" for blacks.

 

Do you have the right to have concubines, polygamy, forced marriage? Under the theocratic rules of ancient Israel you sure did. Are those the "righteous" rights you want?

 

Yep. That was the Dred Scott Decision. One of the worst, if not the worst ever made. Almost as much "fun" as Plessy v Ferguson.

 

Yep. I seem to recall a song called "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" sung during our Civil War that came before the 14th Amendment was passed.

 

The right to own people as pets was established in our Constitution. We changed it to find new rights for certain citizens. The right to marry is nowhere in our enumerated rights in the Constitution. The right to marry anyone of any color was a USSC decision in Loving v Virginia and now the right to SSM in Obergefell-v-Hodges under the protections of the 14th Amendment. No one is requiring you to marry someone of the same sex, or even perform such a marriage in your church.

 

Hit me and I hit back even harder.  We are a Constitutional Republic So No! Under our laws you can't take away rights by popular vote.

 

Just present a logical legally rational argument against SSM, and I'll listen.