When Civil Liberties and Private Enterprise Rights Collide

[Athena]

Stores use sonic devices to chase kids
By ROBERT BARR
Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) -- England's commissioner for children and a civil liberties group joined in on a campaign Tuesday to ban high-frequency devices intended to drive misbehaving children away from shops and other areas.

The so-called "Mosquito" device emits high-frequency noise which is audible - and annoying - to young ears, but generally not heard by people over 20.

"This device is a quick fix that does not tackle the root cause of the problem and it is indiscriminate," English Children's Commissioner Al Aynsley-Green said.

The campaigners claim that about 3,500 of the devices, made by a Welsh company, are in use.

Aynsley-Green said in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio that the devices do not tackle the real problem, which is that children have no place to gather other than on the streets.

"I think it is a powerful symptom of what I call the malaise at the heart of our society," he said.

"I'm very concerned about what I see to be an emerging gap between the young and the old, the fears, the intolerance, even the hatred, of the older generation toward the young."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, supported the campaign.

"Imagine the outcry if a device was introduced that caused blanket discomfort to people of one race or gender, rather than to our kids," Chakrabarti said. "The 'Mosquito' has no place in a country that values its children and seeks to instill them with dignity and respect."

The Mosquito's inventor, Howard Stapleton, has called for agreement about guidelines for using the devices.

"We tell shopkeepers to use it when they have a problem and I would be more than happy to introduce a contract which stipulates to shopkeepers how it can be used," Stapleton was quoted as telling the Western Mail newspaper.

"People talk about infringing human rights but what about the human rights of the shopkeeper who is seeing his business collapse because groups of unruly teenagers are driving away his customers?"

---------------

I totally side with the business owners. Now, I know there are a lot of parents on this forum who don't care for my take on a lot of issues involving children. That being said...

...Bring it. :cool:

[swivel]

Hellz yes. I want one.

If they can blast their bass into my car and house, I want to be able to fight back. It would be like having a dog whistle for immature pricks!

Wait. But I would have to start dating adults, wouldn't I? Fuck.

[Athena]

Hellz yes. I want one.

If they can blast their bass into my car and house, I want to be able to fight back. It would be like having a dog whistle for immature pricks!

Wait. But I would have to start dating adults, wouldn't I? Fuck.

LMAO...Yeah, I hate the excessive bass coming from other cars.

...that's why I make sure my subwoofers are louder. :D

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

So is this something they can use when kids are misbehaving, or teens who are bringing trouble I wonder? Or is it...on, like-all the time?

As a business owner who has to worry about other troubles, I find myself siding with them as well, regardless of my daughters. I would hope I raise my girls not to grow up and act like assholes around places of business...

All in all, I could see how this would raise a number of red flags, but shit. I like it. Why not? If it's what I think it is, I guess....if it's something that just deters children, I think it's retarded. But if it's something that can be controlled, I guess, to get angry and juvenile little bastards away, I agree with it.

[Athena]

...if it's something that just deters children, I think it's retarded. But if it's something that can be controlled, I guess, to get angry and juvenile little bastards away, I agree with it.

I think this is the question. Will it be used within reason? Some parents might argue that society is getting increasingly hostile toward children. Evidence of this is stores and restaurants that post signs warning parents that ill-behaved children will get them removed. I, on the other hand, would argue that children are getting increasingly hostile toward society.

Some stores and restaurants will, undoubtedly, overuse such a device. But is this justification to ban their use?

[gprime]

As is almost always the case, I too must side with the businesses. When I was younger, I frequented places that treated me the same way they would a minor. To this day, I still try and go only to movie theaters that don't card. And I try to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart (hard as poor college student) in order to not support a chain that bans Parental Advisory music, and restricts the sale of DVDs and videogames. I do this because I don't like the way these places try to parent and impose their own moral standards on the rest of us. But, at the same time, I respect their right to do so. If tomorrow Quedobas became 21+ or Borders barred Jews, I would be offended, but would support their rights. At the end of the day, people need to understand what rights really are. Nobody as a right to be allowed entry into a private business, but private business owners have a right to restrict who can enter or be served.

[swivel]

gprime, you think a bar should be able to open up and hang a sign that says, "No blacks allowed"?

[CPL CHUD]

I totally want one of those things.

[gprime]

gprime, you think a bar should be able to open up and hang a sign that says, "No blacks allowed"?

Yes. If I ever saw a bar like that, I would not only avoid going, but encourage everybody I know to do likewise. But I respect the rights of PRIVATE INDUSTRY to set their own policies, even if they are discriminatory in nature.

The fact of the matter is that the market, if allowed to act free from unwarrented governmental restraint, will resolve it. The bar will attract a very specific audience, and may do well from it. But it loses other potential customers, potentially hurting its bottom line. If people value their racist beliefs over their income, that is their right.

[swivel]

The fact of the matter is that the market, if allowed to act free from unwarrented governmental restraint, will resolve it.

Mmmm. Not a good idea, my friend. The majority resolved to have slavery. To not let women vote. Racial segregation. Local majorities instituted polygamy.

The reason we have a judicial branch is because we often need a minority of people, with a sense of the objective moral truth, determine the laws for an immoral majority.

Just as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater can lead to harm, and should not be protected by free speech, so can institutionalized racism lead to physical and emotional harm, and should not be protected by privacy rights. Especially when it is a public business.

[gprime]

I do agree that we need to make sure minority rights are protected. But frequenting a specific business is not a right. Descrimination sucks, but that doesn't mean banning it is legitimate. Government, because it is designed to protect and serve the public, cannot practice such vile hatred. But individuals and their businesses can.

As for slavery, I don't consider it a good example. That is not something that is financially unsound in a way that would allow for automatic market correction. The reason slavery can be outlawed, and is very clearly different from standard descrimination, is that it violates the human rights of those being enslaved against their will.

[swivel]

I do agree that we need to make sure minority rights are protected. But frequenting a specific business is not a right. Descrimination sucks, but that doesn't mean banning it is legitimate. Government, because it is designed to protect and serve the public, cannot practice such vile hatred. But individuals and their businesses can.

As for slavery, I don't consider it a good example. That is not something that is financially unsound in a way that would allow for automatic market correction. The reason slavery can be outlawed, and is very clearly different from standard descrimination, is that it violates the human rights of those being enslaved against their will.

Correct. Which is why "equal protection" laws prevent discrimination in businesses.

Let's say the "White Only" joint has a far superior burger than the "Black Only" joint. You are saying that an arbitrary sample of the population can not have equal access to the best burger because why? To protect the hate of a few misguided people?

Once again, all conflict arises from the meeting of two non-congruent liberties. The goal of a true, moral thinker is to determine which of these liberties more closely aligns with the objective moral truth. Just as the ACLU is famous for picking the wrong side, I see too many on this forum doing the same.

You can't hide behind the, "I protect liberty" idea, either. It ignores the fact that someone's liberty is going to be curtailed. And an appeal to ownership doesn't work either. I can own the farm, but slavery still isn't allowed. Living within the borders of a defined country grants benefits to each member. These benefits aren't free, they must be accepted by agreeing to a social contract (literal idea, not social contract theory). My tax dollars can not go to providing military protection for people that are engaging in slavery on their own property.

I wish morality was as easy as Libertarians want them to be. The concept of "everyone leave everyone else alone" sounds nice on paper, but it fails in the real world. We have to put a little though and effort into figuring out how all of us can get along. "To Each His Own" is not a valid moral philosophy.

[gprime]

Swivel, I think you've missed the point. Slavery is a clear violation of human rights, as removes a person's ownership over their own body without their consent. There is no room for debate there. However, frequenting a business is not a right. Store owners are entitled to apply racist policies, because it upholds rights rather than removes them. The owner has a right to run his business without infringing upon the rights of others. He is therefore allowed to deny access to whomever he considers undesirable, regardless of the reason. But, the customer does not have a right to shop at a place where he is unwanted. To go where he is unwelcome is a violation of the store owner's property rights. So, whether you care to admit it or not, property rights are the key issue here.

[swivel]

Swivel, I think you've missed the point. Slavery is a clear violation of human rights, as removes a person's ownership over their own body without their consent. There is no room for debate there. However, frequenting a business is not a right. Store owners are entitled to apply racist policies, because it upholds rights rather than removes them. The owner has a right to run his business without infringing upon the rights of others. He is therefore allowed to deny access to whomever he considers undesirable, regardless of the reason. But, the customer does not have a right to shop at a place where he is unwanted. To go where he is unwelcome is a violation of the store owner's property rights. So, whether you care to admit it or not, property rights are the key issue here.

Of course they are the issue.

There is a difference between a reasonable right and an unreasonable right. For instance, a shop owner can say, "No unattended children allowed in here". This is a reasonable right. There are items in the shop which might harm a kid, or the kid might damage shop-owner property.

An unreasonable right is allowing the shop owner to say, "No blacks allowed. Because I don't like blacks". As soon as the government upholds that right, they are taking part in a system of discrimination. They are party to racism.

Do you think that polygamy should be legal? Heroin and cocaine?

[gprime]

I've said before that I support total drug legalization, so I would support making coke and heroin available. As for polygamy, I'm opposed to the institution of marraige in general. But, if it must exist, then I would in fact back the right to polygamy.

As for the black issue, how is it unreasonable? The potential customer has no right to shop or enter somewhere. This means his rights cannot be violated by barring his entry. Only the rights of the store owner can be violated, as they are by present laws. Banning individual or corporate expressions of hatred cannot and should not be outlawed.

[swivel]

People don't have the right to shop, but they have the right to own shops? Where in the Constitution is this distinction made?

How is the ownership of a shop guaranteed by the Constitution? It isn't.

But equality and fair access are at least given lip-service.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

[Athena]

There is a difference between a reasonable right and an unreasonable right. For instance, a shop owner can say, "No unattended children allowed in here". This is a reasonable right. There are items in the shop which might harm a kid, or the kid might damage shop-owner property.

An unreasonable right is allowing the shop owner to say, "No blacks allowed. Because I don't like blacks". As soon as the government upholds that right, they are taking part in a system of discrimination. They are party to racism.


So, disallowing a faction of society entrance into your establishment simply needs to be based in reason? Unsupervised children are more likely to injure themselves or damage property while blacks are more likely to steal or act violently. Is one version of discrimination really more reasonable than the other?

[swivel]

Is one version of discrimination really more reasonable than the other?

Yes.

Dogs aren't allowed into restaurants because of health reasons.

Blacks aren't allowed into restaurants because... why?

[Athena]

Yes.

Dogs aren't allowed into restaurants because of health reasons.

Blacks aren't allowed into restaurants because... why?

Dogs aren't people. Please stay on topic and explain to me why it is reasonable to discriminate against kids based on the information you put forth but unreasonable to discriminate against blacks based on the information I put forth. If you haven't noticed, I take issue with the subjectivity your positions seem to be based on. I'm trying to determine whether or not the line you draw is as arbitrary as it appears.

I can understand the argument against discrimination of any kind (which would include children). I can understand the argument against anti-discrimination laws. I can understand an argument that splits the difference, IF there is a consistent measure by which we can determine what is reasonable. I'm asking you to please explain to me how you determine what is reasonable in this case, since increased risk to the property owner is obviously not enough in and of itself.

[swivel]

Yo, psycho, I'm not ignoring you. Stop being so needy. There are other people talking to me, and I like to spread my attention around. I've never avoided an argument in my life, and actually go well out of my way to induce them. If you keep this bullshit up I'm going to have Morbid put an "Ignore" list on the site and make you my only member.

Seriously, lighten the fuck up you psycho. I am off reading comics and not hitting the refresh key to obsess over your every word the way you seem to be after my hot ass.

Now... to address the less-pathetic portion of your post:

Kids could be discriminated against in the case of a convienence store near a school that finds it is getting robbed blind every afternoon. The owner allows kids in, but sets a limit of 3 kids at a time, because he can not keep his eyes on more than that. I have seen this at dozens of shops near schools, and the descrimination makes sense. There is an implicit accusation here that "kids steal", and the man is protecting his merchandise. The courts would agree with this man, and they would be right to do so.

Now, imagine another shop near an all-black school. It puts up a sign that says, "No blacks allowed". The implication here is that blacks steal. And the man is protecting his merchandise.

Do you see a difference here? Do you not think that the danger of having a tiny store, packed with 20+ kids is more dangerous for the owner than having one black person? You could make this scientific, and perform studies, but it isn't even necessary in this case (or most of the cases we are disputing).


Another case: Kids are not allowed in pornography sections of video stores. But there is no law against kids looking at pornography boxes, yet clear laws against renting/buying. Do you not understand the basis for this discrimination? And see the difference with this, and a sign over the porno section that says, "No blacks allowed"?

[Athena]

Yo, psycho, I'm not ignoring you. Stop being so needy. There are other people talking to me, and I like to spread my attention around. I've never avoided an argument in my life, and actually go well out of my way to induce them. If you keep this bullshit up I'm going to have Morbid put an "Ignore" list on the site and make you my only member.

Seriously, lighten the fuck up you psycho. I am off reading comics and not hitting the refresh key to obsess over your every word the way you seem to be after my hot ass.

Now... to address the less-pathetic portion of your post:

Kids could be discriminated against in the case of a convienence store near a school that finds it is getting robbed blind every afternoon. The owner allows kids in, but sets a limit of 3 kids at a time, because he can not keep his eyes on more than that. I have seen this at dozens of shops near schools, and the descrimination makes sense. There is an implicit accusation here that "kids steal", and the man is protecting his merchandise. The courts would agree with this man, and they would be right to do so.

Now, imagine another shop near an all-black school. It puts up a sign that says, "No blacks allowed". The implication here is that blacks steal. And the man is protecting his merchandise.

Do you see a difference here? Do you not think that the danger of having a tiny store, packed with 20+ kids is more dangerous for the owner than having one black person? You could make this scientific, and perform studies, but it isn't even necessary in this case (or most of the cases we are disputing).


Another case: Kids are not allowed in pornography sections of video stores. But there is no law against kids looking at pornography boxes, yet clear laws against renting/buying. Do you not understand the basis for this discrimination? And see the difference with this, and a sign over the porno section that says, "No blacks allowed"?

You spend soooooo long NOT addressing my point. Maybe if you did less of that, you'd have more time for your peeps.

How 'bout you just admit that justification has little if nothing to do with it? If a store-owner in Compton, CA was just as likely to be stolen from by blacks as the store owner near a school was to be stolen from by kids, it would still be wrong to ban blacks but okay to ban kids, right?

[swivel]

You spend soooooo long NOT addressing my point. Maybe if you did less of that, you'd have more time for your peeps.

How 'bout you just admit that justification has little if nothing to do with it? If a store-owner in Compton, CA was just as likely to be stolen from by blacks as the store owner near a school was to be stolen from by kids, it would still be wrong to ban blacks but okay to ban kids, right?

No. There is nothing we have found about blacks that makes them more likely to steal. We HAVE found things about kids that make them more likely to steal. For one, they have higher levels of adrenocortical steroids, which make them more likely to take risks, such as breaking minor laws. The frontal lobes of men are not fully developed until they reach their mid-30's, for women it is in the mid-20's, and this is where the impulse-control faculties lie. Young kids have more highly-active mirror neurons, making them more susceptible to peer pressure. They are in social groups that make taking risks to impress far more likely. They are not experienced yet with the legal repercussions of their actions. They are not seen as fully culpable under the law, and understand this.

Black people meanwhile are just black. If they are young and black, it is their youth that makes them likely to steal (see above). If they are poor and black, it is their poverty that makes them likely to steal (and you won't see a store with "poor people not welcome" sign, they know the demographic of their area and bar the windows and get a time-safe, etc...).

You keep accusing me of making arbitrary designations, and I keep laying the fucking smack down with specific analogies and brilliant thought-exercises. Just like with your boyfriend TXChris, I fucking own you up and down the forum, and you keep accusing me of bad thinking, or of not spending enough time spooning you, instead of giving me something that actually makes me think.

[gprime]

People don't have the right to shop, but they have the right to own shops? Where in the Constitution is this distinction made?

We within the West have based our legal system, and indeed our understanding of rights, around property. So that would be the clear source of distinction.

[swivel]

We within the West have based our legal system, and indeed our understanding of rights, around property. So that would be the clear source of distinction.

So, we can murder people, as long as we do it on our own property?

Clearly property is NOT what determines rights. You are just making shit up, or not thinking clearly.

I think you take your hatred of government, and your pursuit of perfect liberty a little too far. Human nature does not allow any government, however perfect on paper, to escape the tendency towards anarchy.

[Dark Star]

You keep accusing me of making arbitrary designations, and I keep laying the fucking smack down with specific analogies and brilliant thought-exercises. Just like with your boyfriend TXChris, I fucking own you up and down the forum, and you keep accusing me of bad thinking, or of not spending enough time spooning you, instead of giving me something that actually makes me think.

Wow Swivel! My damn face hurts and you weren't even putting the smack-down on me. ;) You're like a vicious dog, man, you scare me. :p

*runs out as quickly as I ran the fuck in*:D

[swivel]

Wow Swivel! My damn face hurts and you weren't even putting the smack-down on me. ;) You're like a vicious dog, man, you scare me. :p

*runs out as quickly as I ran the fuck in*:D

I try to be a nice guy outside of "Three Things" and front page comments.

Sometimes I slip up and say nice shit here, but I remain vigilant.

[taintfutcha]

Human nature does not allow any government, however perfect on paper, to escape the tendency towards anarchy.

hmmm-might you elaborate? curious statement..

[Athena]

No. There is nothing we have found about blacks that makes them more likely to steal. We HAVE found things about kids that make them more likely to steal. For one, they have higher levels of adrenocortical steroids, which make them more likely to take risks, such as breaking minor laws. The frontal lobes of men are not fully developed until they reach their mid-30's, for women it is in the mid-20's, and this is where the impulse-control faculties lie. Young kids have more highly-active mirror neurons, making them more susceptible to peer pressure. They are in social groups that make taking risks to impress far more likely. They are not experienced yet with the legal repercussions of their actions. They are not seen as fully culpable under the law, and understand this.

Black people meanwhile are just black. If they are young and black, it is their youth that makes them likely to steal (see above). If they are poor and black, it is their poverty that makes them likely to steal (and you won't see a store with "poor people not welcome" sign, they know the demographic of their area and bar the windows and get a time-safe, etc...).

You keep accusing me of making arbitrary designations, and I keep laying the fucking smack down with specific analogies and brilliant thought-exercises. Just like with your boyfriend TXChris, I fucking own you up and down the forum, and you keep accusing me of bad thinking, or of not spending enough time spooning you, instead of giving me something that actually makes me think.

So, the predisposition only matters if it's scientific in nature? Whether the cause is cultural, socio-economic or intrinsic to ones stage in life, a threat is still a threat, is it not? What about insurance companies, for example? They are able to offer people different rates based on gender, credit history, location...but not race? If the impact of a particular characteristic is clear and measurable in terms of risk, why can't businesses protect themselves against it?

[swivel]

So, the predisposition only matters if it's scientific in nature? Whether the cause is cultural, socio-economic or intrinsic to ones stage in life, a threat is still a threat, is it not? What about insurance companies, for example? They are able to offer people different rates based on gender, credit history, location...but not race? If the impact of a particular characteristic is clear and measurable in terms of risk, why can't businesses protect themselves against it?

I think they should. If sickle-cell anemia becomes one of the leading killers in the US (once we nail cancer and heart disease), blacks should see a rise in premiums. If we lose the ozone layer, and skin cancer becomes a costly killer, whites should see a similar rise.

We do have to be careful, though, in treating differences in two types of risk-factors. One type is that which is chosen, such as smokers, drinkers, people in dangerous professions... these people should see a steep rise, at LEAST matching the rise in risk.

However, I think we should have a bit of caution, and perhaps even debate, on how much we match the other type of risk, In-Born, to the rise in insurance premiums. I am not for the re-distribution of wealth, but if we find (as is probably the case now) that various races have various risk factors that come close to canceling each other out, we should ignore the risks that people have no control over, and spread the cost of those risks amongst everybody.

Of course, there are many genetic and In-Born health disorders that are very costly, which require their own risk assessment, and this is unfortunate, but such is the luck of the draw. Private donors and charities should always help ease the burden on people born with disorders that increase insurance premiums.

[gprime]

So, we can murder people, as long as we do it on our own property?

Well, many states do still respect the rights of a property owners to shoot those who trespass on their land. So your example is a bad one. That flaw aside, murder is not the a valid example. People have a right to life, until they threaten or end the life of another. Merely going into a store unwelcomed is not then grounds for that. However, having a right to live is not the same as having a right to shop wherever one so desires. So it seems that it is you who is thinking less clearly than ought to be the case.

[swivel]

Well, many states do still respect the rights of a property owners to shoot those who trespass on their land. So your example is a bad one. That flaw aside, murder is not the a valid example. People have a right to life, until they threaten or end the life of another. Merely going into a store unwelcomed is not then grounds for that. However, having a right to live is not the same as having a right to shop wherever one so desires. So it seems that it is you who is thinking less clearly than ought to be the case.

I'm going to keep coming back to this post. When it makes sense to me, perhaps I will have a response.

[CPL CHUD]

hmmm-might you elaborate? curious statement..
I don't want to answer for Swiv, but there are a lot of forms of governments (communist) and governmental policies that look great and sound great on paper but ultimately reality and human nature get in the way. History is simply dotted with examples.

[TXChris]

Mmmm. Not a good idea, my friend. The majority resolved to have slavery. To not let women vote. Racial segregation. Local majorities instituted polygamy.

The reason we have a judicial branch is because we often need a minority of people, with a sense of the objective moral truth, determine the laws for an immoral majority.

Just as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater can lead to harm, and should not be protected by free speech, so can institutionalized racism lead to physical and emotional harm, and should not be protected by privacy rights. Especially when it is a public business.

Geez, Swiv, you really believe the garbage you espouse, don't you?

Slavery was deemed okay until society's beliefs changed and it worked itself out on it's own, in most countries. Of course, here in the U.S. a certain president used the fact that it was happening as a means to suppress the individual liberty of it's own citizens, but I digress...

Woman's suffrage was something that came about as society, the majority you are always using as an example, decided that it was the right thing. Racial segregation, polygamy, and a whole host of other issues you deem morally wrong have been eradicated by society's acceptance of a new line of thought, not because of the passing of laws. The laws passed were merely a representation of the change in society's views. Morality is SUBJECTIVE, son. As a society's reality changes so does its moral values.

You seem to like to argue against that which you support. The majority, according to you, indirectly writes law. They vote in the legislative branch. So, using your logic, it is precisely that same majority that has done away with those things you see as evil. But, here you are using slavery, woman's suffrage, etc. as examples of how the majority is wrong. Which side is it, Swivel?

As far as "public business" goes, a bar is a private establishment. If it were a public one it would be funded by the government. So, let the owner decide who he does or does not want to serve. As GPrime stated, he will either do well with his like-minded clients, or he will suffer because of the loss of business. The beauty of the free market is that if left to its own devices only those things that the majority, your favorite group of people, Swivel, deem necessary will survive and grow. Government, on the other hand, bows to the whims of whomever lobbies it most effectively.

And, as far as your assertion that the judicial branch is so fantastic, dude, you are so unbelievably misguided. Yes, the concept of the judicial branch and our checks and balances is a fantastic thing. If the concept was executed as it was intended, I would have nothing to argue. Unfortunately, where the concept has failed, time and time again, is in its execution. You can defend a concept all you want, but you must be willing to accept reality as it stands and not as it was expected to stand when the concept was introduced.

[TXChris]

I don't want to answer for Swiv, but there are a lot of forms of governments (communist) and governmental policies that look great and sound great on paper but ultimately reality and human nature get in the way. History is simply dotted with examples.

Exactly! Because government has always attempted to do everything other than protect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of its populace. Governments, throughout history including our current one, have been more intent on creating artificial equality which only ends up displacing what people consider inequality within different groups. By making one group more "equal" the government is making all other groups less "equal." Forcing equality only moves that perceived inequality between groups of people. When people, like Swivel, can learn to accept that government intervention only feeds racism we will all be better off.

[swivel]

Geez, Swiv, you really believe the garbage you espouse, don't you?

Slavery was deemed okay until society's beliefs changed and it worked itself out on it's own, in most countries. Of course, here in the U.S. a certain president used the fact that it was happening as a means to suppress the individual liberty of it's own citizens, but I digress...

Yes, yes, we know you read "The Real Lincoln" and accept it as holy writ. You would benefit from reading some other texts on the guy, he was very damaging to this country, but out of the best of intentions (like most of our "best" presidents).

You are wrong about slavery and suffrage being subjective rights. There were tons of people throughout our history that argued against these evils. Many slave-owners had reservations, but worked hard to justify their practices. The fact that people wrestled with these demons should tell you something: There is a universal, objective moral sense that all healthy people understand. It is the subjective evils that change, not our willingness to accept them without pause.

Further evidence of this is that history has steadily moved in one direction, which is TOWARDS this objective moral standard. And it isn't because we are discovering bits and pieces of this along the way, the entire road map has been laid out by countless sages throughout human history. Buddha, Jesus, Seneca, Epictetus, Musonius Rufus (my personal favorite), and the more popular European philosophers, to name a few. The Golden Rule, the foundation of Objective Moral Truth, is found in every major religion. It is a natural product of the interaction of several modules in our brains.

If you were right, there would be no change in societal norms, because everyone would always agree that what they are currently doing is correct. There would be no pressure for the betterment of society. But, that is not what we see. What we see is a slow march towards the very ideals set down by philosophers over 3,000 years ago! A closer and closer approximation of a beautiful truth that everyone intuits, and a few aspire for. How is this possible if all is subjective? You are so obviously wrong it feels silly to even be arguing with you about this.

The good thing is that your inability to understand human nature, moral philosophy, history, game theory, psychology, evolution, will not have much effect on our progress as a species. The journey has not faltered in the face of millions of people such as yourself along the way. You will be but a bump in the history of moral progress. A moral and intellectual failure that looked at every argument from a single side, and pretended to know truth.

[TXChris]

So, based on your assumption that I have read only one book on a particular subject, I, too, can assume that you have read only high school history books to come to the conclusions you have. Am I correct? Get real.

Beyond that, your argument that the ends justify the means is a bunch of bullshit. Just because some person has good intentions does not mean the way he went about it is justified. That is purely unethical.

Yes, there were tons of people, as you put it, that argued against slavery and for women's suffrage. That's not the point. Pay attention, Swivel. YOU have been touting the greatness of the majority's opinion, consistently stating that the decision of a group is more keen than that of one individual. Here I am showing you that it was the belief of the majority, for quite a while, that slavery was okay and that women did not deserve suffrage. That being the case, the majority does not always make the correct decisions, and morals are indeed subjective to a person's environment. As times change so do the beliefs of a society. This is Sociology 101.

It's quite obvious you are having a hard time understanding what I am arguing for and, at the same time, trying to prove what you believe in. So, instead, you say things that make no sense, such as "If you were right, there would be no change in societal norms, because everyone would always agree that what they are currently doing is correct." My argument is that, in general, morals are subjective and change as society evolves. How does that support your claim that I believe that things currently done are correct?

You have shown you are devoid of any logical reasoning as you are emotionally-driven. That is the fallacy in what you believe.

The thing is, the more I think about it the more convinced I become that you are so damn close to understanding...just about there, but not quite. Here's what is interesting about your multitude of posts. You have stated that organized religion is the most evil of things. However, organized religion is based upon their belief of an objective moral truth. Imagine that, the exact same thing you beat everybody over the head with. The problem you come across is how do you tell everyone that they are wrong and you are right? You can't, so you simply write that off as a technicality. After all, we wouldn't want you to have to rethink your entire belief system, now would we? Face it, Swiv, you are doing exactly what you berate organized religion for doing. Your whole basis for hatred toward them is rooted in your belief of their guiding principle, which you typed out in your very own post below regarding the "Golden Rule."

The bottom line is while you fight for the rights of 6 out of 10 people, I choose to spend my time fighting for the rights of 10 out of 10 people. Good intentions do not justify the end result.

[swivel]

Only about 10% of the South owned slaves. They weren't the majority. Your arguments are the ones that are upside-down. The Civil War was a case of the MINORITY (white, rich, southern politicians) forcing the rest of their society to go along with their evil ways.

I don't even know why I bother with a dude who thinks the Civil War wasn't over slavery. You are 100% predictable, and almost always wrong.

For instance, you argue that I think morality comes from the majority, but I state over and over that the Judicial system is necessary because it allows a moral minority to dictate the rules to the majority.

But really, if you think Hitler was elected by a Democracy (with 37% of the vote) and that the Civil War wasn't based entirely on slavery, then I am obviously just dealing with the sort of person who repeats things said and written elsewhere, and incapable of honest thought. Neither of these two points is arguable.

[Sea Hag]

I don't even know why I bother with a dude who thinks the Civil War wasn't over slavery.

HA! That's almost as bad as someone thinking Schwarzenegger was a shitty choice to play Conan.

[swivel]

HA! That's almost as bad as someone thinking Schwarzenegger was a shitty choice to play Conan.

Touch'e. I've thought more on that issue, and read some of the older comics to get the "feel" for Conan as he was originally, and I am leaning towards Morbid's view on that one. Arnold was probably the best choice at the time, and did a fine job. But I still think that Dwayne would be the best Conan ever.

/end distraction (hopefully)

[TXChris]

You are hilarious, Swivel. You love turning things around, but that's okay. I don't mind. LOL

Slavery was mentioned in a clearly societal context. Not just here in the U.S., but throughout history. You also seem to think this Democracy thing is so great because the majority makes the rules, as you have mentioned on multiple occassions, yet you just said that the minority kept slavery around. Which is it, Swivel, are Democracies good or bad? Are they right or wrong? Again, you contradict yourself between threads.

Judicial oversight is a great thing, in the context of a checks and balances system that actually works. What we have does not work. The judiciary branch has long forgone their job and instead taken it upon themselves to do the jobs of the other branches too.

I am predictable because I state my beliefs and stand by them. You, on the other hand, constantly "tweak" your position when someone calls you to prove your argument as you expect them to do. When that fails you resort to childish name-calling. It's quite hilarious actually. But, it, too, makes you entirely predictable. As you are devoid of reason without emotion, one can guess exactly what you will say word for word every time. So, maybe being predictable is not such a bad thing, eh?

The truth is you continue to dig yourself deeper into a hole. You want truth? Contrary to your paltry 10% bullshit you stated, actual slave ownership was around 37% in the lower South, 25% in the upper south, and 16% in the border states. That's a far cry from 10%. Also, you fail to take into consideration that just because one did not own slaves does not preclude one from believing in slavery.

So, once again, you show that all you focus on is the immediate gratification without taking into consideration all pertanent information. Oh yeah, and then you also happen to spit out numbers without actually looking them up. Minor detail, I guess, huh?

EDIT: source 1 (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html) source 2 (http://www.southernhistory.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9406)

[swivel]

You keep saying that I feel that the majority should rule in moral cases. Multiple times I've shot this shit down, and yet you keep bringing it up again. If you can only feel good by cheating, I don't begrudge you that right, but maybe you are just dense, so here it goes again:

I BELIEVE IN AN OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTH.

Get it? The majority doesn't decide on questions of ethics. Ever. I have never stated otherwise, you fucking liar. You are the idot that believes the bullshit you are accusing me of. I'm starting to think that you are either below-average in intelligence, or just a troll.

(Just so you know, when I cuss at you, it is because it hammers my point home. You have yet to get my heart above normal, and I toy with you while doing three other things. I am as level and calm as one can possibly be when I discuss how incredibly ignorant and retarded you are. Just so you can read my words with the same level of emotion that goes into them. Now, see if you can make a point without lying. Good luck.)

[TXChris]

And yet you continue to argue the greatness of a Democracy, in multiple posts, and how the majority is better at deciding policy than a single person, which is completely opposite what you are stating now about the minority and an objective moral truth. Face it, Swivel, you're backpeddling and tripping over your own feet.

[swivel]

And yet you continue to argue the greatness of a Democracy, in multiple posts, and how the majority is better at deciding policy than a single person, which is completely opposite what you are stating now about the minority and an objective moral truth. Face it, Swivel, you're backpeddling and tripping over your own feet.

Please show me the quotes where I say that morality should be determined by the wishes of the majority. This is YOUR stance, and I disagree with it. I use the term, "Objective Moral Truth" enough to need to hot-key it.

You are a liar until you provide the proof.

Nice try. Always saying things and hoping that is enough.

[Morbid]

And yet you continue to argue the greatness of a Democracy, in multiple posts, and how the majority is better at deciding policy than a single person, which is completely opposite what you are stating now about the minority and an objective moral truth. Face it, Swivel, you're backpeddling and tripping over your own feet.


Please show me the quotes where I say that morality should be determined by the wishes of the majority. This is YOUR stance, and I disagree with it. I use the term, "Objective Moral Truth" enough to need to hot-key it.

You are a liar until you provide the proof.

Nice try. Always saying things and hoping that is enough.

Seriously, I have been reading all of these threads and I must ask TXChris, could you please show any direct quotes in which swivel states "how the majority is better at deciding policy than a single person"?

I have not read that at all. I could be wrong, but since you are saying he did, could you direct me to it in it's complete context?

[TXChris]

Please show me the quotes where I say that morality should be determined by the wishes of the majority. This is YOUR stance, and I disagree with it. I use the term, "Objective Moral Truth" enough to need to hot-key it.

You are a liar until you provide the proof.

Nice try. Always saying things and hoping that is enough.

Once again with the lies, Swivel. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, though. Maybe you are just that slow. :) My position is not that morality should be determined by the wishes of the majority, rather it is determined by such. Honestly, Swivel, I just do not see how you have made it this far in life.

[TXChris]

Seriously, I have been reading all of these threads and I must ask TXChris, could you please show any direct quotes in which swivel states "how the majority is better at deciding policy than a single person"?

I have not read that at all. I could be wrong, but since you are saying he did, could you direct me to it in it's complete context?

There is a post he made, in one of the past threads, where he tried proving that he was correct by stating psychologists have proven that the decision of a group of people is superior to the decision of one person. I believe we were talking about the validity of democracy. I'll see if I can find it...

EDIT: Found it. We were discussing the populace as sheep and their failure in a democracy. His exact statement was, "Psychologists now know that large groups are smarter than the smartest individual in the group." It is post #6 of the Monopolies lead to lower prices thread.

[swivel]

EDIT: Found it. We were discussing the populace as sheep and their failure in a democracy. His exact statement was, "Psychologists now know that large groups are smarter than the smartest individual in the group." It is post #6 of the Monopolies lead to lower prices thread.

Where is the morality in that quote you lying sack of shit?

Oh, right. It isn't there. Damn, your reading comprehension isn't very good. Guess I'll stop recommending books. Like James Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds". Wouldn't do you any good would it? Since you can't read sentences and comprehend meanings.

For anyone else who is interested, the books starts with a great (and true) story of an experiment (loosely) run in the early 20th century by the great scientist Francis Galton. Galton came across a contest in a fair, where you guess the weight of an Ox. He was watching the people that put in an entry, and they were a very diverse lot. Almost none of them were experts in the field. He was curious about the results, so he asked for and was given the ~800 entries after the contest. None of them were correct, and they were all over the place. But, when he arranged the guesses, they formed a very neat bell curve, and then took the mean of the curve. This number represents the collective wisdom of the crowd. The Ox weighed over 1,000 pounds (can't remember the exact number), and the crowd was ONE POUND OFF!

This can be done on any guessing experiment to find the true number. When you try it out (as I have done), it almost seems like magic. And this concept fuels the stock-exchanges that now let you buy and sell any idea. Like whether or not Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will emerge the victor. These markets are more reliable than any other predictor, because of the collective wisdom of the crowd.

[TXChris]

Morality wasn't the question, was it, Swivel? Morbid asked where you stated that the group is better than the individual in forming policy. I pointed it out to him, though didn't copy and paste the entire thread; just the sentence where you mention that the group was smarter than the individual. But I did let everyone know where to find the information.

See, the thing is, you don't really know where you stand, Swivel. You bounce around, one moment espousing the greatness of the majority and Democracy, and the next moment the evils of it. You talk about some objective moral philosophy, but then state that only you are correct. Organized religion, you claim is evil, but you live your life according to the same basic concept...self righteousness. The truth is, you have NO IDEA where you stand. You just want to be right at any cost. I have no respect for that. As I said in another post, the intelligence seems to be there but your emotion completely overrides it.

Meanwhile, my belief is rather simple, let people live their lives as they see fit as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. It really is just that simple, Swivel. You spend entirely too much time trying to force others to accept your beliefs instead of fighting for those same people. As I said previously, you fight for the rights and beliefs of 6 out of 10 people, that agree with you no less, while I fight for the rights of 10 out of 10 people...period. Ignoring 4 out of the 10 people as collateral damage is unacceptable.