Defining the noun "Liberal"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Nov 18, 2016.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,600
    As long as you insist on trolling other people in your futile attempt to troll Iceaura, we might as well take the moment, Schmelzer, to remind that you are the racist who compares living in dark skin to willful offense, including sex crime.

    Your judgment, Schmelzer―your description of anything―is inherently unreliable because you are a racist, supremacist hatemonger.

    So bawl all you want; it's all you have to offer anyone, anyway.
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,596
    You want to tell me that somebody creates illegal porn, risking a lot, for seeing that the number of downloads is high? Sorry, not interested in buying any bridges.
    Nonsense. If the audience gives you no income, it does not matter. And if everybody in the audience gets for free 100s of Gigabytes of already existing porn, none of the audience will spend much money. Some exceptional freaks, maybe. But this is not enough to create a market.
    No. There is no abetting in a reasonable relevant sense if there is no payment.

    About "freedom of contract" it makes no longer sense to argue, I use the classical liberal meaning, you some American liberal newspeak meaning, where you have to ask the government to permit a refusal, which is given only if you can present a valid reason:
    This is like slavery. If you have a valid reason in the slave owners opinion, say, if you are very ill, the owner will also allow you to stay at home. The question of you are a free man or a slave is decided in another way: It depends on what happens if you have no "valid reason".

    With freedom of contract there is no such animal as an invalid reason to refuse. Because there is no such action as to refuse. You simply do not sign. That's all. If there are valid and invalid reasons for refusal, there is no freedom to refuse, thus, no freedom of contract.
    No post without such a line, not? But, sorry, but I don't care about which terms are politically correct and which politically incorrect. So, even if I really err about some particular use, that would not be important.

    My price for the post of the day goes to Tiassa, I have laughed a lot.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    Child molesters will create porn for an audience for no money, for free exchange, etc. In fact. They do, they have, they will. The ones creating a commercial market will also offer free samples, post examples of their wares, and so forth. This is obvious, and I'm not sure what to make of your denial of plain reality here.
    Slavery is not a contract, or like a contract. If it were, the slave owner's "opinion" would not matter - they would be bound to terms. The difference between being bound to terms and not being bound to terms is fundamental.
    Again, this bogus "signing" language of yours blinds you to physical reality, and causes you to make silly mistakes. You've been warned about that. Obviously commercial dealings with the public do not proceed as you imagine there, and do in fact involve refusal and rejection of - say - money offered for goods or services already on sale to the public.
    The larger point is that freedom of contract under liberal governance does involve definition of contract - which specifies when someone has or has not agreed to the terms, and is or is not therefore contractually obligated. In the US, that means the terms cannot include the race of either party in contracts offered to the public - no such contract is valid, and offering one as if it were valid (to anyone) is illegal.
    Neither do I. Your gullibility in the face of such propaganda has nothing to do with anything being "politically correct". It has to do with your being factually correct, and intellectually coherent, which your odd and specific gullibility has prevented.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,596
    Because this is only an excuse to justify the incarceration for owning pictures. This is what matters. But, of course, totalitarians eat every excuse, simply because it is an excuse for what they like. So, it is completely compatible for them to punish usual filesharing for destroying the market and porn filesharing for creating the market.

    Reality does not matter. Which makes sense, because the excuse is only an excuse, and what matters is not its truth, its correspondence to reality, but its acceptance as an excuse for thought crimes.
    Of course. A "contract", which is "signed" only because one has no "valid" reason to refuse is not a contract too.
    No doubt the difference is important. If you would be treated like a dog, but in a way bound to the terms of animal protection regulation, this is fine with you, and makes you fundamentally a free person?
    You cannot without a "you are stupid" line? Ok, so be it. Maybe you grow up in a few years. Whatever. Of course, there is refusal in reality. The problem is that in a liberal society refusal is a fundamental freedom, not restricted by regulation.
    The standard way for justification of almost every imaginable totalitarian law. "1984 blabla" governance does involve definition of everything, which specifies how everything has to be done. In Big Brother country, that means that one has to follow Big Brothers laws.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    Your mindreading abilities are not as good as you assume. It is a valid and carefully made - and very much discussed, analyzed, controversial, etc, - argument, regardless of whatever you think its motives are.
    And the law is written accordingly, not as you describe it.
    Of course. That's irrelevant, naturally - we are not talking about forcing anyone to offer contracts to anybody. We're talking about people voluntarily doing business with the public.
    Irrelevant. Although the image of someone thinking they are being treated like a dog because they have to come up with a reason to abuse their neighbors is suggestive of where you're coming from.
    You make silly mistakes like that because you insist on self-deceptive language, even after its problems have been pointed out to you. I don't know why. But if you insist on feeling picked on and insulted, I can't stop you.
    That would be the opposite of liberal government, of course - in what I posted, for example, instead of specifying what has to be done, a few things that cannot be done are specified. And formal limits are placed on what can and cannot be forbidden in this way.
     
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,596
    Lol. Feel free to support this with some link to some real discussion about it. A discussion where at least the conflict between piracy destroys the film and music market and free distribution of illegal porn supports the porn market is at least mentioned.

    In a situation where what the white racist wants to do, and would be allowed to do by freedom of contract in a liberal society, is not allowed, namely to have contracts with arbitrary whites, but none with blacks.
    Learn to read. This was a counterargument to your argument. If you don't understand why (it was not about what this text is about) read again and think about it.
    And yet another "you are stupid" claim. You really cannot do without it?

    BTW, if I would feel insulted by such contributions, I would have left this forum long ago. I accept that personal insinuations, personal attacks and insults are something unavoidable if you fight against lies and propaganda. So, I have accepted from the start that I will be insulted. It is simply part of my argumentation to point to the cases where my opponents have nothing but insults to answer my arguments. This shows their argumentative weakness as well as their lack of courtesy.
    Oh, really? I wonder why, in this case, one has to give some reasons for rejecting a contract. In a situation where, according to liberal principles. one is free to reject any contract without even giving any reasons or justification for it.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    But he is allowed to do that - as I informed you, my neighbors do exactly that, in perfect legality.
    Meanwhile, my neighbors are not allowed to deny black people their basic civil rights and freedoms, because that would violate the liberal principle of equal rights and freedoms under the law. So in any commercial dealings with the public they have to treat black and white people the same, as we have found that otherwise black people are denied some of those rights and freedoms in the region as a whole. It's a fact of the US situation.
    No, it wasn't. It was an irrelevancy, based on your continued refusal to acknowledge the argument.
    You made a silly mistake. Whether it makes you feel stupid is none of my business, or interest.
    You don't. That's not how the law is written or enforced.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2017
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,596
    This sounds completely confused. But let's try to clarify. There is, in the US, some status, let't name it "public slave", where you are obliged to serve everybody, and can be punished for refusing to serve without valid reasons. This state you enter volitionally, by an own decision, not? If you, instead, simply use private freedom of contract, as a private person, without deciding to "serve the public", only with all whites who want to make contracts with you, but not signing any contract with blacks, what is the problem? As far as I have understood, once you serve all the whites, you are classified as "serving the public" even without your explicit decision to serve it. Not? If this is the case, there is no decision to serve the public, thus, if you are forced to serve, being classified as "public servant" against you free will, you are a slave.

    You have possibilities to avoid this classification. By not making any contracts at all. But you have no possibility to serve all whites, but not being classified as a "public slave". Not?

    Don't forget, the information I have about US law is from your/billvon side, not from studying actual US law. If the result is contradicting chaos, this is mainly your fault, once you seem unable to present the law in a non-contradictory way.

    Really? You have made just a stupid "you are stupid" claim: " this bogus "signing" language of yours blinds you to physical reality ..." In your fantasy, this may be sufficient to prove a silly mistake on my side. In reality, it is simply a claim without any supporting evidence.

    But if you don't give reasons at all, you may be punished. For not having the valid reasons. Or for rejecting with invalid reasons - even if one does not give reasons at all.

    Whatever, I can leave the question open if this confusion about what one is obliged to do and what not is a result of your own confusion, an intentional method to hide the contradictions in your own position, or a real uncertainty in the law. The last would be the most dangerous for the US, because uncertain law is even more dangerous than simply bad law. One can follow a bad law, and, doing this, one is safe from persecution. With uncertain law, the situation is worse. Whatever you do, you may be persecuted, because you have no safe way to follow an imprecise law.

    But, ok, there is also the variant that you don't have to give any reasons, and what you tell about your reasons is anyway irrelevant. Instead, the persecution, with its mind-reading abilities, can identify your evil reasons.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2017
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    No, there isn't.
    There are a half dozen problems, starting with the fact that you cannot decide to serve "all whites" without deciding to serve the public by definition. That's what a public is. After that mental confusion has been cleared up, there is the problem - which is circumstantial, and not the case everywhere, but is in fact the situation in the US - that discriminating by race in commercial dealings with the public denies black people basic civil rights, such as freedom of contract. That's because there are a lot of white racists, and they own enough of the resources that they can control the rest by acting in cooperation. So by allowing racial discrimination in the US, the government would be failing to establish and defend equal rights and freedoms of a large share of its citizens - all blacks and most nonracist whites. And that is a problem because the government is bound - both by societal custom and tradition and formally, by its written Constitution - to govern according to liberal principles.
    Not. Again - right down the street from me, this situation you declare to be impossible is normal business.
    That's not how it works, under American law.
    It's a confusion of yours, a refusal to comprehend. Most Americans are not confused as you are - even the ones trying to justify racial discrimination using your arguments generally know better.
     
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,596
    No. The only meaningful definition of "public" would be "all people". "All whites" is obviously different from "all people".

    If you are not allowed to serve (offer contracts) to "all whites", but not "all people", there is no freedom of contract.
    You seem to contradict yourself.

    At the top, you claim that if I serve all the whites, I automatically serve "the public". Here you claim that right down the street from you somebody has the very possibility to serve all whites, but not being classified as serving the public.

    So what? I see, of course, the loophole in the contradiction. The law is simply not enforced against that somebody down the street from you. The totalitarian loophole, because this is typical for totalitarian societies - everybody necessarily violates three laws a day, but gets away unpunished - until one wants to punish him.

    Then explain how it works.

    I do not really care if this is really US law. I care about consistency of what you present. And about compatibility with liberal principles.

    People do not care about laws, but only about laws which are really enforced. And they do not care about liberal principles. If the law violates freedom of contract, they accept it and live with this. Anyway, most laws violate liberal principles. They do not care about ideological fanatics who try to sell obviously non-liberal laws as liberal.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    Yet another benefit of making sure that is the definition being used by those who deal commercially with the public. Your point?
    That is false, in general. There is freedom of contract in the US, for example.
    It's the other way around, in the US: if you racially discriminate, black people and nonracist white people lose their freedom of contract.
    They are serving the public, which includes the whites. There happen to be few black people in the area, and none of them frequent the businesses. So all their dealings are with white people.
    For the fifth time: that is false. The law is enforced against them as against anyone.
    Already done: innocent until proven guilty.
    In my area, they do.
     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The only fair system is based on free enterprise. This is where everyone plays by the same set of rules and the best of class percolate to the top. This is how nature does it and has resulted in billions of years of forward progressing evolution. Nature does not stack the deck based on a quota system. Nature is based on natural selection, which has nothing to do with animal politics, but rather based on the objective rules of science, which can be quantified.

    The liberals tend to confuse rights with entitlements. An entitlement is not based on natural selection. It is based on artificial selection. For example, when royalty ruled the world, the new prince, could be poison to his country, but he was entitled to the crown because of his birth right. If the choice of leader has been based on natural selection, the people, would choose his other brother or sister, if they were more optimized to the needs of the country. But the artificial selection often results in a small group getting a better shake at the expense of the majority. It is not natural, but has to be forced on you.

    The Democratic party was formed around slavery. The slave owners were entitled to own other humans. Those who were anti-slavery, were thinking in terms of human rights, and not entitlements due to ownership contracts. Human rights do not entitle anyone to own another human.

    The Democrats appears to have retained the entitlement mentality that spawned the party and are always pushing for special laws for certain people, instead of one set of laws for all. This has to do with vote buying and slave trading; taxpayer become the slaves.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    You are right. We should allow all immigrants/refugees/visitors in and allow the best to "percolate to the top" - that way we get the benefits of their skills. That is much better than using different sets of laws and rules for different kinds of people entering the US.
     

Share This Page