Donald Trump

That's the reason one should think about possible exceptions to any law. Conflict is unavoidable. Who decides? Lawyers, judges, politicians, the people. There is no magic bullet for that, and horrible errors have been made in the past (like protecting slavery). In my opinion, absolute rights are as problematic as easy to modify rights, at the end of the day you cannot ignore the human element crafting those rights.

Example: right to privacy. There is an exception if there is a warrant, and the system is abusable, but at the end of the day you have to balance many rights with privacy.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Example: right to privacy. There is an exception if there is a warrant, and the system is abusable, but at the end of the day you have to balance many rights with privacy.

I didn't say every right had to be free from exceptions. I said rights had to be free from interpretation. Explicit exceptions are fine.

It is also okay to explicitly leave a decision at the discretion of a freely a elected official; otherwise, there's little point in electing officials. However, in such instances it's important to realize the power granted, and to design the government to avoid over-concentration of such power.

What we should not do, at any time, is assume those officials are NOT corrupt. In general, discretionary decisions should be submitted by one party and approved by a completely different one, to increase fault tolerance.

Must a jewish baker make a nazi cake?

[Removed by Support]
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/must-jewish-baker-make-nazi-cake

This blog was very pro-freedom. Although i agree with most of what they said, when it comes down to it... we cant allow discrimination.

"

dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

If the [Removed by Support] expressed some negative trait as an individual, it would be a different story. But no, the baker judged them on the basis of merely belonging to a category of people.

Is anyone here saying people should not be gay? Is anyone saying homosexuality is hurting anyone? If there was indeed some factual basis for homsexuality causing harm, then i would leap to defend the baker, for then it truly would be a conviction worth fighting for. But baseless convictions are just that, baseless. And should be eliminated.

I love freedom. I strongly believe that we shouldnt be forced to conform to societal expectations because society has a long longggggggggg historical record of real atrocities. We dont want to mandate everyone to be equally as terrible. We need to allow for room for individuals to point out the failings of the status quo.

But the bakers freedom is only the lesser half of it. We need to protect the freedom of the [Removed by support] as well. This is all about their freedom.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I didn't say every right had to be free from exceptions. I said rights had to be free from interpretation. Explicit exceptions are fine.

Ehhh...somewhat tricky. I wish laws were treated as axioms in math, but the truth is that in the real world, changing some laws explicitly (like US Constitution) is almost impossible allowing great injustice if there is not some space for interpretation. And even considering that stuff, you can't avoid the interpretation problems with prose. Written words are ambiguous, and often there is a fight about the original meaning (that could even be irrelevant in a modern context). Also, there is that system of precedents for the common law that seems inherently contradictory to not allowing space for interpretation.

I'm not really sure of how to go about that.

"

SkyCore wrote:

But the bakers freedom is only the lesser half of it. We need to protect the freedom of the [Removed by Support] as well. This is all about their freedom.

You'd be protecting a homosexual person's welfare, not freedom. And ScrotieMcB would argue that is not something that necessarily should be protected.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

But the bakers freedom is only the lesser half of it. We need to protect the freedom of the [Removed by Support] as well. This is all about their freedom.

You'd be protecting a homosexual person's welfare, not freedom. And ScrotieMcB would argue that is not something that necessarily should be protected.

The inability to purchase desired goods and services limits the actions of the individual. Hmmm, perhaps you are right though, welfare is more properly correct in this context. Although i should note this is food we are talking about. Imagine how pissed youd be if everyone denied YOU of food because of your religion.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Spoiler

rekt

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Spoiler

rekt

Ehhh...pretty much depends on when do you stand in the whole allowing discrimination vs. liberty of action thing. Moore probably saw that and felt that the comment missed the point. Only a few see the freedom to make the life inconvenient for a minority as something to protect or comparable to a general situation. It's not "just a disagreement", it's part of many actions that combined make life hard for some people.

"

SkyCore wrote:

But baseless convictions are just that, baseless. And should be eliminated

Your freedom to be able to say that and not be prosecuted is founded on the same baseless convictions. Your freedom to vote is founded on the same baseless convictions. Your freedom not to have a king house soldiers in your home and use your family and land (or take that family and land) and do as he pleases is based on the same baseless convictions.

You wouldn't have an iota of freedom if it weren't for the baseless convictions brought about by religion, specifically the Christian religion, and you wouldn't have any science to speak of either.

I'll not delve into that (again), because it is a touchy subject for one of the moderators at GGG, and I'm not trying to push people's buttons here, or tell them what to believe or not believe.

My point is that if you don't understand the origin and evolution of what we have today, you lose sight or never understand why some parts are important to keep in the system. The freedom of religious practice (to practice/believe or to not practice/believe) as someone sees fit is important because it underlies so many other of our freedoms. We would not even have freedom if it weren't for that.

The acceptance of others and the differing perspectives and personal characteristics also derive from the same underlying thoughts.

What we have here is two basic rights clashing with each other. One right is fundamentally greater than the other right, because it creates the other right. When one right is trampled, it allows the second right to be trampled as well. Setting fire to religious freedom is like setting fire to half of your couch to keep the other half from burning.

There is a way to do it within the system and protect everyone's rights, but that isn't what is happening.

People are so emotionally involved in this issue that they can't talk about it without spitting and foaming at the mouth, let alone think coherently.

The way they think and talk about it, it is as if we were trying to decide whether people with blonde hair or people with red hair should be allowed to vote, and which one was more important- (because they don't get along at the voting location) - instead of saying both can vote and finding an accommodation that allows them to vote at different locales.

If we were talking PoE, it would be as if the only choices a player could make were Marauder or Templar and no one could ever be allowed to play both, and we thought GGG should decide on which one was more important and ban the other one.

So --- next time someone says they don't deal in extremes - ask if they are really looking for a workable solution - or even care about one - or if they are just changing to new and different extremes that they personally find acceptable.

There isn't a good reason why either of the parties in these hypothetical (and sometime real) scenarios need to be discriminated against. And no - just because society finds discrimination against one group acceptable, does not make it so.

That is how we started the discrimination and persecution of various groups in the first place, and people honestly think it is a good idea to go back to it in any form?

We an get along and be happy and peaceful with each other, but sometimes it will take some effort. Any decent relationship has its ups and downs, but you can't go around blaming one side or the other, or just kick them to the curb.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

You wouldn't have an iota of freedom if it weren't for the baseless convictions brought about by religion, specifically the Christian religion, and you wouldn't have any science to speak of either.

I admit my knowledge of history is lacking, but I find this very hard to believe since the church has a history of persecuting the early scientists when their findings did not match the christian teachings. It seems more plausible to me that science developed not thanks to religion, but despite it.

I otherwise agree that freedom of religion is important for any free society as it falls under freedom of belief, I only wish that freedom wouldn't be so readily abused. If you're going to make life harder for someone you'd better have a good reason for it, and "It's my faith, so suck it" ranks among the worst.