NationStates

Soldati senza confini wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
You seem to be confusing the ability to do something with a right to do it

We're not the ones arguing that consensual private transactions should all be legal, here.

You seem to have gotten confused. I'm not the one claiming the ability to do something grants a right to do it

WestRedMaple wrote:

Alyakia wrote:
actually you can if the consensual private transaction involves something illegal :-)

You seem to be confusing the ability to do something with a right to do it

You seem to be desperately waffling rather than defending your position.

---

WestRedMaple wrote:

Ifreann wrote:You're one to talk about bullshit, mate.

---

That's almost as stupid as the "Hurr durr political correctness" bullshit from the other guy.

Your inability to follow the discussion does not make my statement stupid.

That's cute, keep trying to shift the focus away from what you've said and your inability to defend it.

WestRedMaple wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
So does that mean we have no right to interfere in a mafia circle?

Obviously not. The mafia harms other people. There is every right for us to protect ourselves from them.

Did you really miss the part about people deciding and consenting?

Did you miss that you never said that there can be more than two parties involved in any transaction's procedures or effects?

WestRedMaple wrote:

Ifreann wrote:You're one to talk about bullshit, mate.

---

That's almost as stupid as the "Hurr durr political correctness" bullshit from the other guy.

Your inability to follow the discussion does not make my statement stupid.

No, the fact your statement was stupid is what makes your statement stupid.

I even gave you a polite heads up that you'd said something completely dumb. You decided to come out all guns blazing rather than just take a moment to reflect. Although, I am pleased to see that you finally remembered the consensual part of the issue.

It's still a dumb statement, but at least you're not openly advocating slavery any more. Baby steps and all that.

Ifreann wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
You seem to be confusing the ability to do something with a right to do it

You seem to be desperately waffling rather than defending your position.

---

WestRedMaple wrote:
Your inability to follow the discussion does not make my statement stupid.

That's cute, keep trying to shift the focus away from what you've said and your inability to defend it.

I see you were utterly incapable of providing any backing for your nonsensical attacks. Come on back if you'd ever prefer to discuss the topic over this whining of yours

Soldati senza confini wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
Obviously not. The mafia harms other people. There is every right for us to protect ourselves from them.

Did you really miss the part about people deciding and consenting?

Did you miss that you never said that there can be more than two parties involved in any transaction's procedures or effects?

I didn't realize that you needed me to point out blatantly obvious things for you.

WestRedMaple wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
We're not the ones arguing that consensual private transactions should all be legal, here.

You seem to have gotten confused. I'm not the one claiming the ability to do something grants a right to do it

You're saying that being able to have consensual transactions should be unlimited, from what I'm understanding; and from what I am understanding you're also saying every transaction should be legal.

So, that being said, care to frame your argument to not make it sound like you want unlimited freedom for people to engage in transactions regardless of how ethical they are if that's not what you're saying?

WestRedMaple wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Did you miss that you never said that there can be more than two parties involved in any transaction's procedures or effects?

I didn't realize that you needed me to point out blatantly obvious things for you.

I didn't realize we're reading minds here.

Fartsniffage wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
Your inability to follow the discussion does not make my statement stupid.

No, the fact your statement was stupid is what makes your statement stupid.

I even gave you a polite heads up that you'd said something completely dumb. You decided to come out all guns blazing rather than just take a moment to reflect. Although, I am pleased to see that you finally remembered the consensual part of the issue.

It's still a dumb statement, but at least you're not openly advocating slavery any more. Baby steps and all that.

So you still refuse to make any actual contribution. There is no honestly denying the fact that the slavery part is all you. A slave, by definition, is not choosing to engage in the transaction. Once you actually learn what the word means, you'll understand that.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
I didn't realize that you needed me to point out blatantly obvious things for you.

I didn't realize we're reading minds here.

I have a feeling we'd need some very strong reading glasses here....

Xianlong wrote:It's a delicate issue, but tarring every southeast Asian (they were Pakistanis, weren't they?) with a rapist/groomer/pedophile brush is just bloody stupid.

Welcome to Manchester.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
You seem to have gotten confused. I'm not the one claiming the ability to do something grants a right to do it

You're saying that being able to have consensual transactions should be unlimited, from what I'm understanding; and from what I am understanding you're also saying every transaction should be legal.

So, that being said, care to frame your argument to not make it sound like you want unlimited freedom for people to engage in transactions regardless of how ethical they are if that's not what you're saying?

Maybe you should take a minute to actually read what I posted before responding.

Nothing in your post mentions anything I haven't already covered.

WestRedMaple wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
No, the fact your statement was stupid is what makes your statement stupid.

I even gave you a polite heads up that you'd said something completely dumb. You decided to come out all guns blazing rather than just take a moment to reflect. Although, I am pleased to see that you finally remembered the consensual part of the issue.

It's still a dumb statement, but at least you're not openly advocating slavery any more. Baby steps and all that.

So you still refuse to make any actual contribution. There is no honestly denying the fact that the slavery part is all you. A slave, by definition, is not choosing to engage in the transaction. Once you actually learn what the word means, you'll understand that.

A slave, by definition, can be anyone who we choose to not acknowledge the rights of.

That being said, it is really easy then to dehumanize a part of the population and since they're not human we can use them as slaves; and the transactions of two individuals based upon their desirability of said person turned into an "object" is now a private transaction, the voice of the other person doesn't come into play at all, and why should it? It's not relevant anyhow to their private transaction.

WestRedMaple wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
You're saying that being able to have consensual transactions should be unlimited, from what I'm understanding; and from what I am understanding you're also saying every transaction should be legal.

So, that being said, care to frame your argument to not make it sound like you want unlimited freedom for people to engage in transactions regardless of how ethical they are if that's not what you're saying?

Maybe you should take a minute to actually read what I posted before responding.

Nothing in your post mentions anything I haven't already covered.

Maybe you should explain it to me instead of making me chase rainbows.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
I didn't realize that you needed me to point out blatantly obvious things for you.

I didn't realize we're reading minds here.

No reading minds necessary. I felt no need to point out that there can be more than two parties involved since I assumed that anyone capable of actually reading and operating some form of computer could already figure that out. My six-year-old grasps it, so I assumed that everyone here could as well.

My mistake, I apologize for overestimating you

WestRedMaple wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
No, the fact your statement was stupid is what makes your statement stupid.

I even gave you a polite heads up that you'd said something completely dumb. You decided to come out all guns blazing rather than just take a moment to reflect. Although, I am pleased to see that you finally remembered the consensual part of the issue.

It's still a dumb statement, but at least you're not openly advocating slavery any more. Baby steps and all that.

So you still refuse to make any actual contribution. There is no honestly denying the fact that the slavery part is all you. A slave, by definition, is not choosing to engage in the transaction. Once you actually learn what the word means, you'll understand that.

A slave, by definition is property. It has no say in the transaction, no right to choose. Unless, of course, we have laws in place limiting the types of private transactions that are allowed.

But you know that. You're just far to entrenched in defending an ideology to consider the actually ramifications of said ideology.

WestRedMaple wrote:

Ifreann wrote:You seem to be desperately waffling rather than defending your position.

---

That's cute, keep trying to shift the focus away from what you've said and your inability to defend it.

I see you were utterly incapable of providing any backing for your nonsensical attacks. Come on back if you'd ever prefer to discuss the topic over this whining of yours

That's it, talk about anything but your own posts.

WestRedMaple wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I think there's something relevant here, that it's pretty basic:

Even if you have a business, that still doesn't give you a right to ignore the law and be an asshole.

And there is no right to interfere in their consensual, private transactions.

according to who?

Frazers wrote:

Chestaan wrote:I know that many people might request a male/female doctor and that is allowed usually, but asking for a white taxi driver seems racist.

Why the distinguishing between decisions on race vs decisions on gender sex?

Fixed.

Some people would feel more comfortable telling someone of the same sex what problems they have, especially if those problems are exclusive to your sex (and I emphasize sex, biological sex, for obvious reasons). Your doctor would probably understand much more as it's more relatable, and less embarrassing. That is one of the absolutely few instances in which discrimination is alright, and IIRC, they actually sometimes ask you which do you prefer.

Of course, once we start talking about therapists and psychologists, that's a matter of gender. And yes, it's perfectly okay to discriminate in that situation too, provided for a valid reason such as "I'd prefer to speak man to man, with someone who emotionally and psychologically identifies as a man and thinks like a man." and not for things such as "Throw away that degree in psychology and get the hell back in the kitchen."

Fartsniffage wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
So you still refuse to make any actual contribution. There is no honestly denying the fact that the slavery part is all you. A slave, by definition, is not choosing to engage in the transaction. Once you actually learn what the word means, you'll understand that.

A slave, by definition is property. It has no say in the transaction, no right to choose. Unless, of course, we have laws in place limiting the types of private transactions that are allowed.

Maybe so, but he contends that there is no need to defend the supporting of rights. Presumably this includes the right to trade humans as property, free of government interference.

Greater-London wrote:I for one think is absolutely appalling and you shouldn't request drivers by the colour of their skin or cultural heritage. Although if the Cab company decides to fulfill the wishes of people who do then that's their decision and as far as I'm aware no law has been broken.

I would disambiguate skin colour from "race". Skin colour is an objective fact, and race are purely personal opinion.

Even so, there's no justification to request a cab driver with lighter skin; skin colour does not affect the human mind and the driver's ability to serve.

I could, however, see justification in requesting a driver who "speaks good English".

Atlanticatia wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
And there is no right to interfere in their consensual, private transactions.

according to who?

Eminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher/sex kitten Ayn Rand.

Fartsniffage wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
So you still refuse to make any actual contribution. There is no honestly denying the fact that the slavery part is all you. A slave, by definition, is not choosing to engage in the transaction. Once you actually learn what the word means, you'll understand that.

A slave, by definition is property. It has no say in the transaction, no right to choose. Unless, of course, we have laws in place limiting the types of private transactions that are allowed.

But you know that. You're just far to entrenched in defending an ideology to consider the actually ramifications of said ideology.

You're still ranting complete irrelevancies. Obviously my ideology wouldn't permit slavery. I'm the one supporting everyone's right to make their own choice to engage in a transaction or not

Ifreann wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
A slave, by definition is property. It has no say in the transaction, no right to choose. Unless, of course, we have laws in place limiting the types of private transactions that are allowed.

Maybe so, but he contends that there is no need to defend the supporting of rights. Presumably this includes the right to trade humans as property, free of government interference.

You obviously didn't bother to think that through. My ideology prohibits slavery. You're the one complaining that I'm supporting people's rights

Soldati senza confini wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:
So you still refuse to make any actual contribution. There is no honestly denying the fact that the slavery part is all you. A slave, by definition, is not choosing to engage in the transaction. Once you actually learn what the word means, you'll understand that.

A slave, by definition, can be anyone who we choose to not acknowledge the rights of.

That being said, it is really easy then to dehumanize a part of the population and since they're not human we can use them as slaves; and the transactions of two individuals based upon their desirability of said person turned into an "object" is now a private transaction, the voice of the other person doesn't come into play at all, and why should it? It's not relevant anyhow to their private transaction.

Which, by your own statement is utterly irrelevant to my post, so why do you ramble about it?

I state my support for protecting the rights of all people, and you go on and on about the complete opposite. Why don't you try actually responding to what I've typed if you're going to quote me?