Two Words and A Comma... And then what?

Can you explain what you mean by your right to equality?

My rights to life, liberty and property include the right to equality. Not in the socialist sense but, rather in the sense that I am born equal and distinctions are created from then by choices and circumstances that I am presented with. Therefore nothing that has existed since my birth (i.e. skin colour or sexual orientation if it is indeed genetic or not a choice)

I'm not sure how you are using the word equal. You are born equal in what way? Some people are born healthy, others are bigger, some are male, some are female, some have disorders like Asperger syndrome, some are brighter, some are faster some missing limbs etc.... When you quoted the Declartion of Independance, I tried to show you that they where talking politically, that we are equal in that no man has the right to rule over the rest. If you can not grasp that concept than we will not see eye to eye on this.

That isn't political and neither is it trying to suggest that everyone is born the same. It goes beyond political. It means one is born equal, that everyone in the end is human. Height, weight and aptitude are immaterial at this point, what it means is that every is deserving of the same rights and freedoms as every other person. It is the same argument that justified the fights against slavery/racism/sexism/etc. No man having the right to rule over another is a derivation of that right but, it is not the be all and end all.

Is Nepotism not a form of discrimination? Does it affect your right to equality?

I do believe it is a form of discrimination. Nowhere did I say it was right. Rather I argued that the link between nepotism and homophobia is minimal at best as nepotism is more akin to choosing to rent to your best friend and homophobia akin to racism (if it is genetic or not a choice)

If you believe that nepotism is discrimination, and you have so kindly included someone choosing to rent to thier best friend as a form of discrimination as well, then using your logic "If I deny you the right to be treated equally am I not infringing upon those rights?" Then you are saying, a landlord shouldn't rent to family, or friends, because it does not treat people equally. After all your objection to my defending the individuals right to Life, Liberty and Property is that "it allows bigots to discriminate as they wish". So really it comes down to you not treating a bigot as an equal when it come to thier rights. You do not agree with the lifestyle or belief so you chose to intiate force, You choose to disciminate becuase they practice a form of discrimination that you do not approve of. What makes you worse than the bigot you are actively infringing on the the individuals right to Life, Liberty and Property, they are not.

I did not suggest renting to your best friend was discrimination. That is based upon relationships formed after your birth and therefore does not violate the right to equality.
The bigot is by the very nature of bigotry infringing upon the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of whoever they hate. They are welcome to think whatever they like however they may not channel that into aggression towards any member of society by discriminating. Again it would not be I that initiates the force but rather the person who chooses to discriminate based upon something which violates another's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You need to quote more to understand what they are trying to say:

"When in the course of human events,it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They are talking politically saying that no man is above another (in this case the King) no man has the right to infringe on the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" of another.

I don't believe it was necessary to quote more actually, that section refers to the ideas expressed in this section which immediately follows the section I quoted:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

It has no effect on the meaning of the initial statement of the rights of man, All men are created equal has been used historically to justify the abolition of slavery, equality between the sexes etc. and therefore applies as I suggested rather than what you imply. The idea that you describe is in fact summed up in the word "unalianable" and the later explanation of the nature of government (basically by the people, of the people and for the people).

You took the quote out of context and as such you state that all men are created equal, as I asked above equal how? and as I stated above I tried to show you that they where talking politically, that we are equal in that no man has the right to rule over the rest. That the rights of each individual (Life, Libery and Property ) is equal before the law and as those rights are inalienable the law cannot take them away, so any law that tries to restrict them is unjust. If you can not grasp that concept than we will not see eye to eye on this.

It does not say that all men are equally endowed with certain unalienable rights. It says all men are equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. They are separate and distinct decelerations of the rights of man. The first being equality the others being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All men being equal before the law is only one aspect of that equality.

Sorry I don't see how being a bigot or being intolerant is a form of aggression, I'm lactose intolerent, I don't see how that makes me aggressive If I refuse to tolerate a certain situation, say Jehova's Witness's or the Later Day Saints are trying to preach to me on my door step, and I'm not interested is that aggressive?

Tolerate is a very versatile word and used in your sense it is not aggression. In your example you use the word tolerate to suggest that you would not allow a religious group to preach to you because you are not interested. In my example however it means a hatred of a certain group. I would argue that such hatred as well as the actions it cause are aggression towards society as a whole because it is a direct threat to the rights of a member of that society. Therefore society is justified in taking defensive action through anti-discrimination legislation.

I would agree that actions can be aggressive, here comes other one of my examples brace yourself

If an individual attacks another. They are the aggressor they are wrong, it doesn't matter if the arggressor is a racist, or a crusader etc... the belief system of the attacker or the victim should not matter all that matters is the attacker through their actions violated the viticms right to life, liberty and property. But how does a individual holding a belief, be it hatred, or love violate another individuals right to life, liberty and property?
.

They are welcome to hold hatred but, the minute they act upon it and discriminate it is akin to any physical aggression. They are attacking their chosen discriminee and in so doing they violate that persons rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is where you lose me, when you say to discriminate is akin to any physical aggression, you have already agreed that Nepotism is a form of discrimination, so using your logic I can not choose my children over a stanger if I am renting my property. To do so would be discrimination and is akin to physical aggression. I think anyone looking at this rationally can see the flaws in your logic.

It comes down to who gets to choose, ask yourself who gets to decide who I rent my property to? A. Me B. Somebody Else.

Do you own property?

Do you feel strongly enough about stopping discrimination that we pass a law having Government find everyones tenants? I.E. the only say you would have is that you are going to rent your place for x amount of time
'

	Author	Topic: Two Words and A Comma... And then what? (Read 3567 times)
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.