Anti Boy Scouts....GRRRRRR.

[Praxis1452]

Great job ignoring those inconveniences where you attacked barely anything of which I had already agreed.

And it was an incorrect slippery slope because it's as simple as this. I explained with an example you said it was wrong. well great could you please turn some water into wine while your god.

I refuse to answer with an explanation if you do not try to explain yourself. Obvious parody. Maybe someday you'll get that ad hominem produces only shit. The quality of your posts reflects the quality of mine.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
you fail to understand that your criticizing a person for criticizing an organization. The organization can determine its own mermbership criteria and the person has freedom of speech as well. Your telling the person that they are not respecting other people's rights by using their constitutional right. Nobody here is a senator or representative. They make no laws. The main thing people are using on this forum is freedom of speech. that's it. You criticize someone for speakig and you are criticizing a part of the constitution itself. t amazes how you can bathe in hypocrisy and yet not notice the stench.

What is this? More concession or have we moved on to apologism? We live in a DEMOCRACY. Perhaps you've heard of such a thing? Laws begin that the individual level. Not only that, but people in this thread have been advocating action/laws.

What's really funny though is that it was supposedly slippery slope fallacy when I pointed out that intolerance of intolerance can become hypocritical, and suddenly I "bathe in hypocrisy." You are quite the piece of work. Methinks thou protests a bit too much. Look... a naked emperor... :laugh:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Stop snorting shit. my argument was right (yours was wrong). And your post didn't help your argument.
</end quote></div>
:laugh:


That's better than any concession. Thanks.

Now... the Boy Scouts want the freedom to choose their own path without you putting up barriers to them. And that's not a slippery slope any more than my previous argument was. Kindly come back when you're old enough to sit at the big people table.</end quote></div>
The boy scouts aren't free to discriminate me without repurcussions. If a celebrity makes a comment and gets criticized I'd bet they want the freedom to say what they want without the public puttig up barriers to them.

If a group decides to discriminate they are immune because they should be free? I'm not for some goverment mandated disbandment. I have criticized them on the basis of their beliefs. It is my right to do so as it is their right to discriminate. It is both our freedoms. And it is yours to criticize me, etc... But of course it's hypocrisy.

oh and nice try being fake. If you had felt that was a concession you wouldn't even feel the need to try to rebut. IT was obviously a parody of your post and you recognized that.</end quote></div>

you are right.

they are not without repurucssions. one is the fact that they do not get goverment funding. or and negitive publicty.

but they do have a right as a private orginization ot accept who they want.</end quote></div>



why is it that people simply aren't getting the points in this thread.

#1 private organizations have the right to discriminate it's membership.
#2 Discriminatory organizations should not receive goverment money.

does anybody even disagree about the top 2? Not from what I've seen.

I am only criticizing them for the belief itself. Why are people that dense! I am not targeting you specifically waggy.

err i have said that.

they have the right to do it and they should nto recieve any money.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
you fail to understand that your criticizing a person for criticizing an organization. The organization can determine its own mermbership criteria and the person has freedom of speech as well. Your telling the person that they are not respecting other people's rights by using their constitutional right. Nobody here is a senator or representative. They make no laws. The main thing people are using on this forum is freedom of speech. that's it. You criticize someone for speakig and you are criticizing a part of the constitution itself. t amazes how you can bathe in hypocrisy and yet not notice the stench.</end quote></div>

What is this? More concession or have we moved on to apologism? We live in a DEMOCRACY. Perhaps you've heard of such a thing? Laws begin that the individual level. Not only that, but people in this thread have been advocating action/laws.

What's really funny though is that it was supposedly slippery slope fallacy when I pointed out that intolerance of intolerance can become hypocritical, and suddenly I "bathe in hypocrisy." You are quite the piece of work. Methinks thou protests a bit too much. Look... a naked emperor... :laugh:

I never claimed to be intolerant of intolerance(general sense). I am intolerant of people who dislike me. Is that so complex? I dislike people who hate me. I dislike organizations thate hate me. I dislike people and anything that gets in my way. Perhaps reading my posts previous to your entry into this debate would help.

It was slippery slope because you mention something about the organization not having rights which I already said they did. Not concessionism. I want you to quote it. Quote it! where I say that the organization is not allowed to choose its membership.

After which I state that you extend from my original point into the slippery slope by chaning the subject.

It's all in text here. I dare you to tell me I edited it out!

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Stop snorting shit. my argument was right (yours was wrong). And your post didn't help your argument.
</end quote></div>
:laugh:


That's better than any concession. Thanks.

Now... the Boy Scouts want the freedom to choose their own path without you putting up barriers to them. And that's not a slippery slope any more than my previous argument was. Kindly come back when you're old enough to sit at the big people table.</end quote></div>
The boy scouts aren't free to discriminate me without repurcussions. If a celebrity makes a comment and gets criticized I'd bet they want the freedom to say what they want without the public puttig up barriers to them.

If a group decides to discriminate they are immune because they should be free? I'm not for some goverment mandated disbandment. I have criticized them on the basis of their beliefs. It is my right to do so as it is their right to discriminate. It is both our freedoms. And it is yours to criticize me, etc... But of course it's hypocrisy.

oh and nice try being fake. If you had felt that was a concession you wouldn't even feel the need to try to rebut. IT was obviously a parody of your post and you recognized that.</end quote></div>

you are right.

they are not without repurucssions. one is the fact that they do not get goverment funding. or and negitive publicty.

but they do have a right as a private orginization ot accept who they want.</end quote></div>



why is it that people simply aren't getting the points in this thread.

#1 private organizations have the right to discriminate it's membership.
#2 Discriminatory organizations should not receive goverment money.

does anybody even disagree about the top 2? Not from what I've seen.

I am only criticizing them for the belief itself. Why are people that dense! I am not targeting you specifically waggy.
</end quote></div>

err i have said that.

they have the right to do it and they should nto recieve any money.

my bad I read it too quickly. we all mostly agree and yes disagree about minor issues.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Platypus
PrinceofWands, your Gandhi quote is perfect for this thread and people like Fettsbabe who consistantly dodged my question with enough logical fallacies to teach a 101 course.

That is one thing that I still don't understand about the BSA's stance. I'm not debating their right to have said stance, it just doesn't make sense to me and no one can give me a clear answer. You religious lot out there need to help me understand what I view as ridiculous hypocrisy.</end quote></div>

I'm not religious, thank you. I'm defending the right of a private organization to determine its own membership criteria. I don't care about any of the other arguments.
There's something very odd about people who don't understand the fact that your Constitutional rights defend you from the government, not the government from the people, or the people from the people. What's next? Are you going to claim it's a violation of your freedom of religion rights when one of the JW's knock on your door? Or are you exercising the freedom to choose your own path in life while denying others their right to do the same?

Here's the entire problem with that theory.

There are three groups: people, governments, and organizations/corporations/etc. Now, ideally the third group wouldn't exist or be recognized or have any rights...it would all be handled as either individuals or governments. But that's not what we have so we need to address them. So, there are really only three ways to resolve conflicts: between superior/inferior, between equals, or through arbitration/mediation. If two equals attempt to resolve it's almost sure to turn ugly, or turn to violence. There is no way a person can compete or defend against an organization/corporation (a inferior/superior relationship), so we instead have the government to moderate/arbitrate. While this isn't ideal, it protects the people from abuses of the groups, which is always necessary because groups will ALWAYS abuse individuals. So either we, as people, need to be allowed to do absolutely anything to compete/resolve conflicts with those more powerful (richer, more influential, part of a group, etc), or the government needs to step in and resolve all such conflicts as a neutral party (even though they're really not neutral). It's not enough to claim America is about protecting the people from abusive governments...we must also be protected from abusive groups/organizaitons/etc (which are often more powerful than governments).

As it relates to this thread, no one is saying the BSA shouldn't be allowed to have their own membership criteria. They can do anything they want (with some obvious caveats like kidnapping, rape, murder, and other lawful infringements). However, because they are bigots they should not be allowed to receive ANY special treatment at ANY level of government which is supported by the public and public monies. That means no tax status, no discounts, no recruiting in schools or at school functions, no positive treatment by government officials acting in official capacity, etc. They need to be 100% independent of any form of government/public support. Which they aren't. And therein lies the fault.

Let them do anything they want, but give them ZERO access or support. That's all we're saying.

 

[walrus]

They don't just discriminate against atheists and homosexuals, they had a massive coordinated fraud scam where they grossly over stated their membership to the charities that funded them so they would receive extra funds. Stealing money that would have gone to other needy groups.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Here's the entire problem with that theory.

There are three groups: people, governments, and organizations/corporations/etc. Now, ideally the third group wouldn't exist or be recognized or have any rights...it would all be handled as either individuals or governments. But that's not what we have so we need to address them. So, there are really only three ways to resolve conflicts: between superior/inferior, between equals, or through arbitration/mediation. If two equals attempt to resolve it's almost sure to turn ugly, or turn to violence. There is no way a person can compete or defend against an organization/corporation (a inferior/superior relationship), so we instead have the government to moderate/arbitrate. While this isn't ideal, it protects the people from abuses of the groups, which is always necessary because groups will ALWAYS abuse individuals. So either we, as people, need to be allowed to do absolutely anything to compete/resolve conflicts with those more powerful (richer, more influential, part of a group, etc), or the government needs to step in and resolve all such conflicts as a neutral party (even though they're really not neutral). It's not enough to claim America is about protecting the people from abusive governments...we must also be protected from abusive groups/organizaitons/etc (which are often more powerful than governments).

As it relates to this thread, no one is saying the BSA shouldn't be allowed to have their own membership criteria. They can do anything they want (with some obvious caveats like kidnapping, rape, murder, and other lawful infringements). However, because they are bigots they should not be allowed to receive ANY special treatment at ANY level of government which is supported by the public and public monies. That means no tax status, no discounts, no recruiting in schools or at school functions, no positive treatment by government officials acting in official capacity, etc. They need to be 100% independent of any form of government/public support. Which they aren't. And therein lies the fault.

Let them do anything they want, but give them ZERO access or support. That's all we're saying.

Except for your final sentence, your "solution" is a problem unto itself. You basically create a system where the government gets to regulate every little tiny organizational action for fear of potential "abuse." You're basically advocating the idea that freedom requires permission, where right freedom should be rewarded, and wrong freedom should be punished. That's just nutty. But that's what you get when you're living the crusade to save the world from itself. One would think that the individual right to support or not support organizations as one chooses would be sufficient.

And Praxis... what the hell do I need to do here? Draw you a picture? Here's your example right here.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
<As it relates to this thread, no one is saying the BSA shouldn't be allowed to have their own membership criteria. They can do anything they want (with some obvious caveats like kidnapping, rape, murder, and other lawful infringements). However, because they are bigots they should not be allowed to receive ANY special treatment at ANY level of government which is supported by the public and public monies. That means no tax status, no discounts, no recruiting in schools or at school functions, no positive treatment by government officials acting in official capacity, etc. They need to be 100% independent of any form of government/public support. Which they aren't. And therein lies the fault.

Let them do anything they want, but give them ZERO access or support. That's all we're saying.

So then, using the bolded part of your post, the US Military should be denied access to college campuses since they openly discriminate against gays?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Here's the entire problem with that theory.

There are three groups: people, governments, and organizations/corporations/etc. Now, ideally the third group wouldn't exist or be recognized or have any rights...it would all be handled as either individuals or governments. But that's not what we have so we need to address them. So, there are really only three ways to resolve conflicts: between superior/inferior, between equals, or through arbitration/mediation. If two equals attempt to resolve it's almost sure to turn ugly, or turn to violence. There is no way a person can compete or defend against an organization/corporation (a inferior/superior relationship), so we instead have the government to moderate/arbitrate. While this isn't ideal, it protects the people from abuses of the groups, which is always necessary because groups will ALWAYS abuse individuals. So either we, as people, need to be allowed to do absolutely anything to compete/resolve conflicts with those more powerful (richer, more influential, part of a group, etc), or the government needs to step in and resolve all such conflicts as a neutral party (even though they're really not neutral). It's not enough to claim America is about protecting the people from abusive governments...we must also be protected from abusive groups/organizaitons/etc (which are often more powerful than governments).

As it relates to this thread, no one is saying the BSA shouldn't be allowed to have their own membership criteria. They can do anything they want (with some obvious caveats like kidnapping, rape, murder, and other lawful infringements). However, because they are bigots they should not be allowed to receive ANY special treatment at ANY level of government which is supported by the public and public monies. That means no tax status, no discounts, no recruiting in schools or at school functions, no positive treatment by government officials acting in official capacity, etc. They need to be 100% independent of any form of government/public support. Which they aren't. And therein lies the fault.

Let them do anything they want, but give them ZERO access or support. That's all we're saying.
</end quote></div>
Except for your final sentence, your "solution" is a problem unto itself. You basically create a system where the government gets to regulate every little tiny organizational action for fear of potential "abuse." You're basically advocating the idea that freedom requires permission, where right freedom should be rewarded, and wrong freedom should be punished. That's just nutty. But that's what you get when you're living the crusade to save the world from itself. One would think that the individual right to support or not support organizations as one chooses would be sufficient.

And Praxis... what the hell do I need to do here? Draw you a picture? Here's your example right here.

But you ignore the total options...equals, inferior/superior, or neutral party. If not government than who/what regulates and protects? The individual is the only right answer of course, but then we must accept an individual empowered and allowed to do absolutely anything to protect themselves and their rights. I'm actually ok with that, but are you ok with me sniping heads of corporations from rooftops to stop their abuses? How about the guy down the street releasing chemical or biological weapons to defeat an HOA run out of control? Because that's what you're talking about if you don't have a government there to regulate...total and complete every individual for themselves with NO restrictions on what they can do.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
<As it relates to this thread, no one is saying the BSA shouldn't be allowed to have their own membership criteria. They can do anything they want (with some obvious caveats like kidnapping, rape, murder, and other lawful infringements). However, because they are bigots they should not be allowed to receive ANY special treatment at ANY level of government which is supported by the public and public monies. That means no tax status, no discounts, no recruiting in schools or at school functions, no positive treatment by government officials acting in official capacity, etc. They need to be 100% independent of any form of government/public support. Which they aren't. And therein lies the fault.

Let them do anything they want, but give them ZERO access or support. That's all we're saying.

</end quote></div>

So then, using the bolded part of your post, the US Military should be denied access to college campuses since they openly discriminate against gays?

I absolutely support that statement. I would be happy to refuse the military ANY tax money or access to public forums until/unless they change their policies. However, that's apples and oranges because the military isn't a private agency, it's a government body and therefore already public. In my opinion the military is a trust of/by/and for the people and should therefore be controlled 100% by them. Actually I think it should only exist in times of need and otherwise disbanded, but that's another argument altogether.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Here's the entire problem with that theory.

There are three groups: people, governments, and organizations/corporations/etc. Now, ideally the third group wouldn't exist or be recognized or have any rights...it would all be handled as either individuals or governments. But that's not what we have so we need to address them. So, there are really only three ways to resolve conflicts: between superior/inferior, between equals, or through arbitration/mediation. If two equals attempt to resolve it's almost sure to turn ugly, or turn to violence. There is no way a person can compete or defend against an organization/corporation (a inferior/superior relationship), so we instead have the government to moderate/arbitrate. While this isn't ideal, it protects the people from abuses of the groups, which is always necessary because groups will ALWAYS abuse individuals. So either we, as people, need to be allowed to do absolutely anything to compete/resolve conflicts with those more powerful (richer, more influential, part of a group, etc), or the government needs to step in and resolve all such conflicts as a neutral party (even though they're really not neutral). It's not enough to claim America is about protecting the people from abusive governments...we must also be protected from abusive groups/organizaitons/etc (which are often more powerful than governments).

As it relates to this thread, no one is saying the BSA shouldn't be allowed to have their own membership criteria. They can do anything they want (with some obvious caveats like kidnapping, rape, murder, and other lawful infringements). However, because they are bigots they should not be allowed to receive ANY special treatment at ANY level of government which is supported by the public and public monies. That means no tax status, no discounts, no recruiting in schools or at school functions, no positive treatment by government officials acting in official capacity, etc. They need to be 100% independent of any form of government/public support. Which they aren't. And therein lies the fault.

Let them do anything they want, but give them ZERO access or support. That's all we're saying.
</end quote></div>
Except for your final sentence, your "solution" is a problem unto itself. You basically create a system where the government gets to regulate every little tiny organizational action for fear of potential "abuse." You're basically advocating the idea that freedom requires permission, where right freedom should be rewarded, and wrong freedom should be punished. That's just nutty. But that's what you get when you're living the crusade to save the world from itself. One would think that the individual right to support or not support organizations as one chooses would be sufficient.

And Praxis... what the hell do I need to do here? Draw you a picture? Here's your example right here.

So the goverment should support the BSA then? IT's a very simple question.

You seem to say yes. I want to make sure.

If not then you have nothing to argue about.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
But you ignore the total options...equals, inferior/superior, or neutral party. If not government than who/what regulates and protects? The individual is the only right answer of course, but then we must accept an individual empowered and allowed to do absolutely anything to protect themselves and their rights. I'm actually ok with that, but are you ok with me sniping heads of corporations from rooftops to stop their abuses? How about the guy down the street releasing chemical or biological weapons to defeat an HOA run out of control? Because that's what you're talking about if you don't have a government there to regulate...total and complete every individual for themselves with NO restrictions on what they can do.

Sorry... your buddy Praxis already said that slippery slope wasn't allowed here. And on that note, I'm very sure that the pathetic straw man you used here is even less allowed. I never said we shouldn't have regulation. Just that we shouldn't have YOUR regulation. And I provided a very clear argument as to why.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
So the goverment should support the BSA then? IT's a very simple question.

You seem to say yes. I want to make sure.

If not then you have nothing to argue about.

I have never once advocated government support for ANY private organization. Your problem here is that you think your personal opinion has any weight as a factual argument, or (in your own mind) that you can air your personal opinions as much as you want, but I am not allowed to offer any form of argument to the contrary.
If you can air your whiny "criticisms," then I can argue as much as I want. At least the basis/defense for my entire premise in this thread isn't the petty selfishness to do just do and say whatever I want without consequence. Like I said, come back when you're old enough to sit at the big people table.

 

[Evadman]

If girls had been allowed to join when I was a scout, then I don't know that would have learned all that much.

<-- eagle scout.

 

[Xylitol]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackllotus
They openly ban atheists and homosexuals from joining yet they get public funding. Go figure.</end quote></div>

Well considering that it was originally founded as a Christian organization, I'm not surprised.
Plus, I'm sure that no boy scout would like to go camping knowing that the person they're sleeping with is a homosexual.


Straying off topic on the same post with my opinion...
I'd like to say that many gays are very public with it as if trying to get attention. If they really want, I'm sure that they can just get into a BSA group fine if they don't tell people that they are gay even though I'm sure that many do to "stand out."

 

[Xylitol]

forum error

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackllotus
They openly ban atheists and homosexuals from joining yet they get public funding. Go figure.</end quote></div>

Well considering that it was originally founded as a Christian organization, I'm not surprised.
Plus, I'm sure that no boy scout would like to go camping knowing that the person they're sleeping with is a homosexual.


Straying off topic on the same post with my opinion...
I'd like to say that many gays are very public with it as if trying to get attention. If they really want, I'm sure that they can just get into a BSA group fine if they don't tell people that they are gay even though I'm sure that many do to "stand out."

So do you have to work at being a classless, bigoted ass or does it just come naturally?

 

[Roguestar]

hey look P&N is leaking

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

</end quote></div>
Except for your final sentence, your "solution" is a problem unto itself. You basically create a system where the government gets to regulate every little tiny organizational action for fear of potential "abuse." You're basically advocating the idea that freedom requires permission, where right freedom should be rewarded, and wrong freedom should be punished. That's just nutty. But that's what you get when you're living the crusade to save the world from itself. One would think that the individual right to support or not support organizations as one chooses would be sufficient.

And Praxis... what the hell do I need to do here? Draw you a picture? Here's your example right here.</end quote></div>
So the goverment should support the BSA then? IT's a very simple question.

You seem to say yes. I want to make sure.

If not then you have nothing to argue about.

How do you get that from:

As it relates to this thread, no one is saying the BSA shouldn't be allowed to have their own membership criteria. They can do anything they want (with some obvious caveats like kidnapping, rape, murder, and other lawful infringements). However, because they are bigots they should not be allowed to receive ANY special treatment at ANY level of government which is supported by the public and public monies. That means no tax status, no discounts, no recruiting in schools or at school functions, no positive treatment by government officials acting in official capacity, etc. They need to be 100% independent of any form of government/public support. Which they aren't. And therein lies the fault.

Let them do anything they want, but give them ZERO access or support. That's all we're saying.

And they do receive much special treatment at various levels of government.

 

[PrinceofWands]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
But you ignore the total options...equals, inferior/superior, or neutral party. If not government than who/what regulates and protects? The individual is the only right answer of course, but then we must accept an individual empowered and allowed to do absolutely anything to protect themselves and their rights. I'm actually ok with that, but are you ok with me sniping heads of corporations from rooftops to stop their abuses? How about the guy down the street releasing chemical or biological weapons to defeat an HOA run out of control? Because that's what you're talking about if you don't have a government there to regulate...total and complete every individual for themselves with NO restrictions on what they can do.</end quote></div>

Sorry... your buddy Praxis already said that slippery slope wasn't allowed here. And on that note, I'm very sure that the pathetic straw man you used here is even less allowed. I never said we shouldn't have regulation. Just that we shouldn't have YOUR regulation. And I provided a very clear argument as to why.</end quote></div>

No, you haven't answered my objections whatsoever. Who is going to provide the regulation? The only options are government, organization, and individuals. I suggest government is the reasonable answer because organizations almost must become corrupted and must inherently be more powerful than an individual, thus requiring another group/agency/organization to protect the people from them while individuals can only act against organizations through extreme measures such as those I listed. While our documents were drafted to protect us from governments, governments were created to protect us from organizations (and other governments). While it's true that governments also almost must become corrupted, and are more powerful than individuals, they can also be countered by organizations created to do just that, and inherent safeguards are in place in our founding documents. No such safeguards exist to protect us from organizations without government regulation.

 

[alien42]

just curious...since when is 'railroading' an important life skill?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
And they do receive much special treatment at various levels of government.

How did you go from "public funding" (your original argument) to "special treatment"?

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, you haven't answered my objections whatsoever. Who is going to provide the regulation? The only options are government, organization, and individuals. I suggest government is the reasonable answer because organizations almost must become corrupted and must inherently be more powerful than an individual, thus requiring another group/agency/organization to protect the people from them while individuals can only act against organizations through extreme measures such as those I listed. While our documents were drafted to protect us from governments, governments were created to protect us from organizations (and other governments). While it's true that governments also almost must become corrupted, and are more powerful than individuals, they can also be countered by organizations created to do just that, and inherent safeguards are in place in our founding documents. No such safeguards exist to protect us from organizations without government regulation.

That government should provide the regulation was not your argument. Your argument was that collective organizations should be regulated more severely than individuals without addressing, however, (except to note its reality) the fact that government considers individuals and collective organizations to be the same, with corporations being granted full 14th amendment rights.
Until that issue is addressed, there is no pro-individual solution to the problem of corporations. Any restriction on corporations will just fall even that much worse on the much less powerful individual (who has the further burden of being liable for criminal prosecution whereas a corporate entity is not).

And therein lies my seemingly anti-PC stance in this thread. For while I fully and firmly support any and all sexual rights/freedoms between consenting individuals, I also recognize that the right to free and voluntary association is protected in the 1st Amendment (assembly clause).


edit: WTF the forums are fubared.

 

[FiddleDD]

edit

 

[Platypus]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: FiddleDD
I agree with the statement about gay people wanting attention. It has always seemed odd to me that they seek extra attention, I wonder if that is part of their psychological makeup. If my sons were to walk around painting their faces in pride of the fact that they are NOT gay..I would find that very odd. I remember at church, when I was growing up the agony of a mother that had a son who professed to be gay...I don't think he was kicked out of scouts.</end quote></div>

oh for f*cks sake.

quit talking about stuff you have no idea about and let this thread die already.