Affirmative Action

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305393816' post='2241387']
Like stealing is morally wrong, but we don't want that government stopping people from stealing, [/quote]


Those are not analgous.

Affirmative action if comparing tostealing would be.

People stole fromthese people in the past,sonow we are going to steal from them.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305393218' post='2241384']
[img]http://www.vanguardist.org/uploads/hoppe_democracy.jpg[/img]
[/quote]


I must read this book.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305393923' post='2241389']Not equivalent.[/quote]Stealing is not immoral to you then? You really are quite the capitalist.

But thank you for trying to offer a reply anyways, rather than just accusing people of being trolls. If you ever want to explain how you differentiate between a law that states you can't infringe someone's copyright and a law that states you can't fire someone because of race, please be welcome... I have been waiting a while for this.[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305393933' post='2241390']Those are not analgous.

Affirmative action if comparing tostealing would be.

People stole fromthese people in the past,sonow we are going to steal from them.[/quote]It's different, yes. But that's why its an analogy. "[i]Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.[/i]"

Unless someone is telling me either stealing or discrimination is moral, it is a perfectly fine analogy. Sorry, try again.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305393977' post='2241390']
I must read this book.
[/quote]
It's available for free. [url="http://www.4shared.com/document/2tdDX1qy/HOPPE_Hans-Hermann_Democracy_-.html"]http://www.4shared.com/document/2tdDX1qy/HOPPE_Hans-Hermann_Democracy_-.html[/url]
If you don't like using websites like that one, I can also email it to you. It used to be hosted at a better site, but I couldn't find it this time.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305394175' post='2241392']
Stealing is not immoral to you then? You really are quite the capitalist.

But thank you for trying to offer a reply anyways, rather than just accusing people of being trolls. If you ever want to explain how you differentiate between a law that states you can't infringe someone's copyright and a law that states you can't fire someone because of race, please be welcome... I have been waiting a while for this.It's different, yes. But that's why its an analogy. "[i]Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.[/i]"
[/quote]
Not what I said.


[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305394175' post='2241392']
But thank you for trying to offer a reply anyways, rather than just accusing people of being trolls. If you ever want to explain how you differentiate between a law that states you can't infringe someone's copyright and a law that states you can't fire someone because of race, please be welcome... I have been waiting a while for this.It's different, yes. But that's why its an analogy. "[i]Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.[/i]"
[/quote]
Copyright is an enormously different issue, in fact. That would needlessly complicate the discussion. Suffice it to say that there are quite a few solid works on property rights that come to the conclusion that 'intellectual property' cannot actually be called property like, for instance, gold or your house or clothing can.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305394175' post='2241392']
Stealing is not immoral to you then? You really are quite the capitalist.

But thank you for trying to offer a reply anyways, rather than just accusing people of being trolls. If you ever want to explain how you differentiate between a law that states you can't infringe someone's copyright and a law that states you can't fire someone because of race, please be welcome... I have been waiting a while for this.It's different, yes. But that's why its an analogy. "[i]Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.[/i]"

Unless someone is telling me either stealing or discrimination is moral, it is a perfectly fine analogy. Sorry, try again.
[/quote]
No I have noneed to try again, they are not similar, its like say Hitler and benidict XVI are equivelent moral men becuase they are both heads of state.


That is not how analogies work.

Stealing might be equivelent to racism, but banning stealing is not simiilar to institutionalizing racism ( which is what affirmative action does).

Banning all racism outright could possible be analgous to banning stealing,though even their you have problems, stealing is an external event racism is n interal attitude, not really all that similar.

You should study analagies more before trying to use themin an arguement

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305394287' post='2241393']
It's available for free. [url="http://www.4shared.com/document/2tdDX1qy/HOPPE_Hans-Hermann_Democracy_-.html"]http://www.4shared.com/document/2tdDX1qy/HOPPE_Hans-Hermann_Democracy_-.html[/url]
If you don't like using websites like that one, I can also email it to you. It used to be hosted at a better site, but I couldn't find it this time.
[/quote]


I'll send you my email

Thank you.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305394444' post='2241395']Not what I said.[/quote]You are very unclear and ambiguous in these topics, if you actually responded clearly and concisely, perhaps people wouldn't of been confused before and this matter could of been solved already...[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305394444' post='2241395']Copyright is an enormously different issue, in fact. That would needlessly complicate the discussion. Suffice it to say that there are quite a few solid works on property rights that come to the conclusion that 'intellectual property' cannot actually be called property like, for instance, gold or your house or clothing can.[/quote]No...

There are a few options for the intellgent free thinking person;

1) you reject that discrimination/stealing/copyright infringement is immoral.
2) you reject that morals should be relevant in law
3) you have relevant reason to differentiate between these morals in regards to law

You seem to have suggested the first two, but you have failed the third. So... When you are ready, please elaborate.[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305394754' post='2241397']
No I have noneed to try again, they are not similar, its like say Hitler and benidict XVI are equivelent moral men becuase they are both heads of state.


That is not how analogies work.

Stealing might be equivelent to racism, but banning stealing is not simiilar to institutionalizing racism ( which is what affirmative action does).

Banning all racism outright could possible be analgous to banning stealing,though even their you have problems, stealing is an external event racism is n interal attitude, not really all that similar.

You should study analagies more before trying to use themin an arguement.[/quote]As Nihil Obstat might tell me, you should learn to spell before replying. Though it never stopped me or seemed reasonable of an argument, so I won't hold it against you.

If we compared two people as heads of state, that is an analogy. Just because you find it uncomfortable doesn't somehow invalidate the similarity. But the rest of you're comments were strawman or fallacious.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305394792' post='2241399']
You are very unclear and ambiguous in these topics, if you actually responded clearly and concisely, perhaps people wouldn't of been confused before and this matter could of been solved already...No...

There are a few options for the intellgent free thinking person;

1) you reject that discrimination/stealing/copyright infringement is immoral.
2) you reject that morals should be relevant in law
3) you have relevant reason to differentiate between these morals in regards to law

You seem to have suggested the first two, but you have failed the third. So... When you are ready, please elaborate.As Nihil Obstat might tell me, you should learn to spell before replying. Though it never stopped me or seemed reasonable of an argument, so I won't hold it against you.

If we compared two people as heads of state, that is an analogy. Just because you find it uncomfortable doesn't somehow invalidate the similarity. But the rest of you're comments were strawman or fallacious.
[/quote]



well I always said criticism of spelling is the last refuge of the defeated,so you'll never here that from me,unless you actually type a different word which confuses me in some way.

my arguements are not strawmen,apparantly both your understanding fallacies and of analogy is flawed. Fish and birds are both animals,Icould make an analogy of thier life cycle, or thier hunting habits, but I could not make an analogy of a fish's life cycle to a falcon's hunting habits. They are not similar, neither is banning an active immoral act and enforcing and immoral act, or even banning an internal immoral attitude.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305395659' post='2241404']well I always said criticism of spelling is the last refuge of the defeated,so you'll never here that from me,unless you actually type a different word which confuses me in some way.

my arguements are not strawmen,apparantly both your understanding fallacies and of analogy is flawed. Fish and birds are both animals,Icould make an analogy of thier life cycle, or thier hunting habits, but I could not make an analogy of a fish's life cycle to a falcon's hunting habits. They are not similar, neither is banning an active immoral act and enforcing and immoral act, or even banning an internal immoral attitude.[/quote]I think the problem you face is that, the analogy is not stealing to affirmative action, but rather stealing to discrimination, as I wrote before. This is the strawman and fallacious reasoning.

Hitler was the leader of nazi germany. The pope is the leader of the catholic church. If this is an analogy, it means that in one respect there is a similarity, not that the two ideas are similar. I quoted verbatim a definition of analogy, if you want to provide something more please be welcome.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Winchester]

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.

DonJohn wins, shut down the thread.

[Don John of Austria]

In an analogy, two systems are shown to have common sub-functions and/or properties and therefore additional corresponding sub-functions and/or properties are proposed and shown to exist. This is repeated for all sub-functions until the analogy ultimately fails.

More specifically the assumption of an analogy runs like this: if some system A has some function X and also some function Y, and some system B has a function X′ corresponding to A's function X, then the system B should also have a function Y′ that is analogous to A's function Y.



Your A's ( stealling) has function Y (immoral) --- Racism (system B) is also has function X (immoral) --- this is all fine, but you never produce a function Y

instead you propose another analogy

Therefore System A (banning Stealling) is the same as System Y ( requiring racial discrimination).

Banning stealling is not a function of stealing, nor is government requirement of racial discrimination a function of racisim therefore this is a false analogy.

Does that make sense? I am not trying to be an asshat here, Iam really trying to explain why this is a false analogy.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305394792' post='2241399']
You are very unclear and ambiguous in these topics, if you actually responded clearly and concisely, perhaps people wouldn't of been confused before and this matter could of been solved already...No...

There are a few options for the intellgent free thinking person;

1) you reject that discrimination/stealing/copyright infringement is immoral.
2) you reject that morals should be relevant in law
3) you have relevant reason to differentiate between these morals in regards to law

You seem to have suggested the first two, but you have failed the third. So... When you are ready, please elaborate.
[/quote]
Actually the first two are false and I very clearly have said otherwise on a variety of occasions. No wonder I have declined to expand on the third.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305391223' post='2241362']
Then state the limit of taxation. Give me the percentage which government may justly take. Everything you've argued says that what the government decides to take, it is justified in taking and that if it reduces that amount, it may then tell people what to do. You have given no limits to what the government may take or why they may take it.

Democratic 'governments' derive their authority from man and rely upon consent. Whatever consent I withdraw, I am justified in withdrawing it and am subject then only to natural law. You have no right to imprison me for non-payment of arbitrary taxation, but the government has that power.

I'm calling you a coward because you want the government to put the gun to my head that you won't take up yourself to divest me of my money as you see fit. Sending someone to shake me down instead of doing it yourself is a lack of courage.

Your final scenario about someone charging millions to use a private toll road is asinine. There are private toll roads currently in operation and they charge a reasonable amount. Your fear of non-State blessed private action is unfounded.
[/quote]



the limit on taxation? i can't give a number since i have never added up how much it costs to do things.

the government has every right to take money from its people to provide a military for its protection. the military is there in case other entire countries want to do us harm. without a combined militray force Amercia would be easily defeatable. if america had not military in place to protect its people then china could come in and destroy america quite easily.

the government also had the responsibility to its citizen to provide for them the chance at life, liberty and the pursut of happiness. well some people without government assistance would be unable to even have a chance at life. there are many people who without any kind of assistance would die rather quickly. the government has a responsibility to those people to provide them with the chance at life. yes, private charities help. although private charities are unable to help ALL people. this is where the government needs to step in. when someone requires assistance to survive and are unable to get the assistance, the government has every right to step in and give the person assiatnce to survive.

so i am a coward because the government takes money from you and i agree that its ok? so let me ask you, do you think the government has any right to take ANY amount of money from you? cause without any money from anyone, there is no government. show me a single government which can survive without money. who is going to work for them without ever getting paid?

the roads arguement is not assanine. if everything was privatized and there was no government intrusion and no government oversight, then someone, let's say an athiest or protestant, it doesn't matter. one of them buys the road out of a catholic church and charges anyone who wants to use the road to the church one million dollars. without government oversight or intrusion and everything being privatly owned whats to stop someone from doing this? do you not think the devil will use ways such as this to not allow people to attend the catholic church? do i think this will happen on every road? certainly not. although i thinks its illogical with how society is today that this wouldn't happen some places. this is why its a good thing the government owns the roads and has oversight and intrusion on some instances.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305397338' post='2241430']
so let me ask you, do you think the government has any right to take ANY amount of money from you? cause without any money from anyone, there is no government. show me a single government which can survive without money. who is going to work for them without ever getting paid?

[/quote]

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wLXSuvs44N8/TXVl5q70omI/AAAAAAAAACY/ylbNvQ0CN1Y/s220/Blog_Flag.jpg[/img]

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305396953' post='2241421']
I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.

DonJohn wins, shut down the thread.
[/quote]Don John of Austria lost then... scroll back.

But I will take my leave of this discussion, I find it irritating to be mocked by asking for explanation. Maybe sincerity is lacking. In either event. Pardon me.

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305397338' post='2241430']
the limit on taxation? i can't give a number since i have never added up how much it costs to do things.

the government has every right to take money from its people to provide a military for its protection. the military is there in case other entire countries want to do us harm. without a combined militray force Amercia would be easily defeatable. if america had not military in place to protect its people then china could come in and destroy america quite easily. [/quote]
Actually, if they want to preserve infrastructure, they will have a difficult time because we are armed individually. No thanks to your party.


[quote]the government also had the responsibility to its citizen to provide for them the chance at life, liberty and the pursut of happiness. well some people without government assistance would be unable to even have a chance at life. there are many people who without any kind of assistance would die rather quickly. the government has a responsibility to those people to provide them with the chance at life. yes, private charities help. although private charities are unable to help ALL people. this is where the government needs to step in. when someone requires assistance to survive and are unable to get the assistance, the government has every right to step in and give the person assiatnce to survive.[/quote]
The government has the obligation to not deny people these things.

[quote]so i am a coward because the government takes money from you and i agree that its ok? so let me ask you, do you think the government has any right to take ANY amount of money from you? cause without any money from anyone, there is no government. show me a single government which can survive without money. who is going to work for them without ever getting paid?[/quote]
I said you lack the courage to take money from me yourself. I didn't say you were a coward. I didn't reject all taxation, but I do reject redistribution of wealth by government coercion.

[quote]the roads arguement is not assanine. if everything was privatized and there was no government intrusion and no government oversight, then someone, let's say an athiest or protestant, it doesn't matter. one of them buys the road out of a catholic church and charges anyone who wants to use the road to the church one million dollars. without government oversight or intrusion and everything being privatly owned whats to stop someone from doing this? do you not think the devil will use ways such as this to not allow people to attend the catholic church? do i think this will happen on every road? certainly not. although i thinks its illogical with how society is today that this wouldn't happen some places. this is why its a good thing the government owns the roads and has oversight and intrusion on some instances.
[/quote]
The desire to actually make money will stop them. Again, there are privately owned roads and they do not operate in this manner. So yes, your idea is asinine. Is government immune to the influence of the Devil? Once again, you betray your blind trust of State authority.