Things That Should Be Illegal

[azurepred]

Why don't you understand that if one group of people can have their rights violated when society deems it to be 'for the best', the group of people you are part of can have its rights violated if a majority deems it proper?

I perfectly understand, and if society deems something to be for the best, and it doesn't come off as discrimination, I won't be in line to complain about it, it's not like we're talking about taking the right to smoke away here. It's pretty obvious that you feel the opposite, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[-Super Hans-]

Is the smoking ban new in the u.s? We've had it here for a few years now.

 

[Jen]

We've had it for several years as well....at least in Washington, anyway.

 

[devilof76]

Since January 1,1999 here.

I perfectly understand, and if society deems something to be for the best, and it doesn't come off as discrimination, I won't be in line to complain about it, it's not like we're talking about taking the right to smoke away here. It's pretty obvious that you feel the opposite, so I'll leave it at that.

No. I'm not talking about the right to smoke. Nevermind. If a person has to belong to a protected class based on arbitrary distinctions of race, class, sex, or religion to be worthy of your respect for their rights, then I'm not going to try convincing you to respect rights based on the legitimate distinction of simply being human (regardless of their color, wealth, gender or system of belief).

That's exactly what nam was saying about Africans, Native Americans and women in the early American Republic. The only difference is that you are granting the rights based on those distinctions, instead of denying them. It's the exact same crime (just replace black/native/female with white/European/male).

At any point that a government treats one person as having lesser rights than another (however many millions of them), then discrimination is occurring. Period.

 

[azurepred]

Since January 1,1999 here.



No. I'm not talking about the right to smoke. Nevermind. If a person has to belong to a protected class based on arbitrary distinctions of race, class, sex, or religion to be worthy of your respect for their rights, then I'm not going to try convincing you to respect rights based on the legitimate distinction of simply being human (regardless of their color, wealth, gender or system of belief).

That's exactly what nam was saying about Africans, Native Americans and women in the early American Republic. The only difference is that you are granting the rights based on those distinctions, instead of denying them. It's the exact same crime (just replace black/native/female with white/European/male).

At any point that a government treats one person as having lesser rights than another (however many millions of them), then discrimination is occurring. Period.

I think your taking the subject way too seriously. I know you weren't talking about the right to smoke, but I was just saying it's not like we're taking away those rights. Smokers have more places to smoke, than not. I know tons of smokers and my uncle owns a bar in S.F. himself, and I have never heard any of them complain that they can't either allow smokers or that smokers can't do so in the bars.

It's not like gay marriage, which is 100% discrimination because they were born the way they are, yet they don't get the same rights as straight people that were born the way they are. That topic is based more on complete ignorance as it was with Blacks many years ago. I know gay marriage is off topic, but you brought up that this smoking stuff is discrimination. Having cigs to begin with is a priviledge, not a right. I think your in the minority that thinks it's discrimination that bar owners can't allow smoking, if that is what you are saying.

 

[devilof76]

Thank you for proving that you believe rights are conferred by a majority. Pretty much why there were probably four people on the entire West Coast who gave a damn. Democracy (mob rule) at its finest.

 

[thenammagazine]

Thank you for proving that you believe rights are conferred by a majority. Pretty much why there were probably four people on the entire West Coast who gave a damn. Democracy (mob rule) at its finest.

It wouldn't have mattered anyway. Feinstein is so hellbent for gun control, she made guns illegal in San Francisco. This of course, excluded her Secret Service protection but in her idiocy she for got to make an exemption for law enforcement (and the law was repealed). That little incident pretty much describes law makers as a whole on the West Coast. And it arguably gets even dumber the further north you go.

 

[azurepred]

@devilof If I believed that, then wouldn't I believe that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry as well? I can see the difference between having the right to do something and having the priviledge to do something. That's where you and I disagree.

 

[devilof76]

The reason why homosexuals can't marry is because a majority believes that marriage is a privilege that homosexuals should not have. You are picking and choosing who has the right to do what, just like those obstructing gay marriage.

 

[azurepred]

well if straight people have the right to marry, how all of a sudden does it become a priviledge for gay people? Yea, I'm picking and choosing what I feel is a right and what is a priviledge, that's based on my morale values. I don't see anyone protesting that they can't allow smoking in their businesses, so nothing is ever going to change in that regard. Gay marriage, it's gonna happen eventually.

 

[devilof76]

I don't see anyone protesting the Jews having to wear those yellow stars. What's the big deal?

You don't get it.

 

[cplhicks]

Lets all switch to decaf boys.

 

[thenammagazine]

The reason why homosexuals can't marry is because a majority believes that marriage is a privilege that homosexuals should not have. You are picking and choosing who has the right to do what, just like those obstructing gay marriage.

I have mixed feelings over that whole thing. It'd be a great discussion, but too many people are far too immature to discuss it reasonably and it's 100% inappropriate for these boards.

 

[devilof76]

Indeed. Let's discuss the Holocaust instead.

I think it should be illegal.

 

[thenammagazine]

Indeed. Let's discuss the Holocaust instead.

I think it should be illegal.

Good thing genocide already is.

 

[devilof76]

Wasn't it in the 30's? I would think that 1st degree murder covered that.

 

[thenammagazine]

Wasn't it in the 30's? I would think that 1st degree murder covered that.

That's a good question. How many counts of 1st degree murder must one rack up (assuming it meets the stipulations) before the charges fold into genocide?

 

[devilof76]

I think motive is what distinguishes genocide from mass murder. Not sure why it's worse to kill a million people who are related by anatomical similarity as it is to kill a million who aren't, but I'm not an international legislator, so what do I know.

 

[thenammagazine]

I think motive is what distinguishes genocide from mass murder. Not sure why it's worse to kill a million people who are related by anatomical similarity as it is to kill a million who aren't, but I'm not an international legislator, so what do I know.

What number distinguishes the difference though?

 

[devilof76]

You got me. Call the Hague. I bet they know, and if they don't I'm sure they'd be happy to make up a number for you.