The Right To Discriminate

[shagdrum]

To bring something before SCOTUS, you need reason.

It is not quite that cut and dry.

You need standing. In addition, there has to be a legitimate, inherent constitutional question that the SCOTUS feels needs to be addressed. You don't have to "show reason" that a law is unconstitutional, there simply needs to be a legitimate, inherent constitutional question brought to the attention of the court by someone with standing to do so. At that point, where the burden of proof lies depends on the specifics of the constitutional issue in question, past case precedent and how the individual justices view the issue.

I know that it may seem like semantics, but these are VERY important legal distinctions.

To bring a case to the supreme court, you don't have to "show reason" that a law is unquestionably unconstitutional, but simply that there is a legitimate constitutional question inherent in the case in question (as opposed to some specious claim of a vague "violation of my rights"). Those are different things.

The burden of proof is only on showing a legitimate constitutional question, NOT on justifying a change in law.

Simply showing a reasonable suspicion that a law may be unconstitutional in some specific manner is all that is necessary (assuming standing). There is also a huge element of discretion on the part of the justices in what cases they decide to hear. They don't have the time to see any and every case that has some minor constitutional question.

 

[FIND]

Yes, I was not specific enough in what I meant to say.

The burden of proof bit though, that is semantics. If one believes something is unconstitutional and they want the law changed, they have a burden of proof to meet before their question merits review. I had thought the way I stated it was clear enough.

 

[shagdrum]

You are stating that private entities do not exist publicly. You have also stated that you do not own the sidewalk and frontage, which may differ in some municipalities, but for the most part, you own the sidewalk and frontage.

I think there may be some confusion about the distinction between public and private; specifically in what defines "public".

From a purely financial perspective, "public" includes companies that are "traded publicly", owned by stockholders, etc.

In a political sense, "public" means what is owned and/or funded by society generally; by the taxpayers.

A "publicly traded company" is still considered part of the private sector. It is still private property owned by the stockholders.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes, I was not specific enough in what I meant to say.

The burden of proof bit though, that is semantics. If one believes something is unconstitutional and they want the law changed, they have a burden of proof to meet before their question merits review. I had thought the way I stated it was clear enough.

Things can get very specific when it come to law.

Yes, there is a burden of proof to be met, but it is relatively low; at the "reasonable suspicion" level. At that point, the burden of proof is determined by the specifics of the issue. Simply because a law is on the books, and even may be supported by some past legal precedents, it doesn't follow that the burden of proof is in that law's favor.

And it is dangerous to view the SCOTUS as an unquestionable arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional. The Dred Scott decision is a great example of that fact. At it's best the rulings of the SCOTUS are an imperfect reflection of constitutionality, at it's worst, the rulings of the SCOTUS have absolutely nothing to do with constitutionality and are simply a means to enact a political agenda.

 

[foxpaws]

When has this issue in the 1964 CRA been brought before the SCOTUS?

Twice - at least that I know of... Commerce Clause held once again...

Oh, I responded to this exact same question before Shag from you... Glad to see you are paying attention...

And that is exactly how it was used... You might need to check out the Supreme Court on this... the commerce clause was very important in dealing with the states and enforcing the Civil Rights Act.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States or Daniel v. Paul

So, in honor of me having to repeat myself... how about an answer to this shag...
Do you agree that private business should be allowed to discriminate, should Title II be repealed?

 

[FIND]

Twice - at least that I know of... Commerce Clause held once again...

Katzenbach v. McClung as well.... but I don't like referring to rulings like this, as they make it appear that CRA is upheld entirely by the commerce clause, where equal protection is probably a more solid justification.

 

[FIND]

I think there may be some confusion about the distinction between public and private; specifically in what defines "public".

From a purely financial perspective, "public" includes companies that are "traded publicly", owned by stockholders, etc.

In a political sense, "public" means what is owned and/or funded by society generally; by the taxpayers.

A "publicly traded company" is still considered part of the private sector. It is still private property owned by the stockholders.

Instead of getting caught in the semantics of such narrow definitions, how about the definition of a public place as a privately owned "place of public accommodation"

How about Bouvier's law dictionary's definition that has held pretty much all of the last century? Public Place: "any place so situated that what passes there can be seen by any considerable number of persons, if they happen to look."

 

[foxpaws]

Katzenbach v. McClung as well.... but I don't like referring to rulings like this, as they make it appear that CRA is upheld entirely by the commerce clause, where equal protection is probably a more solid justification.

The entire Act is held up by many, many cases that have nothing to do with the commerce clause - however Title II is mostly held up by the commerce clause.

Example for the Act:
U. S. vs Cecil Price et al.
Loving v. Virginia
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

 

[FIND]

The entire Act is held up by many, many cases that have nothing to do with the commerce clause - however Title II is mostly held up by the commerce clause.

Example for the Act:
U. S. vs Cecil Price et al.
Loving v. Virginia
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

I am aware of this. I was looking for justifications for Title II that did not rely primarily on the commerce clause, since commerce clause is an easy place for people to attack. Title II itself is not only justifiable under commerce clause, however most courts and attorneys default to that because it is the clearest language in support of their opinion. I was going to look for them later if I had time, since I'd swear I can recall some rulings that have used equal protection as justification under Title II.

edit: duh, I just realized that I said CRA in my last post instead of Title II.

 

[foxpaws]

Reed vs Reed - although about gender, does address the equal protection part that you are talking about.

 

[FIND]

Reed vs Reed - although about gender, does address the equal protection part that you are talking about.

Craig v. Boren gets a little closer to the issue that I was talking about, but neither of these are addressing Title II directly, though by extension, you can see the application to Title II if a person did not want to argue Title II based upon the commerce act alone.

Meh, I just don't have the time to hang out in the law library... I don't really feel like trying to wade through cases online with the kids running around whining. Maybe next week after they go to stay with their mother for the rest of the summer. Though it is hardly important I suppose, as it is true that the Title II has been held up repeatedly by the commerce clause, and attempts to use the 5th amendment to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the application of the commerce clause to Title II in these manners has been repeatedly shot down.

I suppose I just wanted an insignificant moral victory....

I think there was a case at one time involving McDonnell Douglas and its hiring practices, and while this was a complaint based on Title VII, the application of CRA is the same between this case and Title II complaints. This case did not use the commerce clause as far as I can recall.

 

[Marcus]

ATLANTA MOTEL v. UNITED STATES specifically dealt with Title II, and the court unanimously found it to be constitutional regarding its use of the commerce clause:

Appellant, the owner of a large motel in Atlanta, Georgia, which restricts its clientele to white persons, three-fourths of whom are transient interstate travelers, sued for declaratory relief and to enjoin enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, contending that the prohibition of racial discrimination in places of public accommodation affecting commerce exceeded Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and violated other parts of the Constitution. A three-judge District Court upheld the constitutionality of Title II, 201 (a), (b) (1) and (c) (1), the provisions attacked, and on appellees' counterclaim permanently enjoined appellant from refusing to accommodate Negro guests for racial reasons. Held:

1. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause as applied to a place of public accommodation serving interstate travelers. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , distinguished. Pp. 249-262.

(a) The interstate movement of persons is "commerce" which concerns more than one State. Pp. 255-256.

(b) The protection of interstate commerce is within the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause whether or not the transportation of persons between States is "commercial." P. 256.

(c) Congress' action in removing the disruptive effect which it found racial discrimination has on interstate travel is not invalidated because Congress was also legislating against what it considered to be moral wrongs. P. 257.

(d) Congress had power to enact appropriate legislation with regard to a place of public accommodation such as appellant's motel even if it is assumed to be of a purely "local" character, as Congress' power over interstate commerce extends to the regulation of local incidents thereof which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce. P. 258.

(2) The prohibition in Title II of racial discrimination in public accommodations affecting commerce does not violate the Fifth [379 U.S. 241, 242] Amendment as being a deprivation of property or liberty without due process of law. Pp. 258-261.

(3) Such prohibition does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment as being "involuntary servitude." P. 261.​

This is of course a brief summary. If you really want to delve into the specific justifications and precedents they used to come to these conclusions, you need to read the entire ruling.

Whether you agree or disagree with its opinion, it's established case law and can't be dismissed. It should be noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which used similar language, was found unconstitutional, but for reasons having nothing to do with the commerce clause. The Atlanta Motel case above does address the 1875 CRA rulings and found them irrelevant.

A few more random points:

• The narrow use of the term "public" that some of you insist on using, is a red herring. In the context of the CRA, "public" simply refers to an establishment that is open to the public.
  
• Comparing racial discrimination in a business setting with discrimination when choosing a mate is another red herring. The CRA doesn't cover personal preferences and biases. It simply says that if you own a business that is open to the public, you can't refuse service to someone based solely on race.
  
• And just to make things clear to Shag, who loves strict definitions, I use the term "discrimination" in the rest of this post in the following context:

(with against) distinct treatment of an individual or group to their disadvantage. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice, specifically racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners or the arbitrary imposition of unequal tariffs for substantially the same service.​

NOT​

a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things.​

As I have pointed out in a different thread, for most of the 20th century, the SCOTUS has been dominated by a school of thought that recognizes no objective standard in it's interpretation of the constitution. Those courts have regularly said that certain laws which are clearly unconstitutional are, in their estimation, constitutional (and vice versa). This has lead to an expansion of governmental power and distortion of the constitution in numerous areas. Legal fictions like "substantive due process" and "incorporation" have, effectively, been written into the constitution by 9 unelected justices.

This is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But simply asserting that something is "clearly unconstitutional" is a bit arrogant don't you think? Many, if not most, SCOTUS rulings have been controversial. Does the fact that you find some of their rulings unpalatable mean we should abandon that system? Your derisive use of the phrase "9 unelected justices" suggests that you have a problem with the way the framers set up the judicial branch.

Article III, Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.​

That's the system we were given.

Of course, I know your real complaint isn't with the court system per se, but specifically with who sits on the bench. Guess what? I have some problems with some judges too, but I'll assume my picks for bad judges are different than yours. Representative democracy sure is a bitch isn't it?

Whether Title II of the CRA is constitutional, and the related issue of how the commerce clause is used or abused has always been controversial. The commerce clause has been used to justify federal criminalization of child pornography, even though the vast majority of it is disseminated through file sharing and usenet, where there is no exchange of money (commerce). But no one (that I know of) is suggesting we reverse those laws.

The real question, then, is this: Who's going to be foolish enough to challenge - again - the constitutionality of Title II or seriously attempt to abolish it? What court is going to overturn it? Even if it were overturned, what do you expect to gain besides a shallow victory for "liberty" and "private property" in name only?

What would we lose? You can argue that racial discrimination in a place of business would be a "bad business decision", so no one would practice it, therefore Title II is redundant. Yet that is a questionable conclusion. We'll never return to the days of Jim Crow and "Colored Only", but there will be tiny pockets where discrimination will return.

So is it worth fighting this fight? I don't see the upside. Certainly nothing of real substance. This is just another attack on the all-evil government. Which brings us back to Rand Paul.

The man said something stupid in the name of his "principles", and he rightly got beat up for it. I don't believe for a minute that Paul is a racist, but I do believe that he's a greenhorn politician who doesn't know when to let something go.

There is this obsession, especially to those on the right, with being perfectly "consistent" on every issue. That somehow, never budging from a position, no matter how different the question, is something to be admired and emulated. The rest of us would refer to that as "rigidity" or perhaps "mindless servility to doctrine". It doesn't require thinking about an individual issue on its merits. There is simply a right answer and the wrong answer. This works great in a perfect world, but not in our world. Go ahead and call me a "moral relativist" all you want, but some of us recognize that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to every problem.

Anyway...

That Title II is or is not constitutional is a moot point because there is no easy, cut and dried way to determine that, despite all your appeals to "originalism" or "strict constructionism". We have our SCOTUS decisions and we'll have to live with them. However Title II's scope is narrow enough that it's difficult to find examples where it has hurt business, let alone individual "liberty".

And it is dangerous to view the SCOTUS as an unquestionable arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional. The Dred Scott decision is a great example of that fact. At it's best the rulings of the SCOTUS are an imperfect reflection of constitutionality, at it's worst, the rulings of the SCOTUS have absolutely nothing to do with constitutionality and are simply a means to enact a political agenda.

Very true. Gore v. Bush is a prime example. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[cammerfe]

It is not quite that cut and dry.

You need standing. In addition, there has to be a legitimate, inherent constitutional question that the SCOTUS feels needs to be addressed. You don't have to "show reason" that a law is unconstitutional, there simply needs to be a legitimate, inherent constitutional question brought to the attention of the court by someone with standing to do so. At that point, where the burden of proof lies depends on the specifics of the constitutional issue in question, past case precedent and how the individual justices view the issue.

I know that it may seem like semantics, but these are VERY important legal distinctions.

To bring a case to the supreme court, you don't have to "show reason" that a law is unquestionably unconstitutional, but simply that there is a legitimate constitutional question inherent in the case in question (as opposed to some specious claim of a vague "violation of my rights"). Those are different things.

The burden of proof is only on showing a legitimate constitutional question, NOT on justifying a change in law.

Simply showing a reasonable suspicion that a law may be unconstitutional in some specific manner is all that is necessary (assuming standing). There is also a huge element of discretion on the part of the justices in what cases they decide to hear. They don't have the time to see any and every case that has some minor constitutional question.

Very well put. And it should also be noted that SCOTUS feels it necessary to look as narrowly as possible in their considerations, clear to the point of active attempting to ignore any part of a question not totally on point.
KS

 

[foxpaws]

So is it worth fighting this fight? I don't see the upside. Certainly nothing of real substance. This is just another attack on the all-evil government. Which brings us back to Rand Paul.

The man said something stupid in the name of his "principles", and he rightly got beat up for it. I don't believe for a minute that Paul is a racist, but I do believe that he's a greenhorn politician who doesn't know when to let something go.

Hello stranger!!!!

The Rand problem - I don't think he is a racist, but I think it goes beyond being a 'greenhorn', I think Paul really doesn't understand history, how the Civil Rights Act works, and that naively he really believes that we should allow discrimination once again in this country. He is a libertarian, and that is pretty much a textbook libertarian stand.

Conway has closed the gap to 8 pts from 25 pts in mid May - at least it is now a horse race in Kentucky

But, we still don't know how shag feels about this - so shag -
Do you agree that private business should be allowed to discriminate, should Title II be repealed?

 

[shagdrum]

The Rand problem - I don't think he is a racist, but I think it goes beyond being a 'greenhorn', I think Paul really doesn't understand history, how the Civil Rights Act works

What, specificaly doesn't he understand about history or how the Civil Rights Act works?

In this debate the theory of social causation that you have been promoting (marxist exploitation theory) is not, at all supported by history. Only by creating a false narrative that intentionally cherry picks and distorts history can the flawed theory you are promoting seem to be realistic.

and that naively he really believes that we should allow discrimination once again in this country.

Are you actually claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually stopped discrimination. If so, how specifically did it do that and what do you cite as proof?

He is a libertarian, and that is pretty much a textbook libertarian stand.

No, it is your distortion of the libertarian stand.

But, we still don't know how shag feels about this - so shag -
Do you agree that private business should be allowed to discriminate, should Title II be repealed?

Again, demonstrate some honesty and good faith and I will stop treating your posts as simply hostile attempts to mislead by a habitual liar with no credibility or integrity to speak of.

 

[FIND]

Again, demonstrate some honesty and good faith and I will stop treating your posts as simply hostile attempts to mislead by a habitual liar with no credibility or integrity to speak of.

What is with the hostility and flaming every time? If you aren't going to answer, then why bother responding just to flame. Sounds more like you are a coward making excuses when you do that. Either answer or don't. Reading that response to her every time just gets old though.

 

[04SCTLS]

Fox knows how to push Shag's buttons and make him go into coniptions.
It seems her "lies" are stronger than his "truth" and for all his rhetoric
he doesn't think he can give an answer where he will prevail.

He should be more creative and fight her "lies and dishonesty" with his own.
The truth is only one weapon in a debater's arsenal.

 

[shagdrum]

What is with the hostility and flaming every time? If you aren't going to answer, then why bother responding just to flame. Sounds more like you are a coward making excuses when you do that. Either answer or don't. Reading that response to her every time just gets old though.

But her habitual attempts to bait and change the focus of the conversation are not "getting old"?

Everything I say about her is verifiably true. She is a dishonest, insidious propagandist whom I have wasted far too much time on in countering her habitual lies and misdirection. Some of the longest threads here are of me (and/or others) and her going back and forth in a war of attrition where she ignores, misrepresents and lies about those she is debating with, their positions or what they have said and then her opponents being forced to correcting the record only to have her repeat the lies in a new way; ignoring what they have said yet again. I have simply tired of that and refuse to engage her in that (which is what this or any other thread would ultimately become if I did seriously engage her again).

As I have pointed out before, I don't communicate with her outside of on this forum. When she first came here in the fall(?) of 2008, I exchanged emails and private messages with her (on an almost daily basis for a while) and treated her with respect and consideration. After a number of instances of her demonstrating her two-faced, dishonest nature, both publicly on the forum and in private, I ceased communication with her. I prefer to associate with people of integrity; people I can trust. She has only gotten more nasty and snarky toward me since then.

If someone rudely and habitually distorts what you say, ignores relevant counterpoints you raise and instead engages in character assassination as a means of debate and other duplicitous rhetorical tactics why should you not call them out on their dishonesty? Why should they be treated with respect when they never extend any such consideration to you except temporarily, as a ruse to try and set you up?

Frankly, I only bother myself with her enough to occasionally point out how she is lying; identify what distortion she is promoting, and to remind people of her shamelessly dishonest nature. I know that may sound absurd at the moment to you, considering you are new here, and may even be talking to her privately (in which she seems pleasant and nice), but just give it time. You will come to realize how right I (and others) are about her. You wouldn't be the first to do so, either.

As I have pointed out, if she demonstrated some integrity, honesty and good faith in discussing things on this forum I would return the favor. But I have attempted to give her another change far to many times only for her to, at best, temporarily give the illusion of decency in debate and ultimately fall back to form. Dishonesty is her nature. The biggest difference is that, in her vitriol toward other points of view (and those who hold them) she will never admit to it, and is subtle; passive aggressive. At least with someone like hrmwrm, the contempt is blatant and up front. There is a certain honesty in that.

 

[shagdrum]

He should be more creative and fight her "lies and dishonesty" with his own.
The truth is only one weapon in a debater's arsenal.

Do you seriously think that?!

The truth doesn't matter, all that matters is "winning" the debate and I should lower myself to her level to do so?

Is that why you keep going on about a "lack of creativity"? I should eschew all integrity and honesty to instead engage in cheap rhetoric aimed at deceiving others into accepting my point of view?

You also keep putting lies in quotations. Can you point to one instance where I pointed to her lying or engaging in dishonesty that is not accurate? She never attempts to defend her actions (instead simply ignoring the challenge and continuing the lie) and I only ever get indignation from others over my pointing out her lies. There are plenty of examples of me calling her on her dishonesty.

Put up or shut up.

 

[FIND]

One could accuse you of all the same things. Verbosity does not make you any more right than her, in many, or I should say most cases I am looking at, it is simply a difference of opinion. The fact that the majority of posters in that thread agree with you does not make you right, it just means that they have similar political and social views. Sure, people are wrong some times, but that does not make them a liar.

Either way, the smear posts..... I mean.... really. Just ignore her if you truly feel that way. You too often distort or misrepresent what others say to prove your point, that is politics. More often than not, it seems like you are too afraid to state how you feel or anything along that nature, because it appears that you don't feel your opinions would stand up to scrutiny. Then, when someone offers a counterpoint, you call them a liar or say that they are misrepresenting you.

Just ignore her if you really don't want to answer her questions. You sound like O'Reilly, attacking with venomous anger every time you fear you may actually have to justify your position or someone offers a differing opinion. If you want to prove you are the bigger more decent person, then ignore her questions.

In this case for certain, she is not attempting to change the focus of the conversation. She is asking, do you, or do you not support the right to discriminate, in the way Markus defined discrimination.

(with against) distinct treatment of an individual or group to their disadvantage. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice, specifically racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners or the arbitrary imposition of unequal tariffs for substantially the same service

Now, even if you were to say YES to that very question, I doubt anyone would think less of you. You have previously justified your opinion that such anti-discriminatory laws are unconstitutional in your view, and I have the feeling from other conversation with you that you yourself would not engage in such behavior, you just don't like the rule being there.

Honestly, on most other forums I have ever been on, such attacks would be met with warnings, and banning by moderators and administrators. This forum is a little more liberal in its views of social control as for this type of discussion, and I think the moderators understand that any type of political debate will likely get heated when people can have such diametrically opposed view points, and political freedoms are an issue that so many of us cherish and hold near our hearts. But honestly, if all it ever is is a smear attack, then you are nothing more than a troll.

You and I disagree on many points, but even we have proven we can have civil debate, so I know you are capable of doing so. As I said before, if you don't want to answer, then don't. If you do answer, and she engages in underhanded tactics, they will be obvious for anyone who is reading, and they won't hurt you anyways. Remember the old saying, "sticks and stones."

Can you point to one instance where I pointed to her lying or engaging in dishonesty that is not accurate?

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=685245&postcount=9

I could point to more, but most are more along the lines of a difference in opinion, and differences in semantics. In some of these examples you gave, you are making sketchy connections that you are basing on personal bias and gut feeling and she refuses to do the same. Whether or not you turned out to be correct later when there was more evidence, or even if nothing more ever came of it than suspicion, you were not justifying an opinion on the basis of facts. You just declared you had met your burden of proof, or that you had made your case on the preponderance of the evidence (however circumstantial), then you spent the rest of the thread insisting the burden of proof was on her. This is a country of innocent until proven guilty, but in many cases, you state an opinion of a group, then go into rage spirals when anyone disagrees stating that that group is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Marcus]

What is with the hostility and flaming every time? If you aren't going to answer, then why bother responding just to flame. Sounds more like you are a coward making excuses when you do that. Either answer or don't. Reading that response to her every time just gets old though.

By labeling her as a liar at every opportunity, he can accomplish two goals:

1. Dismiss any point she makes that he doesn't have a canned retort he can reference somewhere. These he declares to be "deception".
2. Attempt to show that she's got a long "history" or dishonesty by virtue of the fact that he has simply asserted it a thousand times.

Kind of puts the lie to this quote:

Disagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, sentimental, foolish, a dope; disagree with someone on the left and he is more likely to think you selfish, coldhearted, a sellout, evil.
-Joseph Epstein​

Here's another one to consider:

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

And then he has the gall to claim that she resorts to "character assassination" of all things.

I used to frequent this forum all the time, but I still lurk since I stopped regularly posting around a year ago. In all that time, I've gotten a pretty good understanding of what Shag believes. I have no idea, however, what he thinks, or if he's capable of independent thought at all. At least with Cal, I can tell he does actually think about an issue before he posts. With Shag, it's all about tactics: framing the debate to his advantage. That is, diverting the debate away from real-world (non-Vulcan) issues and towards narrow, black and white dogma; muddling the debate by focusing on strict definitions of esoteric concepts; and most notably, attacking his opponents/Foxpaws as dishonest. All straight out of Debate 101.

Sorry to be so critical Shag, but you're out of control, and you need to learn a little humility and stop trying to prove to everyone you're a master of all political topics. You're not. Reading every right-wing book and blog you can find is fine if that's the direction you want to go, but it doesn't make you an expert on the issues. You're choosing to limit your reading material to stuff that affirms your preconceived notions. Your views are slanted because you've chosen to get all your information from sources that don't challenge you.

The same can be said of many people, left or right, who are passionate about politics, including me. However, I recognize that my views are slanted and that I'm not always getting the whole story, whereas you outright reject the possibility that Jonah Goldberg or Walter E. Williams aren't giving you all the facts. If it's "conservative", then it must be correct.

Those are just a few of the reasons I gave up participating here.

I could go on, but I have a big move ahead of me and I've got stuff to do. I see the mindless rhetoric has continued since I started composing this. Good luck with that.

 

[foxpaws]

But her habitual attempts to bait and change the focus of the conversation are not "getting old"?

Where have I here shag - we have very carefully kept this to Title II...

Everything I say about her is verifiably true. She is a dishonest, insidious propagandist whom I have wasted far too much time on in countering her habitual lies and misdirection. Some of the longest threads here are of me (and/or others) and her going back and forth in a war of attrition where she ignores, misrepresents and lies about those she is debating with, their positions or what they have said and then her opponents being forced to correcting the record only to have her repeat the lies in a new way; ignoring what they have said yet again. I have simply tired of that and refuse to engage her in that (which is what this or any other thread would ultimately become if I did seriously engage her again).

Shag, you debate a'la scholar, I debate a'la common man - you expect a college level boring debate out here - I have been there, done that - how about a discussion rather than a debate? You throw out latin, I show by example, you dismiss summarily, I try to exchange ideas, you are extremely ridged (and not in a good way), I float out some different concepts, look at the question from viewpoints that both sides might miss.

As I have pointed out before, I don't communicate with her outside of on this forum. When she first came here in the fall(?) of 2008, I exchanged emails and private messages with her (on an almost daily basis for a while) and treated her with respect and consideration. After a number of instances of her demonstrating her two-faced, dishonest nature, both publicly on the forum and in private, I ceased communication with her. I prefer to associate with people of integrity; people I can trust. She has only gotten more nasty and snarky toward me since then.

So, perhaps I became bored of a college student who really has little concept of real life. I won't go with a I did, he did conversation...

Frankly, I only bother myself with her enough to occasionally point out how she is lying; identify what distortion she is promoting, and to remind people of her shamelessly dishonest nature. I know that may sound absurd at the moment to you, considering you are new here, and may even be talking to her privately (in which she seems pleasant and nice), but just give it time. You will come to realize how right I (and others) are about her. You wouldn't be the first to do so, either.

Ah, once again that 'pleasant and nice' ruse, gosh I am good aren't I? Maybe I am so good at it because I am usually fairly 'pleasant and nice'.

As I have pointed out, if she demonstrated some integrity, honesty and good faith in discussing things on this forum I would return the favor. But I have attempted to give her another change far to many times only for her to, at best, temporarily give the illusion of decency in debate and ultimately fall back to form. Dishonesty is her nature. The biggest difference is that, in her vitriol toward other points of view (and those who hold them) she will never admit to it, and is subtle; passive aggressive. At least with someone like hrmwrm, the contempt is blatant and up front. There is a certain honesty in that.

In real life I am pretty much a live and let live person... you aren't going to change anyone's mind, usually. So, why not 'discuss'. Occasionally I do wander off - wondering 'what ifs....'. These conversations have been had thousands of times, what makes them interesting is other people's views, and the 'what ifs...' It is hard to get you into the 'what ifs' shag. Your black and white world isn't very intriguing, it is the grays that make life more interesting. FINDs what ifs, '04s what ifs, hrmwrms what ifs, Petes what ifs (until he wanders off into 'I have been sniffing the massage oils' land), and even Cals more assertive 'I know's' are at the end of all of this more interesting than the 'straight debate' that usually has been discussed ad infinitum. Their 'I thinks' are far more engaging than your college debate.

That is why I am still interested shag....
Do you agree that private business should be allowed to discriminate, should Title II be repealed?
What do you think?

 

[shagdrum]

Verbosity does not make you any more right than her, in many, or I should say most cases I am looking at, it is simply a difference of opinion. The fact that the majority of posters in that thread agree with you does not make you right, it just means that they have similar political and social views. Sure, people are wrong some times, but that does not make them a liar.

There is a difference in approach. She is not interested in the truth or in any honest discussion aimed at gaining a better understanding of the truth. Instead, she disrupts those type of discussions to inject false premises, misdirect and generally muddy the waters. A long winded troll, essentially.

If you do answer, and she engages in underhanded tactics, they will be obvious for anyone who is reading, and they won't hurt you anyways.

With a good propagandist it is not so obvious, especially if someone is not that well informed on the specific issue being discussed. Common misconceptions (sometimes intentionally injected into the debate) can be leveraged through various means that are very hard to spot (like equivocation). Lies can seem as much like the truth (if not more so) in many cases. The hard part is discerning the lies and misdirection from the truth.

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=685245&postcount=9

I could point to more, but most are more along the lines of a difference in opinion, and differences in semantics

This is a great example of what I am talking about; misdirection not being so obvious to those who are not as well informed on the specific issue being discussed and common misconceptions being leveraged to decieve. Most people don't accurately understand the concept of social justice (outside of those generally with a background in political philosophy which is where the idea comes from).

As Cal has pointed out in that thread, that issue has been discussed at length before and is not worth rehashing here. It is not a mere "difference of opinion", though she would like to characterize it as such.

The concept of social justice is a very important and very specific one. It is arguably the single biggest point that separates the two dominate social viewpoints in politics and one of the most dangerous abstract Utopian ideals ever conceived. It is misused more often then not, mostly out of ignorance, but sometimes (as in the case of Jim Wallis) it is intentionally misused to deceive people into supporting a political agenda. Foxpaws knows better then the misdirection she is perpetuating on this point, especially after that thread, yet constantly perpetuates a lie.

The intentional misuse of the term social justice is another example of language being co-opted, defined down, and distorted to deceive people into promoting an agenda that they would not support if it was honestly presented to them. Another example is the Norman Thomas quote in my signature. Modern "liberalism" has no substantive connection to classical (true) liberalism. In fact, they are antithetical.

It would be worth taking the time to read through that thread where the idea of social justice has already been discussed.

Nobel prize winner F.A. Hayek made some interesting points concerning social justice in his work, Law, Legislation and Liberty. First, on the misunderstanding of social justice:

. . the phrase ‘social justice’ is not, as most people probably feel, an innocent expression of good will towards the less fortunate, but . . it has become a dishonest insinuation that one ought to agree to a demand of some special interest which can give no real reason for it. If political discussion is to become honest it is necessary that people should recognize that the term is intellectually disreputable, the mark of demagogy or cheap journalism which responsible thinkers ought to be ashamed to use because, once its vacuity is recognized, its use is dishonest.​

on the difference between "social" justice and traditional justice:

. . statements which explicitly connect ‘social and distributive justice’ with the ‘treatment’ by society of the individuals according to their ‘deserts’ bring out most clearly its difference from plain justice, and at the same time the cause of the vacuity of the concept: the demand for ‘social justice’ is addressed not to the individual but to society – yet society, in the strict sense in which it must be distinguished from the apparatus of government, is incapable of acting for a specific purpose, and the demand for 'social justice' therefore becomes a demand that the members of society should organize themselves in a manner which makes it possible to assign particular shares of the product of society to the different individuals or groups. The primary question then becomes whether there exists a moral duty to submit to a power which can co-ordinate the efforts of the members of society with the aim of achieving a particular pattern of distribution regarded as just.[/I​

On the danger of social justice to society:

We can’t have any morals we like or dream of. Morals, to be viable, must satisfy certain requirements, requirements which we may not be able to specify but may only be able to find out by trial and error. What is required is not merely consistency, or compatibility of the rules as well as the acts demanded by them. A system of morals also must produce a functioning order, capable of maintaining the apparatus of civilization which it presupposes.

We are not familiar with the concept of non-viable systems of morals and certainly cannot observe them anywhere in practice since societies which try them rapidly disappear. But they are being preached, often by widely revered saintly figures, and the societies in decay which we can observe are often societies which have been listening to the teaching of such moral reformers and still revere the destroyers of their society as good men.​

In how social justice deceptively turns vice into virtue:

More often, however, the gospel of ‘social justice’ aims at much more sordid sentiments: the dislike of people who are better off than oneself, or simply envy, that ‘most anti-social and evil of passions’ as John Stuart Mill called it, that animosity towards great wealth which represents it as a ‘scandal’ that some should enjoy riches while others have basic needs unsatisfied, and camouflages under the name of justice what has nothing to do with justice. At least all those who wish to despoil the rich, not because they expect that some more deserving might enjoy that wealth, but because they regard the very existence of the rich as an outrage, not only cannot claim any moral justification for their demands, but indulge in a wholly irrational passion and in fact harm those to whose rapacious instincts they appeal...

...But it is not only by encouraging malevolent and harmful prejudices that the cult of ‘social justice’ tends to destroy genuine moral feelings. It also comes, particularly in its more egalitarian forms, into constant conflict with some of the basic moral principles on which any community of free men must rest. This becomes evident when we reflect that the demand that we should equally esteem all our fellow men is irreconcilable with the fact that our whole moral code rests on the approval or disapproval of the conduct of others; and that similarly the traditional postulate that each capable adult is primarily responsible for his own and his dependants’ welfare, meaning that he must not through his own fault become a charge to his friends and fellows, is incompatible with the idea that ‘society’ or government owes each person an appropriate income.​

and, most relevant to this discussion, how moral leaders are effectively duped into supporting collectivism through social justice:

[social justice] of course described from the beginning the aspirations which were at the heart of socialism. Although classical socialism has usually been defined by its demand for the socialization of the means of production, this was for it chiefly a means thought to be essential in order to bring about a 'just' distribution of wealth; and since socialists have later discovered that this redistribution could in a great measure, and against less resistance, be brought about by taxation (and government services financed by it), and have in practice often shelved their earlier demands, the realization of ‘social justice’ has become their chief promise. It might indeed be said that the main difference between the order of society at which classical liberalism aimed and the sort of society into which it is now being transformed is that the former was governed by principles of just individual conduct while the new society is to satisfy the demands for 'social justice' – or, in other words, that the former demanded just action by the individuals while the latter more and more places the duty of justice on authorities with power to command people what to do.

The phrase ['social justice'] . . . has gradually been taken over from the socialist not only by all other political movements but also by most teachers and preachers of morality. It seems in particular to have been embraced by a large section of the clergy of all Christian denominations, who, while increasingly losing their faith in supernatural revelation, appear to have sought a refuge and consolation in a new ‘social’ religion which substitutes a temporal for a celestial promise of justice, and who hope that they can thus continue their striving for good. The Roman Catholic Church especially has made the aim of ‘social justice’ part of its official doctrine; but the ministers of most Christian denominations appear to vie with each other with such offers of more mundane aims . . .

The various modern authoritarian or dictatorial governments have of course no less proclaimed ‘social justice’ as their chief aim. We have it on the authority of Mr. Andrei Sakharov that millions of men in Russia are the victims of terror that ‘attempts to conceal itself behind the slogan of social justice.’

The commitment to 'social justice' has in fact become the chief outlet for moral emotion, the distinguishing attribute of the good man, and the recognized sign of the possession of a moral conscience.

What we have to deal with in the case of 'social justice' is simply a quasi-religious superstition of the kind which we should respectfully leave in peace so long as it merely makes those happy who hold it, but which we must fight when it becomes the pretext of coercing other men. And the prevailing belief in 'social justice' is at present probably the gravest threat to most other values of a free civilization.

Whether Edward Gibbon was wrong or not, there can be no doubt that moral and religious beliefs can destroy a civilization and that, where such doctrines prevail, not only the most cherished beliefs but also the most revered moral leaders, sometimes saintly figures whose unselfishness is beyond question, may become grave dangers to the values which the same people regard as unshakeable.

It seems to be widely believed that 'social justice' is just a new moral value which we must add to those that we recognized in the past, and that it can be fitted within the existing framework of moral rules. What is not sufficiently recognized is that in order to give this phrase meaning a complete change of the whole character of the social order will have to be effected, and that some of the values which used to govern it will have to be sacrificed. It is such a transformation of society into one of a fundamentally different type which is currently occurring piecemeal and without awareness of the outcome to which it must lead.​

If a discussion is to continue on social justice, I suggest a new thread.

 

[04SCTLS]

Do you seriously think that?!

The truth doesn't matter, all that matters is "winning" the debate and I should lower myself to her level to do so?

Is that why you keep going on about a "lack of creativity"? I should eschew all integrity and honesty to instead engage in cheap rhetoric aimed at deceiving others into accepting my point of view?

You also keep putting lies in quotations. Can you point to one instance where I pointed to her lying or engaging in dishonesty that is not accurate? She never attempts to defend her actions (instead simply ignoring the challenge and continuing the lie) and I only ever get indignation from others over my pointing out her lies. There are plenty of examples of me calling her on her dishonesty.

Put up or shut up.

The difference between a lawyer and a liar is just in the pronunciation.
If you can't be a good liar then you won't be a good lawyer which is what I presume you're still in school for.

 

[FIND]

No shag. Markus has you pretty well pegged in his post. No attempt at creating a long-winded post to disagree is going to change that. You are calling her a liar in most cases only on the virtue of your own word and the fact that you can find people who share your opinion. The bulk of your response after that is an attempt to misdirect. The point she was trying to make in the thread I linked is that twisted social justice is no new concept to the church. You are the only one trying to turn it into a debate on the merits or flaws of social justice. I only linked that thread because you asked for a case where you have called her wrong or a liar when you were obviously wrong.

If one were to take an objective review of all the posts you have linked. It would appear to me the only person attempting to lie or misdirect was you.

Honestly, to call her a long winded troll..... The LONGEST responses I see on this board are usually yours, and they are usually devoted to responding to one or two sentences that you either take out of context, or declare to be lies or attempts to misrepresent something. To say she has outsmarted me just because I don't view her posts in the same light as you do is rather presumptuous though.

I had a criminal law teacher that had this saying that I always hear him say when I discuss or evaluate any issue. "Move around the lantern." See, he had this little lantern, and he liked to demonstrate that the lantern looked differently depending on how you view it. You, seem to have never had the benefit of such a lesson, as you tend to view every issue as if it were black and white, and as if there is no possibility of it being any different. You then use convenient definitions, rhetoric, or semantics to justify your position. From there, you are unwilling to consider anything else, no matter what evidence you are confronted with. When you debate with someone, you redefine their words with convenient alternate definitions so that you can change the context of the discussion.

The fact is, you are not interested in the truth or honest discussion either. You are only interested in claiming your opinions are fact and the one and only truth. Jefferson's and Hamilton's opposing views are one of the largest factors in what molded our country into the great nation it is today. They were opinions. Opinions that opposed one another, and both were equally significant. Unless you are prepared to argue that one was right and the other was wrong, you must accept that political sciences is a science of opinion, not fact. If you are truly prepared to argue that one of them was right and the other wrong, and that only one view is expressed in the history or politics of this nation, then you are truly beyond hope.

At this point, I believe I am finished with my responses to this thread, unless something compelling and on subject to this thread comes up. Good luck with this, and I hope that you at least give some thought to your methods and the things I have said. I do not claim to be an expert on any of what I said, nor would I be so arrogant to claim that I am absolutely right. I am offering you my opinion, and I hope you benefit from this. As far as the merits or origins of social justice.... I don't really wish to get into a debate on that matter. Social justice has merits, but at the same time, it can lead to dangerous conclusions. Unfortunately, we do not live in utopia, and even the best intentions or the noblest of acts can be used to harm others.