Pentagon deploying troops to thwart Russia

[LeftyGreenMario]

Psst, it's cognitive dissonance.

I'm really not sure if we're going to see eye-to-eye on this, me being a civil libertarian whose primary goal is the upkeep of the peoples' rights and you being a hardliner lefty whose primary goal is stability.

Um, I support individual rights as well, but it means relying on government to protect people. The free speech zones established during the cattle movement makes the less of a hassle to move the cattle. Don't assume I like censorship either, but I have an idea when free speech zones and how they are enforced is censorship and when other times, it's protection. This doesn't sound like censorship. Bundy has been doing illegal activities for years while avoiding to pay for his damages, with reckless disregard for the environment.

Calling yourself a civil libertarian and calling me a "hardliner lefty vying for stability" is akin to the old "I know who you are" thing. We both probably champion individual rights, but the methods we support to secure those rights are different.

There is no reason to moan and groan about court decisions. There are bad ones, like Plessy v. Ferguson, and there are good ones like Brown v. Board of Education and the one that struck down some provisions of Defense of Marriage. I don't like the court makeup right now; it's a bit too reactionary. Anyway, like it or not, government and courts alike use legal precedents, hence why I even mentioned "court decisions". Legal precedents have been a thing since Marbury v. Madison, and while there are some court decisions that voided previous decisions, the majority of the time, courts rely on legal precedents.

I would argue that regulating the time, place, and manner of expression allows the government to nullify any gains the expression might have achieved. That's censorship.

There is a line between appropriate expression and inappropriate expression, although it can be blurred. I would consider blockading access to abortion clinics, for instance, too disruptive, although peaceful and legal. There needs to be designated free speech zones that doesn't limit the effectiveness of the protest while still allowing people to access abortion clinics easily.

Um, if it's publicized like crazy, this can set precedents, maybe giving other whackjobs ideas. Not to mention, it can potentially demonize more responsible cattle owners. And, it does raise issues of state vs. federal government powers. Finally, it can lead to further distrust of federal government (as if it's trusted a lot already, sure</sarc>).

How's life on that slippery slope?

How the hell is that a slippery slope?

 

[Duskull]

It depends on the role the desert tortoise plays in the ecosystem. It can be a food source, it can control certain populations... there is also a ethical side to it as well. The panda, for instance, doesn't occupy a very important niche, but we still want to prevent it from being extinct.[/quote

well yeah that's because pandas are adorable

I know I'm late to this, but it's fashionably so it's alright, but I recently did coursework on this and the reason we're trying to protect the panda is because it's going extinct faster than it should be.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

It depends on the role the desert tortoise plays in the ecosystem. It can be a food source, it can control certain populations... there is also a ethical side to it as well. The panda, for instance, doesn't occupy a very important niche, but we still want to prevent it from being extinct.[/quote

well yeah that's because pandas are adorable

I know I'm late to this, but it's fashionably so it's alright, but I recently did coursework on this and the reason we're trying to protect the panda is because it's going extinct faster than it should be.

Pandas aren't extraordinarily well-adapted to the environment, and humans are just amplifying the pace, I think. </offtopic>

 

[Duskull]

From what I vaguely remember, obviously natural selection is weeding out weaker species, and because pandas roughly only eat bamboo, which they require to do so for 18 hours to get any meaningful nutrients from it and because their mating window is incredibly small, they are naturally going extinct. Because of humans destroying the habitat and killing pandas we are drastically decreasing the amount of them, and as aforementioned they have a small breeding window and as a result of that the species takes a long time to recover.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

I'm really not sure if we're going to see eye-to-eye on this, me being a civil libertarian whose primary goal is the upkeep of the peoples' rights and you being a hardliner lefty whose primary goal is stability.

Um, I support individual rights as well, but it means relying on government to protect people.

That's not support of individual rights. That's support of individual safety, which is a completely different thing.

Support of individual rights means you're placing the people over the government in some instances, and limiting the government's power. Not trying to protect people from people. It's protecting people from government.

The free speech zones established during the cattle movement makes the less of a hassle to move the cattle.

Like I said earlier, if the protestors are obstructing justice then arrest them for that crime. Don't pen them up in a special zone before they've done anything wrong.

Don't assume I like censorship either, but I have an idea when free speech zones and how they are enforced is censorship and when other times, it's protection. This doesn't sound like censorship. Bundy has been doing illegal activities for years while avoiding to pay for his damages, with reckless disregard for the environment.

Just because Bundy's wrong in this instance doesn't mean it's not censorship.

Calling yourself a civil libertarian and calling me a "hardliner lefty vying for stability" is akin to the old "I know who you are" thing. We both probably champion individual rights, but the methods we support to secure those rights are different.

Ain't that the truth. You want the government to be protecting these rights and I want the government to be limited so people can exercise their own rights.

There is no reason to moan and groan about court decisions. There are bad ones, like Plessy v. Ferguson, and there are good ones like Brown v. Board of Education and the one that struck down some provisions of Defense of Marriage. I don't like the court makeup right now; it's a bit too reactionary. Anyway, like it or not, government and courts alike use legal precedents, hence why I even mentioned "court decisions". Legal precedents have been a thing since Marbury v. Madison, and while there are some court decisions that voided previous decisions, the majority of the time, courts rely on legal precedents.

The court system is notoriously unreliable and has upheld blatantly illegal things before. Did you know that Japanese internment was brought before the Supreme Court and was upheld? That's just one example of something absolutely against the Constitution that's been upheld because of the bias of the Court.

There is a line between appropriate expression and inappropriate expression, although it can be blurred. I would consider blockading access to abortion clinics, for instance, too disruptive, although peaceful and legal.

If you're preventing someone from going somewhere, that's illegal and you can arrest them for that crime.

Using preemptive justice to keep protestors away is censorship.

There needs to be designated free speech zones that doesn't limit the effectiveness of the protest while still allowing people to access abortion clinics easily.

That would be better, sure, but as long as the protestors aren't forcibly preventing people from accessing the clinic I don't see what crime they've committed.

Um, if it's publicized like crazy, this can set precedents, maybe giving other whackjobs ideas. Not to mention, it can potentially demonize more responsible cattle owners. And, it does raise issues of state vs. federal government powers. Finally, it can lead to further distrust of federal government (as if it's trusted a lot already, sure</sarc>).

How's life on that slippery slope?

How the hell is that a slippery slope?

You're saying that Bundy case could set precedents which might give other whackjobs ideas and could also demonize more responsible cattle owners.

...you honestly don't see the slippery slope there? You're saying A could lead to B and C, therefore we should stop A.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Not necessarily. Rights can also overlap with safety, so I often support regulations for working conditions, food quality, and others. I also support regulations for disclosure on, say, campaign contributions and I also support regulations on "free" trade. Supporting the right for women to have a safe abortion is supporting an individual right AND safety (this also applies to the case of the fetus, if you support the right of birth for the fetus). Despite this, government CAN step in to protect individual rights, as they've done for removing poll taxes, removing segregation, and applying affirmative action. Supporting individual rights isn't necessarily protecting individuals from government, it's protecting individuals in general. Especially corporations.

Ain't that the truth. You want the government to be protecting these rights and I want the government to be limited so people can exercise their own rights.

I want the government to help people exercise their own rights. Workplace regulations, health care, voting... government sometimes has to step in to reinforce these rights or else people may find everything they can to restrict rights via loopholes. As I said, although African Americans received the right to vote, they needed federal government and federal courts to aid them exercise these rights since they had to deal with grandfather clause, literacy tests, and many other deplorable countermeasures the states have used to restrict their rights. Government is busy helping people to the point they take it for granted and even overlook it, especially subsidies.

The court system is notoriously unreliable and has upheld blatantly illegal things before. Did you know that Japanese internment was brought before the Supreme Court and was upheld? That's just one example of something absolutely against the Constitution that's been upheld because of the bias of the Court.

No it's not. And as I said, the court has also overturned previous decisions before. They are capable of bad decisions (like Plessy v. Ferguson), but they more often than not know what they're doing, and they have expertise to uphold many laws while declaring other laws constitutional. Courts are a fairly balanced system as well, since decisions can be appealed or reviewed later, so while it isn't perfect, you shouldn't completely disregard all court decisions simply because of a few blemishes. The process is painstaking, with very few cases reaching federal courts, so many cases are filtered before they actually reach the Supreme Court.

...you honestly don't see the slippery slope there? You're saying A could lead to B and C, therefore we should stop A.

That's not slippery slope. Slippery slope is much more exaggerated than this, like maybe the case leading to the destruction of the federal government, or the case leading to some impossibly dire situation. The publicizing of the Cliven Bundy case can energize people sharing similar beliefs to him, and as I said, it can set precedents.

Like I said earlier, if the protestors are obstructing justice then arrest them for that crime. Don't pen them up in a special zone before they've done anything wrong.

In the Bundy case, the cattle have to be moved, so preemptive measures have to be taken to ensure everyone's safety. As the context of the free speech zones shows, there were a lot of tension, so I assumed that's what free speech zones are for.

In early April, armed individuals and private militia members from across the United States joined peaceful protesters against the trespass cattle roundup in what has become known punningly as the Battle of Bunkerville.[22][49] BLM enforcement agents were dispatched in response to what were seen as threatening statements by Bundy, such as calling the events a "range war".[50] There was no armed battle.

With many roads closed to ensure safety during the cattle removal, designated First Amendment areas where protesters could safely congregate or exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble were marked with signs and orange plastic fences adjacent to the road.[51][52] On April 8, 2014, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval issued a statement calling for the removal of the First Amendment restrictions he described as offensive.[53] After stating that peaceful protests had crossed into illegal activity, the federal agencies allowed protesters to go anywhere on the public land as long as they were peaceful.[54]

 

[freakworld]

Guys guys guys

Tl; Dr

I am outta here.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Not necessarily. Rights can also overlap with safety, so I often support regulations for working conditions, food quality, and others. I also support regulations for disclosure on, say, campaign contributions and I also support regulations on "free" trade. Supporting the right for women to have a safe abortion is supporting an individual right AND safety (this also applies to the case of the fetus, if you support the right of birth for the fetus). Despite this, government CAN step in to protect individual rights, as they've done for removing poll taxes, removing segregation, and applying affirmative action. Supporting individual rights isn't necessarily protecting individuals from government, it's protecting individuals in general. Especially corporations.

In the case of poll taxes and grandfather clause, that was the government stepping in to stop the government. Which is good.

That's more about stopping the government from destroying rights.

I want the government to help people exercise their own rights.

I don't want any "help" exercising my rights.

Workplace regulations, health care, voting... government sometimes has to step in to reinforce these rights

i could argue that health care isn't a right, but that's a different discussion

or else people may find everything they can to restrict rights via loopholes. As I said, although African Americans received the right to vote, they needed federal government and federal courts to aid them exercise these rights since they had to deal with grandfather clause, literacy tests, and many other deplorable countermeasures the states have used to restrict their rights.

Sure, but that's about the government stopping government from taking away rights. Running with your example, I would also support the federal government stepping in and taking away the deplorable countermeasure of First Amendment Areas that are used to restrict rights.

Government is busy helping people to the point they take it for granted and even overlook it, especially subsidies.

The government isn't always helping people.

See, here's another difference between our lines of thinking - you're looking at this and trying to find how the government is helping people, and I'm looking at this and trying to find how the government is abusing power.

No it's not. And as I said, the court has also overturned previous decisions before. They are capable of bad decisions (like Plessy v. Ferguson), but they more often than not know what they're doing, and they have expertise to uphold many laws while declaring other laws constitutional. Courts are a fairly balanced system as well, since decisions can be appealed or reviewed later, so while it isn't perfect, you shouldn't completely disregard all court decisions simply because of a few blemishes. The process is painstaking, with very few cases reaching federal courts, so many cases are filtered before they actually reach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is in my opinion the least trustworthy branch of government because its members can be blatantly partisan in their decisions and nothing can be done about it.

That's not slippery slope. Slippery slope is much more exaggerated than this, like maybe the case leading to the destruction of the federal government, or the case leading to some impossibly dire situation. The publicizing of the Cliven Bundy case can energize people sharing similar beliefs to him, and as I said, it can set precedents.

It looks to me more like it's only exposing the people who have similar beliefs, not spreading them, but that's debatable.

In the Bundy case, the cattle have to be moved, so preemptive measures have to be taken to ensure everyone's safety. As the context of the free speech zones shows, there were a lot of tension, so I assumed that's what free speech zones are for.

You're missing my point - if the protestors haven't done anything wrong, why are we penning them up? For safety? How dangerous can moving cattle be?

If there's tension, that doesn't mean anyone's committed a crime. If they commit a crime, arrest them for that crime. Don't lock them up in a zone before they've done anything.

In early April, armed individuals and private militia members from across the United States joined peaceful protesters against the trespass cattle roundup in what has become known punningly as the Battle of Bunkerville.[22][49] BLM enforcement agents were dispatched in response to what were seen as threatening statements by Bundy, such as calling the events a "range war".[50] There was no armed battle.

With many roads closed to ensure safety during the cattle removal, designated First Amendment areas where protesters could safely congregate or exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble were marked with signs and orange plastic fences adjacent to the road.[51][52] On April 8, 2014, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval issued a statement calling for the removal of the First Amendment restrictions he described as offensive.[53] After stating that peaceful protests had crossed into illegal activity, the federal agencies allowed protesters to go anywhere on the public land as long as they were peaceful.[54]

See, I'm not the only one who thinks the First Amendment areas are stupid. The feds have backed down over this, which is a good thing.

 

[Specific Neptune]

american vs russia won't end the world

it'll be this debate between jav and lgm that causes armageddon

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

It's a debate between a conservative and a liberal, of course it won't end well. P.S. I might formulate a response to further worsen the situation, so keep on a lookout.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

It's a debate between a conservative

HA

I'm a moderate libertarian. Don't try to squeeze me into your one-dimensional left/right system.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

I squeezed myself in the one-dimensional left-right system as well, so don't think I'm exactly accurately labeling myself either.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

oh ok

go ahead and label yourself accurately, then

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Probably generally leftwing, socially liberal, likes some socialist ideals, modern liberal in U.S., progressive, that stuff.

Lol, you're liberal as well, you know that?

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Lol, you're liberal as well, you know that?

yes, that's part of what libertarian is

i am well aware of what it means

 

[Specific Neptune]

 

[Crackin355]

 

[Daniel Dyce]

Probably generally leftwing, socially liberal, likes some socialist ideals, modern liberal in U.S., progressive, that stuff.

Lol, you're liberal as well, you know that?

Socialism is the most ridiculous form of government people are greedy pricks who look out for themselves

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Probably generally leftwing, socially liberal, likes some socialist ideals, modern liberal in U.S., progressive, that stuff.

Lol, you're liberal as well, you know that?

Socialism is the most ridiculous form of government people are greedy pricks who look out for themselves

She didn't say she was socialist, she said she likes some socialist ideals.

There's a difference.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

Probably generally leftwing, socially liberal, likes some socialist ideals, modern liberal in U.S., progressive, that stuff.

Lol, you're liberal as well, you know that?

Socialism is the most ridiculous form of government people are greedy pricks who look out for themselves

She didn't say she was socialist, she said she likes some socialist ideals.

There's a difference.

So she's a commie leftist?

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Maaaaaaaaybe.

 

[Lario]

 

[MichiganMarioFan]

Spoiler: Next stop (very important!)

Walmart

 

[Lin Beifong]

It's a debate between a conservative

HA

I'm a moderate libertarian. Don't try to squeeze me into your one-dimensional left/right system.

and you being a hardliner lefty

 

[Dr. Javelin]

the difference is that she accepts the one-dimensional system for the most part

Probably generally leftwing, socially liberal, likes some socialist ideals, modern liberal in U.S., progressive, that stuff.

all of these are perfectly in line with the label "hardliner lefty", so i don't think i'm exaggerating.

there's nothing wrong with being a hardliner lefty. i know plenty of people who are lefties, both in real life and on here. just because we disagree doesn't mean the other side are terrible people