Rolf Harris - really guilty?

by eddie Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:55 pm

Rolf Harris has been convicted and for many that is conclusive proof of his guilt. However, we should not forget that the British justice system is not perfect, it can make errors, as these high profile miscarriages of justice show.

I do not know if Rolf Harris committed the crimes he was accused of. However, I find the fact that he was convicted, based on the evidence reported by the BBC, alarming.

http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt

Very interesting article.

Make your own mind up.

by Guest Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:58 pm

eddie wrote:Rolf Harris has been convicted and for many that is conclusive proof of his guilt. However, we should not forget that the British justice system is not perfect, it can make errors, as these high profile miscarriages of justice show.

I do not know if Rolf Harris committed the crimes he was accused of. However, I find the fact that he was convicted, based on the evidence reported by the BBC, alarming.

http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt

Very interesting article.

Make your own mind up.

Well, I just got to point one and it said no evidence could be found he was at the community centre. Wrong, they then found evidence he was at the community centre.

by Guest Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:59 pm

thats why I'm "laughing at you"

but of course no one likes that inconvenient truth do they...thats why both threads were disrupted by the trolls.....admin included....

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:08 am

Then I read about Murry Rothbard:

More Ethical Absurdity of Rothbardian Rights Theory
Submitted by Faction3 on Mon, 07/15/2013 - 20:23
in

Daily Paul Liberty Forum
DP Original

Watch Rothbard explain in his own words how allowing children to starve to death should be legal according to his ethics and rights theory. Presumably his cult followers like Walter Block agree. Sh1t to make yer head spin, all from the horse's mouth. Enjoy, lol. (emphasis added)

“Suppose now that the baby has been born. Then what? First, we may say that the parents-or rather the mother, who is the only certain and visible parent-as the creators of the baby become its owners. A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense. Therefore, either the mother or some other party or parties may be the baby’s owner, but to assert that a third party can claim his ‘ownership’ over the baby would give that person the right to seize the baby by force from its natural or ‘homesteading’ owner, its mother. The mother, then, is the natural and rightful owner of the baby, and any attempt to seize the baby by force is an invasion of her property right.

But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children. We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a ‘trustee’ or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child’s rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc. On the other hand, the very concept of ‘rights’ is a ‘negative’ one, demarcating the areas of a person’s action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a ‘right’ to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a ‘right’ to a ‘living wage,’ for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former’s rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man’s rights.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such ‘neglect’ down to a minimum.)”

From his bizarre "The Ethics of Liberty," which first made me scratch my head about ol' Rothbard.

http://www.dailypaul.com/292653/more-ethical-absurdity-of-rothbardian-rights-theory

by eddie Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:20 am

Very interesting sassy

I was supposed to be in bed ages ago lol but someone sent me that link

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:21 am

very interesting sassy, but what is the relevance to the OP

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:21 am

I think sleep is more important that that link Eddie, truly.

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:22 am

victorisnotamused wrote:very interesting sassy, but what is the relevance to the OP

The man who wrote the stuff in the OP is the man who wrote the stuff in the link. I question his sanity, never mind his argument.

by eddie Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:23 am

Sassy wrote:I think sleep is more important that that link Eddie, truly.

You're right of course but then I read it and had to post it......

Sleep

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:31 am

I see nothing wrong with that piece you posted. He is not advocating such an act (since he points out the difference between LEGAL and MORAL obligations (not forgetting that moral obligations in many cases CAN be legally enforced.)

he is pointing out the clash between strictly legal view points on one hand and legally accepted MORAL view points on the other

this is a dichotomy that "libertarians" constantly face, a clash between what they want and what they can actually have, where their views all come to contradict one another....

whos, and what rights triumph others......when and how

us "simpler souls" have it easiser....

we just look wherein lies the greatest good...NO right is ultimately "above" another...yes there is a "reasonable order of precedence" but no absolute priority

which has the greatest right?

the right to life

or the right NOT to have your life wrongly interfered with

in other words

does the burglars right to life over-ride your right to defend your property?

I say no

no doubt many wet letteuce brigade say yes....

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:37 am

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, though the level of force is always going to be questionable.

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:44 am

victorisnotamused wrote:I see nothing wrong with that piece you posted. He is not advocating such an act (since he points out the difference between LEGAL and MORAL obligations (not forgetting that moral obligations in many cases CAN be legally enforced.)

he is pointing out the clash between strictly legal view points on one hand and legally accepted MORAL view points on the other

this is a dichotomy that "libertarians" constantly face, a clash between what they want and what they can actually have, where their views all come to contradict one another....

whos, and what rights triumph others......when and how

us "simpler souls" have it easiser....

we just look wherein lies the greatest good...NO right is ultimately "above" another...yes there is a "reasonable order of precedence" but no absolute priority

which has the greatest right?

the right to life

or the right NOT to have your life wrongly interfered with

in other words

does the burglars right to life over-ride your right to defend your property?

I say no

no doubt many wet letteuce brigade say yes....

But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

You see nothing wrong?

by eddie Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:45 am

Everything is wrong with that

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:49 am

now thats where we differ didge

If someone is within my home, and obviously not there with good reason...then ALL bets are off...

why give anyone a chance to do you harm by warning or challenging them....nope ...
WHACK....without warning or restraint.......

reasoning

they should not be there
they KNOW they should not be there
they do not intend me any good
nor do they harbour any "goodwill " towards me
I have a reasonable right and cause to assume they would, given the chance, do violence to me
they should NOT be there
they are abrogating MY human rights
therefore theirs are forfeit
I care NOT how "desperate" their situation may be, or how "sad" their upbringing was, since NEITHER of those factors is my doing or within my control
finally THEY SHOULD NO BE THERE and THEY KNOW they should not be there

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:51 am

but we cannot say that anyone has a ‘right’ to a ‘living wage,’ for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced.

I definitely find something wrong with that too.

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:53 am

This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such ‘neglect’ down to a minimum.)”

The man's a nut case.

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:53 am

Sassy wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:I see nothing wrong with that piece you posted. He is not advocating such an act (since he points out the difference between LEGAL and MORAL obligations (not forgetting that moral obligations in many cases CAN be legally enforced.)

he is pointing out the clash between strictly legal view points on one hand and legally accepted MORAL view points on the other

this is a dichotomy that "libertarians" constantly face, a clash between what they want and what they can actually have, where their views all come to contradict one another....

whos, and what rights triumph others......when and how

us "simpler souls" have it easiser....

we just look wherein lies the greatest good...NO right is ultimately "above" another...yes there is a "reasonable order of precedence" but no absolute priority

which has the greatest right?

the right to life

or the right NOT to have your life wrongly interfered with

in other words

does the burglars right to life over-ride your right to defend your property?

I say no

no doubt many wet letteuce brigade say yes....

But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

You see nothing wrong?

try reading in context....

He is not saying that that is right (since he points out that MORAL obligations override such thinking)
what he is saying is that given the situation with "rights" and if "rights " were ALL that mattered...then this would be the case.
I dont see anything where he is advocating such action or condoning it...

he he ...love it when libertarians get their collective knickers in a twist over the "whichness of why" and start falling out...

just proves why any govt run on "libertarian lines" would collapse in chaos with a month......

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:54 am

Sassy wrote:This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such ‘neglect’ down to a minimum.)”

The man's a nut case.

nope he's an honest libertarian, he shows the TRUE colour of the libertarian myth......

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:57 am

That's not what he means:

Watch Rothbard explain in his own words how allowing children to starve to death should be legal according to his ethics and rights theory

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:59 am

well...I have always said the "libertarian" (progressive) is the most poisonous creature on earth....

and here we have an example of how they really think....

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:01 am

I afraid Victor he is just deranged.

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:02 am

libertarians are deranged Evil or Very Mad

as I said

whos rights triumph
the house holder or the burglar???

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:03 am

victorisnotamused wrote:now thats where we differ didge

If someone is within my home, and obviously not there with good reason...then ALL bets are off...

why give anyone a chance to do you harm by warning or challenging them....nope ...
WHACK....without warning or restraint.......

reasoning

they should not be there
they KNOW they should not be there
they do not intend me any good
nor do they harbour any "goodwill " towards me
I have a reasonable right and cause to assume they would, given the chance, do violence to me
they should NOT be there
they are abrogating MY human rights
therefore theirs are forfeit
I care NOT how "desperate" their situation may be, or how "sad" their upbringing was, since NEITHER of those factors is my doing or within my control
finally THEY SHOULD NO BE THERE and THEY KNOW they should not be there

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:04 am

The householder.

But I don't think for one second you'll find a libertarian who will say it's ok to let a baby starve to death or wrong for a man to expect a living wage.

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:08 am

AND whilst you are ALL humphing and grumphing of dear old rolf Oh so easily are your minds diverted by a sniff of vicarious outrage to be had , fed to you courtesy of the press

THIS is what the govt has "slithered through" quietly underneath it all

"Ministers are poised to pass emergency laws to require phone companies to log records of phone calls, texts and internet usage, but Labour and Liberal Democrats are warning that they will not allow any new law to become a backdoor route to reinstating a wider "snooper's charter".

Inter-party talks, likely to bear fruit this week, are being held against the backdrop of an increased terrorist threat posed by British Muslims being radicalised by travelling to fight in Syria, and by the continuing controversy over the revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services feel forced to act as a result of a European court of justice (ECJ) ruling in April that an EU data directive, implemented by a Labour government in 2009, was too sweeping and invaded the privacy of EU citizens.

The government appears to have secured support from Labour and the Lib Dems to reinstate the surveillance laws after the ECJ struck them down."

oh how "liberal"

by veya_victaous Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:11 am

Sassy wrote:The householder.

But I don't think for one second you'll find a libertarian who will say it's ok to let a baby starve to death or wrong for a man to expect a living wage.

Umm Sassy that is Definitely part of their platform. Evil or Very Mad

The Freedom to be unrestrained by Morality and common decency in the name of Profit.
that is Basically their entire Platform, END REGULATION Evil or Very Mad

living wages and feeding babies are both regulations that limit profitability. Sure they might not directly say they want to let babies starve but that is the logical outcome of implementing their policies.

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:12 am

of course this has nothing to do with "islam" or Muslims does it....

collective targeting of the whole population
to avoid accusations of targeting only the causitive part of the population

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:13 am

anything but the reality of here and now... Rolling Eyes

by veya_victaous Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:17 am

Libertarians are Not for Liberal Social policy, they are for Liberal Economics.

Liberal Economics is the principle in the freedom to make money trumps other freedoms. anti welfare, everything defined by the market rate (meaning no minimum wages etc) you can justify any profit simply by the fact that you can make it

The Most Famous Libertarians are the American Teaparty

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:18 am

if its got "liberal " in it....its toxic

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:20 am

Thats the kind of Libertarian Rothbard is Veya,

but then you have:

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common, while retaining respect for personal property, based on occupancy and use.[6] Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[7] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism,[8][9] and by some as a synonym for anarchism.[1][2][10]

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[11] Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form—whether economic, political, religious, or sexual—brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised".[19] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[20]

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[21] and mutualism[22]) as well as autonomism, Communalism, participism, libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism,[23] and some versions of "utopian socialism"[24] and individualist anarchism.[25][26][27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:29 am

yes, and what a good job its done hasnt it

It was the "social "libertarian" attitude in the 60's that led to the "shag anything" attitude

and led to a) the explosion of STD's
b) the insanely fast spread of aids
c) the present prevalence of women with 10 kids by 12 different fathers

oh yes ...libertarianism works.....

its leads to the "I can do what the hell i want..and you cant do anything about it" attitude

It leads to the present levels of petty crime....because if precludes "control"

by veya_victaous Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:34 am

@sassy
yeah but as Wiki points out the last time Libertarian was used in that since in politics was 1937.....
And it basically say any even remotely left idea.

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[21] and mutualism[22]) as well as autonomism, Communalism, participism, libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism,[23] and some versions of "utopian socialism"[24] and individualist anarchism.[25][26][27]

@victor
that is stupid, so you prefer Totalitarian or Oppressive? they are the only 2 other options Suspect

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:34 am

victorisnotamused wrote:yes, and what a good job its done hasnt it

It was the "social "libertarian" attitude in the 60's that led to the "shag anything" attitude

and led to a) the explosion of STD's
b) the insanely fast spread of aids
c) the present prevalence of women with 10 kids by 12 different fathers

oh yes ...libertarianism works.....

its leads to the "I can do what the hell i want..and you cant do anything about it" attitude

It leads to the present levels of petty crime....because if precludes "control"

That would be a little difficult lol.

And how is that any different to the maids that were made pregnant by the Lord of the Manor, the kids who were pickpockets or sent up chimneys etc and child labour in Victorian times?

And AIDS spread so fast because in the beginning they didn't know what caused it and bloody hell, do you know how much syphillis etc there was about last century?

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:37 am

Anyway on that note, I'll leave you to it and head off, night night.

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:49 am

Sassy wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:yes, and what a good job its done hasnt it

It was the "social "libertarian" attitude in the 60's that led to the "shag anything" attitude

and led to a) the explosion of STD's
b) the insanely fast spread of aids
c) the present prevalence of women with 10 kids by 12 different fathers

oh yes ...libertarianism works.....

its leads to the "I can do what the hell i want..and you cant do anything about it" attitude

It leads to the present levels of petty crime....because if precludes "control"

That would be a little difficult lol.

And how is that any different to the maids that were made pregnant by the Lord of the Manor, the kids who were pickpockets or sent up chimneys etc and child labour in Victorian times?

And AIDS spread so fast because in the beginning they didn't know what caused it and bloody hell, do you know how much syphillis etc there was about last century?

always "the last century2

yes they did know it, "aids", was an STD.....very early on
and the sheer numbers of maids made pregnant is nowhere near the levels of voluntary multiple father multiple pregnancy women today.

the kids who were pick pockets were adult "controlled" the little scroats are doing it off their own backs now....

and as for chimneys and child labour...straw men...nothing to do with the post.....

libertarian wriggling......irrelevant to the substance of the post...more "oh it was sooooo much worse........a century ago"....perhaps you would like to take "how bad it was in the past" even further back to oh....i dunno....paleolithic times?????

by Guest Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:54 am

veya_victaous wrote:@sassy
yeah but as Wiki points out the last time Libertarian was used in that since in politics was 1937.....
And it basically say any even remotely left idea.
Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[21] and mutualism[22]) as well as autonomism, Communalism, participism, libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism,[23] and some versions of "utopian socialism"[24] and individualist anarchism.[25][26][27]

@victor
that is stupid, so you prefer Totalitarian or Oppressive? they are the only 2 other options

rubbish....

its not a "3 position switch"
its a variable resistor.....you can slide it to the level of each you need..... Rolling Eyes

just like economic policy

free market
controlled economy

OR a "mixed economy"?????????????????

Rolling Eyes

by veya_victaous Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:15 am

So your saying that Oppression and Totalitarianism are the GOOD part of the Mix? we only tolerate a degree of Liberalism because of the limitations of Extreme edges of Oppression and Totalitarianism? Suspect

Since it is Toxic should we be limiting it in favour of the other 2?

I'm Pretty Sure Liberalism is the GOOD part that gives us Freedom, democracy and makes us more than slaves. Oppression and Totalitarianism are only tolerated to the degree required to smooth the limitations and extreme edges of Liberalism. ::D:: ::D:: ::D::

by Ben Reilly Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:23 am

victorisnotamused wrote:well...I have always said the "libertarian" (progressive) is the most poisonous creature on earth....

and here we have an example of how they really think....

If you think "libertarian" and "progressive" are the same thing, then I am laughing at you, because you couldn't be more wrong if you were trying to win Olympic gold in wrongness.

The progressive basically believes there are social problems which the government is uniquely, and best, suited to improve. The progressive, for example, believes in providing public education.

The libertarian believes that at most, government should enforce a basic set of laws along with contract and property disputes. To the libertarian, every child in a public school is being educated with stolen money, because they believe taxation is theft.

by veya_victaous Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:35 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:well...I have always said the "libertarian" (progressive) is the most poisonous creature on earth....

and here we have an example of how they really think....

If you think "libertarian" and "progressive" are the same thing, then I am laughing at you, because you couldn't be more wrong if you were trying to win Olympic gold in wrongness.

The progressive basically believes there are social problems which the government is uniquely, and best, suited to improve. The progressive, for example, believes in providing public education.

The libertarian believes that at most, government should enforce a basic set of laws along with contract and property disputes. To the libertarian, every child in a public school is being educated with stolen money, because they believe taxation is theft.

Exactly... unless they are talking about some 'old world' meaning from the 1800's and they are from England so maybe confused

But I agree the modern Libertarian(economic liberals) political movement is the Opposite of the Progressive(social liberals) movement.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:45 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:well...I have always said the "libertarian" (progressive) is the most poisonous creature on earth....

and here we have an example of how they really think....

If you think "libertarian" and "progressive" are the same thing, then I am laughing at you, because you couldn't be more wrong if you were trying to win Olympic gold in wrongness.

The progressive basically believes there are social problems which the government is uniquely, and best, suited to improve. The progressive, for example, believes in providing public education.

The libertarian believes that at most, government should enforce a basic set of laws along with contract and property disputes. To the libertarian, every child in a public school is being educated with stolen money, because they believe taxation is theft.

Exactly... unless they are talking about some 'old world' meaning from the 1800's and they are from England so maybe But I agree the modern Libertarian(economic liberals) political movement is the Opposite of the Progressive(social liberals) movement.

Stupid humans, always changing language without sending out memos! Why do Americans drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? Why is it OK for black people to call one another the n-word but not for white people, dammit?!

by veya_victaous Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:55 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:well...I have always said the "libertarian" (progressive) is the most poisonous creature on earth....

and here we have an example of how they really think....

If you think "libertarian" and "progressive" are the same thing, then I am laughing at you, because you couldn't be more wrong if you were trying to win Olympic gold in wrongness.

The progressive basically believes there are social problems which the government is uniquely, and best, suited to improve. The progressive, for example, believes in providing public education.

The libertarian believes that at most, government should enforce a basic set of laws along with contract and property disputes. To the libertarian, every child in a public school is being educated with stolen money, because they believe taxation is theft.

Exactly... unless they are talking about some 'old world' meaning from the 1800's and they are from England so maybe But I agree the modern Libertarian(economic liberals) political movement is the Opposite of the Progressive(social liberals) movement.

Stupid humans, always changing language without sending out memos! Why do Americans drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? Why is it OK for black people to call one another the n-word but not for white people, dammit?!

It's it called "Parkway" because it goes past a Park? confused

every street that is called Parkway here has a Big Park on it.

we park on/in driveways too Suspect

you are right, it is a silly name Razz

by Fluffyx Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:04 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

Exactly... unless they are talking about some 'old world' meaning from the 1800's and they are from England so maybe But I agree the modern Libertarian(economic liberals) political movement is the Opposite of the Progressive(social liberals) movement.

Stupid humans, always changing language without sending out memos! Why do Americans drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? Why is it OK for black people to call one another the n-word but not for white people, dammit?!

Because imo,black people people can reclaim that word and use it as they see fit.I wouldn't personally do it but I respect the right of black people who feel it diminishes the power of the word and it is their choice to do as they wish.

White people,they don't get to say it.They don't get a say in how black people use the word either.

Tough luck white people.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:36 am

FluffyBunny wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Stupid humans, always changing language without sending out memos! Why do Americans drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? Why is it OK for black people to call one another the n-word but not for white people, dammit?!

Because imo,black people people can reclaim that word and use it as they see fit.I wouldn't personally do it but I respect the right of black people who feel it diminishes the power of the word and it is their choice to do as they wish.

White people,they don't get to say it.They don't get a say in how black people use the word either.

Tough luck white people.

You're a fan of divisive behaviour then?

by Fluffyx Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:56 am

No...I don't believe I said that I was.

Its not my place,or yours,to tell black people what to do with the N word.We should just keep out of it and be humble for once.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:01 am

FluffyBunny wrote:No...I don't believe I said that I was.

Its not my place,or yours,to tell black people what to do with the N word.We should just keep out of it and be humble for once.

Well you want some people to use a racist word but not others - I would say that was divisive behaviour.

by Fluffyx Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:24 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
FluffyBunny wrote:No...I don't believe I said that I was.

Its not my place,or yours,to tell black people what to do with the N word.We should just keep out of it and be humble for once.

Well you want some people to use a racist word but not others - I would say that was divisive behaviour.

No,it is not.

I don't 'want some people' to do anything.I just know that its not my place to judge in this instance.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:26 am

FluffyBunny wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you want some people to use a racist word but not others - I would say that was divisive behaviour.

No,it is not.

I don't 'want some people' to do anything.I just know that its not my place to judge in this instance.

Well that's up to you, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. I think that if it's a bad word, it's a bad word whoever uses it, and it's not helping if some people are "allowed" to use it and others aren't.

by Fluffyx Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:06 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
FluffyBunny wrote:

No,it is not.

I don't 'want some people' to do anything.I just know that its not my place to judge in this instance.

Well that's up to you, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. I think that if it's a bad word, it's a bad word whoever uses it, and it's not helping if some people are "allowed" to use it and others aren't.

I neither expect or require people to agree with me.

by veya_victaous Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:56 pm

Ok this has got really off topic and me and ben probably started it so Embarassed

by the way I agree with raggs and ben agrees with fluffy which is why Ben said it I think Suspect

I would qualify that my opinion is relative the context and spirit in which it is said.

by Sponsored content