Florida courts: "You gay people can't adopt children"

[Berzerker]

Don't be stupid.

I have no option, that's my "orientation".

If you have any rule you are doing to discriminate against someone. It's only wrongful discrimination that is objectionable, and people disagree about what counts.

So you like discrimination and you like treating people differently, so why aren't you calling the people who decry discrimination and differential treatment names? These are the people I'm addressing, not the people who make no pretense about discriminating against others. Doh!

Btw, since when is it wrongful discrimination to try and give orphans a mother and a father? Seems like common sense to me, if and when this situation is impossible, then we can talk about homosexual couples adopting children...

[Berzerker]

?!?!?! BWAHAHAHAHA whatever you say; champion of justice. Apparently taking differing proportions of money from citizens for the same system offered in return is somehow "rightful"

Exactly! After condemning discrimination now we hear discrimination is not only fine but preferable when the people being discriminated against somehow deserve it. In this case, if you make more money than me I get to steal some of it in the name of justifiable discrimination.

[mindseye]

Can married heterosexual couples in Florida legally have sexual intercourse "doggy style"?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Exactly! After condemning discrimination now we hear discrimination is not only fine but preferable when the people being discriminated against somehow deserve it. In this case, if you make more money than me I get to steal some of it in the name of justifiable discrimination.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you again. Every distributive rule discriminates. A rule that says "put red balls in the right urn and green ones in the left urn" discriminates.

Similarly with any rule that distributes goods to persons. They all discriminate by picking out some feature in accordance with which the distribution is to take place.

That's different from normative claims in which the distribution is evaluated according to some moral standard. Even Libertarianism discriminates by entailing that only property acquired through voluntary transactions is rightfully owned. But of course there is disagreement over what counts as the right rule.

If you really outlawed all discrimination (as you seem to want to do with your accusations of discrimination) then it would be immoral to reserve lavatories for each sex or to charge people different insurance premiums for different levels of risk. That's just dumb.

And one might point out in response to your tax example, the principle of diminishing marginal utility. All other things being equal, taking ten dollars from someone who only has twenty makes that person worse off proportionally than taking ten dollars from someone who has twenty million dollars.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Agathon

And one might point out in response to your tax example, the principle of diminishing marginal utility. All other things being equal, taking ten dollars from someone who only has twenty makes that person worse off proportionally than taking ten dollars from someone who has twenty million dollars.

Speak in terms of differing percentages and then you might somewhat know what the whole case is about. Then try explaining how that's a "rightful" discrimination

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Take a look at the tax code before complaining about discrimination, folks.

Level of income is not a civil rights issue.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Exactly! After condemning discrimination now we hear discrimination is not only fine but preferable when the people being discriminated against somehow deserve it. In this case, if you make more money than me I get to steal some of it in the name of justifiable discrimination.

Well hey - we all know that rich people are successful through simple inheritance and general chicanery!

Likewise - don't anyone *ing dare say they're somehow worthy of percentage exemption for significant contribution

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Zylka

Speak in terms of differing percentages and then you might somewhat know what the whole case is about. Then try explaining how that's a "rightful" discrimination

That's not my point. My point is that it's only morally discriminatory if it doesn't accord with some particular moral rule, and that every moral rule that doesn't discriminate in one way will, of necessity, discriminate in other ways.

If you tax everyone the same amount or even the same percentage (a flat tax) then it will affect some people's welfare more than others. Of course you can object that it's only right to take the same amount or the same percentage rather than equalize the detriment to welfare, but without an argument that's just begging the question.

Anyway, Z tell me, do you believe that your preference for hot looking women is wrongful discrimination against the ugly pigs of this world?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Agathon

That's not my point. My point is that it's only morally discriminatory if it doesn't accord with some particular moral rule, and that every moral rule that doesn't discriminate in one way will, of necessity, discriminate in other ways.

Your "point" demonstrated in the ten dollar ten dollar example is simply fraudulant - as it evades reality of the situation and paints a false proportional base for sympathy. Make points on situational reality and we'll talk

If you tax everyone the same amount or even the same percentage (a flat tax) then it will affect some people's welfare more than others.

That's so indirect and bias linked a conclusion that you'd have to play God to run a society on equating measures. You're proposing taking MORE PORTION from the "SAME" PEOPLE. You do not judge on what more to take from who; simply because a society can only be (nearest) equal on structural distribution of wealth through %

Anything else is arbitray bullsh*t protected by silent tyranny of the masses

Anyway, Z tell me, do you believe that your preference for hot looking women is wrongful discrimination against the ugly pigs of this world?

No - because it's a personal opinion which takes nothing concrete away from other human beings - other than my small yet elite c0ckmeat. Gaw man, you should really get me in on this UT philo biz if it's this easy. We could be like the odd couple!

[Zylka]

Originally posted by St Leo

Level of income is not a civil rights issue.

Right. Acquisition, handling and continued ownership of personal property has no place in the hands of the individual.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Zylka

Your "point" demonstrated in the ten dollar ten dollar example is simply fraudulant - as it evades reality of the situation and paints a false proportional base for sympathy.

It only does if you take a particular normative view.

That's so indirect and bias linked a conclusion that you'd have to play God to run a society on equating measures. You're proposing taking MORE PORTION from the "SAME" PEOPLE. You do not judge on what more to take from who; simply because a society can only be (nearest) equal on structural distribution of wealth through %

Anything else is arbitray bullsh*t protected by silent tyranny of the masses

I like how you say "equal". There is no such thing as equality per se, just equality in different respects. So a policy that taxes everyone ten dollars treats everyone equally as does a policy that taxes everyone 10% of their income. It's meaningless unless we specify in what respect equality is functioning. And it is meaningless to just complain that its unequal. Every equal distribution in one respect is also unequal in other respects. You need an argument to show why your standard of equality is the right one.

No - because it's a personal opinion which takes nothing concrete away from other human beings - other than my small yet elite c0ckmeat.

Yeah it does. Think of those poor deprived pimply fat Nickelback-listening wenches who are missing out on your white hot loving.

[Berzerker]

No - because it's a personal opinion which takes nothing concrete away from other human beings - other than my small yet elite c0ckmeat.

Sounds like the King's chat.

Agathon -

I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you again.

Did you forget my orientation?

Every distributive rule discriminates. A rule that says "put red balls in the right urn and green ones in the left urn" discriminates.

Since it has escaped your less than all encompassing attention , we're not here arguing against discrimination. That would be your leftist friends who are decrying discrimination and unequal treatment. You'll have to explain your desire to discriminate to them since they don't like discrimination.

Similarly with any rule that distributes goods to persons. They all discriminate by picking out some feature in accordance with which the distribution is to take place.

These aren't your goods to "distribute".

That's different from normative claims in which the distribution is evaluated according to some moral standard.

Moral theft?

Even Libertarianism discriminates by entailing that only property acquired through voluntary transactions is rightfully owned. But of course there is disagreement over what counts as the right rule.

Yes, libertarians discriminate against thieves. I like discrimination, I do it every day when I buy something.

If you really outlawed all discrimination (as you seem to want to do with your accusations of discrimination) then it would be immoral to reserve lavatories for each sex or to charge people different insurance premiums for different levels of risk. That's just dumb.

Wow! Talk about missing the point. I don't want to outlaw discrimination, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who argue that discrimination is wrong when it comes to homosexual couples adopting children while supporting a discriminatory tax code. And for these same people to couch their argument in terms of "civil rights" is even more ridiculous, I now have a civil right to adopt a child but not be treated equally wrt the taxes?

And one might point out in response to your tax example, the principle of diminishing marginal utility. All other things being equal, taking ten dollars from someone who only has twenty makes that person worse off proportionally than taking ten dollars from someone who has twenty million dollars.

Taking $10 from anyone is wrong, it's called stealing and making it legal can't change the immorality of the act. But obviously the people who support this law believe that "diminishing marginal utility" requires that children be adopted by married heterosexuals. Why? For the good of the children, a factor the homosexuals conveniently ignore. Adoption is not about giving homosexuals a child, it's about finding suitable homes for orphans.

[Kuciwalker]

Wow! Talk about missing the point. I don't want to outlaw discrimination, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who argue that discrimination is wrong when it comes to homosexual couples adopting children while supporting a discriminatory tax code. And for these same people to couch their argument in terms of "civil rights" is even more ridiculous, I now have a civil right to adopt a child but not be treated equally wrt the taxes?

I'm actually with Agathon on this one - "liberals" are claiming that discriminating based on sexual orientation is wrong, not that discrimination is wrong or even that discrimination based on level of income is wrong. They are seperate concepts and thus there is no hypocrisy.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Zylka
Speak in terms of differing percentages and then you might somewhat know what the whole case is about. Then try explaining how that's a "rightful" discrimination

I am slightly amused.

It is "right" for people to make more money than others under a set of rules put into place by the government, but somehow it is "not right" when the same set of rules stipulate that the same people who make more money need to pay more.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Taking $10 from anyone is wrong, it's called stealing and making it legal can't change the immorality of the act.

Only if you can prove that it is moral to own private properties, without any sort of limit or responsibility to the society that allows this to happen.