Quote :

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Besides gay marriage, what do you believe our "unenumerated rights" to be?

4/7/2011 1:58:21 AM

Our rights as englishmen.

4/7/2011 2:04:19 AM

Freedom from douchebags flooding forums with shitty threads.

4/7/2011 3:31:35 AM

unenumerated rights are our not-enumerated rights

4/7/2011 10:04:06 AM

the right to decide what drugs to put in one's body

4/7/2011 12:04:01 PM

the right to party

4/7/2011 2:06:38 PM

the right to travel in a vehicle of my choice without requiring a license or registration before hand

4/10/2011 10:36:10 AM

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unenumerated+Rights

4/10/2011 10:48:36 AM

Freedom from douchebags flooding forums with shitty threads.

4/10/2011 11:45:04 AM

Quote :

"Besides gay marriage, what do you believe our "unenumerated rights" to be?"

Marriage should be run by each individual state and not the fed.
Drug and drug control should be run by each individual state and not the fed.
Drivers licenses should be regulated by each state and not the fed.

4/10/2011 12:13:16 PM

Quote :

"the right to travel in a vehicle of my choice without requiring a license or registration before hand"

Cool just make sure you don't travel on our collectively built road systems where other peoples interests come into play.

4/11/2011 11:00:23 AM

Quote :

"Marriage should be run by each individual state and not the fed."

The rights of the individual are protected by the US Constitution and cannot be superceded by the laws of an individual state.

4/11/2011 5:57:23 PM

Even so, marriage is a contract regulated by the states; the Feds only have a minor role, like using it for income-tax filing, or enforcing a Supreme Court ruling that race may not be used as a factor to deny marriage

4/11/2011 6:03:47 PM

Not allowing same-sex couples to marry is the same as not allowing inter-racial marriage.

4/11/2011 6:06:24 PM

Quote :

"The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people."

4/11/2011 6:08:52 PM

^^that's something for the Supremes to decide

and unless they're unrepentant bigots they will come to a similar conclusion as you
although it's probably more on the line of sex discrimination

^I actually have trouble syntactically understanding the Tenth Amendment; it seems to say that those powers not kept from the states are also given to the people...

[Edited on April 11, 2011 at 6:10 PM. Reason :

4/11/2011 6:09:00 PM

It says that any powers not given to the federal government lie with either the state government or the people. It's up to each individual state to design their own constitution. Any powers not given to the federal or state government are, then, afforded to the people.

4/11/2011 6:17:57 PM

I don't see a right to marry in the US Constitution.

4/11/2011 6:19:32 PM

That's because it isn't there. The federal government should be making no laws that specifically prohibit or allow marriage in any form. The institution of marriage (which is markedly different than "marriage") is something I oppose.

Arguably, the equal protection clause prohibits all governments from restricting same sex marriage. The other side of that argument is that all people have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and of course, the male/female relationship is the basis for the continuance of the species. Ideally, neither the federal nor state government should be in the business of sanctioning human relationships.

4/11/2011 6:26:14 PM

^^^I would understand that common interpretation if the word "prohibited" had been replaced by "permitted"

like saying if the Constitution doesn't permit the states to use a certain power, it goes to the people

4/11/2011 7:33:29 PM

Quote :

"The other side of that argument is that all people have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and of course, the male/female relationship is the basis for the continuance of the species."

It's hilarious and sad that these two points even passes for an argument

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

4/12/2011 11:32:24 AM

Thanks for that cutting insight.

4/12/2011 12:11:53 PM

Seems like you get what you ask for. High school arguments get treated as such; it's too bad you never progressed past the "little joy" you must have been when you discovered sophistry cuts the mustard in K-12

4/12/2011 12:19:24 PM

Not this shit again.

4/12/2011 12:22:02 PM

What do you expect? You assert yourself as king idiot, you get treated like it.

4/12/2011 12:22:26 PM

Yes, we know you're too smart to be bothered with arguing with anyone, yet you're here again, trying to feign superiority. Who cares, man? We're so far below you in terms of, well, everything. Just leave TSB and never come back.

4/12/2011 12:25:39 PM

Hmm nope. If I left you'd like it too much. I enjoy being a thorn in foolish libertarians' asses.

4/12/2011 12:26:19 PM

If you actually wanted to debate, then we could. You insist that no one even knows what argument is or what its purpose is, which means you win by default. If you wanted intelligent discourse, that would be cool. You've got an extremely high opinion of yourself, which means when you get called out in area that you are uninformed about, you resort to your typical pedantic backstops.

Didn't I see you refer to yourself as a socialist in some chit chat thread? You really are a fool, haha. Socialism isn't just bad, it's impossible, as it lacks any sort of pricing mechanism. Central planners can't effectively set prices.

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 12:43 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2011 12:39:44 PM

Quote :

"If you actually wanted to debate, then we could."

Convinced this isn't possible with you given your performance in this thread and the race thread

When you demonstrate no ability or desire to understand what's under discussion and would rather turn all threads to your "amazing semantic insights" (that miss the point by at least a football field), how do you expect to be treated? Like somebody worthy of time?

Quote :

"Didn't I see you refer to yourself as a socialist in some chit chat thread? You really are a fool, haha. Socialism isn't just bad, it's impossible,"

I must have missed that day of whatever bullshit poli sci class you extracted that from. good thing i was learning how to properly analyze data and methodology in the mean time

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

4/12/2011 12:54:20 PM

Quote :

"Convinced this isn't possible with you given your performance in this thread and the race thread When you demonstrate no ability or desire to understand what's under discussion and would rather turn all threads to your "amazing semantic insights" (that miss the point by at least a football field), how do you expect to be treated? Like somebody worthy of time?"

And here, you do exactly what I said you would do.

Quote :

"I have have missed that day of whatever bullshit poli sci class you extracted that from. good thing i was learning how to properly analyze data and methodology in the mean time"

Yeah right, dude. I went to North Carolina State University - a public university. The majority of my education, at least as it concerns domestic and foreign policy, has been completed outside of an academic setting. You should try it sometime.

Economics should not be treated as a hard science. It's a social science, and econometrics will never be able to take into account individual valuations of scarce goods. You call yourself a socialist because you mistakenly believe that the methodology you've learned can be applied to entire economies, and so, if someone as smart as you could set prices for everything and ration out goods, we'd have economic prosperity. You probably even believe that human nature will change once you implement this grand system, and people will no longer be selfish, they'll just work for the greater good. If so, what an asinine belief.

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2011 1:20:28 PM

Quote :

""The other side of that argument is that all people have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex,"

This is just insulting. Why is heterosexual love more valid than homosexual love?

Quote :

" and of course, the male/female relationship is the basis for the continuance of the species." "

So don't let childless couples marry, or force married couples to procreate or null their marriage. So take children away from single parents and give them to childless couples or force them to find a heterosexual partner.

That approach only has merit until you actually think critically for a moment and try to extend that logic to anything aside from barring gays from marrying. The fact is that procreation, child rearing, and a loving relationship are three entirely distinct processes. Pretty much every argument against gay marriage involves making partial associations between these processes in a logically inconsistent way.

You'd have thought about all of this if you actually put 30 seconds of thought into it, but you didn't, so I didn't bother to put much effort into explaining it at first.

4/12/2011 1:23:33 PM

Quote :

"Yeah right, dude. I went to North Carolina State University - a public university. The majority of my education, at least as it concerns domestic and foreign policy, has been completed outside of an academic setting. You should try it sometime."

LOL

Many of the world's best contributions came from outside of the academy at the fringe of society (in many cases). Keep in mind the people who made those contributions actually knew things, though, and were more than adequately trained (mathematically and otherwise). So while they maneuvered outside of the academy it wasn't because they failed to understand the issues under discussion (or were unable to contribute).

Quote :

"Economics should not be treated as a hard science. It's a social science, and econometrics will never be able to take into account individual valuations of scarce goods."

Funny rhetoric: make an obvious statement, hoping it'll provide some sort of foundation for the unconnected shit you're about to say.

Quote :

"You call yourself a socialist because you mistakenly believe that the methodology you've learned can be applied to entire economies, and so, if someone as smart as you could set prices for everything and ration out goods, we'd have economic prosperity. You probably even believe that human nature will change once you implement this grand system, and people will no longer be selfish, they'll just work for the greater good. If so, what an asinine belief."

Nice speculation but it's wrong. Maybe when I have some time I can explain to you, but the justification I have for my beliefs doesn't lend itself to a quick post on TWW

4/12/2011 1:27:44 PM

unenumerated rights is an oxymoron

4/12/2011 1:44:35 PM

Quote :

"This is just insulting. Why is heterosexual love more valid than homosexual love?"

You clearly know nothing about me or my beliefs. I don't subscribe to that side of the argument, I'm just putting it out there.

Quote :

"You'd have thought about all of this if you actually put 30 seconds of thought into it, but you didn't, so I didn't bother to put much effort into explaining it at first."

You're an idiot. I really shouldn't have to explain why.

Quote :

"Many of the world's best contributions came from outside of the academy at the fringe of society (in many cases). Keep in mind the people who made those contributions actually knew things, though, and were more than adequately trained (mathematically and otherwise). So while they maneuvered outside of the academy it wasn't because they failed to understand the issues under discussion (or were unable to contribute)."

Unable to contribute...like you?

Quote :

"Funny rhetoric: make an obvious statement, hoping it'll provide some sort of foundation for the unconnected shit you're about to say."

If you think it's unconnected, you're more clueless than even I gave you credit for.

Quote :

"Nice speculation but it's wrong. Maybe when I have some time I can explain to you, but the justification I have for my beliefs doesn't lend itself to a quick post on TWW"

Hahahaha. That's because you're bullshitting, and you don't know how to effectively and concisely communicate your ideas, if they even can be expressed coherently. You might be a prodigy in your field, but you don't know shit about shit when it comes to economics.

4/12/2011 1:45:50 PM

Let me recount what happened here.

You said on the subject of gay marriage that there were two sides.

I said "that other side isn't even a side it's just stupid" and you basically challenged me to explain why it's stupid

I did, and you give me a "Woah woah woah I never said I believed that!" and then call me an idiot, leaving it at that.

So should I take that as a tacit admission that, indeed, the "other side" you mentioned is pretty much indefensible, since you didn't even bother to make a case for it aside from distancing yourself from it (I never actually said anything to indicate I thought you believed it) ?


edit: For the record I agree with your final sentence, that government has no business in relationships anyway. I do think the government should provide for children, whether their parents are gay or straight or single or coupled. I just disagreed that the anti-gay-marriage side you presented was anything but laughable and deficient in its logic. In other words, I took issue with you presenting that line of "reasoning" with anything short of a guffaw.


[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

4/12/2011 1:54:10 PM

Quote :

"Hahahaha. That's because you're bullshitting, and you don't know how to effectively and concisely communicate your ideas, if they even can be expressed coherently. You might be a prodigy in your field, but you don't know shit about shit when it comes to economics."

False and uninteresting. A destroyer post.

4/12/2011 3:07:11 PM