Posted on 02/28/2011 6:00:53 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
>Public property is very different from private property.
>And again, if you aren’t happy with the house rules, go elsewhere. That’s your right.
Actually, if your “house rule” is that your gay brother can “have his way” with me then I cannot just go my way, as you yourself said.
Or are you reversing your own position?
Not a problem; that happens to me *FAR* more often than I’d like... but that’s easy `cause I’d like it to never happen. ;)
No one forces you to enter a business or a home without a weapon. They only set the rule under which you may choose to enter or not enter. Same applies to your gay romp.
This is a very, very basic and fundamental understanding of rights. You do not come to my house and make the rules. I do not force you to come to my house, but I can and will set the rules under which you enter/stay if you are invited.
Why you are having trouble understanding this is beyond me.
Do you think you can practice voodoo in a church without being kicked out, because you have freedom of religion, or give a speech on gay love at a child's birthday party, because you have freedom of speech?
Rights are always restricted by other people's rights. Without that little caveat you have a king, who's rights are never abridged, and everyone else, who's rights must come second.
Per your right to self defense, sure, you always have that, but that isn't the same as the right to carry any weapon you want anywhere you want. On the same note, when you find yourself in a defensive fistfight at the gay bar, you will likely be told to leave all the same.
I don't normally reference homosexuality this much, but since you decided to start talking about my "gay brother" molesting you, I figured it must be pertinent to the subject.
Want to give it a try??? We'll see how that works out for you. Indeed, coming onto or staying on someone's property when they want you to leave is a violation of their rights. So much so that it is illegal, aka, criminal trespass.
When I tell you, "You may come to dinner, but keep you mouth shut. I don't want to hear single word about your Nancy Pelosi fantasies." that is what is known as conditional entry. When you start going off about Nancy, you are no longer welcome and you MUST LEAVE. Because you have no right to be there against my wishes, you de facto have no right to do ANYTHING there.
Other conditional entry would be:
- Don't bring your dog.
- Wear a suit and tie.
- You must be totally silent.
- No soliciting.
- No spitting.
- No smoking.
- No cross dressing.
Its truly, amazingly simple. If you don't like the rules, don't go in and if rules that you don't like come up after you are already in, don't stay.
They teach this stuff in kindergarten.
>>Furthermore, I certainly *CAN* go onto your property [let’s assume invited] and spew off radically offensive crap —it wouldn’t be polite or proper, true— and that would not be violating ANY of your rights at all.
>
>Want to give it a try??? We’ll see how that works out for you. Indeed, coming onto or staying on someone’s property when they want you to leave is a violation of their rights. So much so that it is illegal, aka, criminal trespass.
You’re violating the assumption that I am invited.
>They teach this stuff in kindergarten.
Unlike Reading, or Logic, apparently...
As with free speech, it depends on where you work.
No one has the right to become your master because you set foot on their property, because you always have the right to leave, thus denying them that ability.
However, everyone has the right to set conditions concerning their person and their property, with regard to others.
The only thing that someone can make you do concerning their property is leave. However, there is no requirement that they be logical or reasonable concerning why you must leave. If they say you may not enter based on a condition or that you must leave, then that's that.
You get to choose what conditions are unreasonable and act accordingly. If you boss says that you can't open carry while working at Chucky Cheese, then you must decide whether to take off the shootin irons when serving the wee ones, or find employment elsewhere. 100% your decision.
Rights do not involve forcing other people to abide by your decisions. You are not forced to continue working unarmed at Chucky Cheese. You are free to go elsewhere. Free=Freedom.
Now, most people in your position generally bring up the federal laws against discrimination to bolster their point, I assume that you would eventually get there so let me answer that now. Those laws are unconstitutional in that they force private individuals to operate as if they were a government entity. If a man wants to be a bigot, that is his right, and mine not to enter his business. A city bus is a whole different issue.
Interestingly as well, you have gotten hung up about forcing people to hand over their property rights to you, but you haven't said a peep about truly public (government owned) spaces. Government owned spaces have far fewer justifications for limiting the practice of rights than privately owned spaces, yet most government owned spaces are far more restricted than private. Does that not concern you?
It is restrictions in public places, not private, that I have a problem with, because unlike an individual, they do have to be logical and reasonable if they are to be just (there is no Constitutional requirement that an individual’s conditional entry rules be reasonable).
>You are massively confused on the issue of conditional invites.
>
>No one has the right to become your master because you set foot on their property, because you always have the right to leave, thus denying them that ability.
That is *NOT* what you said. You said that *ANY* condition was legitimate. “Any” includes the condition that you cannot leave, thereby utterly nullifying this argument.
Seriously? Pathetic attempt to revive your weak claim to something resembling an argument, before grasping your ball to head home. Next time engage your brain and think out an issue before you become emotionally attached to a losing argument.
That is exactly when it is the employer's responsibility. If they make a decision to not let employees defend themselves, that decision stands under all circumstances.
No, you said that *ANY* condition which the property-owner sets is a valid condition.
I have shown you examples of morally reprehensible conditions; to which you say “well then don’t go on that property if they have those conditions.”
I have shown you the example of slavery to which you said (basically) that my own ability to leave the property nullifies that —quite the opposite from the first— but even then you fail to acknowledge that *EVEN IF* I were to agree to such a term and enter the property IT IS STILL ILLEGAL as per the Constitution’s 13th Amendment.
Or do you mean to say that you are the ultimate authority on your own land, even to the point of declaring that the premeditated taking of a human life, no matter the situation, on your part does not qualify as murder? How well will that redefinition of ‘murder’ hold up in court?
Now while I do hold that property-taxes are immoral*, and that there ARE such things as property-rights, I believe even moreso that there are certain HUMAN rights that are inalienable and not repudiatable: one of which is that of defending oneself.
* Property taxes AS IMPLEMENTED are immoral not because the government should have absolutely no taxing authority thereon but because a failure-to-pay is the justification for unpaid seizure sometimes without a trial. I think that could be addressed if there were a Constitutional amendment REQUIRING a jury-trial *PRIOR* to any seizure arising from tax issues.
Look up “Condition” in the dictionary. Then look up “Dictat”. You have them confused.
Conditions cannot be manditory by their very definition. That are to put it bluntly, conditional. Truly look this up, you don’t seem to understand what it means.
If I put conditions on your action, it by definition means that you have options.
Stop arguing like a child. The English language has words that actually have accepted meanings, stick to them.
The employer isn't making that decision. YOU ARE.
If I state that you cannot come in my house with your dog, I am not depriving you of your dog. I am depriving your of the option to come into my house AND bring your dog with you.
The same applies to an employer. If you don't like the idea of being without a firearm, then don't choose to work where they aren't allowed.
Liberty is about having dominion over ones own property and also about making your own choices. You are only half-way to understanding that.
You have no right to dictate to another man what you will be doing on his property. You can only decide not to enter if the conditions are not to your liking.
>Conditions cannot be manditory by their very definition. That are to put it bluntly, conditional. Truly look this up, you don’t seem to understand what it means.
According to dictionary.com, and supporting my interpretation:
Condition
6. a circumstance indispensable to some result; prerequisite; that on which something else is contingent: conditions of acceptance.
8. something demanded as an essential part of an agreement; provision; stipulation: He accepted on one condition.
9. Law.
— a. a stipulation in an agreement or instrument transferring property that provides for a change consequent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a stated event.
— b. the event upon which this stipulation depends.
13. Logic. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
From Wikipedia:
Antecedent (logic)
An antecedent is the first half of a hypothetical proposition.
Examples:
* If P, then Q.
This is a nonlogical formulation of a hypothetical proposition. In this case, the antecedent is P, and the consequent is Q.
* If X is a man, then X is mortal.
“X is a man” is the antecedent for this proposition.
“If *YOU ENTER MY PROPERTY* then *YOU ARE MY SLAVE.*” is exactly equivalent.
The antecedent (that is the condition), which in this case is entering your property, is fulfilled.
The consequent, which in this case is the state of enslavement is REQUIRED in order to make the statement true.
Look up implication (logic) if you don’t believe me.
> Stop arguing like a child. The English language has words that actually have accepted meanings, stick to them.
Looks to me like you’re the one ignoring definitions.
Is English not your first language? Every single definition you posted makes my point. “A requirement for an an agreement” is always voluntary,as you aren’t being forced to agree. By your logic a person is forced to pay whatever the asking price is for a car, because the dealer refuses to come down on the price, but the reality is that you can decide not to buy that car. You are arguing that the dealer should be forced to accept what you believe is a reasonable price.
I don’t think anyone can be as obstinate as you are being without doing so on purpose, so let me put this more bluntly. One of the main reasons I have weapons is to prevent people like you from coming to my home and dictating your rules to me.
You can only do what is legal. You are not understanding that.
Why don’t some employers have mock lynchings at work and see how far they get.
I work for myself too. And I’m taking my employees to a shooting range in the near future.
Actually employers do have mock lynchings at work. Its called Hollywood. And yes they are acting, but that is what "mock" means isn't it?
You cannot solicite people to commit illegal acts as a condition of entry, such as bringing drugs.
You are suggesting that any voluntary abridgement of a right is an illegal act, which is patently absurd. I have given countless examples already.
Your school of rational thought nees more study, more reason, and more thought.
1. You have no right to be on someone else's property. Period. Any argument to the contrary is a gross violation of property rights.
2. Because you have no right to be there to begin with, your entry and continued stay on the property is 100% conditional. If they property owner states that you need to shut up or leave, stop bowing to your voodoo princess or leave, come disarmed or leave. You must shut up, stop bowing, go disarmed, or leave. Its 100% your choice which option you take. Assuming you are invited to stay at all.
3. Natural rights, even enumerated ones, cannot be forced on other's persons or property. You have a right to have sex, but not with the partner of your choosing's permission.
Your bizaar logic is that you either have a right to go wherever you want doing whatever you want OR once invited you cannot be disinvited for a reason that you find to be unreasonable. Again, come try that at my house and see how it goes for you.
>don’t think anyone can be as obstinate as you are being without doing so on purpose, so let me put this more bluntly. One of the main reasons I have weapons is to prevent people like you from coming to my home and dictating your rules to me.
And where have I been dictating* rules to you? Your conditions ARE the rules being dictated.
*Citing laws which your requirements violate is not dictating rules, btw.
>Is English not your first language? Every single definition you posted makes my point. “A requirement for an an agreement” is always voluntary,as you aren’t being forced to agree.
I never said that I was being forced to agree. I *WAS* operating on the assumption that the proposition was taken, it is *ONLY* in that way that the consequent {the “then” part} has any relevance/impact. {As my math instructor put it: “’If John Lennon was president everyone would have free guitar-lessons’ is *always* true because John Lennon can’t be president.” (Being both dead and failing the Natural Born Citizen requirement makes it impossible.)}
This is supported by formal logic, *ANY* introductory writing [perhaps excluding the ancient 2000-year-old ones] on which will show that:
Given the antecedent “P” and the Consequent “Q” an implication-statement (that is if-then) is:
TRUE when P is false, regardless of the value of Q.
TRUE when P and Q are both true.
and
FALSE when P is true and Q is not.
So then you recant your position in:
Post 45 -
"You get to exercise your free will and decide not to come onto his property, if you don't like the conditions. Excercise your rights elsewhere. Private property is private. Get that? Private.
Stop trying to tell other people what to do in their castle."
Post 46 -
"Far too many people think that the problem with government intrusion is that they aren't the one's doing the intruding. They don't recognize that the problem is the intrusion itself, not its intent."
Post 48 -
"In other words: If I can tell you to get out, then I can make any other rule I want as a condition of your staying. Don’t like it? OK, be an adult and leave."
Post 53 -
Bullcr@p. How about this “rule”: If you come onto my property, as a rule of you staying, if my (nonexistant) gay brother-in-law visits he is allowed to rape you.
RAPE IS A CRIME! And you just made it into a condition of staying. Period.
>You are suggesting that any voluntary abridgement of a right is an illegal act, which is patently absurd.
Not so, lets assume that you have your entire family's support and assistance for your 'house rule' that I be disarmed.
| US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241 -- Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.