Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

[Sam]

Whether it is just is different from whether it is constitutional. An amendment to the Constitution could possibly be unjust. So there is no need to prove something unjust to prove it unconstitutional.

The problem is that you've got a -lot- better of a chance arguing that an anti-discrimination law is unjust rather than unconstitutional. You're arguing that the government does not have the legitimate authority to impose a fine on a public accommodation for flouting the law: in order to do so, you have to either demonstrate this to be unjust, using a definition that separates just coercion from unjust coercion, or unconstitutional, using a legal definition that no Court, to my knowledge, has used. That's the whole point of defining your terms: right now, you're defining your term in a way that case law in no way supports and then pointing back and saying "Unconstitutional!"

So instead of circling around and around in a semantic frenzy, I'm lookin' for you to simply define the concept of what is and what is not illegitimate coercion by government. If you want to call that from a perspective of justice or constitutional law, whatever, but you do need to clearly delineate what you're considering legitimate and what you're considering illegitimate. My strong supposition is that you're putting that line -way- past what most people will find reasonable.

If your complaint is that the Supreme Court has not applied the 13th Amendment that way, I already addressed that way earlier in this thread. You want me to dig it back up? If so, in the meantime, can you supply me with a hypothetical example of the government forcing labor that you think would be unconstitutional? Do you think the Supreme Court has never been wrong?

Sure: if the government sent the military into that bakery and made the baker bake the cake at bayonet-point, that would unconstitutional. If the government rounded up a bunch of people and made them labor in indefinite detention, that would be unconstitutional. If the government forced someone to publish another's speech, that would be unconstitutional — an example I've pointed out repeatedly.

If you'd like to discuss just and unjust forced labor (rather than its Constitutionality), and you want me to take a stand on that, like I said, I'll start with the position that the only forced labor that can be legitimate is punishment for a crime.

Oh, heavens. We just had this conversation!

I infer from your post above that the only "involuntary servitude" you find just is that which is punishment for a crime but I'd rather not rely on inference and would appreciate a clear delineation of terms.

I haven't said that. I've only said that the 13th Amendment (which I think is what the discussion is about) makes only one exception: for punishment for a crime.

I simply don't know how to proceed if you're not only refusing to clearly define your conceptualization of your terms but you're not even being clear when I try to lay out that conceptualization for you.

If everybody refrains from buying my product then: I don't sell the product. Thus my right to not sell my product is intact. I'm not sure what you are getting at. Their equal right to refrain from buying my product is also intact.

As for personal safety: When we are talking about protection from force, it is always an issue of protecting person and/or property from injury. (If you need a property example, we can modify my hypothetical to be a threat of property damage instead of bodily harm.)
Or consider the mafia, which used unjust force in the economic sphere. Opposing that force is a just governmental use of force in the economic sphere.
Or consider someone being made to sign a (economic) contract under duress. That should be and is illegal.

So you are arguing that the government has no legitimate economic resources to use when protecting rights, correct? It can only step in when there's a different sort of threat, like physical force?

—Sam

[phank]

In phank's world dragging someone to court because they didn't bake you a cake for your degenerate sodomy recognition ritual = acting decently.

Thanks. I couldn't have created a better illustration of what I'm talking about.

[phank]

While we're at it, here is an interesting study:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-gay-male-porn

When viewing lesbian sex and straight sex, both the homophobic and the non-homophobic men showed increased penis circumference. For gay male sex, however, only the homophobic men showed heightened penis arousal.


Heterosexual men with the most anti-gay attitudes, when asked, reported not being sexually aroused by gay male sex videos. But, their penises reported otherwise.

Homophobic men were the most sexually aroused by gay male sex acts.

Now, I wonder where this shoe fits...

[Darth Executor]

"One study (link is external) asked heterosexal men how comfortable and anxious they are around gay men."

try harder

[Jedidiah]

While we're at it, here is an interesting study:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-gay-male-porn



Now, I wonder where this shoe fits...

Clearly a non scientific "study."

[Zymologist]

While we're at it, here is an interesting study:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-gay-male-porn



Now, I wonder where this shoe fits...

Thank you for this helpful and relevant contribution to the thread.

[rogue06]

While we're at it, here is an interesting study:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-gay-male-porn



Now, I wonder where this shoe fits...

Let me get this straight [no pun intended]... According to this study only supposedly homophobic men^[1] became aroused over the sight of gay porn. We're supposed to believe that the only gay men in the study were those in the homophobe camp or that gays in the non-homophobic group aren't aroused by gay porn. Do you understand why I'm having trouble believing this?











1. I say supposed since the word has been so twisted and distorted as to be virtually worthless

[Darth Executor]

According to the study they were all heterosexual.

[phank]

According to the study they were all heterosexual.

Yes, they were. But sexual orientation is not pure black and white. And it turns out that those heterosexuals who were most vehemently anti-gay just happened to be those who were most aroused by images of gay porn. While those who have no problem with gays had no arousal at all. This isn't either confusing or surprising.

[phank]

Let me get this straight [no pun intended]... According to this study only supposedly homophobic men^[1] became aroused over the sight of gay porn. We're supposed to believe that the only gay men in the study were those in the homophobe camp or that gays in the non-homophobic group aren't aroused by gay porn. Do you understand why I'm having trouble believing this?

Yes, I understand why you're having trouble. You don't seem able to conceive of a heterosexual male who is nonetheless aroused by gay porn. There were no gay men in the study. There were heterosexuals who were either anti-gay or cool with gay. And it turns out the anti-gay men (those who would use phrases like "degenerate sodomy") were generally aroused by gay porn, while those tolerant of and indifferent to gays had no such arousal.

The implication, which may also be hard to grasp, is that this attraction could well be the cause of the anti-gay attitude. We also see the most virulent anti-gay preachers and politicans sometimes caught with gay prostitutes, probably for the same reason. They are denying their own biology, hoping that if they hate it hard enough, it will go away.

[seer]

Yes, I understand why you're having trouble. You don't seem able to conceive of a heterosexual male who is nonetheless aroused by gay porn. There were no gay men in the study. There were heterosexuals who were either anti-gay or cool with gay. And it turns out the anti-gay men (those who would use phrases like "degenerate sodomy") were generally aroused by gay porn, while those tolerant of and indifferent to gays had no such arousal.

I wonder if they showed straight porn to heterophobic gay men? No, that would not be keeping with the agenda...

[Joel]

Sure: if the government sent the military into that bakery and made the baker bake the cake at bayonet-point, that would unconstitutional. If the government rounded up a bunch of people and made them labor in indefinite detention, that would be unconstitutional.

See, the problem here is that in the SCOTUS case that addresses the matter, upheld (as not violating the 13th Amendment) a law forcing adult males to labor on building roads without pay! Which is nuts.
If you are going to insist on sticking with the "case law", then we'll have the ridiculous result that the 13th Amendment protects us against nothing.

I tracked down my previous post #182 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post155037 in which I refuted that SCOTUS case in some detail. And the one other relevant case I've been able to find.

Oh, heavens. We just had this conversation!
[/COLOR]

I simply don't know how to proceed if you're not only refusing to clearly define your conceptualization of your terms but you're not even being clear when I try to lay out that conceptualization for you.

I have said repeatedly now that for this discussion I will take the position that, as you stated, "the only "involuntary servitude" [I] find just is that which is punishment for a crime".

If everybody refrains from buying my product then: I don't sell the product. Thus my right to not sell my product is intact. I'm not sure what you are getting at. Their equal right to refrain from buying my product is also intact.

As for personal safety: When we are talking about protection from force, it is always an issue of protecting person and/or property from injury. (If you need a property example, we can modify my hypothetical to be a threat of property damage instead of bodily harm.)
Or consider the mafia, which used unjust force in the economic sphere. Opposing that force is a just governmental use of force in the economic sphere.
Or consider someone being made to sign a (economic) contract under duress. That should be and is illegal.

So you are arguing that the government has no legitimate economic resources to use when protecting rights, correct? It can only step in when there's a different sort of threat, like physical force?

I'm not seeing how that follows from what I said. Maybe you are defining "force in the economic sphere" differently than I understand that phrase. I guess you are defining it in such a way that would mean the mafia did not use "force in the economic sphere"? and in such a way that coercing an exchange of goods is not "force in the economic sphere"?

[Jedidiah]

. . .supposedly homophobic men . . .


1. I say supposed since the word has been so twisted and distorted as to be virtually worthless

Yes a totally worthless word. No honest scientist would ever use such distorted and dishonest terminology. They may well state that those most offended by homosexuality were more aroused (at least by their test - however accurate that might be) than less offended. I have strong doubt about the scientific validity of such a biased test.

All this not to mention it has no bearing on the topic at hand.

[Darth Executor]

Yes, they were. But sexual orientation is not pure black and white. And it turns out that those heterosexuals who were most vehemently anti-gay just happened to be those who were most aroused by images of gay porn. While those who have no problem with gays had no arousal at all. This isn't either confusing or surprising.

Not true. They asked if they were comfortable around gay people. I would suffer no discomfort in the presence of someone who is gay but easily fit into the top 1% of homophobic people as defined by liberals, which is what makes this study so worthless for whatever it is you're trying to prove.

[Darth Executor]

The implication, which may also be hard to grasp, is that this attraction could well be the cause of the anti-gay attitude. We also see the most virulent anti-gay preachers and politicans sometimes caught with gay prostitutes, probably for the same reason. They are denying their own biology, hoping that if they hate it hard enough, it will go away.

It makes sense that people more susceptible to the gay blight would have a visceral reaction to it. In fact it's just further evidence of the danger homosexuality poses since people who are at risk (however mildly) have developed defensive instincts to protect them from the poz.