Two questions
-
espeir wrote:
What facts are you disputing?
That there have been no shootings since the drinking hours have changed. The link is to an article about a shooing that occured this January... I would grant that fewer shootings have occurred, but not that none have, as you stated. It took less than 15 seconds on Google to find that... Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Buckhead is a large area. I didn't say "Buckhead" either. I said "Bar district". That's a very small strip of bars in Buckhead. Try and get your facts straight.
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
So you're telling me that laws against murder are a bad thing?
Where did you infer that?
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
As long as I'm involved!
Seriously? You would have no problem if 80 year old hobos would do the nasty in your local public park?
-
Buckhead is a large area. I didn't say "Buckhead" either. I said "Bar district". That's a very small strip of bars in Buckhead. Try and get your facts straight.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think the founders would point out that people at the local level resolved that issue without interference from a centralized federal authority.
Eventually, and at what cost?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The left really abuses poor ol' Ben. Franklin lived in a society, and (literally) signed off on a form of government, which gave local citizenry the power to do that very thing.
No, the left actually agrees with Ben. I disagree that the founders supported the idea of religious fiefdoms.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Which indicates precisely how little undertanding you have of the form of government we were supposed to have.
And everything you have said indicates precisely how little undertanding you have of the form of government we were supposed to have. And on it goes...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
at what cost?
A republic with strictly contained federal authority.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I disagree that the founders supported the idea of religious fiefdoms.
They lived in religious fiefdoms.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And everything you have said indicates precisely how little undertanding you have of the form of government we were supposed to have. And on it goes...
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The founders, including Franklin, did everything possible to construct a form of government that made the principles currently promoted by the left impossible. It has taken 200+ years of tinkering to accomplish, but we finally have a form of government which stands our original constitutional republic on its head. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
espeir wrote:
Seriously? You would have no problem if 80 year old hobos would do the nasty in your local public park?
Only if they're being selfish with the lovin' :rolleyes: ----
Bots don't know when people die. --Paul Watson, RIP
I notice that no secular humanists want to address this question. :)
-
espeir wrote:
I said "Bar district". That's a very small strip of bars in Buckhead.
Which brings us back to my (perhaps excessively cynical) question... ----
Bots don't know when people die. --Paul Watson, RIP
Basically the area was getting violent and crappy. OK...It was always crappy. They used to be open until 4 AM, but a series of shootings (resulting from drunkards pulling out their "gats") prompted the county to close all bars a couple hours earlier. The place seems to have cooled down a bit, but mostly because of lost popularity I think.
-
Not as long as it restricts everyone.
You have to look at the reason as well as the restriction.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I made no such statement.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Instead, it's merely saying, "our clergy tells us that our God does not want us to drink alcoholic beverages on Sunday, and we're too weak to resist temptation, so we prohibit you from selling those beverages to us -- or anyone else."
:rolleyes:
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Not laws inspired by religion. Just laws that enforce religion.
How does this enforce religion? Prohibition was once a national law.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Absolutely not true. The practical reasons may have been assumed, but they were there. As opposed to blue laws.
The Blue laws are a result of local culture. Just like San Francisco likes local smutshops, we don't want them. That's why we outtlaw them and have the power to do so.
Wipe that smirk off your face ;P. I was generalizing; I now have given you a more detailed view. Refute, or just continue to smirk if that's all you've got.
espeir wrote:
How does this enforce religion? Prohibition was once a national law.
Now you're just being a tool. National prohibition was not limited to any one religion's day of worship. Also, while its root motivation may have been religious (hence the repeal), the public reasoning and the implementation were both secular.
espeir wrote:
The Blue laws are a result of local culture. Just like San Francisco likes local smutshops, we don't want them. That's why we outtlaw them and have the power to do so.
Blue laws are a result of religious fear and intolerance -- also strong shapers of local culture -- and are kept on the books by a mix of religious intimidation and local apathy. They have disappeared from most of the country -- usually coincident with the appearance of a more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace -- and maybe someday will be gone forever. And, by the way, you keep bringing up San Francisco. Methinks you doth protest too much...
-
Basically the area was getting violent and crappy. OK...It was always crappy. They used to be open until 4 AM, but a series of shootings (resulting from drunkards pulling out their "gats") prompted the county to close all bars a couple hours earlier. The place seems to have cooled down a bit, but mostly because of lost popularity I think.
espeir wrote:
The place seems to have cooled down a bit, but mostly because of lost popularity I think.
Probably. It's not an uncommon pattern, really - a place gets popular, in part because of the atmosphere of relaxed enforcement (what exactly that amounts to depends on the local population), then the patrons go too far, the law cracks down, the owners get spooked (or shutdown), the atmosphere is gone and the popularity ends... to being again somewhere else. ----
Bots don't know when people die. --Paul Watson, RIP
-
Buckhead is a large area. I didn't say "Buckhead" either. I said "Bar district". That's a very small strip of bars in Buckhead. Try and get your facts straight.
"Three men told police they were crossing Peachtree Street after a night out in the entertainment district when someone pulled up, jumped out of a black BMW and opened fire." Sounds like a "straight fact" to me. Or is the "entertainment district" a different part of Buckhead? Although Buckhead is used to refer to about 1/5th of Northeast Atlanta, the entertainment distric (where most of the bars are) comprises only about 5 square blocks of that... Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
at what cost?
A republic with strictly contained federal authority.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I disagree that the founders supported the idea of religious fiefdoms.
They lived in religious fiefdoms.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And everything you have said indicates precisely how little undertanding you have of the form of government we were supposed to have. And on it goes...
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The founders, including Franklin, did everything possible to construct a form of government that made the principles currently promoted by the left impossible. It has taken 200+ years of tinkering to accomplish, but we finally have a form of government which stands our original constitutional republic on its head. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
A republic with strictly contained federal authority.
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that, with federal authority limited as strictly as you advocate, we could still have communities that burned witches.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The founders, including Franklin, did everything possible to construct a form of government that made the principles currently promoted by the left impossible. It has taken 200+ years of tinkering to accomplish, but we finally have a form of government which stands our original constitutional republic on its head.
So the founders would have been fine with, "you're free to worship, just not here"? Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And on it goes...
-
I read it as freedoms. :laugh:
Now your statement makes sense :-D (there's something I never thought I'd say...)
-
Wipe that smirk off your face ;P. I was generalizing; I now have given you a more detailed view. Refute, or just continue to smirk if that's all you've got.
espeir wrote:
How does this enforce religion? Prohibition was once a national law.
Now you're just being a tool. National prohibition was not limited to any one religion's day of worship. Also, while its root motivation may have been religious (hence the repeal), the public reasoning and the implementation were both secular.
espeir wrote:
The Blue laws are a result of local culture. Just like San Francisco likes local smutshops, we don't want them. That's why we outtlaw them and have the power to do so.
Blue laws are a result of religious fear and intolerance -- also strong shapers of local culture -- and are kept on the books by a mix of religious intimidation and local apathy. They have disappeared from most of the country -- usually coincident with the appearance of a more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace -- and maybe someday will be gone forever. And, by the way, you keep bringing up San Francisco. Methinks you doth protest too much...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I was generalizing
You were making a negative generalization about a religious group of people. That's bigotry. I'll let it slide if you bend to my will and agree with my clearly superior logic!
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Now you're just being a tool. National prohibition was not limited to any one religion's day of worship. Also, while its root motivation may have been religious (hence the repeal), the public reasoning and the implementation were both secular.
Neither is this law limited to one religion's day of worship. This law was implemented by Protestants, and Protestantism is in direct opposition to Catholicism, yet they share the same day. Your reasoning suggests that the law is invalid merely because the day chosen has religious significance. That is discriminatory towards Christians (who we already know you have bigotted feelings towards). Further, I have no problem with Jewish communities outlawing the sale of ham in their neighborhoods. I find that to be perfectly valid. If I moved to such a community, I would expect to respect such a law.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Blue laws are a result of religious fear and intolerance -- also strong shapers of local culture -- and are kept on the books by a mix of religious intimidation and local apathy. They have disappeared from most of the country -- usually coincident with the appearance of a more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace -- and maybe someday will be gone forever.
Ironic, since you're advocating their removal over fear and intolerance of the religious. I wonder when they "more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace" will stop harboring bigotted attitudes towards anyone who disagrees with them. I thought tolerance was one of the cornerstones of the "enlightened".
-
"Three men told police they were crossing Peachtree Street after a night out in the entertainment district when someone pulled up, jumped out of a black BMW and opened fire." Sounds like a "straight fact" to me. Or is the "entertainment district" a different part of Buckhead? Although Buckhead is used to refer to about 1/5th of Northeast Atlanta, the entertainment distric (where most of the bars are) comprises only about 5 square blocks of that... Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
I stand corrected. Peachtree does run right near there. That's fairly recent and I hadn't heard of that. It's been several years since they imposed that law. The area is still really trashy.
-
You have to look at the reason as well as the restriction.
Why? So that you can explicitely exclude anything that might have some association to somebody's religious beliefs? That's discrimination.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
A republic with strictly contained federal authority.
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that, with federal authority limited as strictly as you advocate, we could still have communities that burned witches.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The founders, including Franklin, did everything possible to construct a form of government that made the principles currently promoted by the left impossible. It has taken 200+ years of tinkering to accomplish, but we finally have a form of government which stands our original constitutional republic on its head.
So the founders would have been fine with, "you're free to worship, just not here"? Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And on it goes...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that, with federal authority limited as strictly as you advocate, we could still have communities that burned witches.
I agree there is an "ideal size" of government. If government power is at a larger level (federal), then it tends to impose the will of a distant majority. This was the case in 1787, when the North had a large population and differing world views than the South. Hence the two houses...one based on population and the other by state. On the other hand, as government gets smaller it more accurately represents the desires of the people but will eventually become anarchy if taken to the individual level. At that point, then an individual could pile garbage on his front lawn and his neighbor would have no recourse.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So the founders would have been fine with, "you're free to worship, just not here"? Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And on it goes...
There is specifically an amendment that says the government can't make such laws. Additionally, each state has such an amendment to ensure state and local governments can't make such laws. But if you actually read the text, it says that congress won't make a law. That doesn't mean that people's practices need to be restricted to their bedrooms. On the contrary, it means that the government can't restrict their practices because by doing so, they are establishing a national religion.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I was generalizing
You were making a negative generalization about a religious group of people. That's bigotry. I'll let it slide if you bend to my will and agree with my clearly superior logic!
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Now you're just being a tool. National prohibition was not limited to any one religion's day of worship. Also, while its root motivation may have been religious (hence the repeal), the public reasoning and the implementation were both secular.
Neither is this law limited to one religion's day of worship. This law was implemented by Protestants, and Protestantism is in direct opposition to Catholicism, yet they share the same day. Your reasoning suggests that the law is invalid merely because the day chosen has religious significance. That is discriminatory towards Christians (who we already know you have bigotted feelings towards). Further, I have no problem with Jewish communities outlawing the sale of ham in their neighborhoods. I find that to be perfectly valid. If I moved to such a community, I would expect to respect such a law.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Blue laws are a result of religious fear and intolerance -- also strong shapers of local culture -- and are kept on the books by a mix of religious intimidation and local apathy. They have disappeared from most of the country -- usually coincident with the appearance of a more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace -- and maybe someday will be gone forever.
Ironic, since you're advocating their removal over fear and intolerance of the religious. I wonder when they "more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace" will stop harboring bigotted attitudes towards anyone who disagrees with them. I thought tolerance was one of the cornerstones of the "enlightened".
espeir wrote:
You were making a negative generalization about a religious group of people. That's bigotry. I'll let it slide if you bend to my will and agree with my clearly superior logic!
And, as usual, you're not addressing the issue. I would suggest a logic suppository -- it may reach your brain faster by virtue of proximity.
espeir wrote:
Neither is this law limited to one religion's day of worship. This law was implemented by Protestants, and Protestantism is in direct opposition to Catholicism, yet they share the same day. Your reasoning suggests that the law is invalid merely because the day chosen has religious significance. That is discriminatory towards Christians (who we already know you have bigotted feelings towards).
Yes, Sunday is one religion's day of worship. It may belong to others as well, but the people who enacted this law did so because it was their day of worship. You're also making quite an assumption that I'm not a Christian.
espeir wrote:
Further, I have no problem with Jewish communities outlawing the sale of ham in their neighborhoods. I find that to be perfectly valid. If I moved to such a community, I would expect to respect such a law.
If you truly have no problem with this, then you're insane and it's been interesting chatting with you. Religious ghettos, tyranny of the majority, these seem to be acceptable principles to you.
espeir wrote:
Ironic, since you're advocating their removal over fear and intolerance of the religious. I wonder when they "more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace" will stop harboring bigotted attitudes towards anyone who disagrees with them. I thought tolerance was one of the cornerstones of the "enlightened".
I don't fear the religious. Again, you are incorrect to presume I'm not religious. I just don't want to have to follow someone else's arbitrary (to me) religious laws. And, since it looks like this conversation is almost wrapped up, I've got to say that, if you're going to accuse someone of being bigoted, you should at least learn how to spell the word correctly.
-
Why? So that you can explicitely exclude anything that might have some association to somebody's religious beliefs? That's discrimination.
No, so that you can exclude anything based solely on one group's (or sub-group's) religious beliefs, that offers no practical benefit to society, and that can be considered discriminatory to people of other faiths.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that, with federal authority limited as strictly as you advocate, we could still have communities that burned witches.
I agree there is an "ideal size" of government. If government power is at a larger level (federal), then it tends to impose the will of a distant majority. This was the case in 1787, when the North had a large population and differing world views than the South. Hence the two houses...one based on population and the other by state. On the other hand, as government gets smaller it more accurately represents the desires of the people but will eventually become anarchy if taken to the individual level. At that point, then an individual could pile garbage on his front lawn and his neighbor would have no recourse.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So the founders would have been fine with, "you're free to worship, just not here"? Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And on it goes...
There is specifically an amendment that says the government can't make such laws. Additionally, each state has such an amendment to ensure state and local governments can't make such laws. But if you actually read the text, it says that congress won't make a law. That doesn't mean that people's practices need to be restricted to their bedrooms. On the contrary, it means that the government can't restrict their practices because by doing so, they are establishing a national religion.
espeir wrote:
There is specifically an amendment that says the government can't make such laws. Additionally, each state has such an amendment to ensure state and local governments can't make such laws. But if you actually read the text, it says that congress won't make a law. That doesn't mean that people's practices need to be restricted to their bedrooms. On the contrary, it means that the government can't restrict their practices because by doing so, they are establishing a national religion.
And we're back to religious ghettos/fiefdoms.
-
espeir wrote:
You were making a negative generalization about a religious group of people. That's bigotry. I'll let it slide if you bend to my will and agree with my clearly superior logic!
And, as usual, you're not addressing the issue. I would suggest a logic suppository -- it may reach your brain faster by virtue of proximity.
espeir wrote:
Neither is this law limited to one religion's day of worship. This law was implemented by Protestants, and Protestantism is in direct opposition to Catholicism, yet they share the same day. Your reasoning suggests that the law is invalid merely because the day chosen has religious significance. That is discriminatory towards Christians (who we already know you have bigotted feelings towards).
Yes, Sunday is one religion's day of worship. It may belong to others as well, but the people who enacted this law did so because it was their day of worship. You're also making quite an assumption that I'm not a Christian.
espeir wrote:
Further, I have no problem with Jewish communities outlawing the sale of ham in their neighborhoods. I find that to be perfectly valid. If I moved to such a community, I would expect to respect such a law.
If you truly have no problem with this, then you're insane and it's been interesting chatting with you. Religious ghettos, tyranny of the majority, these seem to be acceptable principles to you.
espeir wrote:
Ironic, since you're advocating their removal over fear and intolerance of the religious. I wonder when they "more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace" will stop harboring bigotted attitudes towards anyone who disagrees with them. I thought tolerance was one of the cornerstones of the "enlightened".
I don't fear the religious. Again, you are incorrect to presume I'm not religious. I just don't want to have to follow someone else's arbitrary (to me) religious laws. And, since it looks like this conversation is almost wrapped up, I've got to say that, if you're going to accuse someone of being bigoted, you should at least learn how to spell the word correctly.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And, as usual, you're not addressing the issue.
What issue? The one I've clearly explained numerous times?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes, Sunday is one religion's day of worship. It may belong to others as well, but the people who enacted this law did so because it was their day of worship. You're also making quite an assumption that I'm not a Christian.
Unless you're particularly self-loathing, I would venture to guess that you're not Christian. Few Christians hate Christians as much as you seem to.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If you truly have no problem with this, then you're insane and it's been interesting chatting with you. Religious ghettos, tyranny of the majority, these seem to be acceptable principles to you.
How is that insane? It's called culture and some of us still have and respect it. It's not tyrannous, and I challenge you to explain how. The religious ghetto argument is obviously flawed because this country is over 200 years old and these laws have worked wonderfully.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I don't fear the religious. Again, you are incorrect to presume I'm not religious. I just don't want to have to follow someone else's arbitrary (to me) religious laws.
Liar. What religion are you?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And, since it looks like this conversation is almost wrapped up, I've got to say that, if you're going to accuse someone of being bigoted, you should at least learn how to spell the word correctly.
I guess that means I win the argument when you point out spelling mistakes! :-D