I was unable to find my smurf to gold recipe :( I did however find the number for Orkin Pest control.
Is it discrimination if I smurf everyone equally?
Oh no, this thread will not end well at all. {sits back with chocolate, marshmallows, & graham crackers and waits for the flames}
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Are inalienable rights those that are granted by aliens? Or those that protect us from aliens?
Because if it's the later, someone should really inform the predator.
and the xenomorphs.
and a lot of other creatures, because those things rarely respect our rights.
And I shudder to think of the implications of an inalienable right to happiness that can be enforced against the government...
If the government can make drug use illegal then they can make discrimination illegal.
If the government can make drug use illegal then they can make discrimination illegal.
And we all know how well that worked out . . . .
:)
And I shudder to think of the implications of an inalienable right to happiness that can be enforced against the government...
PURSUIT of happiness! PURSUIT!!!
The right is to ATTEMPT, not necessarily to SUCCEED!
[/pet peeve mode]
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And I shudder to think of the implications of an inalienable right to happiness that can be enforced against the government...PURSUIT of happiness! PURSUIT!!!
The right is to ATTEMPT, not necessarily to SUCCEED!
[/pet peeve mode]
I could admit I was wrong, but instead, I'm going to imply that I have a valid reason for taking out the "pursuit" part.
That's a fair point - so many people cite the "right" to happiness (omitting the pursuit part) that I tend to forget it. It's not a right to begin with, so I'm pretty far away from the line between giving a damn and not over whether there is a right to the pursuit or the happiness itself, but you're correct that it's not technically correct to imply a right to happiness at all.
More importantly, I can't deny a man his pet peever, particularly since the frequent claim of "the Constitution guarantees the right to (the pursuit of) happiness" is one of my pet peeves.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
The one thing we're all forgetting here - in order for Congress to take action, they must first be told of a discriminatory practice. In other words, a person or organization can discriminate all it wants, but if no one complains about it, no action will be taken by Congress, or anyone else - simply because they are unaware of it.
It's nice to think that legislation will instantly cure all ills (discrimination or otherwise), but in reality, the legislation will not be implemented in the first place unless someone (lobbyists, constituents, victims, etc.) brings it to the attention of the appropriate parties.
And then, even if the legislation passes, there is no guarantee the laws will be enforced consistently across the country for the same reasons. If no one complains about it or brings it to the attention of the authorities, no action will be taken. For example, if anyone thinks passing legislation to ban abortion will stop abortion from happening, they are sadly mistaken. The same holds true for any ban on discrimination that is passed.
So, based on the OP's question: "Does Congress have the right to ban discrimination?", my answer would be "no". They do not have the "right" to do so, but they do have an obligation to act to ban discriminatory practices that are brought to their attention by their constituents if the acts infringe upon the rights of American citizens.
And for those who believe a free market system will correct itself, I would direct you to Wall Street's activities over the last few years for examples of this pitfall - unethical business practices, "creative" accounting, Ponzi schemes, and more should illustrate why a balance between government and the free market system is necessary to protect the interests of private citizens.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Must be a sad little world you live in.Does Congress Have The Right To Ban Discrimination?I don't believe rights exist, so I would say no. They can ban whatever, but so what? Enforcement comes down to might.
It is. Rights exist, but in fact, enforcement does come down to might. As Mao succinctly put it, "power stems from the barrel of a gun." Rights exist only insofar as there are men and women with rifles who are ready to kill or die to guarantee them.
|
Rights exist, but in fact, enforcement does come down to might. As Mao succinctly put it, "power stems from the barrel of a gun." Rights exist only insofar as there are men and women with rifles who are ready to kill or die to guarantee them.
I guess it's semantics. I look at a "right" as something that can't be taken away. If it can be taken away, then I'm just deluding myself if I think I have some sort of inalienable right to it. I just have temporary access to it until somebody or something (murderer, tornado, meteor, alien, etc.) decides otherwise.
|
|
It is. Rights exist, but in fact, enforcement does come down to might. As Mao succinctly put it, "power stems from the barrel of a gun." Rights exist only insofar as there are men and women with rifles who are ready to kill or die to guarantee them.Must be a sad little world you live in.Does Congress Have The Right To Ban Discrimination?I don't believe rights exist, so I would say no. They can ban whatever, but so what? Enforcement comes down to might.
Conan: The riddle... of steel.
Thulsa Doom: Yes! You know what it is, don't you boy? Shall I tell you? It's the least I can do. Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! Look around you. There, on the rocks; a beautiful girl. Come to me, my child...Thulsa Doom: [coaxes the girl to jump to her death]
Thulsa Doom: That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart, I gave you this! Such a waste. Contemplate this on the tree of woe. Crucify him!
|
|
I've been lurkin around here, and finally decided I would chime in with my 2cp:
Congress does not have the "right" to ban discrimination, they have a duty to do so. The reason we do not have a "true" democracy, but rather a representative republic, is so that a simple majority vote cannot take away the rights of minorities. (Prop 8 was a perfectly horrible example of what a true democracy would do to minorities) We elect people to not only make laws, but to "think about the little guy" as well.
If you don't like your Congressman or your President then cast your vote against them...but don't piss and moan if the guy you wanted doesn't get in, because obviously more people than you want him/her to represent your district/country. There will come a time when "your" guy will get in and people who disagree with them will have to endure as you're enduring whomever is in that you don't agree with.
That being said, giving super-corps the same rights as an individual citizen pretty much guarantees that your vote ceases to count. Congresspersons are all about who is going to donate to their campaign, and when corporations can make unlimited donations, the average American's voice is going to be drowned out by greedy self-serving corporations. The election cycle needs to be severely limited, equal funding made available to all candidates, and donations (both private and corporate) disallowed. Only then will we have representatives who will truly be willing and able to cast the votes that their constituents want them to.
[/endrant]
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Gandhi would disagree... and he took on the British Empire, who wasn't being gentle at the time.It is. Rights exist, but in fact, enforcement does come down to might. As Mao succinctly put it, "power stems from the barrel of a gun."
Arguably, Gandhi was relying on public sentiment--which amounts to the same thing.