Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[Damocles]

If they want their partners to visit them while dying of aids then sign some simple legal forms. You don't have to denigrate a 5000 year institution.

Nor do I suggest they should. Again, all licenses should be for "Unions", marriages should be solely up to the churches (oddly enough, some churches already "marry" gay people.) Nobody wants to "denigrate" your marriage, in fact nobody but you or your wife could. The promises are between two people and their Deity, and only you or your wife could "denigrate" or "desanctify" that.

 

[DamnYankee]

Nobody wants to "denigrate" your marriage

Straw Man.

You don't have to denigrate a 5000 year institution.

Perhaps you are suggesting that I am 5000 years old.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Did you just disagree with your own supposition?

Also, what about Damo's comment is a strawman conjecture?

SELF PWN

 

[DamnYankee]

...what about Damo's comment is a strawman conjecture?

Perhaps you are suggesting that I am 5000 years old.

Fail.

 

[/MSG/]

You know what my position is. If you want to put your manhood in a consenting adult colon, knock yourself out. Just don't tell me that its normal moral natural and healthy, because it ain't.

Avoidance. Answer the question. Do you, or do you not, favor banning/regulating behavior that can result in the transmission of HIV?

 

[Cypress]

Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

Good Christ. Since the Cons and Rontards on this board are almost exclusively male, this invite to some form of counseling in a romantic context is another apparently homoerotic and slightly icky journey into the land of wide stances and toe tapping.

Yikes! I’m outta here!

 

[/MSG/]

Good Christ. Since the Cons and Rontards on this board are almost exclusively male, this invite to some form of counseling in a romantic context is another apparently homoerotic and slightly icky journey into the land of wide stances and toe tapping.

Yikes! I’m outta here! Durrrrrrrr Durr durr durr durrr dur durrr durdur

Yup, nothing new from Cypress here.

 

[apple0154]

What I own is again, unless I make it so, "Nunya". It is why we set territories. The right to privacy is limited because your right fights with their right to define their territory, to set their boundaries. They purchased this "territory" because it has a nice view of the Green Acres Ranch, if your fence gets in their way, and with many neighbors' way, it is likely a zoning law can come about so that you can no longer devalue their property (privacy again) with your fence.

And people gossiping isn't against the law, but it is almost always a violation of personal privacy, if one can show harm from that violation one can sue (and many have won just such lawsuits).

You're talking about slander. A falsehood.

Why should anyone have the right to prevent others from telling the truth?

As for territory I don't see your point. In most cases people want others to know what their property is. That's why they build fences.

If someone buys a property is it against the law to tell others? If so, why?

If privacy means not trespassing on someone's property, I agree. If privacy means not telling something about a specific person when what is told is the truth why are there laws against that? Or are there?

 

[Damocles]

Straw Man.



Perhaps you are suggesting that I am 5000 years old.

This is a non-sequitur. The only people who can "denigrate" any marriage are those who are in the marriage by breaking the promises they made to each other before their Deity.

 

[Damocles]

You're talking about slander. A falsehood.

Why should anyone have the right to prevent others from telling the truth?

As for territory I don't see your point. In most cases people want others to know what their property is. That's why they build fences.

If someone buys a property is it against the law to tell others? If so, why?

If privacy means not trespassing on someone's property, I agree. If privacy means not telling something about a specific person when what is told is the truth why are there laws against that? Or are there?

Not necessarily, many have sued for violation of privacy when photos and stories are taken when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is a reason we don't have myriad photos of celebrities in their homes for instance.

One can be harmed even if the gossip were true.

Now let's go through your questions. All can be resolved by thinking in terms of privacy. One cannot violate their own privacy, if you wish to tell people where you live, go for it. Now, if somebody violates your privacy and films you, say, in your shower and posts it on teh interwebs, it may be "true" but it is certainly a violation...

It is also important to note that I speak in terms of philosophy and not the reality of our government which is not a perfect example of applied rights the way I have been explaining here.

 

[apple0154]

Not necessarily, many have sued for violation of privacy when photos and stories are taken when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is a reason we don't have myriad photos of celebrities in their homes for instance.

One can be harmed even if the gossip were true.

Now let's go through your questions. All can be resolved by thinking in terms of privacy. One cannot violate their own privacy, if you wish to tell people where you live, go for it. Now, if somebody violates your privacy and films you, say, in your shower and posts it on teh interwebs, it may be "true" but it is certainly a violation...

It is also important to note that I speak in terms of philosophy and not the reality of our government which is not a perfect example of applied rights the way I have been explaining here.

That's fine. I'm asking for the philosophical reasons.

I see the point of the shower example but one would take measures not to be seen by anyone. If ones neighbor can see an individual in their garden then why is it improper for the entire country to see that individual?

Other than, say, lawyer/client privilege why should people have a right to privacy? With the shower example besides one taking precautions not to be seen our society has laws against public nudity.

My point is why is there a right to privacy in ones garden if anyone else can see them? If one knows their neighbor can see them then the rest of the world can see them.

What is the basis behind privacy rights? Why is there such a right? Why should there be things about people others can not or should not know? I think the more people know about each other the less individuals will feel ostracized.

From homosexuality to rape to child/spousal abuse to AIDS.....the more they have become a public matter as opposed to private the stigma and shame has disappeared.

 

[Damocles]

That's fine. I'm asking for the philosophical reasons.

I see the point of the shower example but one would take measures not to be seen by anyone. If ones neighbor can see an individual in their garden then why is it improper for the entire country to see that individual?

Other than, say, lawyer/client privilege why should people have a right to privacy? With the shower example besides one taking precautions not to be seen our society has laws against public nudity.

My point is why is there a right to privacy in ones garden if anyone else can see them? If one knows their neighbor can see them then the rest of the world can see them.

What is the basis behind privacy rights? Why is there such a right? Why should there be things about people others can not or should not know? I think the more people know about each other the less individuals will feel ostracized.

From homosexuality to rape to child/spousal abuse to AIDS.....the more they have become a public matter as opposed to private the stigma and shame has disappeared.

Essentially, since all rights (as has been explained) progress from privacy, you are saying why should people have any "rights" at all?

Because the necessary use of force (yes almost all laws are force applied by the government) should be curtailed and used to a minimum.

And "reasonable expectation" can be applied with the garden. If you have to say, climb a tree and use a telephoto lens to gain a photo of your neighbor in a garden you have violated a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they are feet from you, there really is no reasonable expectation of privacy. They chose a territory with less protection, it is their choice.

And again, if you choose to tell people you have HIV, then more power to you. If somebody "outs" you, and it harms you, you have recourse. While many try to remove the stigma of such things by outing themselves, it does not give you a right to "out" them yourself.

 

[apple0154]

Essentially, since all rights (as has been explained) progress from privacy, you are saying why should people have any "rights" at all?

Because the necessary use of force (yes almost all laws are force applied by the government) should be curtailed and used to a minimum.

And "reasonable expectation" can be applied with the garden. If you have to say, climb a tree and use a telephoto lens to gain a photo of your neighbor in a garden you have violated a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they are feet from you, there really is no reasonable expectation of privacy. They chose a territory with less protection, it is their choice.

And again, if you choose to tell people you have HIV, then more power to you. If somebody "outs" you, and it harms you, you have recourse. While many try to remove the stigma of such things by outing themselves, it does not give you a right to "out" them yourself.

I don't see how all rights progress from privacy. How does the right to free speech stem from privacy? Or the right to bear arms? Or the right to a trial by jury? Or prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment?

 

[Damocles]

I don't see how all rights progress from privacy. How does the right to free speech stem from privacy? Or the right to bear arms? Or the right to a trial by jury? Or prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment?

It's already been explained previously in the thread. The government has no right to force you how to think, to list what you can or cannot say. This is one of the more fundamental extensions of privacy, those of your thoughts.

I also explained the right to bear arms, to protect your private property... That is also one of the more fundamental extensions of privacy.

Trial by a jury of your peers is a limitation placed on government so they do not unnecessarily use force to take away other rights without "due process", while this is a secondary expression, it protects your rights that extend from privacy from abuse of those in power. Cruel and unusual punishment, the same.

The enumerated rights of the constitution come in two categories, those directly effecting natural rights (Free speech, religion (also privacy, it is none of their business), bear arms, search and seizure, housing military without your consent, taking your property without compensation)... Then there are those that are created to limit government so they do not overstep their due bounds listed by enumerating their powers, these have other components (like a jury..) that make them clearly constructs.

 

[apple0154]

It's already been explained previously in the thread. The government has no right to force you how to think, to list what you can or cannot say. This is one of the more fundamental extensions of privacy, those of your thoughts.

What has privacy got to do with forcing one how to think? Knowing what you think it not the same as telling you what to think.

I also explained the right to bear arms, to protect your private property... That is also one of the more fundamental extensions of privacy.

So how does my knowing you have arms interfere with your right to bear them or protect your property?

Trial by a jury of your peers is a limitation placed on government so they do not unnecessarily use force to take away other rights without "due process", while this is a secondary expression, it protects your rights that extend from privacy from abuse of those in power. Cruel and unusual punishment, the same.

Again, how does "knowing" translate into abuse of power? Abuse is usually associated with privacy or secrets.

The enumerated rights of the constitution come in two categories, those directly effecting natural rights (Free speech, religion (also privacy, it is none of their business), bear arms, search and seizure, housing military without your consent, taking your property without compensation)... Then there are those that are created to limit government so they do not overstep their due bounds listed by enumerating their powers, these have other components (like a jury..) that make them clearly constructs.

Who cares what religion people practice? Again, it's like AIDS and spousal abuse and other things I mentioned that resulted in privacy compounding the problem.

In many cases discrimination is the result of privacy. If an employer is prejudice against hiring a Buddhist and your "secret" is known to them you won't get the job. However, if the employer knows the top three people applying for the job are Buddhists the fact of being a Buddhist gets a lower ranking on the prejudice scale.

I remember, many years ago, a friend of mine purchased car insurance. His rate was high so I asked him why he paid so much. He told me the insurance company considered him "mentally unstable" because he had been divorced.

The point is privacy is bad for society, in general. When we only know of one homosexual or one AIDS individual or one rape victim it's natural to think they're "different". However, when we know of many our prejudices decrease as we have a larger group from whom to form an opinion.

 

[Bai Lan]

What has privacy got to do with forcing one how to think? Knowing what you think it not the same as telling you what to think.

.

Yeah. And hitler was just making an innocent list of jews.

What wrong with making a list of jews. Maybe it's to send them challah at passuck.

 

[Damocles]

What has privacy got to do with forcing one how to think? Knowing what you think it not the same as telling you what to think.



So how does my knowing you have arms interfere with your right to bear them or protect your property?



Again, how does "knowing" translate into abuse of power? Abuse is usually associated with privacy or secrets.



Who cares what religion people practice? Again, it's like AIDS and spousal abuse and other things I mentioned that resulted in privacy compounding the problem.

In many cases discrimination is the result of privacy. If an employer is prejudice against hiring a Buddhist and your "secret" is known to them you won't get the job. However, if the employer knows the top three people applying for the job are Buddhists the fact of being a Buddhist gets a lower ranking on the prejudice scale.

I remember, many years ago, a friend of mine purchased car insurance. His rate was high so I asked him why he paid so much. He told me the insurance company considered him "mentally unstable" because he had been divorced.

The point is privacy is bad for society, in general. When we only know of one homosexual or one AIDS individual or one rape victim it's natural to think they're "different". However, when we know of many our prejudices decrease as we have a larger group from whom to form an opinion.

Dude, it was clear in the explanation, now you are just being deliberately obtuse. It's like you don't even bother to read.

I wrote about your HIV and rape examples previously, again you just don't bother to read.

Privacy is not "bad" for society, it is as I have copiously explained, the central idea. It is where all the other rights flow from. Let's use your HIV and rape examples. The government has no right to "out" you, in fact we have laws against that (see: HIPPA), you cannot violate your own privacy and if you see benefit in speaking about your disease, or your victimhood, then by all means do so. It would be a violation to simply refuse to allow people that privacy because you think it would be "beneficial" to society.

 

[Topspin]

I guess this thread qualifies and the daily republican need to discuss man ass sex.

 

[apple0154]

Dude, it was clear in the explanation, now you are just being deliberately obtuse. It's like you don't even bother to read.

I wrote about your HIV and rape examples previously, again you just don't bother to read.

Privacy is not "bad" for society, it is as I have copiously explained, the central idea. It is where all the other rights flow from. Let's use your HIV and rape examples. The government has no right to "out" you, in fact we have laws against that (see: HIPPA), you cannot violate your own privacy and if you see benefit in speaking about your disease, or your victimhood, then by all means do so. It would be a violation to simply refuse to allow people that privacy because you think it would be "beneficial" to society.

I read your examples and explained the problem. People used to not report rapes because of the stigma. The same with spousal abuse. AIDS. Sexual abuse. The list goes on and on.

I listed numerous rights in post # 113 and asked you to explain how privacy interferes with any of them. You keep saying how all rights stem from privacy without being specific. Indulge me.

Specifically, how does people knowing you own a gun interfere with your right to own a gun? How does people knowing you are a Buddhist or Scientologist or Catholic interfere with your right to free speech? How does people knowing your annual income interfere with your right to a jury trial?

 

[Damocles]

I read your examples and explained the problem. People used to not report rapes because of the stigma. The same with spousal abuse. AIDS. Sexual abuse. The list goes on and on.

I listed numerous rights in post # 113 and asked you to explain how privacy interferes with any of them. You keep saying how all rights stem from privacy without being specific. Indulge me.

Specifically, how does people knowing you own a gun interfere with your right to own a gun? How does people knowing you are a Buddhist or Scientologist or Catholic interfere with your right to free speech? How does people knowing your annual income interfere with your right to a jury trial?

I did indulge you, in later posts I explained how many of those rights are directly "privacy" issues. Again, you are now deliberately incapable of any form of reading comprehension because you don't want to fit the idea into your head, not because the explanations were not clear.

1. A government list of people who own guns ensures a list of victims; those who are not on the list... They have privacy rights too.
2. The government has no right to a list of your property, especially that property you use to protect your rights. This form of privacy is ensured in both the 2nd and the 4th Amendment.
3. Where did I ever say that people knowing my salary has any effect on Jury Trials? That is a straw man, and it is stupid.
4. Having people know I am a Buddhist, etc. doesn't effect my right to free speech, but it does effect my right if the government is telling me how to believe. Hence we create a right where I can believe as I will without government interference, my thoughts are mine, this is a privacy issue. Free speech rights are privacy, it restricts the government from creating a list of "approved" speech and thus attacking the same privacy of thought....


Now, exercise your brain, instead of saying, "How does driving effect your right to walk?!!111shiftplusone", quit being absurd and actually ask for my opinions on how rights flow from privacy, this is what I have been explaining, not how my salary effects juries.