Originally posted by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange
E - Ziggy you must be misunderstanding me, not one time did I say people could infringe upon others (your example of someone not liking your Jewish
wife breathing) or break constitutional laws. Just as you said that if you go to Harlem there are certain things you may have to be more tolerant of
you are free to choose to go or not. What you said is exactly what I was saying about freedom.
Z - Perhaps, but would not your Harlem have special laws, or lack thereof to suit the comfort level of Harlem residents? This is what I understood
from your post in this context.
I don't mean a local ordinance like a speed limit. That makes sense. If you drive at 80 mph though busy streets, or school zones, you are selfishly
endangering the lives of others. I think we can agree on that. This is not about comfort, but common sense. Is not common sense that which is by it's
"nature" agreed upon as, for the good of the collective?
If a guy wants to go to the salt flats and slam his vehicle into surrounding terrain at 3000 mph. I say go for it. No problem. Suicide? I don't like
it, but there should not be a law. My not liking it, is as irrelevant as my Religion condemning it, which it does.
In Woodstock NY, if you paint your fence the wrong color, you have a problem, and there is a town hall meeting. "I was there for this one", the
citizen lost, and had to repaint the fence. Only some colors are considered in bad form. I have no idea what the criteria was, or is.
What if Woodstock residents decide that, since most of them have purple fences, yours has to be purple also, and they pass an ordinance.
Do they have the right to decide the color of your fence?
It's your property. What is your opinion?
Now let's replace fence with a variable. Call it (x). The paint color with (y)
What if Woodstock residents decide that, since most of them have (y) (x)s, your (x) has to be (y) also, and they pass an ordinance?
Do they have the right to decide the (y) of your (x)?
Replace Woodstock with NY.
What if NY residents decide that, since most of them have (y) (x)s, your (x) has to be (y) also, and they pass an ordinance?
Do they have the right to decide the (y) of your (x)?
I know I have the option to move if my (x) is the wrong (y). But what if I want my (x) to be the (y) I like?, and I don't want to move to another
Is there recourse? and based on what? In your version.
This may not be the best suited example, but I think it works well enough to illustrate the difference in ideologies.
It's broad in scope so it can be indicted subjectively, but not objectively.
Now let's explore, and contextualize, my potential misunderstanding of your idea.
I understood that you felt, that it was good to see all the different ethnic groups residing in happy segregation, and you asked, Could we not expand
this to the entire USA? Not a word for word quote but correct me if I'm wrong.
I responded by explaining that in NY there is no segregation, but there is ethnic flavor. All New Yorkers can live in any area they can afford.
No locality may pass ordinances that Contradict State law. The state law, can not contradict Federal law. Federal law can not contradict the
The Constitution is a living document, and should not be perverted, which is why we can, and should amend it as needed.
An action, hinges on a wish by an individual, which is adjudicated by a local ordinance, that has to adhere to State Law, which must not contradict
the law of the land. Is everybody happy? no, that's impossible in our world, so far.
All men are created equal. We know this includes women, but we had to fight for it to be put into practice.
Is it all men? or just American men? Do foreigners have rights? Do prisoners? Do illegals? I think they all have human rights.
I understand that there are, inalienable rights.
That is an absolute statement, vulnerable to subjective interpretation.
The point of conflict is what exactly are these inalienable rights interpreted to be.
Life, Easy one. You would think a person is either alive or not.
Liberty. Now it gets complicated, a dictionary will not suffice, since the literal meaning would preclude anything defining what it is. A circular
argument, with no rational solution. A valve had to be put in place, if it was to exist at all. We made laws of the land to sustain the union of
states, under one flag.
Pursuit of happiness. About as difficult to nail down but not a self contradicting statement, just limited by it's own definition. Pursuit does not
mean attain. There is no guarantee of happiness, just the freedom to try.
A serial killer "may" be pursuing his happiness, but at the death of others. Easy one to decide. Serial killing that makes you happy is
unconstitutional. We have to curtail the S K's right to pursue his happiness for the good of the collective. You may argue it's insanity, thus not
pursuit of happiness ,but that is not the point. Please assume a SK that is made happy by killing for this example.
What it boils down to for me, is perception. I can be mistaken, as being human brings with it, that caveat.I err. Thus, it is within the realm of
possibilities that I completely misconstrued your statements, and or your ideology.
If I did, I sincerely apologize for incorrectly characterizing your words.
On Dennis, I did everything I could to educate him. That failed. I did shun him, and, told him bigotry would not fly with me around. He got justice
from me, and others, often. But I had no right to oust him from the neighborhood. He's an American Citizen. There were public places we both
He got better with time. He learned what his problem was. He was afraid people thought he was Hispanic because he had a Spanish surname, he is half
Portuguese, half Ukrainian. Blond hair, blue eyes, white skin, with freckles. He married a Jewish girl. His kids would look Sephardi, but would be
perceived as Ashkenazim. Personally, I could not care less.
Herein lies the problem.
We disagree as to what Liberty is, my friend, where does that leave us?
Who is advocating Tyranny? You? Me? Both of us? or Neither one?
How do we come to terms?