Gays are criminals not equals.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#683 Jun 29, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
A usual, Bob you are on point.The phrase tyranny of the majority was invented for a reason. Throughout history, majorities have not been known to respect human rights. Most people in the ancient world supported slavery and the mistreatment of women. The majority of people in one religion always persecuted the minority faiths. The majority of Europeans supported the oppression of Jews.Women's rights were opposed by the majority of men. Most whites opposed civil rights for blacks. The gay marriage issue may be the 1st civil rights issue to win the popular vote.
Right now, I am reading about the case of Leo Frank, a Jew wrongly accused of the rape and murder of a white girl named Mary Phaagan. Despite the little circumstantial evidence against him, the majority of people in Atlanta thought that he was guilty because of their anti Antisemitism, they convicted him before he went to trial and intimidated the jury to convicting him. The Governor of the state, pardon Leo from his death sentence. When the people found out, they started rioting and threaten to kill the governor. They stole Frank from prison and lynched him.
The Founding Fathers recognized this tendency of the majority to sometimes act... ugly.

Which is why they put major brakes on the majority rule: the Supreme Court, never elected, has the final power over majority-ruled lawmaking.

Roe V Wade is another excellent example where the majority of **men**-- religious men-- were against women's rights...

.. we are **still** suffering under this one, even today.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#684 Jun 29, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority of whites opposed civil rights. If it had been left for a popular vote, it would have failed.
Yep.

I well remember forced busing of African-American kids into the predominantly white, but better funded schools.

The majority were against it-- and many "voted" by simply moving to exclusively white towns.

Here in my home state, my home city, this is exactly what happened-- many affluent whites left Tulsa, for Broken Arrow (a nearby town). B.A, back then, had a long-standing policy of **never** selling/renting housing to people of color.

Of course, these days, that is no longer the case... mostly. Sometimes...

... ugg.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#685 Jun 29, 2013
Thinking wrote:
That certainly wasn't the case in the UK. A nearly all white UK agreed. What was wrong with Americans? Was it the churches' fault?
<quoted text>
Religion.

The ugly BuyBull has many verses "explaining" why slaves should remain peaceful, and submissive little slaves.

After all?

If **god** wanted them to be free-- they would be free, right?

RIGHT?

..... <gag>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#686 Jun 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you can conclusively show that, I think that's opinionated. I don't think those numbers even existed in 1861.
If you look at who actually owned slaves then, in 15 states
only one in four familys owned slaves in slave states.
And this amounted to 5% of American family's.
Then you have figure in the suppressed votes made possible by the evil politicians , I'm sure in a popular vote it would have lost.
But this was profitable to the owners , who are just like the elite now.
For instance slavery is still in effect, it is contracted from the prison population , which can get labor for pennies on the dollar. Big defense contractors and government officials set this up so they can bypass both safety regulations and minimum wage laws.
Do you think this would pass as acceptable in a popular vote?
It is the elite few who are driven by greed that work around laws with loopholes and corrupt means to devise ways around the popular vote.
You will never convince me that 5% of America reflected a majority, including the will of the other 95%. But I'm convinced that 5% of America can make laws and workarounds so they don't have too be subjected to the will of that 95%.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pentagon-and...
But.

There **had** to be passive acceptance and even tacit approval for the slavery thing to even work at all!

Had the majority of neighbors been **against** Mr FatCat owning slaves, the slaves could've walked off the farm, to the nearest sympathetic neighbor's houses... and then on to the slave-free north.

Did that happen? Rarely, at best-- most of the time, the escaped slaves were quickly captured-- by cooperative, slavery-approving neighbors, who assisted in the return of FatCat's "property"....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#687 Jun 29, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Most whites opposed it(67%), In Ny during the civil war, the Irish rioted and began attacking blacks.
If the majority of Southern whites opposed slavery, it would have been abolished without the civil war.
In Brazil, the emperor there was overthrow when he ended slavery.
Yes. The majority were either passively complacent or gave tacit approval.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#688 Jun 29, 2013
Thinking wrote:
If you want to blame the UK for everything, start paying your f**king taxes.
:)
<quoted text>
But-but-but... all of my tea now comes directly from China, not through the UK's shipping...

....!!!

<laughing>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#689 Jun 29, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
That's one of the biggest problems.
The government claims they have crippling debt, yet they give a tax exempt to all churches.
On top of that, the churches don't offer their help, they just take the money for themselves.
Yes. And, in every US City, you have these leeches sitting on prime, taxable real-estate, but paying zip.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#690 Jun 29, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem is that the majority should never vote on the rights of a minority, and the constitution guarantees people their rights in the first place. Therefore, the laws against marriage equality should not have been able to be made in the first place and gay people should have been able to be married all along.
Exactly!

And there never should have been a need for either Women's Rights movements, nor the Civil Rights either.

All of those rights **should** have been granted by the Constitution's original guarantees.

But weren't, due to the majority's behaviors.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#692 Jun 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
But.
There **had** to be passive acceptance and even tacit approval for the slavery thing to even work at all!
Had the majority of neighbors been **against** Mr FatCat owning slaves, the slaves could've walked off the farm, to the nearest sympathetic neighbor's houses... and then on to the slave-free north.
Did that happen? Rarely, at best-- most of the time, the escaped slaves were quickly captured-- by cooperative, slavery-approving neighbors, who assisted in the return of FatCat's "property"....
People tend to be passive, do you think the majority or even a significant minority approved that Chicago be under the control of Al Capone? To which even the president of the United States was powerless to control? hmm

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#693 Jun 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly!
And there never should have been a need for either Women's Rights movements, nor the Civil Rights either.
All of those rights **should** have been granted by the Constitution's original guarantees.
But weren't, due to the majority's behaviors.

Again it wasn't the majority's call Bob, It was a select few who made laws in congress and senate. But I agree with the assessment
"there never should have been a need" but the will of the people has always been a hard fight. Even worse is that like I said the illusion is evaporating quickly, and soon freedom will be a myth like the god people believe in.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#694 Jun 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> People tend to be passive, do you think the majority or even a significant minority approved that Chicago be under the control of Al Capone? To which even the president of the United States was powerless to control? hmm
I think they did-- by doing nothing against it.

They may not have **wanted** to be for it-- but by sitting passively by, and doing nothing, they were tacitly for it.

If the whole town, and risen up with a near-unified "enough", then even Capone's activities would have been halted.

Imagine if 90% of his neighbors were willing to report on every single thing he did?

Within a short time, even under Rule Of Law, there would have been sufficient evidence to arrest and convict.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#695 Jun 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Again it wasn't the majority's call Bob, It was a select few who made laws in congress and senate. But I agree with the assessment
"there never should have been a need" but the will of the people has always been a hard fight. Even worse is that like I said the illusion is evaporating quickly, and soon freedom will be a myth like the god people believe in.
Yes-- I agree with you, here.

It's hard to sway the majority to accepting **diversity**.

We humans are genetically programmed for **sameness**. We prefer that, to the exclusion of all else.

I suppose when we were competing with lions in that ancient Savannah, it was a mildly useful trait to have.

But we don't need that urge any more; and it takes quite a bit of educational awareness to recognize it in yourself, and even more to reject it.

So we are back, as always, to the best tool there is for progress: quality education.

:)

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#696 Jun 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they did-- by doing nothing against it.
They may not have **wanted** to be for it-- but by sitting passively by, and doing nothing, they were tacitly for it.
If the whole town, and risen up with a near-unified "enough", then even Capone's activities would have been halted.
Imagine if 90% of his neighbors were willing to report on every single thing he did?
Within a short time, even under Rule Of Law, there would have been sufficient evidence to arrest and convict.
Fear has a way of convincing people . His torpedo's had an active role in implementing the explanation of objection.

Technically Al never killed anyone, not provably so anyway.

Fear is the weapon tyrants whether mobsters or official government
use to implement result.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#697 Jun 29, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe its after the bit in genesis where it says Adam had a go with the animals in the garden before deciding none were satisfactory and he needed a human mate. Since the babble says god told him to do that, it doesn't sound like the big guy had a real problem with bestiality, although he probably wouldn't impress as a biology student.
lol...I had never read that, but I will have to look it up now. It shouldn't surprise me really, but it still does, the amount of things that I didn't read in the bible when I was a self proclaimed christian. Still learnin lol

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#698 Jun 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Fear has a way of convincing people . His torpedo's had an active role in implementing the explanation of objection.
Technically Al never killed anyone, not provably so anyway.
Fear is the weapon tyrants whether mobsters or official government
use to implement result.
Yes, there's that. But the "fear" was mostly ephemeral for your average person-- didn't really exist as portrayed.

If the majority of the city of Chicago had risen up against him and his ilk?

That'd be then end of that.

Tyrants can be overthrown-- it just takes enough people willing to risk everything, committed to the task.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#699 Jun 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. And, in every US City, you have these leeches sitting on prime, taxable real-estate, but paying zip.
Yup.
Yet they have the gall to complain about taxpayers like gay people.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#700 Jun 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Again it wasn't the majority's call Bob, It was a select few who made laws in congress and senate. But I agree with the assessment
"there never should have been a need" but the will of the people has always been a hard fight. Even worse is that like I said the illusion is evaporating quickly, and soon freedom will be a myth like the god people believe in.
If it HAD been "majority rules," then we would still have slavery, racism running rampant, no women's rights, and definitely no interracial marriage.

Are you a woman?
Your username sounds more feminine, so I will assume you are (if not, feel free to correct me).
You would not be able to speak as freely as you do now had the majority voted on your rights, for women were not allowed to vote.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#701 Jun 29, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
If it HAD been "majority rules," then we would still have slavery, racism running rampant, no women's rights, and definitely no interracial marriage.
Are you a woman?
Your username sounds more feminine, so I will assume you are (if not, feel free to correct me).
You would not be able to speak as freely as you do now had the majority voted on your rights, for women were not allowed to vote.
Nope not a woman, This is a name I created for a character for my wife though, I just liked it..lol

You surmise 50% of the vote (women), would vote to have no vote?
I do not mean the vote of the suppressors alone, I mean an honest and fair vote of all. Slavery would have lost popular vote in 1860. Bear in mind again I mean a fair vote counting all votes including the 4 million slaves.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#702 Jun 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Nope not a woman, This is a name I created for a character for my wife though, I just liked it..lol

You surmise 50% of the vote (women), would vote to have no vote?
I do not mean the vote of the suppressors alone, I mean an honest and fair vote of all. Slavery would have lost popular vote in 1860. Bear in mind again I mean a fair vote counting all votes including the 4 million slaves.
You would first have to have a vote to allow people the right to vote, and that would fail.
Your system would fail before it even started.

Even then, to allow bigotry to remain for years longer than if we'd just give people the equal rights promised to them is immoral, disgusting, and unethical.
Your way would have discrimination running rampant for many more years than it has run rampant for already.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#703 Jun 29, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
You would first have to have a vote to allow people the right to vote, and that would fail.
Your system would fail before it even started.
Even then, to allow bigotry to remain for years longer than if we'd just give people the equal rights promised to them is immoral, disgusting, and unethical.
Your way would have discrimination running rampant for many more years than it has run rampant for already.
The point just sailed right over your head.

But this is the main point,

"just give people the equal rights promised to them"

Yes the constitution provided us all equal rights.
The black man was denied by legal wrangling that defined him 2/3 a human being, a fucking disgrace to this country perpetrated by the politicians.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Subduction Zone 75,207
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 47 min Brendatucker 183
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 1 hr John 580
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr John 6,099
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr John 32,052
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 17 hr Nemesis 4,068
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat John 4,952
More from around the web