Naah…it’s not really embodying the whole “demographic warfare” theme. It needs to be something catchy, but harder edged—something that Leonidas would sound convincing barking out.
Hmm. The only thing that springs to mind is, “These! Are! Tard! Killers!” Which some might think is a little insensative to the mentally handicapped.
Having seen this thread recently on obese people getting two seats on a plane (where you claimed they shouldn’t get it, btw) and then this thread on whether marriage is a right, I’m putting those two together to say that fat people would claim rights of access as a basic right.
Yes, you’re right-- taking away the right of an overweight person to have two seats for the price of one is exactly the same as taking away people’s right to marry. Did you even think that through before you typed it?
This was my one and only post in that thread…
In no way did I say that obese people shouldn’t get a second seat. Saying (actually more implying) they should pay for the two seats they are taking up is not even remotely the same thing. My post was a direct response to Marley23 regarding paying for the seat as opposed to taking up two seats with one of them being free.
OK, although I haven’t said that. If that’s your opinion, you may hold it.
Yes.
OK, so are obese people a minority that have had basic rights denied to them?
What right? Please define your terms.
Exactly! When you asked me the question of the basic rights of fat people, you didn’t define your terms. What is a basic right and how is it determined?
That’s the same question being asked in the ‘Is marriage a right’ thread. Is marriage a basic right (as it applies to same-sex marriage)?*
So can you explain what you mean by a basic right when you asked the question?
*There seems to be case law that says that marriage is a fundamental right but it doesn’t specify the perameters of marriage
The original statement was
Which to me says that there are basic rights that every human should have, regardless of however you should be defined into a minority. I should not lose the right to marry because I’m gay, I should not lose the right to be served at restaurants because I’m black, I should not lose the right the vote because I play a lot of Halo. (I am not gay, black, or a Halo addict.)
They either didn’t consider the criminal exception or do not believe criminals should lose their voting rights
But there are some rights that have restrictions. Society doesn’t allow children to marry even if they’re humans.
How can we know which one of these rights applies to every human equally and which are just defined and therefore restricted?
Huh. How odd for them not to consider a whole class of people who are humans.
For the practical and ethical reasons that children objectively have little experience and poor judgement. What’s the objective reason that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed marriage ? One that doesn’t include OTHER groups that no one is trying to stop marrying, like the infertile ?
Did you mean to use the word objectively in that context? Like objective morality?
Because there is no objective morality unless you’re a God-believer who believes that God created morality that is constant through time. Any other morality or social custom has to be subjective which changes over time through the will of the society.
Der Trihs, you didn’t change religious beliefs while I wasn’t looking, did you?
While I’m not an expert on marriage, googling age of marriage in history shows that in ancient Rome, children were considered property and were routinely married between the ages of 12 and 14. I’m guessing that children were married even earlier the farther back in history that you go since the human life span was markedly shorter also.
My understanding is that Jesus’ mother Mary (in that gospel truth if you’ve converted, or in that myth if you haven’t) was said to be married at around age 11, I think.
So I don’t think you meant to ask about objective truth. You may have meant to ask about material (tangible) harm, but I’m not sure you can show that for children either. If you can make the argument, ask it again.
A 12-yr old is not (IMO) a child. Certainly not back then.
No, as in objective reality. Children are less experienced and capable than adults; that is fact, not opinion. If some person or some society thinks otherwise, then they are simply wrong. You can’t say the same about homosexuals.
But in order to be valid, morality needs to be based on reality, which is objective.
They were also slavers and mass murdering conquerors. I wouldn’t consider their opinions on morality useful.
Material harm IS a matter of objective reality.