Baking (rec.food.baking) For bakers, would-be bakers, and fans and consumers of breads, pastries, cakes, pies, cookies, crackers, bagels, and other items commonly found in a bakery. Includes all methods of preparation, both conventional and not.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-08-2018, 03:22 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/20/2018 5:30 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/20/2018 11:21 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/19/2018 2:31 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...k-phillips-in-
colorado-who-prevailed-in-the-sup/

Liberals and *** activists remain obsessed with forcing Christians to
bake
their cakes. ...


That doesn't sound very tolerant to me.

I thought these people were all about tolerance and acceptance of
their beliefs.* Do they have no ability to tolerate other's beliefs?


They tolerate his beliefs.* The don't tolerate his conduct.


.... which is a manifestation of his beliefs. Duh, Mr. Wordsmith.

Regardless, they are intolerant.


  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-08-2018, 04:34 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/21/2018 7:22 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/20/2018 5:30 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/20/2018 11:21 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/19/2018 2:31 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...k-phillips-in-
colorado-who-prevailed-in-the-sup/

Liberals and *** activists remain obsessed with forcing Christians
to bake their cakes. ...

That doesn't sound very tolerant to me.

I thought these people were all about tolerance and acceptance of
their beliefs.* Do they have no ability to tolerate other's beliefs?


They tolerate his beliefs.* They don't tolerate his conduct.


... which is a manifestation of his beliefs.* Duh, Mr. Wordsmith.


This is not wordsmithing. They are intolerant of his conduct without
regard to what beliefs motivate that conduct. Thus, the beliefs are not
the target of the intolerance, and the baker is free to hold an express
those beliefs.

Regardless, they are intolerant.


Of course. I'm fairly certain you are intolerant of plenty of conduct.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-08-2018, 12:44 AM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/21/2018 8:34 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/21/2018 7:22 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/20/2018 5:30 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/20/2018 11:21 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/19/2018 2:31 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...k-phillips-in-
colorado-who-prevailed-in-the-sup/

Liberals and *** activists remain obsessed with forcing Christians
to bake their cakes. ...

That doesn't sound very tolerant to me.

I thought these people were all about tolerance and acceptance of
their beliefs.* Do they have no ability to tolerate other's beliefs?

They tolerate his beliefs.* They don't tolerate his conduct.


... which is a manifestation of his beliefs.* Duh, Mr. Wordsmith.


This is not wordsmithing.* They are intolerant of his conduct without
regard to what beliefs motivate that conduct.* Thus, the beliefs are not
the target of the intolerance, and the baker is free to hold an express
those beliefs.


And he is free to conduct his business as he sees fit. Which has been
my point from the beginning, if you would just stop picking at
irrelevant nits, we might actually get somewhere!

Regardless, they are intolerant.


Of course.


At long last, you agree with my statement.

I'm fairly certain you are intolerant of plenty of conduct.


And that is 100% irrelevant to this conversation! Come on Rosie, you
are slipping.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-08-2018, 01:20 AM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/21/2018 4:44 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/21/2018 8:34 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/21/2018 7:22 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/20/2018 5:30 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/20/2018 11:21 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/19/2018 2:31 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...k-phillips-in-
colorado-who-prevailed-in-the-sup/

Liberals and *** activists remain obsessed with forcing Christians
to bake their cakes. ...

That doesn't sound very tolerant to me.

I thought these people were all about tolerance and acceptance of
their beliefs.* Do they have no ability to tolerate other's beliefs?

They tolerate his beliefs.* They don't tolerate his conduct.

... which is a manifestation of his beliefs.* Duh, Mr. Wordsmith.


This is not wordsmithing.* They are intolerant of his conduct without
regard to what beliefs motivate that conduct.* Thus, the beliefs are
not the target of the intolerance, and the baker is free to hold an
express those beliefs.


And he is free to conduct his business as he sees fit.* Which has been
my point from the beginning, if you would just stop picking at
irrelevant nits, we might actually get somewhere!


No, he isn't free to conduct his business as he sees fit.

Regardless, they are intolerant.


Of course.


At long last, you agree with my statement.

I'm fairly certain you are intolerant of plenty of conduct.


And that is 100% irrelevant to this conversation!* Come on Rosie, you
are slipping.


No, it isn't irrelevant. What my statement shows is that there is
nothing wrong, in and of itself, with being intolerant of conduct.

  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-08-2018, 03:58 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/21/2018 5:20 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/21/2018 4:44 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/21/2018 8:34 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/21/2018 7:22 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/20/2018 5:30 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/20/2018 11:21 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/19/2018 2:31 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...k-phillips-in-
colorado-who-prevailed-in-the-sup/

Liberals and *** activists remain obsessed with forcing
Christians to bake their cakes. ...

That doesn't sound very tolerant to me.

I thought these people were all about tolerance and acceptance of
their beliefs.* Do they have no ability to tolerate other's beliefs?

They tolerate his beliefs.* They don't tolerate his conduct.

... which is a manifestation of his beliefs.* Duh, Mr. Wordsmith.

This is not wordsmithing.* They are intolerant of his conduct without
regard to what beliefs motivate that conduct.* Thus, the beliefs are
not the target of the intolerance, and the baker is free to hold an
express those beliefs.


And he is free to conduct his business as he sees fit.* Which has been
my point from the beginning, if you would just stop picking at
irrelevant nits, we might actually get somewhere!


No, he isn't free to conduct his business as he sees fit.


Under what authority is he prohibited from conducting his business as he
sees fit.

And I'm going to drive to the root of that authority, so ready thyself now.

Regardless, they are intolerant.

Of course.


At long last, you agree with my statement.

I'm fairly certain you are intolerant of plenty of conduct.


And that is 100% irrelevant to this conversation!* Come on Rosie, you
are slipping.


No, it isn't irrelevant.* What my statement shows is that there is
nothing wrong, in and of itself, with being intolerant of conduct.


Which has NEVER been my point. My point was, and still is, that THOSE
that are YELLING for TOLERANCE the LOUDEST are the MOST INTOLERANT!

If they demand that people are tolerant of their manner of conduct then
they must equally be tolerant of other's manner of conduct.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-08-2018, 04:13 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/22/2018 7:58 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/21/2018 5:20 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


{snip}

And he is free to conduct his business as he sees fit.* Which has
been my point from the beginning, if you would just stop picking at
irrelevant nits, we might actually get somewhere!


No, he isn't free to conduct his business as he sees fit.


Under what authority is he prohibited from conducting his business as he
sees fit.

And I'm going to drive to the root of that authority, so ready thyself now.


We've been down this road before. As I recall, you believe that when an
individual has no authority to tell someone what to do, the majority
doesn't either.

One consequence of your position is that taxation with representation is
not authorized, and as a result government-provided police and fire
protection isn't either. Sounds crazy to me.

Regardless, they are intolerant.

Of course.

At long last, you agree with my statement.

I'm fairly certain you are intolerant of plenty of conduct.

And that is 100% irrelevant to this conversation!* Come on Rosie, you
are slipping.


No, it isn't irrelevant.* What my statement shows is that there is
nothing wrong, in and of itself, with being intolerant of conduct.


Which has NEVER been my point.* My point was, and still is, that THOSE
that are YELLING for TOLERANCE the LOUDEST are the MOST INTOLERANT!


I don't think they are any more intolerant than anyone else.
If they demand that people are tolerant of their manner of conduct then
they must equally be tolerant of other's manner of conduct.


They aren't demanding tolerance of their conduct. They are demanding
not to be discriminated against because they are ***.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2018, 01:02 AM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/22/2018 8:13 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/22/2018 7:58 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/21/2018 5:20 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


{snip}

And he is free to conduct his business as he sees fit.* Which has
been my point from the beginning, if you would just stop picking at
irrelevant nits, we might actually get somewhere!

No, he isn't free to conduct his business as he sees fit.


Under what authority is he prohibited from conducting his business as
he sees fit.

And I'm going to drive to the root of that authority, so ready thyself
now.


We've been down this road before.* As I recall, you believe that when an
individual has no authority to tell someone what to do, the majority
doesn't either.


A point that I've proved many times.

And a point that you've never been able to counter once, not once.

One consequence of your position is that taxation with representation is
not authorized, and as a result government-provided police and fire
protection isn't either.* Sounds crazy to me.


So your entire argument supporting your thesis is that it 'sounds crazy
to you'... ?!

Not much of a foundation to build a form of governance upon.

Nevertheless, I presume that you will also bow out of this discussion
rather than drive to the root, therefore my proven assertion that one
does not have authority over another stands.

Therefore, as long as he does not willfully violate the rights of
another, the business owner is free to conduct his business as he sees fit.

Regardless, they are intolerant.

Of course.

At long last, you agree with my statement.

I'm fairly certain you are intolerant of plenty of conduct.

And that is 100% irrelevant to this conversation!* Come on Rosie,
you are slipping.

No, it isn't irrelevant.* What my statement shows is that there is
nothing wrong, in and of itself, with being intolerant of conduct.


Which has NEVER been my point.* My point was, and still is, that THOSE
that are YELLING for TOLERANCE the LOUDEST are the MOST INTOLERANT!


I don't think they are any more intolerant than anyone else.
If they demand that people are tolerant of their manner of conduct
then they must equally be tolerant of other's manner of conduct.


They aren't demanding tolerance of their conduct.* They are demanding
not to be discriminated against because they are ***.


They can make the demand that government does not discriminate, but they
can make no such demand against private citizens.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2018, 02:02 AM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/22/2018 5:02 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/22/2018 8:13 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/22/2018 7:58 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/21/2018 5:20 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


{snip}

And he is free to conduct his business as he sees fit.* Which has
been my point from the beginning, if you would just stop picking at
irrelevant nits, we might actually get somewhere!

No, he isn't free to conduct his business as he sees fit.

Under what authority is he prohibited from conducting his business as
he sees fit.

And I'm going to drive to the root of that authority, so ready
thyself now.


We've been down this road before.* As I recall, you believe that when
an individual has no authority to tell someone what to do, the
majority doesn't either.


A point that I've proved many times.

And a point that you've never been able to counter once, not once.

One consequence of your position is that taxation with representation
is not authorized, and as a result government-provided police and fire
protection isn't either.* Sounds crazy to me.


So your entire argument supporting your thesis is that it 'sounds crazy
to you'... ?!


No. My argument for rejecting your thesis is that it produces results
which I find absurd.

Not much of a foundation to build a form of governance upon.

Nevertheless, I presume that you will also bow out of this discussion
rather than drive to the root, therefore my proven assertion that one
does not have authority over another stands.


There is no need for me to discuss it any further given my belief that
the results your thesis produces are absurd. Since we aren't debating
factual statements, you can't prove anything (and neither can I).

Therefore, as long as he does not willfully violate the rights of
another, the business owner is free to conduct his business as he sees fit.

Regardless, they are intolerant.

Of course.

At long last, you agree with my statement.

I'm fairly certain you are intolerant of plenty of conduct.

And that is 100% irrelevant to this conversation!* Come on Rosie,
you are slipping.

No, it isn't irrelevant.* What my statement shows is that there is
nothing wrong, in and of itself, with being intolerant of conduct.

Which has NEVER been my point.* My point was, and still is, that
THOSE that are YELLING for TOLERANCE the LOUDEST are the MOST
INTOLERANT!


I don't think they are any more intolerant than anyone else.
If they demand that people are tolerant of their manner of conduct
then they must equally be tolerant of other's manner of conduct.


They aren't demanding tolerance of their conduct.* They are demanding
not to be discriminated against because they are ***.


They can make the demand that government does not discriminate, but they
can make no such demand against private citizens.


Per above, we disagree on that. And that's fine. But, your accusations
that they are demanding tolerance of their conduct remains untrue.

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2018, 07:38 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/22/2018 6:02 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/22/2018 5:02 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/22/2018 8:13 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/22/2018 7:58 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/21/2018 5:20 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

{snip}

And he is free to conduct his business as he sees fit.* Which has
been my point from the beginning, if you would just stop picking
at irrelevant nits, we might actually get somewhere!

No, he isn't free to conduct his business as he sees fit.

Under what authority is he prohibited from conducting his business
as he sees fit.

And I'm going to drive to the root of that authority, so ready
thyself now.

We've been down this road before.* As I recall, you believe that when
an individual has no authority to tell someone what to do, the
majority doesn't either.


A point that I've proved many times.

And a point that you've never been able to counter once, not once.

One consequence of your position is that taxation with representation
is not authorized, and as a result government-provided police and
fire protection isn't either.* Sounds crazy to me.


So your entire argument supporting your thesis is that it 'sounds
crazy to you'... ?!


No.* My argument for rejecting your thesis is that it produces results
which I find absurd.


A) You asserted that taxation with representation is not authorize and
then use that unproven assertion as the basis to throw out my argument?!

B) You have never mounted any substantive argument to show evidence that
one has authority over another. Not once.

Not much of a foundation to build a form of governance upon.

Nevertheless, I presume that you will also bow out of this discussion
rather than drive to the root, therefore my proven assertion that one
does not have authority over another stands.


There is no need for me to discuss it any further given my belief that
the results your thesis produces are absurd.* Since we aren't debating
factual statements, you can't prove anything (and neither can I).


Again, you make assertions that you then demand be accepted as fact.

Prove that we AREN'T debating factual statements.

Therefore, as long as he does not willfully violate the rights of
another, the business owner is free to conduct his business as he sees
fit.

Regardless, they are intolerant.

Of course.

At long last, you agree with my statement.

I'm fairly certain you are intolerant of plenty of conduct.

And that is 100% irrelevant to this conversation!* Come on Rosie,
you are slipping.

No, it isn't irrelevant.* What my statement shows is that there is
nothing wrong, in and of itself, with being intolerant of conduct.

Which has NEVER been my point.* My point was, and still is, that
THOSE that are YELLING for TOLERANCE the LOUDEST are the MOST
INTOLERANT!

I don't think they are any more intolerant than anyone else.
If they demand that people are tolerant of their manner of conduct
then they must equally be tolerant of other's manner of conduct.

They aren't demanding tolerance of their conduct.* They are demanding
not to be discriminated against because they are ***.


They can make the demand that government does not discriminate, but
they can make no such demand against private citizens.


Per above, we disagree on that.


Under what authority can they make a demand against a private citizen?

You really are wasting a lot of time here. Do you EVER have any desire
to drive to a conclusion, or are you content to spew unfounded nonsense?
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-08-2018, 03:36 AM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/23/2018 11:38 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/22/2018 6:02 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


{snip}

One consequence of your position is that taxation with
representation is not authorized, and as a result
government-provided police and fire protection isn't either.* Sounds
crazy to me.

So your entire argument supporting your thesis is that it 'sounds
crazy to you'... ?!


No.* My argument for rejecting your thesis is that it produces results
which I find absurd.


A) You asserted that taxation with representation is not authorize and
then use that unproven assertion as the basis to throw out my argument?!


I asserted a consequence of your thesis is taxation with representation
is not authorized. Since an individual does not have the authority to
tax another individual, isn't it the case that your thesis argues the
majority can't tax individuals either?

Nevertheless, I presume that you will also bow out of this discussion
rather than drive to the root, therefore my proven assertion that one
does not have authority over another stands.


There is no need for me to discuss it any further given my belief that
the results your thesis produces are absurd.* Since we aren't debating
factual statements, you can't prove anything (and neither can I).


Again, you make assertions that you then demand be accepted as fact.


No. I am expressing my opinion.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2018, 10:54 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/23/2018 7:36 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/23/2018 11:38 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/22/2018 6:02 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


{snip}

One consequence of your position is that taxation with
representation is not authorized, and as a result
government-provided police and fire protection isn't either.
Sounds crazy to me.

So your entire argument supporting your thesis is that it 'sounds
crazy to you'... ?!

No.* My argument for rejecting your thesis is that it produces
results which I find absurd.


A) You asserted that taxation with representation is not authorize and
then use that unproven assertion as the basis to throw out my argument?!


I asserted a consequence of your thesis is taxation with representation
is not authorized.* Since an individual does not have the authority to
tax another individual, isn't it the case that your thesis argues the
majority can't tax individuals either?


Nope, you apparently don't understand taxation.

Just taxation is merely the collection of an individual's fair share of
$$ necessary to operate a just government.

Now do you understand? May we proceed?
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-08-2018, 02:07 AM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/28/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/23/2018 7:36 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/23/2018 11:38 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/22/2018 6:02 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


{snip}

One consequence of your position is that taxation with
representation is not authorized, and as a result
government-provided police and fire protection isn't either.
Sounds crazy to me.

So your entire argument supporting your thesis is that it 'sounds
crazy to you'... ?!

No.* My argument for rejecting your thesis is that it produces
results which I find absurd.

A) You asserted that taxation with representation is not authorize
and then use that unproven assertion as the basis to throw out my
argument?!


I asserted a consequence of your thesis is taxation with
representation is not authorized.* Since an individual does not have
the authority to tax another individual, isn't it the case that your
thesis argues the majority can't tax individuals either?


Nope, you apparently don't understand taxation.

Just taxation is merely the collection of an individual's fair share of
$$ necessary to operate a just government.

Now do you understand?* May we proceed?


No, I don't understand. I thought your thesis was if an individual does
not have the authority to do require another individual to do "X", then
the government can't require an individual to do "X" either. Do I have
that right?

Assuming I have it right, then when X is "collect taxes," it seems your
thesis doesn't apply and you make a distinction because the individual
needs to pay his fair share. What's the logic that supports the
distinction?
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-08-2018, 06:34 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/28/2018 6:07 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/28/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/23/2018 7:36 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/23/2018 11:38 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/22/2018 6:02 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

{snip}

One consequence of your position is that taxation with
representation is not authorized, and as a result
government-provided police and fire protection isn't either.
Sounds crazy to me.

So your entire argument supporting your thesis is that it 'sounds
crazy to you'... ?!

No.* My argument for rejecting your thesis is that it produces
results which I find absurd.

A) You asserted that taxation with representation is not authorize
and then use that unproven assertion as the basis to throw out my
argument?!

I asserted a consequence of your thesis is taxation with
representation is not authorized.* Since an individual does not have
the authority to tax another individual, isn't it the case that your
thesis argues the majority can't tax individuals either?


Nope, you apparently don't understand taxation.

Just taxation is merely the collection of an individual's fair share
of $$ necessary to operate a just government.

Now do you understand?* May we proceed?


No, I don't understand.* I thought your thesis was if an individual does
not have the authority to do require another individual to do "X", then
the government can't require an individual to do "X" either.* Do I have
that right?

Assuming I have it right, then when X is "collect taxes," it seems your
thesis doesn't apply and you make a distinction because the individual
needs to pay his fair share.* What's the logic that supports the
distinction?


When a person is a voluntary member of a society, he has certain
obligations to that society. If he fails to meet those obligations, he
can be punished and/or removed from the society.

Taxation, for just societal purposes, is one such obligation. One
person does not have authority over another in this case, rather the
individual is obligated to the society. ALL are EQUALLY obligated.
There is equal authority.

Now do you understand?
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-08-2018, 02:13 AM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/30/2018 10:34 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/28/2018 6:07 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/28/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/23/2018 7:36 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/23/2018 11:38 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/22/2018 6:02 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

{snip}

One consequence of your position is that taxation with
representation is not authorized, and as a result
government-provided police and fire protection isn't either.
Sounds crazy to me.

So your entire argument supporting your thesis is that it 'sounds
crazy to you'... ?!

No.* My argument for rejecting your thesis is that it produces
results which I find absurd.

A) You asserted that taxation with representation is not authorize
and then use that unproven assertion as the basis to throw out my
argument?!

I asserted a consequence of your thesis is taxation with
representation is not authorized.* Since an individual does not have
the authority to tax another individual, isn't it the case that your
thesis argues the majority can't tax individuals either?

Nope, you apparently don't understand taxation.

Just taxation is merely the collection of an individual's fair share
of $$ necessary to operate a just government.

Now do you understand?* May we proceed?


No, I don't understand.* I thought your thesis was if an individual
does not have the authority to do require another individual to do
"X", then the government can't require an individual to do "X"
either.* Do I have that right?

Assuming I have it right, then when X is "collect taxes," it seems
your thesis doesn't apply and you make a distinction because the
individual needs to pay his fair share.* What's the logic that
supports the distinction?


When a person is a voluntary member of a society, he has certain
obligations to that society.* If he fails to meet those obligations, he
can be punished and/or removed from the society.

Taxation, for just societal purposes, is one such obligation.* One
person does not have authority over another in this case, rather the
individual is obligated to the society.* ALL are EQUALLY obligated.
There is equal authority.

Now do you understand?


Perhaps. How do we determine what the set of societal obligations for
which government has authority over the individual even though another
individual does not?
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-09-2018, 09:09 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 8/30/2018 6:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/30/2018 10:34 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/28/2018 6:07 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/28/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/23/2018 7:36 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 8/23/2018 11:38 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 8/22/2018 6:02 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

{snip}

One consequence of your position is that taxation with
representation is not authorized, and as a result
government-provided police and fire protection isn't either.
Sounds crazy to me.

So your entire argument supporting your thesis is that it
'sounds crazy to you'... ?!

No.* My argument for rejecting your thesis is that it produces
results which I find absurd.

A) You asserted that taxation with representation is not authorize
and then use that unproven assertion as the basis to throw out my
argument?!

I asserted a consequence of your thesis is taxation with
representation is not authorized.* Since an individual does not
have the authority to tax another individual, isn't it the case
that your thesis argues the majority can't tax individuals either?

Nope, you apparently don't understand taxation.

Just taxation is merely the collection of an individual's fair share
of $$ necessary to operate a just government.

Now do you understand?* May we proceed?

No, I don't understand.* I thought your thesis was if an individual
does not have the authority to do require another individual to do
"X", then the government can't require an individual to do "X"
either.* Do I have that right?

Assuming I have it right, then when X is "collect taxes," it seems
your thesis doesn't apply and you make a distinction because the
individual needs to pay his fair share.* What's the logic that
supports the distinction?


When a person is a voluntary member of a society, he has certain
obligations to that society.* If he fails to meet those obligations,
he can be punished and/or removed from the society.

Taxation, for just societal purposes, is one such obligation.* One
person does not have authority over another in this case, rather the
individual is obligated to the society.* ALL are EQUALLY obligated.
There is equal authority.

Now do you understand?


Perhaps.* How do we determine what the set of societal obligations for
which government has authority over the individual even though another
individual does not?


A couple of points that need clarifying:
- Government does not have authority over individuals, it has been
delegated authority /from/ individuals.
- That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and purpose, the
powers and authority of the individual.

Regarding obligations:
- The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and that is
to support and sustain the execution of the authority that has been
legally and justly delegated. No more, no less.

An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the nation has
been delegated to government. Therefore, _every_ individual is equally
obligated to support and sustain that protection. It is up to the
people of that society to define that equal obligation (e.g. it could be
that all serve in the armed forces for some period of time, and/or
individuals are obligated to financially support the maintenance and
execution of the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or ....). If an individual
refuses their obligation, they are subject to punishment or removal from
society.

Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm a cannibal baker and I bake humans! Ed Zagmoon Baking 2 01-02-2015 10:42 AM
TN: A love affair renewed Mark Lipton[_1_] Wine 2 02-12-2007 03:09 PM
High Cake Layers Diane W. Saunders Baking 26 16-12-2004 06:53 AM
Inept baker question - Baker's brownie recipe brushfire General Cooking 8 27-07-2004 07:48 PM
Sweetening & Renewed Fermentation Tom Winemaking 28 16-12-2003 02:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017