Okay, so you oppose all forms of gun control and any limitations on a right? Soon as you limit a right, you've done so pragmatically.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. How do you possibly read "pragmatism does not trump rights" to mean "rights cannot include limitations"?
If the law says you have the right to carry a gun except for on Tuesdays (to make up a hypothetical example), then your right is "carry a gun except for on tuesdays", it's not "carry a gun except for on tuesdays or if it would be otherwise inconvenient". Your right has a limitation to it, but that doesn't mean it is also limited by any pragmatic concern someone might raise. The transgender students have a right to use the bathroom of their gender. That right doesn't come with the additional limitation of "unless it makes anyone uncomfortable". Our right to free speech has limitations - we can't yell fire in a crowded theater, we can't instigate a fight by threatening someone, but that doesn't mean it also has the limitation "you can't say anything that makes someone uncomfortable". Pragmatic limitations can certainly be included in rights, but we can't just create new limitations that aren't in the law whenever we find ourselves in an awkward or uncomfortable situation involving that right.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. How do you possibly read "pragmatism does not trump rights" to mean "rights cannot include limitations"?
The only reason to trump a right is because it conflicts with some other value. When you make a determination using both of those values, you are making a trade off or determination using pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only way you can balance rights that conflict.
Pragmatic limitations can certainly be included in rights, but we can't just create new limitations that aren't in the law whenever we find ourselves in an awkward or uncomfortable situation involving that right.
Pragmatism does not trump rights.
That's what makes something a right - if you only get to exercise a "right" when it's the most pragmatic option, then it's not a right at all.
Do you understand, your entire objection to my argument earlier was entirely focused on not even acknowledging the potential repercussions becasue, a right is a right.....damn the repercussions.
I'm saying that I reject the pragmatic tradeoff you propose, because it amounts to simply stripping transgender students of their rights.
The only reason to trump a right is because it conflicts with some other value. When you make a determination using both of those values, you are making a trade off or determination using pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only way you can balance rights that conflict.
If there are two rights that are in conflict, then we need a way to balance them. But there aren't two rights in conflict here - there's one right, the Title IX right of the transgender students, and one feeling of discomfort or offense. You don't have the right to not be uncomfortable, and we don't "pragmatically" limit rights whenever they might make someone feel uncomfortable.
Do you understand, your entire objection to my argument earlier was entirely focused on not even acknowledging the potential repercussions becasue, a right is a right.....damn the repercussions.
Yes, a right is a right. Damn the repercussions. That is not the same as saying a right cannot include limitations. But if the right does not include limitations you might want, then too bad. A right is a right.
The only reason to trump a right is because it conflicts with some other value. When you make a determination using both of those values, you are making a trade off or determination using pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only way you can balance rights that conflict.
If there are two rights that are in conflict, then we need a way to balance them. But there aren't two rights in conflict here - there's one right, the Title IX right of the transgender students, and one feeling of discomfort or offense. You don't have the right to not be uncomfortable, and we don't "pragmatically" limit rights whenever they might make someone feel uncomfortable.
Do you understand, your entire objection to my argument earlier was entirely focused on not even acknowledging the potential repercussions becasue, a right is a right.....damn the repercussions.
Yes, a right is a right. Damn the repercussions. That is not the same as saying a right cannot include limitations. But if the right does not include limitations you might want, then too bad. A right is a right.
In circles we go...
So you oppose all new gun regulation?
(Gee, I wonder why anyone would put a limitation on a right. Bet it has something to do with some sort of repercussion of the right)
(Gee, I wonder why anyone would put a limitation on a right. Bet it has something to do with some sort of repercussion of the right)
When people seek to limit gun rights, they seek to codify those limitations into the appropriate law. If you want to limit the rights of transgender students to use bathrooms, that has to start with a repeal or revision of Title IX. Until then, those students have a right that cannot be ignored because of pragmatic concerns.
(Gee, I wonder why anyone would put a limitation on a right. Bet it has something to do with some sort of repercussion of the right)
When people seek to limit gun rights, they seek to codify those limitations into the appropriate law. If you want to limit the rights of transgender students to use bathrooms, that has to start with a repeal or revision of Title IX. Until then, those students have a right that cannot be ignored because of pragmatic concerns.
I'm sorry, your response is nonsensical to the context we are discussing.
I'm sorry, your response is nonsensical to the context we are discussing.
Man, if ever there were an example of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. Please, enlighten me as to how -this- is the nonsensical response in this thread, not your rambling posts about pragmatism.
(Gee, I wonder why anyone would put a limitation on a right. Rolleyes Bet it has something to do with some sort of repercussion of the right)
When people seek to limit gun rights, they seek to codify those limitations into the appropriate law.
Why are they seeking to limit gun rights? It's due to the repercussions of gun ownership, i.e. death. Your response only discussed what they were doing, or the process they are taking to change those laws. Nothing in my post discussed the process people use to change laws. Your response was nonsensical to my post.
Why are they seeking to limit gun rights? It's due to the repercussions of gun ownership, i.e. death. Your response only discussed what they were doing, or the process they are taking to change those laws. Nothing in my post discussed the process people use to change laws.
No one is talking about the process people use to change laws. What we are talking about is the ways in which rights can be limited. They can be limited through the law - not through schools deciding their students can't handle the concept of trans people and choosing to ignore the rights of their trans students. It doesn't matter what the repercussions might be, as long as Title IX remains the law, trans students have the right to use the bathroom of their gender. If you're concerned about the repercussions, and think that trans students therefore shouldn't have that right, the only way around it is to change the law.
cod·i·fy
verb
arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code.
Is English not your first language or something? When you say "the process people use to change laws" that means things like bills, referendums, petitions, vetos, amendments, etc. - the actual process of altering a law.
As society advances, the mind grows ever more important, while tools take the place of the physical. Dualism is not a philosophy but a process; the mind's growing supremacy causes it to separate from the body. This internet, a disembodied realm of speech and thought, has only accelerated the process. Thus biological sex gives way to gender, a construct of the interface of mind and body, and so too shall gender shatter and fade before the diversity of minds. Transgender bathrooms are progress, but will be obsoleted. Bathrooms are physical.
The reason for establishing binary bathrooms is an attempt to adhere to cultural standards in the most efficient way. Two separate rooms dictate the separation of man and woman. Each room contains divided stalls for efficiency in provisions. We are now faced with a dilemma in the wake of evolving cultural standards. Now that a vast majority of people no longer adhere to the belief in binary sexes, we must figure a way to separate genders in the most efficient way. Unfortunately, in the State of North Carolina they felt the best way to deal with the situation was to attempt to suppress this new shift with law. I believe that it is now time to simply dismiss the tradition of binary rooms. Although not as cost effective, I believe it is best to transition to multiple, smaller, private locked rooms. In this fashion, there is no longer a gender disparity. Such a system will provide the necessary utilities to any gender and ensure greater privacy.
Although not as cost effective, I believe it is best to transition to multiple, smaller, private locked rooms. In this fashion, there is no longer a gender disparity. Such a system will provide the necessary utilities to any gender and ensure greater privacy.
And your solution for all of the hundreds of thousands of businesses that have gender-segregated public restrooms now? Surely you're not suggesting that they would all be forced to conduct extensive and expensive renovations including changes to their plumbing and reduction in floorspace?
That's not my premise. I think you're misunderstanding. Go back and read what I wrote again.
Okay, so you oppose all forms of gun control and any limitations on a right? Soon as you limit a right, you've done so pragmatically.
EDIT: The point is, we make trade-off all the time.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. How do you possibly read "pragmatism does not trump rights" to mean "rights cannot include limitations"?
If the law says you have the right to carry a gun except for on Tuesdays (to make up a hypothetical example), then your right is "carry a gun except for on tuesdays", it's not "carry a gun except for on tuesdays or if it would be otherwise inconvenient". Your right has a limitation to it, but that doesn't mean it is also limited by any pragmatic concern someone might raise. The transgender students have a right to use the bathroom of their gender. That right doesn't come with the additional limitation of "unless it makes anyone uncomfortable". Our right to free speech has limitations - we can't yell fire in a crowded theater, we can't instigate a fight by threatening someone, but that doesn't mean it also has the limitation "you can't say anything that makes someone uncomfortable". Pragmatic limitations can certainly be included in rights, but we can't just create new limitations that aren't in the law whenever we find ourselves in an awkward or uncomfortable situation involving that right.
The only reason to trump a right is because it conflicts with some other value. When you make a determination using both of those values, you are making a trade off or determination using pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only way you can balance rights that conflict.
Do you understand, your entire objection to my argument earlier was entirely focused on not even acknowledging the potential repercussions becasue, a right is a right.....damn the repercussions.
If there are two rights that are in conflict, then we need a way to balance them. But there aren't two rights in conflict here - there's one right, the Title IX right of the transgender students, and one feeling of discomfort or offense. You don't have the right to not be uncomfortable, and we don't "pragmatically" limit rights whenever they might make someone feel uncomfortable.
Yes, a right is a right. Damn the repercussions. That is not the same as saying a right cannot include limitations. But if the right does not include limitations you might want, then too bad. A right is a right.
In circles we go...
So you oppose all new gun regulation?
(Gee, I wonder why anyone would put a limitation on a right.
When people seek to limit gun rights, they seek to codify those limitations into the appropriate law. If you want to limit the rights of transgender students to use bathrooms, that has to start with a repeal or revision of Title IX. Until then, those students have a right that cannot be ignored because of pragmatic concerns.
I'm sorry, your response is nonsensical to the context we are discussing.
Man, if ever there were an example of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. Please, enlighten me as to how -this- is the nonsensical response in this thread, not your rambling posts about pragmatism.
Why are they seeking to limit gun rights? It's due to the repercussions of gun ownership, i.e. death. Your response only discussed what they were doing, or the process they are taking to change those laws. Nothing in my post discussed the process people use to change laws. Your response was nonsensical to my post.
No one is talking about the process people use to change laws. What we are talking about is the ways in which rights can be limited. They can be limited through the law - not through schools deciding their students can't handle the concept of trans people and choosing to ignore the rights of their trans students. It doesn't matter what the repercussions might be, as long as Title IX remains the law, trans students have the right to use the bathroom of their gender. If you're concerned about the repercussions, and think that trans students therefore shouldn't have that right, the only way around it is to change the law.
Is English not your first language or something? When you say "the process people use to change laws" that means things like bills, referendums, petitions, vetos, amendments, etc. - the actual process of altering a law.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)