nitekrawler1285 said:
You still aren't showing me anyone whom has demanded anything or anyone saying this was a right. You have someone talking about Nintendo's human rights HISTORY and how they don't think that doesn't makes them a family friendly company. Saying the latter statement is the same as saying it's their right would be disengenuous.
The supreme court of New Mexico decided that it was unlawful discrimination. So if what they were doing was unlawful then using the force of the law to end the illegal descrimination should not be treated as amoral or unethical behavior.
as if they need social approval for their perfectly ethical (notice I didn't use moral - that is an argument I don't get into) actions. - You
You can't really have your cake and eat it too because in your first post that I quoted you did get into your percieved morality of their actions:
I oppose the sentiment among certain gays that using force to get somebody to bake you a cake or to get Nintendo to include same-sex partners in a game is moral - You
These certain gays aren't using the force of the law. They also aren't using any physical force as my previous example illustrated. If you could illustrate what force is being used I would greatly appreciate it. I would also still like to see the person claiming this is their right as well.
|
Each line corresponds with a line of your quote:
The statement (and others in this thread) imply that Nintendo is not recognizing the right of inclusion (this is used in the context of disability, but it is essentially the same thing for this discussion.) Otherwise, how can Nintendo be intruding upon one's "human rights" and how is it relevant to the context of this thread? What was the purpose of the quoted post, if not to say Nintendo is not performing a function to adhere to the rights of these individuals to be included? Remember the context of the thread. These are not claims in a vaccuum.
Lawful =/= ethical and/or moral. Fifty years ago discrimintation was not only allowed, but enforced by certain states. Was it ethical and/or moral to discriminate then, but not now? (Do note that law can be based on ethics or morals, but something mustn't be lawful for it to be ethical or moral nor must it be ethical or moral for it to be lawful.)
That quote was specifically dealing with morality in the context of their personal activity, dating and/or having sexual activity of members of the same sex. I view it as immoral and certainly unethical to intrude upon one's property rights and right to freely associate by claiming a right of inclusion. I do not see gay activity as immoral, however, especially since I partake in it myself and have no guilt. These are two different claims adding to the greater argument. One I view as useless to argue on moral grounds, while the other I do not. There is no contradiction there.
If a right is being intruded upon, then it is the responsibility of the law to end the intrusion. So if the right of inclusion is a real right, then it is the responsibility of the government to enforce this right (in our current society.) Then if one views Nintendo not putting gay marriage in their games as an abridgement of one's right to inclusion, then it is consequently the role of government to come in and force Nintendo to add this feature or not sell the game. That is the logical conclusion. One does not need to explicitly state that one wants the government to come in, because its the consequence of labeling the right of inclusion as a right which certain groups of persons and individuals hold.
