Baman said: Uh, no, no I'm not. Evolution is a blind and natural process, it's completely devoid of value or morals. It's merely a neutral force of nature, and thus it is the only objective standard we can set that's not influenced by human morality. In every your posts, where's evolution involved - you're praising like a some kind of a God. That unintelligent forces knows what is best for us. We have a brain, we have intelligence and you want to just throw it in garbage. Well, destroying mankind is hardly a intelligent and efficient way to make anything better, now is it? Your antinatalist ideology just equates to giving up and deleting the whole prospect of "better" by eliminating all life rather than actually trying to do anything at all. I already answered this - why do we have such ideology. But sure, we are up for better world but we just don't see it coming, people are okay with such world, actually I see horizon pretty grim. And you're misreading me, I'm not saying following evolution and nature's rules is necessarily the best, indeed, culture has overtaken evolution anyways, and if we truly want to become better, we'll have to rely on our intelligence and technology to proceed, if we don't want to stay like this (though I don't see why not), then some form of transhumanism is clearly our best bet. But its you who said that we have to sway away human values and morals. I'm not misrepresenting your words. Or you mean something else with that? But taking away human ideas and just looking at the cold facts of nature is the only truly objective way to view the world. Your position is just throwing morality and emotions all over the place in comparison, just the same shit as you accuse everyone else of doing. Not at all, I'm not here and saying that: This is how I feel. I take a philosophical, emotionless point of view on world, pretty much. Hitchens said: Proud of yourself? Actually yes, I am. Received eve a blue ribbon. Besides, you're confusing biological evolution with social Darwinism. That clearly wasn't my point. I've always had the impression that Baman is advocating social Darwinism with his "Survives the strongest, etc". This is false on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. Dragonflies first appear on Carboniferous Period, that is ~300 million years ago. And since that time, evolutionists believe, that they have not changed much in that long time. I surely wasn't implying that evolution stops, it's stupid to start with, but I understand what you mean. natural selection is blind - it doesn't strive to make anything I can agree that is has no goal nor intent of making a perfect being. What I was trying to say is that natural selection, evolution sharpens species, it adapts them for better survival, for better hunting. You don't have to take it literally, you understand what I mean. |
| LUL |
one-more-time said: No. Stop building strawmen.In every your posts, where's evolution involved - you're praising like a some kind of a God. That unintelligent forces knows what is best for us. We have a brain, we have intelligence and you want to just throw it in garbage. But its you who said that we have to sway away human values and morals. I'm not misrepresenting your words. Or you mean something else with that? Oh come on, did you even try to read what I've written? My whole point was showing how your position is just as retarded and based on human morality and subjective ideas as you blame everything else of being. Yes, human morals and values are worthless in the end, no that does not mean we have to throw them away as it is sometimes good to make believe. But it does mean they are all equally devoid of any truth or intrinsic value.Not at all, I'm not here and saying that: This is how I feel. I take a philosophical, emotionless point of view on world, pretty much. Except you don't. Your position is obviously highly emotional or else you wouldn't give a shit about people's suffering, derp. So if you are being a antinatalist activists, you are doing the exact same thing as you accuse everyone else of doing, that is, forcing your own subjective morality on other people. So don't feel so righteous and smug as you decry others that "force" children into the world and potential pain because it coincides with their moral values, when you preach about doing the same thing the other way around. |
one-more-time said: Dragonflies first appear on Carboniferous Period, that is ~300 million years ago. And since that time, evolutionists believe, that they have not changed much in that long time. I am going to push you on this one, please present some citations to back up this extraordinary claim. Exactly which evolutionists believe that the dragonfly hasn't changed much since the Carboniferous? What I was trying to say is that natural selection, evolution sharpens species, it adapts them for better survival, for better hunting. Not necessarily for better hunting, for instance gazelles (the hunted) evolved to outrun cheetahs (the hunter). But take the example of the dragonfly in the Carboniferous period - Meganeura, related to the current dragonfly, was bigger and faster, so naturally a better hunter. But it went extinct. It doesn't matter whether the species is a good hunter or not, and the dragonfly is certainly no improvement over the Meganeura. I have stressed this before, and will stress it again: Don't pretend to know things you don't know. You don't have to take it literally, you understand what I mean. Come now, if you didn't want me to take your blatantly absurd claim of evolution making "perfect killing machines" literally, then you should have made that clear. What else was I to make of this then Dragonflies have been the same for 300million years, there is no evolution anymore, it's a successful machine, it doesn't need to evolve and that is how evolution also works, once it makes perfect little killing machine it doesn't have to make it any better. Would it not have helped your case to caution the reader with "don't take this literally", or "this is only metaphorical", or "I know nothing about evolution, so take no offence towards my misrepresentations of it"? Hmm? We're not mind-readers you know, we can only interpret what you wrote as you wrote it. GH0STSMILES said: legalize assisted suicde. everyone who wants to exit now has an easy way to do so Now this is definitely a better solution than exterminating mankind. I'm for assisted suicide, because I believe that an individual's life is their own, and if they wish to end it, they should receive assistance for painlessly getting it over with. what age is accepatble for someone to seek assisted suicide? Probably the same age where you're considered an "adult" in your country. saying no one should give birth because everyone suffers eventually is too simple and clean and anser to be taken seriously, it really is. it ignores so many variables of life as an solution. why is suffering put above happiness? what logic decided that? Exactly. This is something our anti-natalist friend here doesn't seem to get - suffering is part of life. If you want to live in this world, you are going to suffer; some will suffer very little, some will suffer a shit tone, but most of us suffer to a moderate extent. @one-more-time: Your stance would make a little more sense if the amount of suffering outweighed the amount of happiness. Let me pose to you a question that you didn't answer when I first asked: Hitchens said: There are some for whom it is a fetish that which you consider suffering, so consider this: What if a child was born who would grow up to find joy in what you might find suffering? After all, your idea of suffering may not be as bad for the next guy. If this child grows up to develop a fetish out of what you call suffering, and as such enjoys it, would you deny his right to life? Would you suggest that he would have been happier if he'd not been born? |
Baman said: Except you don't. Your position is obviously highly emotional or else you wouldn't give a shit about people's suffering. You can say that when you'll approach the subject without the notions in your head and will stop explaining why the heroin addict likes the heroin. Psychology is death to the truth. Look at what life is: consumption, reproduction, cannibalism and addiction. If you want to put something else in a bowl be sure to back it up. Take a look in nature - does it make sense to you, this every day chase, one beasts chomping other? There's nothing more in human life than ego gratification, it's either through you or through others. The silly notions, the happiness notion. I mean, my life isn't miserable that I'd love to die today or tomorrow, it's about how fucked up this life is, the price for the ride is just too high, the risk is too high, the shitty destiny straw will be stuck for that person forever and you're drawing it for him. Hitchens said: Now this is definitely a better solution than exterminating mankind. I'm for assisted suicide, because I believe that an individual's life is their own, and if they wish to end it, they should receive assistance for painlessly getting it over with. Of course. Assisted suicide and Parental licensing would be the perfect compromise, but I don't see it coming because people suck. Exactly. This is something our anti-natalist friend here doesn't seem to get - suffering is part of life. If you want to live in this world, you are going to suffer; some will suffer very little, some will suffer a shit tone, but most of us suffer to a moderate extent. Your stance would make a little more sense if the amount of suffering outweighed the amount of happiness. Let me pose to you a question that you didn't answer when I first asked: There are some for whom it is a fetish that which you consider suffering, so consider this: What if a child was born who would grow up to find joy in what you might find suffering? After all, your idea of suffering may not be as bad for the next guy. If this child grows up to develop a fetish out of what you call suffering, and as such enjoys it, would you deny his right to life? Would you suggest that he would have been happier if he'd not been born? So this is a popularity contest? As I already wrote: I'd be more concerned about the one out of five people who dislikes and despises existence itself. Especially when there is no need for us to exist. I don't see people making this ride more fail-safe. Our technology will evolve so does the weapons and science has no answer to such exploitation. But people will argue that it somehow brings more good to the world than the bad. Then I'd ask: Why they think that the victory is worth all the defeat. Why do they that think that the greatest day as a human experience on this planet right now and the worst day being experience by a human being on this planet, somehow if you add those two the plus is somehow better than the minus. But it went extinct. It doesn't matter whether the species is a good hunter or not, and the dragonfly is certainly no improvement over the Meganeura. Because the environment is much different than it was then. I am going to push you on this one, please present some citations to back up this extraordinary claim. Exactly which evolutionists believe that the dragonfly hasn't changed much since the Carboniferous? Wrong word there, had to use: By evolutionists own admission* page 13 Dragonflies have been around for almost 300 million years and paleontologists have found huge variations of them embedded in rock, giving scientists excellent documented proof that they haven't changed much over time. (inb4 please provide fossils or it didn't happen) |
one-more-timeJun 6, 2012 3:51 PM
| LUL |
one-more-time said: You can say that when you'll approach the subject without the notions in your head and will stop explaining why the heroin addict likes the heroin. Psychology is death to the truth. Look at what life is: consumption, reproduction, cannibalism and addiction. If you want to put something else in a bowl be sure to back it up. Take a look in nature - does it make sense to you, this every day chase, one beasts chomping other? There's nothing more in human life than ego gratification, it's either through you or through others. The silly notions, the happiness notion. I mean, my life isn't miserable that I'd love to die today or tomorrow, it's about how fucked up this life is, the price for the ride is just too high, the risk is too high, the shitty destiny straw will be stuck for that person forever and you're drawing it for him. Yes, it makes perfect sense. That's the best part of life. Be able to consume more, afford more, be able to be better than others. Humans LIVE to be able to show that they are better than the other guy. Also, yes, it does make sense that nature is done through natural selection. The weak die, the strong survive. It's a simple concept. one-more-time said: So this is a popularity contest? As I already wrote: I'd be more concerned about the one out of five people who dislikes and despises existence itself. Especially when there is no need for us to exist. I don't see people making this ride more fail-safe. Our technology will evolve so does the weapons and science has no answer to such exploitation. But people will argue that it somehow brings more good to the world than the bad. Then I'd ask: Why they think that the victory is worth all the defeat. Why do they that think that the greatest day as a human experience on this planet right now and the worst day being experience by a human being on this planet, somehow if you add those two the plus is somehow better than the minus. I'm sorry but if the ratio for suffering is 1:4, as you showed in your example, that still means 80% of people enjoy living. One person's suffering is worth 4 people finding happiness. Additionally, victory is worth all the defeat because at the end of the day, the person who achieved victory gets something be it glory, money, or what have you, they are able to set themselves apart from the masses of failures in the world. one-more-time said: Because the environment is much different than it was then. The principle of natural selection and evolution hasn't changed ever in the history of life on Earth. one-more-time said: Dragonflies have been around for almost 300 million years and paleontologists have found huge variations of them embedded in rock, giving scientists excellent documented proof that they haven't changed much over time. (inb4 please provide fossils or it didn't happen) He wants proof, he asked for you to provide it. Your anecdotal evidence isn't worth scrap. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
one-more-time said: No, I can say it already because it's the obvious truth.You can say that when you'll approach the subject without the notions in your head and will stop explaining why the heroin addict likes the heroin. Take a look in nature - does it make sense to you, this every day chase, one beasts chomping other? Yes, yes it does.There's nothing more in human life than ego gratification, it's either through you or through others. The silly notions, the happiness notion. Again, just your subjective morals and values, and your position is not any more worthy in any way than anyone else's.I mean, my life isn't miserable that I'd love to die today or tomorrow, it's about how fucked up this life is, the price for the ride is just too high, the risk is too high, the shitty destiny straw will be stuck for that person forever and you're drawing it for him. Still, who gives a shit. You're obviously in a minority, most people think life is worth it enough, therefore your position makes no sense to anyone but yourselves.And the alternative you present would be just as fucked up and shitty, you'd trade one misery for another, and your solution would be a lot lot worse to the majority anyway, simple as that. Also lol, "destiny" and "forever"? Come on now. |
jrgcool35 said: Yes, it makes perfect sense. That's the best part of life. Be able to consume more, afford more, be able to be better than others. Humans LIVE to be able to show that they are better than the other guy. Life makes sense because that I can show how big ego I have? Your argument screams out loud: I'm a greedy gluttonous pig. I'm sorry but if the ratio for suffering is 1:4, as you showed in your example, that still means 80% of people enjoy living. One person's suffering is worth 4 people finding happiness. Additionally, victory is worth all the defeat because at the end of the day, the person who achieved victory gets something be it glory, money, or what have you, they are able to set themselves apart from the masses of failures in the world. For you it's popularity contest. Will it be so even if you'd have flesh-eating disease or some other nasty shit? You sure wouldn't sit there and suffer for the people who find happiness in eating popcorn and watching American Idol, buying a new iPhone. It's sad that you find value in money and exploiting other people, stepping over other people. The principle of natural selection and evolution hasn't changed ever in the history of life on Earth. I don't get your point. The conditions now are different than it was, that is why we don't see dinosaurs in the wild. He wants proof, he asked for you to provide it. Your anecdotal evidence isn't worth scrap. I did that. @Baman, what ever, we're just going in circles. Well yea, you don't give a shit about the people who find your phantasmagorical fairy-tale disgusting. When it comes to assisted suicide I'm sure you are for it, but not because you'd care about the ones who'd use this right, but so you could enjoy your little life-joys in a peace and quiet. |
one-more-timeJun 6, 2012 4:14 PM
| LUL |
one-more-time said: Hitchens said: Now this is definitely a better solution than exterminating mankind. I'm for assisted suicide, because I believe that an individual's life is their own, and if they wish to end it, they should receive assistance for painlessly getting it over with. Of course. Assisted suicide and Parental licensing would be the perfect compromise, but I don't see it coming because people suck. I agree, I don't see assisted suicide being legalized (at least not globally) any time soon. Still, the point remains that an option other than genocide exists. It may not come into action any time soon, but we have to be realistic - flying cars may not arrive anytime soon, doesn't mean we should give up on them. It's the same principle. So this is a popularity contest? Don't misconstrue my words. As I already wrote: I'd be more concerned about the one out of five people who dislikes and despises existence itself. Fallacy. You are essentially counting the hits and forgetting the misses. You seem to be willing to dispel the lives of those 4/5 persons in favor of the 1/5 (to say nothing of where you pulled that statistic from). Even if 1/5 people were miserable, that gives you no right to ostracize the right to life of the majority: the 4/5. As for the statistic you just presented, where did you find it? Our technology will evolve so does the weapons and science has no answer to such exploitation. But people will argue that it somehow brings more good to the world than the bad. Except that it does bring more good to the world. Significantly more. Science and technology has saved more lives than it has taken. The Haber Process is responsible for sustaining one-third of the Earth's population, and that's a single invention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process Life expectancy has gone up, thanks to science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy It all depends on how you use it of course - you wouldn't blames the guy who made the knife for the lives that the knife took. So I wouldn't blame science as much as I would blame human fallibility and the inability to conduct critical thinking. Dragonflies have been around for almost 300 million years and paleontologists have found huge variations of them embedded in rock, giving scientists excellent documented proof that they haven't changed much over time. (inb4 please provide fossils or it didn't happen) I was going to deal with this, but jrgcool35 already replied to this point. So I'll add this: tough shit, people testify to being abducted by aliens. Your anecdotes bear no weight whatsoever on the reality of the issues. Elementary, my dear anti-antalist, provide evidence. Edit: saw what you posted, will take a look. |
HitchensJun 6, 2012 4:26 PM
one-more-time said: Life makes sense because that I can show how big ego I have? Your argument screams out loud: I'm a greedy gluttonous pig. That's how life is for humanity in general, actually that's how all life is in general. It's better than your anti-natalist option where everyone should be dead to appease to a tiny few who are suffering immensely. I see the logic in that! one-more-time said: For you it's popularity contest. Will it be so even if you'd have flesh-eating disease or some other nasty shit? You sure wouldn't sit there and suffer for the people who find happiness in eating popcorn and watching American Idol, buying a new iPhone. It's sad that you find value in money and exploiting other people, stepping over other people. I don't have a flesh-eating disease, and neither does the huge majority of the world (Actually I think the percentage of people with necrotizing fasciitis that cannot be treated is less than 1% in the world). As a counter point, I think it's sad that you believe that a tiny few should be able to dictate humanity's course. That's quite the arrogant perspective. Holy crap, the incidence rate of necrotizing fasciitis is LESS THAN 2 in 1,000,000 with a death rate of 30%. That's isn't worth "killing" 7,000,000,000 over. http://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthfiles/hfile60.stm one-more-time said: I don't get your point. The conditions now are different than it was, that is why we don't see dinosaurs in the wild. The conditions for natural selection are not different. The dinosaurs were at the top of the food chain because they could kill other things better than they could kill dinosaurs. They were the strongest simply put. The same thing with us today, we are at the top of the food chain. one-more-time said: I did that. Was posted after I posted, but thanks, I'll take a look at that took just because I'm interested in your claims. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
one-more-time said: Sure, doctor assisted euthanasia should be legal. And of course I don't care about random people I've never met.@Baman, what ever, we're just going in circles. Well yea, you don't give a shit about the people who find your phantasmagorical fairy-tale disgusting. When it comes to assisted suicide I'm sure you are for it, but not because you'd care about the ones who'd use this right, but so you could enjoy your little life-joys in a peace and quiet. Just so long as you understand that you're just spewing subjective morality, and are thus just as bad as the ones you judge. That's the only objective truth in the end. |
| @one-more-time This pdf made an interesting point http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/techpub/dragon/dragon.pdf However I'm not sure that this is the prevailing view. After all, the dragonfly in the Carboniferous had a larger wing span: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/dragonfly-facts.html After all, it went from this to this Surely, you would consider that a noticeable change. But this is a massive digression and irrelevant to this discussion; unless of course you still think that evolution slowed for the dragonfly because it perfected a "killing machine" ;) one-more-time said: jrgcool35 said: The principle of natural selection and evolution hasn't changed ever in the history of life on Earth. I don't get your point. The conditions now are different than it was, that is why we don't see dinosaurs in the wild. We don't see dinosaurs in the wild because they got decimated by a comet with a 10 km diameter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater This was an external event, the dinosaurs died out because they couldn't adapt quickly enough to the sudden environmental changes brought forth by the impact. If the comet hadn't struck the earth when it did, dinosaurs would be the prominent species, not humans. Edit: Sorry Post-Josh Post-Josh said: I would run for my precious life if I saw one of those flying abominations. @Hitchens. I saw into the future of this thread apparently. Haha, this was my fault. I posted my comment, but later noticed something critical I missed responding to, so I went back to edit my post and accidentally deleted it. But good thing I had it all on 'copy', so I ended up posting it again. |
HitchensJun 6, 2012 5:07 PM
Hitchens said: It may not come into action any time soon, but we have to be realistic - flying cars may not arrive anytime soon, doesn't mean we should give up on them. It's the same principle. Just like the wars. New nasty diseases. Don't misconstrue my words. I'm sorry if I did, just I have the impression and that is what I see in your and other people posts: as long there are more delusioned akhem happy people - the life is worth it. Fallacy. You are essentially counting the hits and forgetting the misses. You seem to be willing to dispel the lives of those 4/5 persons in favor of the 1/5 (to say nothing of where you pulled that statistic from). Even if 1/5 people were miserable, that gives you no right to ostracize the right to life of the majority: the 4/5. As for the statistic you just presented, where did you find it? After all, the statement that 1/5-th of the world's population despises existence would make for some devastating news. I'd argue that satisfying a desire isn't the same as enduring a misery. That it's a category error to throw these two things in the same pile. They are different things. Silly ambitions, silly senses of accomplishment, gratifications - they're different kind of thing, mechanism than the raw fact of something having cancer and dieing miserably and enduring lots of moments of conscious distress. One is an absolute, without a doubt bad thing and other is only good as a matter of an individual perception, if you don't have that individual perception of value, if you have no taste for it - it has no taste. Where the suffering has a taste, it universally has a negative character that can't be unraveled by any kind of consciousness. If you impose that sensation on a consciousness it can only interpret it in one way: This is fucking horrible. We're not talking here about fear and desire but it's suffering and desire. Let's make the human race even dumber and they'll be even happier in their squalor. They'll enjoy even more their turd-swimming games.Lets genetically make human beings dumber and dumber and dumber and what will make them happier and happier and happier. That's a fact. That is what points another arrow in your philosophy and says: Ah, is this the Intelligent perception? Or this is just the bullshit, an idiot servant perception? Look what have you done. I didn't want to come back to this-,- Except that it does bring more good to the world. Significantly more. Science and technology has saved more lives than it has taken. As well it has done many nasty things, to say the least. The horizon doesn't look so bright, when I look at it. The wars will not magically end, the weapons will grow in power and destruction. Scientists have no answer for the exploitation. jrgcool35 said: That's how life is for humanity in general, actually that's how all life is in general. It's better than your anti-natalist option where everyone should be dead to appease to a tiny few who are suffering immensely. I see the logic in that! You're intelligent but not in a way that it matters. You can multiply 10 digit numbers but you can't avoid pooping in you pants. That's what you're doing when defending nature - you're just pooping. There's nothing to defend, it's all esthetics, it's all an illusion of attractiveness and pleasantness when all there really is is tooth and fang. Chase for no purpose, treadmills going nowhere. Self illusion of accomplishment some sort of personal perception of ego gratification: I beat life! That's all you assholes are getting off on. I don't have a flesh-eating disease, and neither does the huge majority of the world (Actually I think the percentage of people with necrotizing fasciitis that cannot be treated is less than 1% in the world). As a counter point, I think it's sad that you believe that a tiny few should be able to dictate humanity's course. That's quite the arrogant perspective. Holy crap, the incidence rate of necrotizing fasciitis is LESS THAN 2 in 1,000,000 with a death rate of 30%. That's isn't worth "killing" 7,000,000,000 over. And you ignored other nasty shit. Or do I have to write a list of them? The argument is not that the people are enduring such suffering but that people are exposing potential human being to such risk. A gamble with others welfare. Plus you assholes have not came up with a simple assisted suicide policy. The conditions for natural selection are not different. The dinosaurs were at the top of the food chain because they could kill other things better than they could kill dinosaurs. They were the strongest simply put. The same thing with us today, we are at the top of the food chain. I'm not arguing that natural selection is any different now. I'm just arguing that we have different conditions, environment than it was before which evolved Meganeura and saying that it was better than Dragonfly is just irrelevant assumption. |
one-more-timeJun 6, 2012 5:26 PM
| LUL |
one-more-time said: You're intelligent but not in a way that it matters. You can multiply 10 digit numbers but you can't avoid pooping in you pants. That's what you're doing when defending nature - you're just pooping. There's nothing to defend, it's all esthetics, it's all an illusion of attractiveness and pleasantness when all there really is is tooth and fang. Chase for no purpose, treadmills going nowhere. Self illusion of accomplishment some sort of personal perception of ego gratification: I beat life! That's all you assholes are getting off on. I never said nature was attractive or pleasant, I actually said it was quite the opposite. Stop shoving words in my god damn mouth. Also, insulting me only degrades yourself, I won't stoop to your level and turn this into a flame thread. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
| I was thinking to myself just now, "Wouldn't it be hillarious if I just deleted this thread?" but alas I cannot, and so this long and tedious discussion seems destined to carry on for all eternity... |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKano said: I was thinking to myself just now, "Wouldn't it be hillarious if I just deleted this thread?" but alas I cannot, and so this long and tedious discussion seems destined to carry on for all eternity... It would be pretty funny, the thread seems to be reaching a critical mass though, and should erupt into a long streak of insults pretty soon. I have a few ideas for a new thread on General Discussion that can promote actual thought. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
jrgcool35 said: I never said nature was attractive or pleasant. Stop shoving words in my god damn mouth. It's really a terrible tactic. Also, insulting me only degrades yourself, I won't stoop to your level and turn this into a flame thread. Well but you said that nature is a better choice than resting in peace. Consumption, reproduction, cannibalism and addiction are the best parts of life. And that it makes perfect sense. I don't see where I misrepresented what you said. |
| LUL |
one-more-time said: jrgcool35 said: I never said nature was attractive or pleasant. Stop shoving words in my god damn mouth. It's really a terrible tactic. Also, insulting me only degrades yourself, I won't stoop to your level and turn this into a flame thread. Well but you said that nature is a better choice than resting in peace. Consumption, reproduction, cannibalism and addiction are the best parts of life. And that it makes perfect sense. I don't see where I misrepresented what you said. There are so many things I'd rather do before being dead, actually I probably won't even get to do all the things I want to do before I die. I want to be successful, do something to be remembered by, see places around the world. It doesn't matter that in the end life really doesn't matter. EDIT: I'm done with this thread, don't expect a response. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
jrgcool35 said: There are so many things I'd rather do before being dead, actually I probably won't even get to do all the things I want to do before I die. I want to be successful, do something to be remembered by, see places around the world. It doesn't matter that in the end life really doesn't matter. Sure - do them, I don't care what you're doing to or with yourself. I'm not arguing that YOU nor any other living being has to die. The argument is about imposition(we need a better word for this). EDIT: I'm done with this thread, don't expect a response. It's cool. Wish I could do it so easy. |
| LUL |
AnnoKano said: I was thinking to myself just now, "Wouldn't it be hillarious if I just deleted this thread?" but alas I cannot, and so this long and tedious discussion seems destined to carry on for all eternity... I wish you could, reading both sides of the argument is an exhibition in degradation and embarrassment for all concerned. Neither side comes out of the argument smelling of roses. |
 |
AnnoKano said: I was thinking to myself just now, "Wouldn't it be hillarious if I just deleted this thread?" but alas I cannot, and so this long and tedious discussion seems destined to carry on for all eternity... I actually found this thread quite amusing to read through. So for that, I thank you. |
| Morality can cover a large portion of speaking. Although religious morality is to be kept out of government to avoid problems. I spent time in the Unites States and am still here at the moment and they were founded on excellent principles. However, those principles seem to not be followed, for example:Separation from religion and state. We have political correctness, pro-life pro-choice, polygamy, homosexual marriages, zoo-sexual acts, and prostitution. The main problem with these is that many religions, especially those of Christian faith want the word of the bible to be in law. The US was founded as a "Free country" so you can be whatever religion you desire, speak freely, and live freely. So by religions getting their code of laws documented into federal laws it violates many freedoms. Just because your religion thinks homosexual marriage is unlawful does not mean it should be unlawful in a federal way. I see the United States doomed to fail in the future because the principles they set were too high and many are not being followed which causes unrest and gets worse and worse as time progresses. Basic moralities such as, murder, thievery, rape, and other things should be enforced because it brings harm amongst oneself that is irreversible. Two men having a marriage does not kill you, mortally wound you, or take your home. -Daedric |
| but you don't even know how dank my memes are |
one-more-time said: Silly ambitions, silly senses of accomplishment, gratifications - they're different kind of thing, mechanism than the raw fact of something having cancer and dieing miserably and enduring lots of moments of conscious distress. One is an absolute, without a doubt bad thing and other is only good as a matter of an individual perception, if you don't have that individual perception of value, if you have no taste for it - it has no taste. Where the suffering has a taste, it universally has a negative character that can't be unraveled by any kind of consciousness. Why do you caricature ambitions and accomplishments by calling them "silly", yet consider suffering to be this grand universal entity? Sure, there could be an absolute bad - where every conscious creature suffers for as long as it can and as much as it can - but then one can also argue for a sort of maximum good. For example, if you're born in royalty, your life will generally be exceptional, by everyone's standards. So quit shining joy and happiness in this negative light while elevating suffering to universal proportions. Both are a product of the mind, and as such are both subjective. The horizon doesn't look so bright, when I look at it. The wars will not magically end, the weapons will grow in power and destruction. Scientists have no answer for the exploitation. Wars are not the scientist's problem, as I have already pointed out - don't blame the knife maker, blame the knife wielder. Thus science itself should not be blamed for wars, politicians (to pick a major cause) should. Let's make the human race even dumber and they'll be even happier in their squalor. They'll enjoy even more their turd-swimming games.Lets genetically make human beings dumber and dumber and dumber and what will make them happier and happier and happier. That's a fact. That is what points another arrow in your philosophy and says: Ah, is this the Intelligent perception? Or this is just the bullshit, an idiot servant perception? I give up, now you're just pulling arguments out of your ass to either fill space or score points. None of this makes any sense whatsoever. This will probably be my last reply, unless something exceptional happens. |
AnnoKano said: The idea came up when I was discussing whether or not prostitution should be legalised with some friends. My friend said he was against it on moral grounds, and for that reason it should be illegal. The discussion went on beyond that and other points were made but I thought discussing this one in greater detail would be interesting. My own view is that it should not be the state's duty to enforce morality on citizens, but that's largely because I don't consider it to be feasible; just because you make something illegal does not mean that people will immediately stop doing it. At the same time, it will put a number of people off doing something. If the government is elected in democratic elections and includes a 'moral' policy in their manifesto, does that mean they have every right to make moral judgements as to what is and what is not acceptable behaviour? Laws based on morality could include a number of things, including drugs, prostitution, pornography, indecent exposure... I'd like you to focus on the morality of these issues when discussing them, rather than on the implications they might have either way. I am only really concerned with the question at hand. Should the Law be used to Enforce Morality? Prostitution is not so much illegal for moral reasons as it is illegal because allowing it encourages human trafficking and sexual slavery. Since prostitutes are usually female it also serves in objectifying women which doing so affects all women and not just those involved in the 'profession'. So regardless of the moral ramifications I'd say prostitution should remain illegal for practical reasons. As for whether it should be used to enforce morality it already kind of does. People's rights are pretty much what society thinks people should have and thus laws prohibit things that might infringe on those creating an innate moral code, such as it's wrong to kill somebody because it infringes on the rights of others never mind the action is general considered 'wrong'. Drug use has other issues than just the cut and dry moral one for example it impairs people's ability to function at a normal level and thus could put others at risk and not just themselves. If it only affects those who are taking part for the most part things are legal whether they could be viewed as immoral or not. Suicide being illegal is the only thing I can currently think of that is pretty much purely a moral decision since you're just inflicting harm to yourself (unless you count emotional damage to those who might care for you) yet it's illegal. Laws such as smoking bans, or having drugs be illegal or regulated such is the case with alcohol are usually to protect rights of others since somebody exposed to second-hand smoke is harmed and it's not just the smoker at that point who is putting themselves at risk. I don't think it'd be wise to remove the DUI laws which are like most of the laws moral issues at it's core. As for my views laws to enforce morality for the sake of enforcing morality, no, laws that have a basis in morality because it potentially protects others from those making the choices, yes. After all it's not illegal to sleep with somebody's spouse, but I think most would agree it's not exactly 'right'. I'm tempted to say suicide should be legal, but I fear that wouldn't go over to well. |
 |
Dwlr said: The first part of the argument obviously doesn't hold water though. Prostitution is not so much illegal for moral reasons as it is illegal because allowing it encourages human trafficking and sexual slavery. Since prostitutes are usually female it also serves in objectifying women which doing so affects all women and not just those involved in the 'profession'. So regardless of the moral ramifications I'd say prostitution should remain illegal for practical reasons. It is only because it is illegal that it encourage human trafficking and slavery. Obviously, if prostitution was legal, and run in licensed, tax paying brothels under strict government regulations, human trafficking would gradually disappear, as well as abusive pimps and most related STDs and drug addiction troubles. As for objectification of women, that's hardly something that can be solved by illegalising prostitution. And if it was legal, there would be more opportunity for the state to enforce policy on the brothels to prevent unwilling degrading treatment, and maybe even allow the prostitutes to do their trade more on their own premises. In the end, it's not something one can ever get rid of, so surely it's better to accept it and limit the problems connected to it rather than ignore the problem altogether and allow human trafficking and slavery to continue. Ooblagato said: Eh, so long as the help comes out of their own pockets. In fact, legal drug use allows for drug abusers to seek help openly and reduces drug related crime. The system here is completely retarded, where it's illegal to buy and posses, but the junkies can still get tons of money from the state and even safehouses in which to junk themselves up. So in the end you get a bunch of zombies leeching off of government money to get their next fix. If there's to be any program to help those sods, it would have to be something akin to forced labour camps on a farm or something far off from the city and prevent them from going back to their old haunts. |
Baman said: Eh, so long as the help comes out of their own pockets. The system here is completely retarded, where it's illegal to buy and posses, but the junkies can still get tons of money from the state and even safehouses in which to junk themselves up. So in the end you get a bunch of zombies leeching off of government money to get their next fix. If there's to be any program to help those sods, it would have to be something akin to forced labour camps on a farm or something far off from the city and prevent them from going back to their old haunts. I am surprised you acknowledge the benefits of legalising prostitution in the previous paragraph, yet when the same concept is applied to drug abusers, you fail to recognise the benefits of it. They call them addicts for a reason, and one way or another they will find some way to get their fix. The question is would you prefer that was in the form of government handouts provided at secure locations, or would you rather use things like robbery, leaching off family members or dealing drugs to find the money? You do not see many heroin addicts working professional full time jobs, and certainly not one with a salary large enough to fund a serious herion addiction. Are they supposed to pay before treatment or do they pay that money back once they are cured? Do you think there is much point in getting over your addiction if you're going to be crippled by massive debts for the rest of your life? Nobody likes the idea of giving someone's hard earned money to people who don't deserve it, but what are you going to do with them? Nothing short of putting them to death is going to absolve all the costs generated from the public, so you might as well find the best possible compromise, and that is unquestionably making the whole vulgar affair as safe and as far away from the general public as possible. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
Ooblagato said: Dwlr I don't think someone committing suicide cares if it's illegal or not. Also in places where prostitution is legal it is a much cleaner and safer environment and there is less chance of someone being forced into the lifestyle. I argue the claim of practicality on that point. In fact, legal drug use allows for drug abusers to seek help openly and reduces drug related crime. It seems to me all of these are purely on biased morals Such as? Human trafficking has increased in the Netherlands, a place known for legalized prostitution. Of course it's not high in people going out, but rather people going in. They have made campaigns to increase awareness and have increased sentences for trafficking in an effort to prevent the problem from growing larger. So at least in this case, legalizing did not decrease the issue, although I would not say it directly increased it either as I don't think that can be as easily quantified. Which countries drug crimes have decreased after legalization? Portugal is the only case that comes to mind, however decriminalized is much more accurate term when talking about Portugal as possession is still not legal and recreational use certainly isn't. Of course if you know of some countries that have provided quantified data on either topic I'd be interested to read them. Despite this though, I do agree, with the sentiment prostitution is illegal for moral reasons that are inherently bias. I think it would get rid of some needless underground business and provide a safer environment in terms of STD's if regulated. Drug use....I suppose it depends on what drug we are referencing, but many are illegal for good reason. http://english.bnrm.nl/reports/eighth/ ^full reports conducted by Dutch on human trafficking. |
| |
AnnoKano said: No, I recognize the benefit of legalising it, but not handing out undeserved pay checks that goes straight into fuelling their junk. I am surprised you acknowledge the benefits of legalising prostitution in the previous paragraph, yet when the same concept is applied to drug abusers, you fail to recognise the benefits of it. They call them addicts for a reason, and one way or another they will find some way to get their fix. The question is would you prefer that was in the form of government handouts provided at secure locations, or would you rather use things like robbery, leaching off family members or dealing drugs to find the money? You do not see many heroin addicts working professional full time jobs, and certainly not one with a salary large enough to fund a serious herion addiction. Are they supposed to pay before treatment or do they pay that money back once they are cured? Do you think there is much point in getting over your addiction if you're going to be crippled by massive debts for the rest of your life? Nobody likes the idea of giving someone's hard earned money to people who don't deserve it, but what are you going to do with them? Nothing short of putting them to death is going to absolve all the costs generated from the public, so you might as well find the best possible compromise, and that is unquestionably making the whole vulgar affair as safe and as far away from the general public as possible. There's a lot of alternative methods that could work. Give them some shitty but free accommodation if they need, and do some initiatives to get them some easy and flexible work so they can try to function somewhat. Then give them the option of signing up to treatment labour camps on some farm or something far away from the cities where they'll be forced to stay for a sustained amount of time that's deemed long enough to have a chance of curing them from their addiction. And if successful, allow for some way of getting into a permanent new lifestyle. But just handing them money isn't going to work, you might as well flush it down the toilet. |
Baman said: AnnoKano said: No, I recognize the benefit of legalising it, but not handing out undeserved pay checks that goes straight into fuelling their junk. I am surprised you acknowledge the benefits of legalising prostitution in the previous paragraph, yet when the same concept is applied to drug abusers, you fail to recognise the benefits of it. They call them addicts for a reason, and one way or another they will find some way to get their fix. The question is would you prefer that was in the form of government handouts provided at secure locations, or would you rather use things like robbery, leaching off family members or dealing drugs to find the money? You do not see many heroin addicts working professional full time jobs, and certainly not one with a salary large enough to fund a serious herion addiction. Are they supposed to pay before treatment or do they pay that money back once they are cured? Do you think there is much point in getting over your addiction if you're going to be crippled by massive debts for the rest of your life? Nobody likes the idea of giving someone's hard earned money to people who don't deserve it, but what are you going to do with them? Nothing short of putting them to death is going to absolve all the costs generated from the public, so you might as well find the best possible compromise, and that is unquestionably making the whole vulgar affair as safe and as far away from the general public as possible. There's a lot of alternative methods that could work. Give them some shitty but free accommodation if they need, and do some initiatives to get them some easy and flexible work so they can try to function somewhat. Then give them the option of signing up to treatment labour camps on some farm or something far away from the cities where they'll be forced to stay for a sustained amount of time that's deemed long enough to have a chance of curing them from their addiction. And if successful, allow for some way of getting into a permanent new lifestyle. But just handing them money isn't going to work, you might as well flush it down the toilet. That is way too much work for the government to help people who are knowingly messing themselves up. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, people who make themselves addicts and take such negative drugs should just suffer consequences for it. You want to f*** yourself up? Then get f***ed up for it. Life is about choices, choose poorly then live with the consequences and try to fix it yourself if you can. |
 |
Synrite said: Still, that's not an option in a socialist welfare state. And even if it was, we'd probably have them turning even more desperate and get more homeless, more crime and so on and so forth.That is way too much work for the government to help people who are knowingly messing themselves up. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, people who make themselves addicts and take such negative drugs should just suffer consequences for it. You want to f*** yourself up? Then get f***ed up for it. Life is about choices, choose poorly then live with the consequences and try to fix it yourself if you can. And some sort of annual purge where the poorest and most decrepit quarters of the city is lit on fire along with it's miserable inhabitants probably wouldn't be a popular solution either. At best, forced labour camps or hardass military training might work, but again, that would still require a much more authoritarian society in order to be seen as legitimate and acceptable to the morals of the masses.. |
Baman said: Still, that's not an option in a socialist welfare state. And even if it was, we'd probably have them turning even more desperate and get more homeless, more crime and so on and so forth. And some sort of annual purge where the poorest and most decrepit quarters of the city is lit on fire along with it's miserable inhabitants probably wouldn't be a popular solution either. At best, forced labour camps or hardass military training might work, but again, that would still require a much more authoritarian society in order to be seen as legitimate and acceptable to the morals of the masses..  Is all I could think. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
| I'll join the last part of the discussion if you don't mind, the thread is too long and complex to embrace everything in it. I find it surprising to see the comparison between the case of drugs and the case of prostitution. The laws against drugs are based on the fact that they are potentially harmful products and what is pursued in most cases is the distribution (trafficking), that is, the ability to harm other people by doing the activity. The laws against prostitution are based on another kind of reasoning. In this case the offenders are, at the same time, the victims, as it's their own choice what harms them (always talking on the moral logic that drives to the development of these laws), and what they do doesn't affect other people. Laws, in general, are written to avoid social interactions in which one can be affected negatively while the other gets -or at least tries to- a benefit. Its purpose, therefore, is to punish any damage to other people's integrity, and to embody a sort of social pact. The problem with prostitution in this case is that, if anything (that is, if there is a harm), it's a self-inflicted harm, which is allowed by the legal system as it dictates that one has the right to do anything they want with their integrity as long as they don't affect the integrity of other people. In that sense, it's comparable to the case of suicide. The problem I see with the practical reasons mentioned in the thread, like the correlation between legalization of prostitution and human trafficking or slavery, is that they may work, and show the effectiveness of one measure or another in their impact in society, but that's not the reason why these decisions were made in the first place. And it compares two situations that are not equivalent, as prostitution is not the same as sex slavery, but drug trafficking is the same as drug trafficking. In one case the practical reason would be to avoid a hypothetical change from an act of self-determination to an act of attack against somebody else's freedom, and in the other the act that is prohibited is the same that tries to be avoided. |
jal90Jun 8, 2012 5:51 PM
jal90 said: Then again, other more accepted drugs, like tobacco and alcohol, can be just as, and sometimes even more harmful than some of the commonly banned drugs. Obviously with these, years of common use have rendered them normal and generally acceptable in the eye of the public, whereas newer forms of drugs are frowned upon whether they are more dangerous or not.I find it surprising to see the comparison between the case of drugs and the case of prostitution. The laws against drugs are based on the fact that they are potentially harmful products and what is pursued in most cases is the distribution (trafficking), that is, the ability to harm other people by doing the activity. Still, it's a individual choice on whether to take them. And there are obviously positive effects with them, otherwise, no one would use them in the first place. Who what about unhealthy food then? It too trades it long term health issues for short term satisfaction. And here, we've even gotten a proposition of making stuff like Happy meals and Kinder eggs illegal due to them being unhealthy food clearly marketed towards children with complimentary toys. Pretty retarded if you ask me. As far as I am concerned, the state should be required to ensure everyone knows the risks involved with unhealthy food as well as drugs, and even go to some lengths to attempt to help junkies, but making anything that's unhealthy illegal is ridiculous, it's like treating us all like children. If we deem it acceptable to destroy our bodies in exchange for momentary pleasures, then so be it, individual choice. Nyquist said: Then you mean laws in themselves make no sense either?Short answer:"Hell no, after all it makes no sense to begin with." |
| I haven't been following any conversations that've been going on, but I'd like to make a little input if that's okay. :) The laws which are enforced in each country today have been influenced (in their establishments) an awful lot by religious morality. I mean for example, the foundational laws we have in Britain, over in America and in lots of other traditionally Christian countries are based largely around Exodus and the 10 commandments in the bible. So the law basically IS morality anyway, or at least a basic foundational morality for people to build upon themselves. The fact that it's wrong to kill and steal are moral claims and also laws. Thus, if this basic morality was not enforced we would cease to have many laws at all... |
curiouser and curiouser :) |
Ooblagato said: There was one(pretty far out) celebrity lawyer that argued that people from certain, more medieval inspired cultures, should be allowed to commit acts such as honour killings et cetera, because that was ok according to their morality.Sara, yes, many laws are based on commonly accepted morals; but what about the people who don't accept those morals. Of course, the argument is completely and utterly retarded, since after all, in Norway, only Norwegian laws and morality, or any otherwise legally binding international treaties we have singed, should ever be valid. If we allow everyone and their cousin to do whatever they want on account of it being acceptable in their subjective morality, society would collapse. Being a moral nihilist, I don't keep any morality, and to me murder for profit would be completely acceptable. But living in a society like I do, I do of course realize I need to follow the rules if I am to receive it's benefits. Laws are a absolute necessity in a modern society, lest we want bloody anarchy and chaos all over, humanity as a whole is not yet mature enough to exist solely on our own without authoritarian guidelines keeping us in check. Slave morality is the prerequisite of the sprawling civilizations we have today. One additional argument about the drugs though, is that it may actually be sensible to deny unhealthy things in a socialist society like ours. After all, if someone gobbles too many cheesburgers or takes too many shots, it's the whole of society that pays for their hospital bills, thus making their otherwise individual choices have a negative effect on everyone else. One better alternative of course, is to inform of the dangers of these things, and then proceed to limit or wholly remove the socialist security net in the case of self inflicted harm. Still, I do doubt such a solution would be realistic. |
Ooblagato said: Yea but that would never last long. Without a comprehensive legal state to keep the peace, you'd have warlords popping up and turning what might have been functioning villages or city states into feudal kingdoms, and the lack of laws would mean the people would have no protection from tyrannical authorities. It's already happened after all, that's what went on for the majority of history.You say laws are absolutely necessary, so you say you would kill people to take their belongings if there were no laws correct? How about if you were to be completely outcast from society and hunted down? (Doesn't sound to different from what happens when you break the law does it?) Well that's what would happen without the state making up laws; peoples actions aren't going to change just because there's no 'law' against something. One or two criminals is one thing, but when they at some point turn into a right and proper warband led by a cunning and driven boss, a village lynch mob won't do shit. As for prevention, there's tons of incentive for the free market to make security far superior than anything the state has in place. And the ability to withdraw funding from a particular 'security provider' and direct it to a competitor removes the possibility of corruption. Obviously, there's no way that would work. If you have a commercial police force and court, it would inevitably be corrupted. Rich people and corporations would usher money into their chosen security providers and you can bet they would be biased. Wouldn't be any different from mercenaries, really. The mercs that actually want to uphold some sort of egalitarian justice system would always be driven out of business in favour for the ones that bend their rules and enforce the will of their paymasters. |
Baman said: Ooblagato said: There was one(pretty far out) celebrity lawyer that argued that people from certain, more medieval inspired cultures, should be allowed to commit acts such as honour killings et cetera, because that was ok according to their morality.Sara, yes, many laws are based on commonly accepted morals; but what about the people who don't accept those morals. Of course, the argument is completely and utterly retarded, since after all, in Norway, only Norwegian laws and morality, or any otherwise legally binding international treaties we have singed, should ever be valid. If we allow everyone and their cousin to do whatever they want on account of it being acceptable in their subjective morality, society would collapse. Being a moral nihilist, I don't keep any morality, and to me murder for profit would be completely acceptable. But living in a society like I do, I do of course realize I need to follow the rules if I am to receive it's benefits. You really need to look into legal pluralism a bit before dismissing the chances of multiple legal systems existing alongside each other. Indeed, it is arguable that multiple legal systems already exist alongside each other in any given jurisdiction if we take a more liberal definition of what a law is. Not just the black and white of the statute (i.e. content), the effect of any 'pseudo-laws' (let's call them) should be considered primarily. Look into the debate surrounding the introduction of Sharia law in the UK for a practical example of the presence of multiple legal systems based on different subjective (wait, they all are) moralities. |
|
Jack_Rav said: My point is, if it's not in the state's official code of laws, and someone follows some silly homebrewed or otherwise unofficial law that conflicts with the law, they are doing something illegal, and should rightly receive whatever punishment the real law prescribes for their transgressions. Look into the debate surrounding the introduction of Sharia law in the UK for a practical example of the presence of multiple legal systems based on different subjective (wait, they all are) moralities. When they live in a state, and doubly so if they are immigrants that chose to live there, they have signed the societal contract and are required to follow the right laws, no matter what their subjective morality implies. If they want to be able to throw acid in the face of women that refuse their advances or kill family members that hurt the family honour, they clearly have nothing to do in Norway or the UK, and should get back to wherever that is legal. |
Ooblagato said: democratic governments have three branches, legislative, executive and judicial. those three branches act as a system of checks and balances to ensure that corruption doesn't happen in the political system. countries have constitutions and if laws are passed by the legislative branch that don't follow the constitution, they get struck down by the judicial branch. thats an example of the system of checks and balances.Humans are corruptible, dishonest and selfish. Let's make a system where a small group of particularly corruptible, dishonest and selfish humans have a monopoly on power and the use of violence and label it 'government'. I hope you see the hypocrisy of what you're saying when you support the state and oppose free market solutions. In a free market people are able to direct their money to who they feel is actually providing a service and that actually supports their beliefs. With government they are forced with the threat of violence to direct their funds towards the government. I'm sure you're aware of how much the government wastes, if a private company with the goal to serve their customers was able to amass any thing close to proportional funds there would be no fear what so ever of 'warlords' successfully conquering any developed place (or living very long). you say free markets can avoid corruption because people can direct their money to whom they agree with, but who is say that the corporations won't lie to you? corporations do whats best for the corporation, not for the individual citizen. corporations can work together to make monopolies of power. an example would be cell phone service in north america.... cell phones are expensive in north america but not other parts of the world. north american corporations all got together and said, hey instead of competing with each other, lets just all set the price high so we all get a good chunk of the money? in a system where money is the deciding factor of who governs, the rich win and the poor lose. it isn't democratic at all. you can already see it happening ever since the citizens united thing that says corporations are people and money is speech. millions of dollars from unidentified sources poured into the political system to support candidates that are corporation friendly, as opposed to environmental or working-class friendly. corporations don't give a crap about the environment, they will want to destroy minimum wage, or insurance benefits for their workers. a free market solution is the MOST CORRUPTIBLE system because of lack of regulation. corporations will lie for the sake of gaining your dollar. they will work together when it suits them, and stab each other in the back when it suits them, but never will they give a crap about the citizens. heres a real life example of how a corporation will screw you for money; say you want a mortage on your house. you get approved for one that you will never afford, but it doesn't bother you because you got approved. a bank is responsible, right? they know what they are doing, right? well, that bank approves you, and yeah they know exactly what they are doing. they know how to dupe other creditors into buying the loan off them, promising they will make money off the interest. well, the creditors buy it, the banks make their money back instantly and now the new owners and holders of the loan realize they've been duped and want their money back now... from the person that got approved for the mortage, who can't possibly pay it back. this stuff happens from deregulation and its stuff like this thats why the southern countries of europe is in such a mess right now. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |