Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #61  
Old 06-07-2009, 11:29 PM
ranter ranter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 10-08-08
Location: RealityCheckVille
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
Where did I say otherwise?
Why are you making yourself look like some idiot?

You said: Liberal political theory is based on morality. Specifically, democratic morality.
I don’t see you to mention conservatives. By pointing to specifically democratic morality you effectively removed conservatives from the big picture without saying otherwise. But when I pinned your ass to the wall by showing to everybody that democratic morality is a child play compare to conservatives five moral variables and that you have no idea what you are talking about, all you could come up with is: Where did I say otherwise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
When did I line myself up with such a group?
Read again what topic of this thread is all about and then what you highlighted when I objected use of morality as legislative tool.

Help me to understand something. Which of the following groups you is associating your moral values: killers and rapist morality, or the guy who killed doctor morality, or religious fanatics morality, or rednecks morality, or people who are believe that everybody else must submit to their moral values and leave to them being the judge what’s right and what’s wrong, or morality of some repressive regime and so on or maybe you are driven by your own moral values? Please share it with us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
Modern political theory is based on the concept of law being based on morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
The legal standard of the reasonable person is not relevant or employed in any of the liberal political doctrines. It has to do with criminal law, and is used in determining culpability. And criminal law, again, is based for the most part on morality.
Well, I am sure you have examples of such Laws.


Last edited by ranter; 06-07-2009 at 11:36 PM.
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #62  
Old 06-08-2009, 12:10 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
You said: Liberal political theory is based on morality. Specifically, democratic morality.
I don’t see you to mention conservatives.
1. Why would I include conservatives in that, when we are not talking about conservatives? 2. It would be inaccurate to say that conservatives base their theory of law on democratic morality. Different groups within the label "conservative" oppose it.
Quote:
I pinned your ass to the wall by showing to everybody that democratic morality is a child play compare to conservatives

Perhaps if I were interested in defending conservatives, you might have scored some points. But I am not.

And you didn't pin my ass to anything, because you have yet to even understand the basic principles behind individualism and collectivism.

If you are pinning anybody's ass to anything, it's your own, because the conservative model which you attack shares its political foundation with your own liberalism. So, in essence, you've just claimed to have pinned your own ass to the wall.

You look like an total dweeb when you attack conservatives and expect me to be surprised. I am not here to defend conservatives. I'm here to show you to be a fool for not knowing the very political theory you attempt to speak of.


When you say that laws should not be legislated on the basis of morality, you demonstrate unfathomable ignorance. Think about that. Laws should not be legislated based on morality. Who else said that? Hint: I did, when attacking liberalism (and conservativism insofar as it is collectivist).

I was attempting to get you to think for yourself, so you might reach the same conclusions I have, but you evidently refuse to think at all.

I ask again:

Quote:
When did I line myself up with such a group?
Answer the question. If you cannot, be a man and apologize for falsely accusing me.

Quote:
killers and rapist morality, or the guy who killed doctor morality, or religious fanatics morality, or rednecks morality, or people who are believe that everybody else must submit to their moral values and leave to them being the judge what’s right and what’s wrong, or morality of some repressive regime and so on or maybe you are driven by your own moral values
You are so ignorant of political theory, it boggles the mind. You must never have studied it even casually. If you did, you would know the groups you so crudely refer to all share one thing in common. It's called "collectivism".
Quote:
Well, I am sure you have examples of such Laws.
Yes, indeed. And so does every educated liberal. Don't you see the irony? Instead of denying morality in legislation, you - as a liberal - should be defending it. When you attack it, you're simply attacking your own position.

In individualistic political theory, the question of gay marriage doesn't even come up. It cannot come up. Unless somebody's freedom is being encroached upon, the question doesn't arise.

But the question does come up in democratic political theories. That should give you a clue as to the difference.
 
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-08-2009, 12:28 AM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
John, help me understand for a moment here, especially concerning the term "collectivism". I have spent the vast majority of my adult life living in what is known by many as the Bible Belt of the US. Others may refer to us as rednecks, but we are pretty proud of that term. (grin)

Overall this area has been historically pretty unbending on the subject of morality and still strongly believe in the notion of One Nation Under GOD. In these areas you will find laws that others can't believe still exist, such as dry counties. The odds of most of these states voting to allow gay marriages anytime in our lifetimes is pretty slim. These laws are based on the area's perceived ideas of what is and isn't moral.

So "collectively" they determine what is and isn't acceptable for the population of their state or county. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but doesn't that come down to the majority rule?

Perhaps I need a simple definition of individualism vs. collectivism?
 
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-08-2009, 12:45 AM
ranter ranter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 10-08-08
Location: RealityCheckVille
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
I don't see them as gay. I see them as promiscuous, curious, and lustful. Do I not have entitlement to my own opinion on the matter as you do? I see them as people too. Just misinformed and ignorant ones. Ignorant to the fact of their responsibility as men and women.
K-man, let me ask you something.

What about children who born with degenerative conditions? Are they too chosen to be born with disabilities? If genes doesn’t play any role, as you believe, in how fetuses formed then every newborn would come to this world as perfect as one can be.

But it is not so and children born according to blueprint created by genes. One born with Tourette syndrome, another color blind (BTW only male has that condition), another with Immune disorder, another with Albinism, another with penis instead of vagina.

So, if it’s possible for genes to change the structure and effect fetus in one case then why not in every other case?

 
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-08-2009, 12:59 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but doesn't that come down to the majority rule?
Yes. It's also known as democracy. The practice of democracy is based on the theory of collectivism. When the people collectively have the right to deny freedom of the individual, that's collectivism.

Individualism says that no matter how many people vote for something, it still doesn't justify the violation of the individual's freedom.

Typically, the biggest opponent of individualism is socialism or "liberalism". The Left believes that freedom can be dangerous and individuals need to be protected from themselves and protected from freedom of others.

One argument is the "man down the well" argument. If a man is down a well, his rights are not being violated, but he still is in a bad situation. So, the Left argues, freedom isn't good. Collectively, we can impose a burden on others to help the man out of the well. And while we're at it, we can impose a burden on others to feed, clothe, employ, and provide healthcare for others. And NASA is in the interest of the common good, so we'll coerce people to fund that. And bailing out auto-makers is in the interest of the common good, so we will coerce taxpayers to fund that. And on and on and on.

But it's not just the Left that opposes freedom. The religious Right in America seems similarly hellbent on opposing freedom in certain areas. Mostly these people are "neo-conservative", as opposed to "paleo-conservatives".

Stuff like opposing gay marriage. Bush was a neocon. He increased the size and role of the Federal government, and trampled individual rights.

The religious Right also tends to support Nanny State legislation (opposition to alcohol, cigarettes, and junk food with higher taxes or just outright bans).

The argument comes down to whether people believe freedom is a right even when that freedom can be used to do things that the majority doesn't agree with, or things that can be outright dangerous to one's self.
 
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-08-2009, 01:01 AM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranter View Post
What about children who born with degenerative conditions?
You seem to be talking about mutations. But this doesn't actually do any credit to gays by calling them mutants -now does it? They are still people -with no real disability. Only an error in sexual practice. Necrophiliacs make the same error.

The fact remains that there is still no scientific proof of a 'gay gene'. Why not just accept this? Please refer to the link from one of my previous posts: Is there a "gay" gene? @ Born Gay - ProCon.org

http://www.v7n.com/forums/politics/1...ml#post1112510
 
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-08-2009, 01:35 AM
ranter ranter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 10-08-08
Location: RealityCheckVille
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
When you say that laws should not be legislated on the basis of morality, you demonstrate unfathomable ignorance.
In all that river of verbal puke I couldn’t find one single example of your claim that morality has been used instead of common sense in US Criminal or Civil Laws.

What happened Johnnie?
Don't tell me you run out of your talking points.

 
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-08-2009, 01:44 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranter View Post
In all that river of verbal puke I couldn’t find one single example of your claim that morality has been used instead of common sense in US Criminal or Civil Laws.
We're talking about gay marriage right? And you are asking for an example of a law based on morality? Are you that stupid?

Okay, let's accept the fact that you are that stupid. You want a law based on morality of the majority? Ban of gay marriage.

The morality of the majority is specifically invoked by those promoting abortion, government funding of abortion, carseat laws, smoking bans, fast food restaurant bans, bans on prostitution, bans on strip clubs, laws that prohibit discrimination, etc, etc. Most new laws are not based on individual freedom, but the morally-driven restriction of individual freedom.
 
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-08-2009, 10:10 AM
Allen Farlow Allen Farlow is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 01-13-09
Posts: 1,429
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricket View Post
Exactly! So if there is going to be change, the change has to happen with the people. All the protesting in the world isn't going to change the vote unless you change the thoughts of the voters.
I will respectfully NOT reply to k Rahmaan's response to me above as he/she is so full of it that it does not deserve my response.

Cricket hit the nail on the head: change the thought of the voters. That's exactly what proponents of Prop 8 did. With the financial backing of the religious right, they ran a smear campaign on the California voters, nothing but scare tactics.

Do a Google search of this term, tv ads against prop 8, and watch the tv commercials that they ran prior to the vote. Notice their message.

For instance, this video. They make it very clear that a yes vote for Prop 8 would help "restore traditional marriage."

Restore it? What happened to it? Are gays the only people getting married anymore? No, nothing happened to traditional marriage. This was just a scare tactic, the way it was worded.

How about this video? Here we go again. Exact words from the video: "Voting yes means restoring traditional marriage." What happened to traditional marriages? They don't happen anymore?

"What it means when gay marriage conflicts with our religious freedoms." Uh-oh, if we vote no on Prop 8 we will lose our religious freedoms! More scare tactics.

"Why it was forced on us by San Francisco judges when gay domestic partners already have the same legal rights." As long as gays cannot have an actual marriage ceremony just as any hetrosexual couple, gays will not 'have the same legal rights'. Oh, no! It was forced on us! That's not right! Those horrible, horrible judges! From San Francisco? They must be GAY! That's what they are intimating (to make known in an indirect way). They just won't come out and say it in so many words.

Just more scare tactics to sway the minds of the voters.

More quotes from the above video:

"What it means when our children are taught about it in public schools."

Don't we already teach children about drugs with the DARE program? So I assume that children are running out and trying drugs because they were taught about drugs? So if we teach them about gays our children will become gay? Nothing but scare tactics. Our children are our most precious resource and it's easy to say things that will get people up in arms about their children. The religious right knows all too well to play that card.

The funds that were contributed by religious groups enabled proponents to sway the minds of the voters and get this passed to kill gay marriage. If it was not for the funds contributed by the religious right, Californians would not have been flooded with such an obvious televised smear campaign.

I don't believe the vote should stand, as I don't believe many voters voted according to their beliefs and conscience, but swallowed the convoluted propaganda fed to them by the religious right without thinking once about what those ads were saying. (Reminds me of Hitler and his campaign to sway the minds of the German public and get them behind him so he could take over the country and then the entire world.)

Prop 8 passed with only 52% of the vote (according to this article.) It was not an overwhelming defeat by any means, indicating that almost half of Californians are for allowing gay people the same rights as anyone else.

I have a fundamental problem with ANYONE telling me how I can or cannot live, who I can or cannot love, or dictating the manner in which I should love them. It's a basic human right to be able to live and love in the manner we choose. Government and religious meddling in the personal lives of people needs to end.

Last edited by Allen Farlow; 06-08-2009 at 10:20 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-08-2009, 01:50 PM
ranter ranter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 10-08-08
Location: RealityCheckVille
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
The morality of the majority is specifically invoked by those promoting abortion, government funding of abortion, carseat laws, smoking bans, fast food restaurant bans, bans on prostitution, bans on strip clubs, laws that prohibit discrimination, etc, etc. Most new laws are not based on individual freedom, but the morally-driven restriction of individual freedom.
  • Promoting abortion – common sense law that protect individual’s rights and freedoms
  • Government funding of abortion - common sense law that make sure disadvantaged can have access when they need it
  • Car seat laws - common sense law that will safe your life one day
  • Laws that prohibit discrimination - common sense law that protect individual’s rights and freedoms

Fast food restaurant bans, bans on prostitution, bans on strip clubs are not Federal Laws and made on local level to reflect wishes of some morons and presently challenged because they are represent abuse of power and entrenching on individuals rights and freedoms.

As to gay marriage rights in California, it will be reinstated after Supreme Court renders it decision.

I hate to admit but I agree with you that any law even good one is taking away from us some of our individual freedoms. Hmmm… if that fact makes me stupid then what it makes you?

 
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-08-2009, 04:21 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
I will respectfully NOT reply to k Rahmaan's response to me above as he/she is so full of it that it does not deserve my response.
Hmmm?

Someone screams out my name, but yet fails to address me? Ha, then why call out my name in the first place? What a tease in debate, by this woman/man (?). Oh well, carry on. Most of the facts have already been covered here. I need not say more of the courts decision.

(But you guys are some tough debaters though -I'll give you that!)

 
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06-09-2009, 12:25 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranter View Post
  • Promoting abortion – common sense law that protect individual’s rights and freedoms
  • Government funding of abortion - common sense law that make sure disadvantaged can have access when they need it
  • Car seat laws - common sense law that will safe your life one day
  • Laws that prohibit discrimination - common sense law that protect individual’s rights and freedoms
"Common sense" is most often invoked, by uneducated people, when they are attempting to impose their morality on others.

Abortion as common sense? The suggestion is absurd. Why do you so adamantly refuse to educate yourself? Are you so socialist that you are waiting for somebody else, the state perhaps, to forcibly educate you?

There are many intellectual works defending abortion, from Peter Singer, Boonin, Judith Jarvis Thomson, etc. And none of them attempt to support it on the basis of "common sense". It's an uneducated argument. The kind a 4 year old would make, but then most 4 year olds might understand that "common sense" is subjective, and can be used to justify anything from enslaving Blacks to killing Jews.


Quote:
Hmmm… if that fact makes me stupid then what it makes you?
Your refusal to think makes you stupid. It's all in your hands. When you support legislation that forces your morality on others, then decry legislation that forces the morality of others on people, it makes you a hypocrite. Not knowing that it makes you a hypocrite qualifies you as stupid.
 
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-09-2009, 02:27 AM
ranter ranter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 10-08-08
Location: RealityCheckVille
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Wow Mr Scott, it looks to me that you are not taking loosing debate too well.

All I want to know is, what mental institution let you out?
You should see your psychiatrist and check your head and most definitely you should start drink iodine to heal your head wounds.

And, get use to that and remember: loosing one battle is not the end of the world, eh.


Last edited by ranter; 06-09-2009 at 02:31 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-09-2009, 03:06 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranter View Post
Wow Mr Scott, it looks to me that you are not taking loosing debate too well.

I've names several philosophers who base their abortion arguments on democratic morality. You haven't been able to provide me one instance of an abortion argument based on "common sense". It seems to be the objective truth that you have lost, no matter where you're looking at it from. I'm sure that even know know that you've lost; there could be no doubt otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranter View Post

And, get use to that and remember: loosing one battle is not the end of the world, eh.

If you grew up and realized that debates are not won simply by refusing to acknowledge the obvious truth, and decided to spend some time actually reading, you might become less familiar with losing debates, eh?
 
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 06-09-2009, 09:13 AM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Reminder To Everyone

Reminder for everyone . . .

Quote:
6. Choose Your Words Carefully - Try to remember that there are real people, with real feelings, on the other end of the monitor who are reading your words. Use respect at all times!
http://www.v7n.com/forums/politics/6...uidelines.html
When will people realize that personal comments and attacks against each other does not add to the strength of their debate? The only thing it does is ruin it for everyone and disrespects the members of this community as a whole. If you are unable to debate on the strength of your argument without insults or provoking others, then walk away from the thread and stop posting.

There will be no further warnings concerning the level of respect required in this forum. Members who are unable to comply with this, will be banned from the V7N community.
 
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 06-09-2009, 09:17 AM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I started to close this thread but have changed my mind. That is not fair to those who would like to discuss and debate this topic in a respectful manner.
 
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 06-11-2009, 09:35 AM
Allen Farlow Allen Farlow is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 01-13-09
Posts: 1,429
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thank you, Cricket.

Since Prop 8 was passed, effectively banning gay marriage, could quick gender reassignment surgery be the key for gays and marriage? Could a gay man just "lop off his johnson" and be able to legally marry his partner?

See the news video here: Go here

 
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 06-11-2009, 09:53 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 06-11-2009, 10:16 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Is marriage really that important?


 
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 06-11-2009, 10:31 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
To me, gay marriage has more relevance than marriage. Now figure that one out.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court 5-4 2nd Amendment for Individuals TechWizard Controversial Social Issues 2 06-26-2008 10:38 AM
California Court overturns gay marriage ban earthbound soul Forum Lobby 3 05-19-2008 01:47 PM
A dirty judge running for PA supreme court makes the news James Trotta Controversial Social Issues 6 05-05-2007 07:49 AM
One Supreme Court Justice Retires - who will replace? ! ! Forum Lobby 37 09-06-2005 12:28 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC