Its Not The Gov'ts Job To Police Morality [Archive]

NeverMind

5th November 2004, 12:16 PM

The exit polls on CNN during the election showed that the number 1 issue the people who voted for Bush cared about was Moral Values, with 36% of the people polled. 34% said Terrorism but thats not what I'm gonna focus on.
Over a third of the Bush supporters think that MORAL VALUES is the #1 issue this nation should be concerned about? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??!! That is wrong.
Since when did it become the government's job to police morality? I know its been done since the days of Marius in Rome, but why? It is NOT the government's job to force citizens to be good people. You CAN'T do that! there are more important issues than values. The #1 issue for Kerry supporters was the Economy. I can't be sure of the % because I was still in shock that Bush supporters are so ignorant! You can't police that! Especially while you have "Who Want to Marry my Dad" and "Wife Swap" on TV! Are you kidding me! That's not the president's job. He needs to look out for the welfare of the people. I want him looking out for my safety and my job. I don't want him trying to pry his way into my personal life! Bushies piss me off.

sonrisa

8th November 2004, 07:27 AM

NM, I believe you are referring to the hate vote. The term "moral values" is basically a doublespeak for the hate voters to marginalize & discriminate against people they don't like- mainly gays, but also blacks & other persons of color. How great is their hate? Evidently great enough that they are willing to sell out their country's future- & that of their kids & grandkids. Sad :shakehead:

Ronagon

8th November 2004, 10:52 AM

While government should not have the power to police morality, it MUST serve the function of protecting people from victimizing each other in every conceivable way, so that people are free to exercise their rational functions and truly live.

We shouldn't be creating a government that tells people what TO do, but we MUST create a government that tells them what things they most certainly CANNOT do.

NeverMind

9th November 2004, 02:25 AM

The government should not police morality!
Why can't my buddy go and get high in his basement? Shouldn't that be up to him?
In my mind, anyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesnt negatively impact anyone else.

Once your actions harm someone else, I think that's when you should get NAILED by the government.

jesupocaplypse

9th November 2004, 04:14 PM

AH, but where and who draws the lines for what constitutes harm to another?

I like my music loud. Bach's Toccata and Fugue, is best experienced at a great volume. I'm not hurting anyone physically, but neighbors complain, police show up, and I'm forced to reduce my experience.

My daughter smokes marijuana in the basement with her friends. They laugh and have fun, and no one but their own lungs are even remotely harmed, in the summer, the deck and the backyard are the only place to be... yet the smell and the smoke of their harmless activities, bothers the neighbors and they threaten the police, and dejectedly, her and her friends must go indoors, and hide to have their fun.

Large, hairy, across the street neighbor likes to walk around his house nude, with big windows wide open. Is he harming people? I don't like it. it's practically painful to catch a glimpse, and I have to shut my own curtains, and deny the sunlight. Is he harming people and should he be policed ...???

I once knew a family, that regularly had group intercourse. Mother, father, son and daughter. all fully involved. They were some of the most well adjusted, nice and friendly people i had ever met. Their love for each other, and all people was unending. They showed great amounts of respect, and kept their activities behind closed doors, harming no one. Both children, were not subjected to any abuse or force, and when talked to privately, beamed with adoration and love for their parents and each other. But a neighbor found out, and social services took the children away, despite their protests, and the parents were locked up. I've not heard from them since. Harm? Morality Police? ???

Who's morality?

I see a man on a street corner, selling small bags of white powder to school children. I call the police, but they never catch him. They don't care. They have 'bigger fish to fry'. So i beat the tar out of him, and he never returns to the neighborhood. But Police do, and I am charged with aggravated assault, and have to spend time in jail, away from my family. Yup I harmed him alright. But where's the morality in this event?

There's just so much grey... and so very little black or white.

a random hack

9th November 2004, 07:23 PM

NeverMind

9th November 2004, 11:32 PM

I love cripples!
I have a friend named Chuck and he's a gimp and he's the COOLEST
He's an awesome drummer.
People shouldn't hate. Haters should stop.
All haters should be castrated so they cant reproduce. :uhoh:

Ronagon

10th November 2004, 12:55 AM

Jesus,

You say that it's okay to smoke pot and have sex with children, but that selling cocaine is wrong?

Dude, you are out of your #@(%ing MIND.

How did you pick your value system? A roulette wheel? Dice?

Develop a coherent value system, and then come talk to me.

NeverMind

10th November 2004, 01:11 PM

I think its okay to smoke pot because you're only hurting yourself.
Having sex with kids will mess them up for the rest of their lives! That is wrong!
Selling cocaine is wrong because the people buying from you would not be getting messed up if you weren't giving them the cocaine!
When did I say it was okay to screw little kids?
I'm not saying its fine to go around revealing yourself to nuns or anything. I think you're missing my point.
I'm just saying I don't think its the government's job to keep gay people from marrying, or censor the media, or choosing whether or not women can abort their babies, etc. I don't think the government needs to decide which values are important to us. I just dont think that should be an issue when it comes to politics.
I'm sick of the fundamentalist christians just being like "well I think God hates gays, and it seems like Bush doesn't like 'em a whole lot either, so I'll vote for him"

This whole idealism is still in its infancy. I just started thinking about it at drivers ed last tuesday. and its only thursday today.

jesupocaplypse

11th November 2004, 05:10 PM

WOAH there Ronagon, I did NOT say any of those examples were Okay or Not okay! I merely provided examples for the purpose of comparison. I left my own opinions out as much as I could.

I personally do not feel 'pot' is bad in any way except to one's own lungs.... (bake it in cookies, and it's harmless). Science and the World Health Organization will confirm that. Cocaine on the other hand (whether ot not it was actually cocaine the man was selling is unknown) is quite harmful to the body, and especially to junior high school kids.

I personally do not feel that incest is right, though i did not make any mention of sex with children. The family i spoke of, who i knew as friends for many years before i became aware of their private lives, were great people. I kept judgement out of it. When I did find out about their familial practices, I also found out that both children were NOT subjected to anything sexual before the age of 16. I still have my own judgements about that, and obviously you do to, the point is, They were still some of the most kind and compassionate people i have ever met, And whether or not their possibly (subjectively speaking) amoral practices were to be grounds for the government to step in and judge them, was the point i was trying to bring up. "Harm" was the question.

You obviously only skimmed my post and didn't actually read it.

I kept judgement and personal opinion out of it.

The example of the drug dealer is slightly different because it involves me directly, but I presented it without judgement, I did not say that what i did was either right or wrong. I never used the terms right or wrong anywhere. As it stands, I Do feel bad, and think that what i did to that man was wrong. There were many ways that i could have dealt with him, in a much more (subjectively) right way, but i didn't. and i feel bad, and was punished as a result.

Those friends who were physically intimate with their children... I feel completely indecisive about. Their oldest kid, had babysat my own child several times, and when i got home, she would babble away about all the fun and games they played while i was away. Their kids were polite, well mannered, kind and caring. What happend behind their closed doors did NOT concern me. I went out on a limb and shared that, as an example of a grey area in this discussion.

My daughter is very good friends with their daughter, even to this day. Being a single parent, my relationship with my child is VERY important to me. Trust, and truth are the strongest things we have between us. Chloe (my daughter) tells me everything. The worst thing that ever happened to her friend, (from that family) was when her parents were taken away from her. So obviously she doesn't feel that the incest was bad, or she would have been glad to be rid of her parents.

I'm not trying to assert judgement, which i cannot stress enough, I'm only asking

Where do you draw the line?

You obviously have a problem with sexual relations with family and children.... so let's expand within this topic, WITHOUT attacking me, who merely presented it...

Should the Government have control over that? Who says and Why is that considered bad?

50 years ago, gays were considered as "wrong" as incest was... Why? cause the bible says so?

cause your parents say so?

WHY?

(again... my feelings and my opinions aside... i'm just trying to present another angle)

jesupocaplypse

11th November 2004, 05:14 PM

Ronagon said: "We shouldn't be creating a government that tells people what TO do, but we MUST create a government that tells them what things they most certainly CANNOT do. "

What's the difference? By telling someone what they Cannot do you are implying what they can do ... ie, everything BUT... Likewise, tell them what they Can do, and you are implying what they cannot....

Tell a kid that he/she Cannot go inside This room. He/she can go inside ANy room but this one... What room will that kid want to go into?

NeverMind

12th November 2004, 02:22 AM

But then again, those are kids. I think that tendency changes as you mature.

I do agree for the most part though.

I'm getting a back masage right now so I'm ont gonna write any more..

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

halocherry

13th November 2004, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by NeverMind@Nov 10 2004, 02:11 PM
I think its okay to smoke pot because you're only hurting yourself.
Having sex with kids will mess them up for the rest of their lives! That is wrong!
Selling cocaine is wrong because the people buying from you would not be getting messed up if you weren't giving them the cocaine!
When did I say it was okay to screw little kids?
I'm not saying its fine to go around revealing yourself to nuns or anything. I think you're missing my point.
I'm just saying I don't think its the government's job to keep gay people from marrying, or censor the media, or choosing whether or not women can abort their babies, etc. I don't think the government needs to decide which values are important to us. I just dont think that should be an issue when it comes to politics.
I'm sick of the fundamentalist christians just being like "well I think God hates gays, and it seems like Bush doesn't like 'em a whole lot either, so I'll vote for him"

This whole idealism is still in its infancy. I just started thinking about it at drivers ed last tuesday. and its only thursday today.
"I'm just saying I don't think its the government's job to keep gay people from marrying, or censor the media, or choosing whether or not women can abort their babies, etc."

hello, never mind :)
i'm glad you've stumbled upon the somewhat Libertarian philosophy of,"i have the power to exercise my rights until i start to violate others rights."
but i believe it's not the right of government to give anyone gay or straight the right to marry; gov. should stay out of marriage completely, but since that won't happen anytime soon, gays should have equal protection under the lawand be allowed to marry like anyone else.

could it not be argued that a woman who aborts the human life in her womb is violating the unborn child's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness ? the woman should have say over what happens to her own body, but when you have another human being in your body, shouldn't you remember that the unborn child has rights, too?
:)

NeverMind

13th November 2004, 05:55 AM

Yeah abortion is where I get tripped up with that. So I'm a Libertarian, eh? Well, I'm also kindof a socialist even though my recent posts havn't really reflected that. Anyway, abortion.

I do respect that there is a human being inside the mother's womb. I do not think it is right to murder. However: when that baby is going to ruin that woman's life and possibly the father's as well, i think that might be justified. I'm not totally sure. In know all the females I've talked to about abortion are pro-choice (except my crazy religious fanatic friend) and females are fun. So I'm staying over on the pro-choice side.

I do not think anyone should push their beliefs on others. If you believe abortion is wrong, dont get an abortion! It's like a boycott. If nobody wanted to get abortions, we wouldn't need laws against them. I respect people's right to choose their beliefs. Isn't that one of the fundamental ideas our nation is founded on?
ex: If Bush thinks Jesus said its a sin have gay sex, is it really his job to make sure nobody is having gay sex? I think not.
The government needs to stop trying to tell us what our morals and ideals should consist of.

btw: whats a halocherry?

halocherry

14th November 2004, 05:08 AM

hello again nevermind :)
no, you most certainly are not a Libertarian, but there's still hope for you! :)

someday the ladies in your life will be gone, but the little children who never got to live, will still be aborted, will they not? it may help your "love" life right now to be pro-choice, but the fact remains, that everytime an abortion is carried out, a human life disappears forever.

a mother who chooses not to have an abortion may have a more difficult life, sure, but at least she has a life! a life that has hope to be good someday... aren't you glad your mom thought of someone besides herself , and decided not to abort you? or would you just shrug and give your mom permission to decide whether your life is worth living?

i've been an atheist for a lot of my life, so i'm not against abortion because Jesus says so, but because as a girl i understand that i have the right to say what happens to my body , but when another human life lives in my body, it is not only my body anymore, it's another person's body too; and as such it's my responsibility to ensure that the baby lives.
screwing pro-choice gals might be fun for now, but someday they'll be old and no one will want to screw them anymore and they'll wish they had the company of all the kids they aborted.

what's a halocherry? it's just my name , "halo" for the Anaheim Angels baseball team, and "cherry" for a nickname from childhood.
:)

NeverMind

14th November 2004, 05:53 AM

There is no hope! We're all doomed! :o
There are a few libertarian views I do not agree with.

I'm not saying I'm pro-choice just to get into girls's pants! Jeez!

I do think that if the mother has the right to concieve the child, she should also have the right to terminate it, however unpleasant that may sound.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
Same goes for stem cell research in my mind.

But yeah, i believe my mother had the right to choose whether or not to give birth to me. I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if I didnt exist. But I do think that was her decision to make.

Pssh just cuz they're pro-choice doesnt mean a) they're gonna have to actually have an abortion or B) they'll never have kids. My moms pro-choice!

Abortion is a tricky issue and I don't think I'll ever be firmly on one side or the other. Both sides are have very reasonable arguments. Its all about ethics, different people's ideals.

And again, I dont think the government should police that. I dont think the government should choose whether or not its legal. I think each pregnant girl needs to decide for themselves whether or not they should abort.

I thought maybe Halocherry was some dumb video game reference or something since Halo 2 came out a couple days ago and my nerdy friends are going nuts!

The Angels suck. No offense. :hahaha:

sahyo

14th November 2004, 09:59 AM

someday they'll be old and no one will want to screw them anymore and they'll wish they had the company of all the kids they aborted.

as though a reason?

Ronagon

14th November 2004, 01:54 PM

I think that Jesus himself should personally drive through the streets with a loudspeaker and a machine gun, and tell people what to do all the time.

If they don't obey, he should blow their heads off and then burn their houses down.

That's what I think.

Ronagon

14th November 2004, 01:57 PM

I also think that all people who are different in any way, should have thick steel collars clamped around their necks, and forced to wear chastity belts that can only be removed with a special key that is owned by a local church leader.

This will keep weirdos from having babies or ungodly sex, unless Jesus says so.

That's what I think.

Ronagon

14th November 2004, 02:01 PM

Another thing I think, is that people should have electric devices surgically drilled into their brains so that they can't ever feel love or pleasure, until they make a certain amount of money for the company that they work for, or their boss.

They should also not be allowed to feel love or pleasure, unless they get down on their knees and perform sexual favors for their boss, or some other rich person.

That's what I think.

Ronagon

14th November 2004, 02:03 PM

In my dream world, whenever a policeman snaps his fingers, everybody has to drop on their hands and knees, and start screaming at the top of their lungs:

"I LOVE JESUS! I LOVE JESUS! I LOVE JESUS!"

Anyone who doesn't do this immediately and without tears in their eyes, should be hit in their private parts with a hammer, very, very hard.... until they bleed from the nose and start to vomit.

Praise Jesus.

That's what I think.

NeverMind

14th November 2004, 02:12 PM

You are a sick motha.

You have problems.

You cant be serious.

Jesus wouldnt be packin heat!
Jesus wouldnt want people beaten in his name!
You're a crazy fascist!'

but that was hella funny

halocherry

15th November 2004, 05:05 AM

hey nevermind :)
you say a pregnant girl can decide to end the life of a human being because people have different ethics or ideals than other people? no way, that's not the way America works, friend. we have unalienable rights that beliefs, ethics, and morals do not have the power to touch, whatever they may be.
so you mean that if i believe that it's okay to run around killing people, that's just peachy , because i have "different ethics "?
of course not.why? because my self is all that i have a right tomake decisions about, i don't have the right to make decisions about anybody but me.
the other thing is, you're seeing a pregnant girl and her baby as one body;they are separate and as such, both have unalienable rights that the other has no say in.
when one says they are "pro-choice", they are forgetting that they don't even have a right to that "choice". my god, you do not have the choice to decide whether somone lives or dies!

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"-oh my god, who gets to decide who gets to be the "many" and who gets to be the "few"? a woman has to suffer 9 months of being alive and pregnant , while an aborted baby has to suffer nothingness forever. which is the worst sacrifice?
:)

halocherry

15th November 2004, 05:45 AM

hello again, nevermind :)
stem cell research? so many reasons not to support it...
here in california, voters just got duped into paying 3 billion dollars for this stem cell research which has little if any hope of doing what it promises;i.e. finding cures. why?
a. embryonic stem cells have been shown to cause cancerous tumors
b. have shown little if any progress
c. adult stem cells have offered far more hope, results , than embryonic stem cells

do you know who supported this 3 billion dollar stem cell bill? bill gates, michael j. fox, christofer reeves... all rich guys who didn't want to take a big financial risk on stem cell research with their own money , seeing as how stem cells have such little hope for finding cures, so they let us little old taxpayers take their financial risk for them. if stem cells really were the wave of the future, they would have been falling all over themselves trying to invest in them, but they aren't , because stem cells are total crap and they know it, so they'll let us taxpayers pay for this stem cell crapshoot so they don't have to.

and let's not forget that these stem cells are not "just a bunch of cells", as everyone claims. they are human life, you were an embryo once Nevermind!
they had this rich little girl whose the daughter of some hollywood producers, who suffers from juvenile diabetes, crying about how she has to take shots twice a day because "Bush cares more about a bunch of cells than he does about me!". well, gee kid, sorry, we can't just go around killing people so you don't have to take shots!
embryonic stem cells will not find cures for diseases, so you would agree that killing embryos would be pointless? adult stem cells are the way to go, and they don't kill innocent life either! :)

are u sure it's not you who's nerdy enough to play Halo2, and not your friends?i've never played it. and the Angels do not suck! hello, 2002! if you like the Yankees, remember, we own you and so do the red sox! :)

jesupocaplypse

15th November 2004, 03:07 PM

I was hoping a halocherry was a small red fruit that orbits your head... :D

Nevermind - "I'd be pretty pissed if I didnt exist"

... No you wouldn't. You wouldn't 'be' anything.

Halocherry - " a woman has to suffer 9 months of being alive and pregnant , while an aborted baby has to suffer nothingness forever. which is the worst sacrifice?"

Chooses to "suffer" 9 months of being alive and pregnant. (Suffer being alive?) My wife chose to enjoy 9 months of being pregnant...

(suffer nothingness forever)??? What was the aborted baby before it was a baby and then aborted? nothing.

Suffer nothingness? Enjoy Nothingness

Nothingness is void. Not suffer nor enjoy.

How you know forever?

Death is part of life. Why does it matter how long is between creation and destruction?

To know everything, must experience everything. A long Life, a short one. One that lasts for hundreds of years and goes and sees almost 'every'thing... or one that lasts only moments and never leaves the womb... Both are life. Both began, existed, and ended. Both are beautiful and an experience of life. of everything.

Transformed existed transformed .... not began nor ended. No beginning no end. One form, and then another.

Choice is what we have in this human life. To deny someone a choice, ANY choice, is to deny them their humanity.

halocherry

16th November 2004, 02:05 AM

hello jesupocaplypse:)
"I was hoping a halocherry was a small red fruit that orbits your head.."
that's cool, maybe i'll steal your interpretation of "halocherry" for a signature. :)

"Chooses to "suffer" 9 months of being alive and pregnant. (Suffer being alive?) My wife chose to enjoy 9 months of being pregnant..."

good for your wife, i'm not saying that you have to view pregnancy as "suffering", i'm just saying giving 9 months out of your life so someone can exist is probably not the worst thing a human being can suffer.
:)

each one of us each day, each moment, is faced with choices on how we value life, ourselves and each other...when we "choose" to abort a human life, we should know that we "choose" to take something that is not rightfully ours, a life other than our own, a life that never got to make choices for itself.
:)

...

16th November 2004, 03:23 AM

..it's funny how recent developements would make me an elitist ultra liberal homosexualloving baby butchering democrate; a catchfrase coined by a loving christian :lol: if i'd live in the USA that is. The state does impose morality on citizens through written and unwritten laws, regulations and suggestions. For most democratic nations, these laws are common sense-based. A logical structure of binding society in a fruitful manor, where mosttimes reason is the common denominator. Emotion and religion should have no say in these matters, they're repressive and counterproductive. Stagnation is decay, and society by nature is/ought to be flexible and proned to evolve as humans evolve, but even in a democracy this isn't [always] the case...

..altough abortion should be the last choice available to a woman, it must be a choice nevertheless. If equality is important, samesex marriages should be allowed. Stemcell research and genetic engenering is the next step into the future, and can't be avoided. If one preferes a theocracry over democracy, by all means, go for it, but count me out...

sahyo

16th November 2004, 03:47 AM

...

16th November 2004, 04:40 AM

..no, it was an actual remark made by someone on another forum claiming to be a christian :lol:

sahyo

16th November 2004, 04:47 AM

:lol:

was referring "catchfrase"

...

16th November 2004, 05:09 AM

..yes, that was obvious asheera, what was the question again?

sahyo

16th November 2004, 05:22 AM

was responsing:

..no, it was an actual remark made by someone on another forum claiming to be a christian

fu*

16th November 2004, 08:27 AM

..it's funny how recent developements would make me an elitist ultra liberal homosexualloving baby butchering democrate; a catchfrase coined by a loving christian if i'd live in the USA that is. :lol:

The state does impose morality on citizens through written and unwritten laws, regulations and suggestions. For most democratic nations, these laws are common sense-based.

Common sensed-based? Imposed morality based on common sense? :lol:

A logical structure of binding society in a fruitful manor,
Binding society? A fruitful manor? :lol:

where mosttimes reason is the common denominator.

Well is it "reason"? or "common sense"? <_<

Emotion and religion should have no say in these matters, they're repressive and counterproductive.

What is it, are you wanting to "produce"?

Stagnation is decay, and society by nature is/ought to be flexible and proned to evolve as humans evolve, but even in a democracy this isn't [always] the case...

In a democracy, majority rules. So isn't that evolving as the majority of humans do? :huh:

..altough abortion should be the last choice available to a woman, it must be a choice nevertheless.

You sound like Bush there. How does one arive at this "last choice"? What procedure whould you require to ensure that this is the "last choice"?

If equality is important, samesex marriages should be allowed.

A piece of paper seems like it would be important to you. Like, I want my official peice of paper damit!

F U

sahyo

16th November 2004, 08:56 AM

...

16th November 2004, 02:25 PM

..hey, look who crawled out of the woodwork, it's FU*! How are you doing?

Common sensed-based? Imposed morality based on common sense? :lol:

..well, yes, you didn't know this?

Well is it "reason"? or "common sense"? <_<

..not much difference between them FU...

Emotion and religion should have no say in these matters, they're repressive and counterproductive.What is it, are you wanting to "produce"?

..come again?

In a democracy, majority rules. So isn't that evolving as the majority of humans do? :huh:

..not really, history teaches us that it's usually just the one guy or girl with an vision or idea that brings change, and then the majority slowly comes round to accepting it, or not...

You sound like Bush there. How does one arive at this "last choice"? What procedure whould you require to ensure that this is the "last choice"?

..sound like Bush? Teach proper sex-ed in schools, no abstinence nonsense. Give out free condoms. Keep the pill in medicare, recently they took out the pill in dutch medicare and abortions increased for the first time in years. This is not that difficult...

..if you have more to add to the topic discussion, feel free to post, if you don't you'll be free to post anyway and be ignored..

jesupocaplypse

17th November 2004, 12:03 AM

Who's to say that the life within one's womb is not 'yours' to do with as you please? You created it. You can destroy it. What I create is mine. "My" child.

... people who are against abortion are people who are Afraid of death. Afraid of what comes after. Where/what/Who/ were you in the infinite span of time before you were born? Nothing. Death is a return to that nothing.. . Afraid of nothing.

:hahaha: :uhoh:

there's over 6 billion people here already. Which IMO, is far too many as it is. Were on the verge of choking ourselves out. Suitable land for growing food is dwindling, topsoil is blowing away. Save the world, abort your baby, and help advance science to save those who are already here.

NeverMind

17th November 2004, 02:14 AM

Let's just kill all the babies!
and eat them.

...

17th November 2004, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by NeverMind@Nov 16 2004, 09:14 PM
Let's just kill all the babies!
and eat them.
..killing and eating babies is not the issue, don't get confused now NM :nono: but if you're talking about cooking up a fetus-soup with crispy placenta croutons, i'm your man :P

sonrisa

17th November 2004, 04:35 AM

dots, that's disgusting

:knockout:

fu*

17th November 2004, 07:39 AM

..hey, look who crawled out of the woodwork, it's FU*! Do E-beings insult? :P
How are you doing? Fine. How bout you?

Common sensed-based? Imposed morality based on common sense?

..well, yes, you didn't know this?

Main Entry: common sense
Function: noun
1 : the unreflective opinions of ordinary people
2 : sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment

Well, no. So are you saying that we should impose morality based on "the unreflective opinions of ordinary people"?

Well is it "reason"? or "common sense"?

..not much difference between them FU...

I see there was no question mark, so I guess that was another statement.

Here are some definitions, do YOU see a difference?

Main Entry: common sense
Function: noun
1 : the unreflective opinions of ordinary people
2 : sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment

Main Entry: 1rea·son
Pronunciation: 'rE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English resoun, from Old French raison, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene>
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers

Emotion and religion should have no say in these matters, they're repressive and counterproductive.What is it, are you wanting to "produce"?

..come again?

OK, If "counterproductive is "bad", Productive must be "good". What would be the end result in your perfectly productive world? What are you wanting to produce?

In a democracy, majority rules. So isn't that evolving as the majority of humans do?

..not really, history teaches us that it's usually just the one guy or girl with an vision or idea that brings change, and then the majority slowly comes round to accepting it, or not...

If "vision or idea" was substituted with power, I might agree with you. And please tell me about that "girl"

..sound like Bush? Teach proper sex-ed in schools, no abstinence nonsense. Give out free condoms. Keep the pill in medicare, recently they took out the pill in dutch medicare and abortions increased for the first time in years. This is not that difficult...

Not that difficult? Would you require me to pitch in for your condoms? Or your girlfriends pills? And if I dont, then you would rquire me to pay for your girlfriends abortions? Every law is enforced at the point of a gun. If you dont believe me, break one, and stay steady thru the whole procedure. You will be posting from the Amsterdam correctional center, or dead.

..if you have more to add to the topic discussion, feel free to post, if you don't you'll be free to post anyway and be ignored..

What I think you are saying is that if, in your judjment, I haven't added to the topic discussion, you will ignore me. I have come to expect nothing less from dotty. But I keep hope-ing.

...

17th November 2004, 05:21 PM

Fine. How bout you?

..i'm doing great, thanks for asking :)

Well, no. So are you saying that we should impose morality based on "the unreflective opinions of ordinary people"?
..where did you get that definition from? On here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=c...=common%20sense (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=common%20sense) it says: Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment. I'll stick with that one, if you don't mind....

What would be the end result in your perfectly productive world? What are you wanting to produce?

..freedom and equality for all :star:

If "vision or idea" was substituted with power, I might agree with you.

..elaborate?

Not that difficult?

..no, if it's about reducing the number of abortions performed, which would be a good thing in my book, then sex education, availability of birthcontrol pills and contraceptives is vital. Abstinence only programs are utterly stupid and not reality-based, and taking away womens rights is even worse...

sahyo

17th November 2004, 11:53 PM

feel free to post

does seem fu* needs dots guiding-permissioning?

NeverMind

18th November 2004, 02:16 AM

[QUOTE]killing and eating babies is not the issue, don't get confused now NM[QUOTE]

I dont care. I'm gonna eat them babies with some sugar.

SUGAR BABIES!

yummy yummy

sonrisa

18th November 2004, 05:02 AM

yeah, Sugar Babies are good. :)

but a Sugar Daddy is even better :D

gimme one of those

preferably with a heart condition!! :P

fu*

19th November 2004, 07:54 AM

..freedom and equality for all

Freedom?

Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: 'frE-d&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another

But this

..no, if it's about reducing the number of abortions performed, which would be a good thing in my book, then sex education, availability of birthcontrol pills and contraceptives is vital. Abstinence only programs are utterly stupid and not reality-based, and taking away womens rights is even worse...

But if by law, I am required to pay for what you think is "vital", How does that jive with wanting freedom for all. You, like most, want just some degree of "freedom". In reality it seems you, like most, want "freedom" to impose, by law, what you think is vital. Bush wants "freedom" too. If you take the time to explore "freedom" I think you will find that organized society, and "freedom" are akin to bright, and dark. What results from wanting both, is just dim.

"Freedom" sounds good. And people seem willing to fight for it. Even if they are drafted to fight (or unfree not to fight).

What I am pointing at, is that you do not really want "freedom", but just your version of "freedom, like everybody else.

If you know about, or have heard about a truely "free" society, I would surely like to hear about it. Then I may understand what you are talking about.

Maybe "freedom" can not be really found 'outside' of 'self'.

...

19th November 2004, 02:44 PM

sahyo

19th November 2004, 02:50 PM

society not necessary

fu*

20th November 2004, 06:50 AM

..it seems that you confused your own understanding of the meaning of words with mine FU*. If you are able to pay for anything, let alone taxes, you must have income and function in a form of society as a result. This in turn will mean that restrictions are in place, which are unavoidable.

Well maybe not. From this I think you are saying that true "freedom" in organized society is not possible.

restrictions are in place, which are unavoidable.

Why didn't you just say that you agree?

but maintaining equality for all...

We could do the same with "equality". Lets say equal rights. So to the extreme, if one has no rights, then should we be happy if everyone has no rights? We are equal then. Yahoo! Equal rights! I would put this in a different way, but I am trying to stay on topic, on a topic I am totally dis-passionate about.

..it is very possible that once realised freedom from self, there's a kind of aloofness that does not respond to injustice, but if no action happens due to indifference [hey, i'm not bothered by it, so why care?] it's not freedom either.

Well, maybe. It is also possible that if we could fly past the edge of the known universe, we would get stuck in some green slime that brings about constant orgasm. Until we do it, we really dont know.

Are you free not to respond to dotty, or is something compelling you to respond?

Why do I respond to Dotty? There was a time when I felt "Dotty" as fluid. Now it seems set concrete. How do you like my jack-hammer?

NeverMind

20th November 2004, 09:53 AM

It is also possible that if we could fly past the edge of the known universe, we would get stuck in some green slime that brings about constant orgasm

I sure hope so!

...

20th November 2004, 06:12 PM

From this I think you are saying that true "freedom" in organized society is not possible.

..what is true freedom? Is it freedom from self, or is freedom simply not being stifled by restrictive measures devoid of reason? Hey, and that even might amount to the same thing :lol:

Lets say equal rights. So to the extreme, if one has no rights, then should we be happy if everyone has no rights? We are equal then.

..some cultures do appear to be happier when dominated by an "enlightened" despot, that is true, but your hyperbole makes no sense...

QUOTE
..it is very possible that once realised freedom from self, there's a kind of aloofness that does not respond to injustice, but if no action happens due to indifference [hey, i'm not bothered by it, so why care?] it's not freedom either.

Well, maybe.

..you can't tell the difference?

Why do I respond to Dotty? There was a time when I felt "Dotty" as fluid. Now it seems set concrete. How do you like my jack-hammer?

..it resembles a Q-tip, to be honest. But why? What is your motivation?

sahyo

21st November 2004, 12:39 AM

when dominated by an "enlightened"

:lol:

zygoat

21st November 2004, 07:47 AM

to all,
Bush is not ,nor has he ever been able to tell the people what they can or cannot do,we have three branches of government,we have the House of Representatives and we have the Senate,we have an electoral college,we have a popular vote.There is a map on the internet caled th Bush Map 2004,on it you will see county by county,who voted for Bush(RED) and who voted Kerry(BLUE),check it out.

fu*

21st November 2004, 09:12 AM

..some cultures do appear to be happier when dominated by an "enlightened" despot, that is true, but your hyperbole makes no sense...

But again, you offer no suggestions as to how you would bring about this "freedom and equality for all". Or even a hint at what it is. If you had done any actual study, or thinking, or deeper consideration of what you are saying, my "hyperbole" might make more sense.

Come on Dotty! Convince me that you know what "equality" and "freedom" is, why it is important, and what steps you would take to bring your vision into reality. Otherwise I am going to have to assume that you prefer just to make imperial statements with no desire, or ability, to back them up.

Dotty-->..it is very possible that once realized freedom from self, there's a kind of aloofness that does not respond to injustice, but if no action happens due to indifference [hey, i'm not bothered by it, so why care?] it's not freedom either.

fu*-->Well, maybe.(there was more but I guess you only got that far)

Dotty->..you can't tell the difference?

Difference of what? I was pointing out that until you realize "freedom from self", you don't know what it is, or what it is like. You can either agree, or tell me that you have realized "freedom from self". (or you can just make another insult, disguised as a clever question or statement)

..it resembles a Q-tip, to be honest. But why? What is your motivation?

Now Dotty :nono: I've already been warned about staying on topic, or else.

But, what is the motivation for a "Q-tip"? To clean out your 'ears'. I think it is important to be able to 'hear'.

...

21st November 2004, 06:20 PM

But again, you offer no suggestions as to how you would bring about this "freedom and equality for all". Or even a hint at what it is. If you had done any actual study, or thinking, or deeper consideration of what you are saying, my "hyperbole" might make more sense.

..i'm sorry it wasn't obvious to you FU*, but the question didn't come up until now, did it? The easiest way to ensure freedom and equality for all is by avoiding the opposite. That means that abortion must stay legal, samesexmarriages ought to be allowed, legalisation of most, if not all, drugs. Keep [good] education available to all, free of religious influences. Healthcare for those who need, but can't afford them and so on. Shucks FU*, guess i'm just a bleedin' heart liberal :D

I was pointing out that until you realize "freedom from self", you don't know what it is, or what it is like.

..i'd agree, but how do we go about assessing if that is the case for someone, or whether that is important at all?

fu*

23rd November 2004, 07:52 AM

fu ->Convince me that you know what "equality" and "freedom" is, why it is important, and what steps you would take to bring your vision into reality. Otherwise I am going to have to assume that you prefer just to make imperial statements with no desire, or ability, to back them up.

dot ->but the question didn't come up until now, did it? The easiest way to ensure freedom and equality for all is by avoiding the opposite. That means that abortion must stay legal, samesexmarriages ought to be allowed, legalisation of most, if not all, drugs. Keep [good] education available to all, free of religious influences. Healthcare for those who need, but can't afford them and so on.

Your response does not answer, in any way, what"freedom and equality" is/are, why they are important, or what steps you would take to bring them about. Maybe what would be more honest for you to state, is that you don't care so much about "freedom and equality" but that if your views on these issue's, if implemented (by someone else ;) ), and sustained, would make for a better (in your judgment) society.

I have no disagreement of your stance on these issues. But they have nothing at all to do with freedom or equality.

The easiest way to ensure freedom and equality for all is by avoiding the opposite.

How can one "avoid the opposite", if one doesn't know what the 'thing' is?

You have stated that most (not all :unsure: ) Americans are ignorant. I think you would fit in very nicely here. In fact, you would fit in so nicely that I don't think we would even notice you here. It seems that most americans, like you, are so commited to thier idea's of freedom and equality, that they are actually willing to talk (or post) about them.(such courage :uhoh: ) And beyond that, even willing to judge, and label, and hate those who dont agree with thier thoughts/judgements.

Shucks FU*, guess i'm just a bleedin' heart liberal*

Yup, I guess so.

NeverMind

23rd November 2004, 11:22 AM

Most America is ignorant. Duh. Anyone who disagrees with that is ignorant.
and must be stabbed in the brain with Q-tip!

...

24th November 2004, 01:21 AM

Your response does not answer, in any way, what"freedom and equality" is/are, why they are important, or what steps you would take to bring them about. Maybe what would be more honest for you to state, is that you don't care so much about "freedom and equality" but that if your views on these issue's, if implemented (by someone else ), and sustained, would make for a better (in your judgment) society.

..if you had entered this discussion with an open mind and read the thread without prejudice, you would have understood i spoke about democracy as a system of freedom and equality which is in danger of becoming stifled by religious preference and reasonless emotionality...

I have no disagreement of your stance on these issues. But they have nothing at all to do with freedom or equality.
..luckily, you are still free to have an opinion...

How can one "avoid the opposite", if one doesn't know what the 'thing' is?

..the 'thing' is the system you probably grew up in, democracy...

You have stated that most (not all ) Americans are ignorant.

..aside from possible tamperings with the Diebold machines, 51% chose ignorance in the last election. That leaves 49% that is less impressionable. I haven't given up hope :P

I think you would fit in very nicely here. In fact, you would fit in so nicely that I don't think we would even notice you here. It seems that most americans, like you, are so commited to thier idea's of freedom and equality, that they are actually willing to talk (or post) about them.(such courage ) And beyond that, even willing to judge, and label, and hate those who dont agree with thier thoughts/judgements.

..next to using the label ignorant, it would be you that is attacking the person instead of using arguments...

NeverMind

24th November 2004, 01:57 AM

...somebody's just ionviting a Q-tip into their brain.

stupid punk.

OW! Blood from the EARS!

fu*

24th November 2004, 08:10 AM

..if you had entered this discussion with an open mind and read the thread without prejudice,

You go first, and I'll jump in.

i spoke about democracy as a system of freedom and equality which is in danger of becoming stifled by religious preference and reasonless emotionality...

In a democracy, the people vote for....... So if the people have "religious preference and reasonless emotionality" How does that equate with freedom?

..luckily, you are still free to have an opinion...

So is the man in prison. I don't see how that is freedom.

..aside from possible tamperings with the Diebold machines, 51% chose ignorance in the last election. That leaves 49% that is less impressionable. I haven't given up hope

"Chose ignorance" ? With an open mind, and without prjudice, I did ask a few people about thier voting for Bush, and guess what, not a one said they just decided to "choose ignorance". Maybe you have some new information you would like to share.
But it seems that you are now saying that only 51% of americans are ignorant. So with just a 1.000000000.1%, swing, you may be saying that the majority of Americans are not "ignorant". Great! They will be happy to hear about the progress.

..next to using the label ignorant, it would be you that is attacking the person instead of using arguments...

I am questioning (attacking) idea's and thoughts. Are you still under the impresion that "you" are 'idea's and 'thougts'?

...

24th November 2004, 08:23 PM

In a democracy, the people vote for....... So if the people have "religious preference and reasonless emotionality" How does that equate with freedom?

..it doesn't when "religious preference and reasonless emotionality" stifles freedom. Altough people are free to entertain all kinds of ideas, it becomes another matter when minorities are discriminated against...

QUOTE
..luckily, you are still free to have an opinion... So is the man in prison. I don't see how that is freedom.

..me neither...

"Chose ignorance" ? With an open mind, and without prjudice, I did ask a few people about thier voting for Bush, and guess what, not a one said they just decided to "choose ignorance". Maybe you have some new information you would like to share. But it seems that you are now saying that only 51% of americans are ignorant. So with just a 1.000000000.1%, swing, you may be saying that the majority of Americans are not "ignorant". Great! They will be happy to hear about the progress.

..have about overturning Roe vs Wade? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1410EDT0606.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/06/17/national1410EDT0606.DTL) When Bush appoints rightwing conservative High Court judges, it might actually happen. Would you applaud that? Some interesting reading material for you: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1120-21.htm and http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/21/t...sion/index.html (http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/21/tax.provision/index.html) and http://us.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/11/19/passen...g.ap/index.html (http://us.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/11/19/passenger.screening.ap/index.html)

I am questioning (attacking) idea's and thoughts.

..is that what you're doing? I'll be waiting for you to argue against pro-choice then...

Are you still under the impresion that "you" are 'idea's and 'thougts'?

..no, but it does appear as if you do...

venom mama

25th November 2004, 07:10 AM

does wtf stand for "what the ****?"

NeverMind

25th November 2004, 01:32 PM

absolutely.

we don't swear here. :unsure:

you might get banned.

jesupocaplypse

30th November 2004, 04:06 PM

we're (sort of) discussing what it's NOT the governments job to do.... before we solve that, wouldn't it be easier if we first figured out/ agreed upon/ or simply were aware of what IS the government's job? this is something i've pondered over many times before.... we're paying them for something... We pay them to control us? are they doing what they are supposed to be doing? Providing for a nation of people? Protecting that nation of people, from other nations of people who want to harm us? We all get to sleep better because we pay people with guns and neat gadgets to be ready to do violence on our behalf should the need arrise. They even have people with guns and neat gadgets who we pay to be ready to do violence to ourselves if the need should arise. What's violence? that we are paying our government to do/be ready to do? The harmful exertion of force? What is force? power? control? creation and destruction? Why are we paying a bunch of old greedy bastards in suits to be the ones who get to decide how are lives are lived? because we're afraid of mean people who might take advantage of us if the gov't wasn't there to scare them away? hmph. seems silly to me. Can i give up my government?
Can i live on the land where i was born without being required to give up my control to an organization of wrinkly folks?

The government should Not police our morality, ... but they police our behavior.

don't morality and behavior kinda go hand in hand? If the govenrment shouldn't be policing us, it isn't just any one thing, such as morality that they shouldn't be controlling, but 'everything'... i don't need the governemt to police my life at all.

Why do we need a government at all? Why Should countries be run? I really don't give a shit what happens anywhere outside my own enviorment, my neighborhood. I don't need a government to look after my neighborhood, just me and my neighbors have got it taken care of well enough. If the whole world would stop meddling in other peoples affairs and only concern themselves with their immediate surroundings; their homes, well then we might not be throwing explosives and bullets at each other so much, and instead be more concerned with getting the potatoes dug up for dinner, or what it is that the kids found in the park...

The only thing i see the government doing is protecting me from/dealing with other governments.
Bof> are they providing something else for me? medi care? (here in canada they are, but it's not very good, and i get much better healing by visiting my grandmother, and so i don't use it.) They are certainly not providing me with anything i need. No food, or shelter..... zip nada. Maybe i'm missing something here... but What is the government actually doing other than preventing people from being self sufficent?

gah, screw the government, i'm gonna go water the flowers...

sahyo

1st December 2004, 01:26 AM

screw the government, i'm gonna go water the flowers...

exactly

:D

NeverMind

2nd December 2004, 04:43 AM

"Guys, respect the ladies. They are like flowers. Treat them as such"

"Let's go find us some flowers!"

DoWalker

11th December 2004, 03:28 AM

Why Should countries be run? I really don't give a shit what happens anywhere outside my own enviorment, my neighborhood. I don't need a government to look after my neighborhood, just me and my neighbors have got it taken care of well enough.

For now. Let's see how well you and your neighbors do against a foreign invader without a national defense system.

If the whole world would stop meddling in other peoples affairs and only concern themselves with their immediate surroundings; their homes, well then we might not be throwing explosives and bullets at each other so much, and instead be more concerned with getting the potatoes dug up for dinner, or what it is that the kids found in the park...

And if the whole world was nice, the whole point would be moot. Unfortunately, some people are mean. Ergo, we need a government for at least defense.

Why do we need a government at all?

Let's go back to the stone age. Two groups of 50 people each live on a plot of land that will only produce food for 50 to survive the winter. The battle over resources has begun. The biggest warrior becomes a despot, and rules. Later, his strength is supplimented by allies.

Monarchy is created when the monarch wants to be sure his son gets the same assurance of survival he had, and misuses dogma to solidify his political power.

Democracy is our way of spreading the power as best we can. If we abandon government, the whole cycle will start over -- some big guy with allies will take over, (kind of like high school.) We WILL have a government, it will simply be one not of our choosing.

We need a government to be sure we don't end up with a worse government. Sad, eh?

This will only be false when there are enough resources to go around, so no one has to fight anyone else for survival. Oh, and when everyone is mature enough not to fight to get more than they need.

Jeez, I sound like a Communist . . . :)

jesupocaplypse

11th December 2004, 12:29 PM

that is sad. because this planet certainly IS capable of producing for much more than is already here... or at least it was.

No one place can give up government. It'd only work, if EVERY government was abolished, all at once. Protecting us from itself.... ahh!! It's the beast! The Illuminati! They control the world, they own every government, and make us think it's all seperate, just to keep the funding going, the taxing and such...

Using "war" and "terrorism" to keep us afraid and docile... paying, begging for their 'gov't' to protect them from the bad guys... and on the other side, the exact same thing... both begging the same wolf in two different sheep skins, to keep them safe.

(that's right don't listen to him he's just :wacko: ...is what you've been programed to think.......

:lol:

NeverMind

11th December 2004, 12:59 PM

oh but people are gluttonous, greedy bastards. it cant ever work! People that have what they need aren't satisfied with what they have, they want more ! EVERYBODY wants more than they have. Thats why no government or lack of government can ever work.

jesupocaplypse

14th December 2004, 07:37 AM

such a state of mind, socially, grew from capitalism. Where god is a green paper worth money. Where you trade your time on the planet, your life, your being and soul, in exchange for a piece of god that you can convert into material objects. That man is closer to god than I am, look at all the matter he has accumulated, i want that... When governments dissolve, and capitalism with it, when money has no value. and You, and Me lose their distinction, and become We, then so too does greed dissolve. When what is wanted is not for you or me, but for we. Then we all gain.
.
..
...
....where has the community gone? Where is We? I see only you and me.

If the story of Sodom and Gommorah is true... Just how vile was that city, that it warrented a rain of fire... and we don't?

If a man wants to steal what I have, that means he lacks something that I have. So instead of fearing, and resisting, I will invite the man into my home, share with him, and help him to grow his own.

When Yours, and Mine, dissolve, then there is only Ours. and theft disappears.

...... ah.. dream dream dream.

It's hard to live in such a world, when imagining how much better it could be. Soon forget how much worse it could be too. But imagining better/worse, and you forget how it is. and you forget where/when/who/how/ and why. Complaining won't change it. If wanting a better world, one has to stand up, open their door and make that change. 'Seems' difficult. The beast goes to great lengths to discourage. Smash the beast. Slay him that we can live without his fear. But his fear makes would be slayers, afraid for their bodies, afraid of dying.

Is a better world not worth sacrificing everything for? If i went down in a blaze of police gunfire, trying to abolish the government, would anybody bat an eyelash? Would the 15 second blurb on the news, last in memory for more than a day or too? Would anything change? Need a bigger lever. If 100 people went down in a blaze of police gunfire, trying to abolish the government, Then would anybody bat an eyelash? Would people start to wonder? start to think? start to ask Why?

They keep us in a state of near limbo, yet gradually decaying underneath shiny new constructs. the Illusion of progress to hide the falling apart insides. Hiding it, making us think it's not that bad, it's good even, .... I'm content. How much worse must it yet get before the rest cannot take it?

Until a madman gets behind the reins, and uses our own 'protecters' to tip the scale too far to one side, and it all collapses?

How many great revolutions have been squelched with the calling of 'dinner time'?

NeverMind

14th December 2004, 11:40 PM

any civilization that tries to rape an angel deserves to be smited

jesupocaplypse

15th December 2004, 02:31 AM

do you not think, an angel would fetch a mighty high price in this society? some people would pay millions or more...

NeverMind

15th December 2004, 05:43 AM

come to think of it, i'd hit that

jesupocaplypse

15th December 2004, 11:07 AM

Shoot, if a real Angel were foolish enough to make it's presence known in this society... and mortals, in whatever way, were able to, the angel would be captured, and paraded around on television, marketed, exploited, and raped in just about every way possible, except physically. ... and even that's not much of a stretch...

I think the problem, is that there isn't just any one specific city that is corrupt and in need of purification. The rot goes deep, and permeates almost every facet of this civilization. It's spread so wide, and so very cleverly hidden right in front of our noses, that not enough people notice, and "cry out against it". I just re-read that chapter in the bible, and it seems, there were lot's of complaints to god about the state that S & G was in... squeaky wheel gets the grease eh? maybe i just need to be patient, and let the flood waters break the dam on their own.