TCF's Vote on the Republican Nomination

KristallNacht wrote:Whats surprising though is how many still religious people have been able to determine that law shouldn't be influenced by what is a sin or isn't. Just like law should never require someone to be a good person.

The rest need to realize that subtleties in morality being turned to law will always screw people over.

and on to a second Lazarus Long quote.

"Does history record any case in which the majority was right?"

And that's why you're libertarian and why I'm conservative.

KristallNacht wrote:
"Does history record any case in which the majority was right?"

Depends on who you ask. I can think of plenty. Think we can all agree that abolishing slavery was a good thing and that went through by Majority vote.

abolishing slavery went through a civil war, and even after that happened people treated blacks like sub-humans for years...

also slavery still happens

Point stands was a Majority vote. And the Civil war didn't start just from the concept of abolition.

KrAzY wrote:abolishing slavery went through a civil war, and even after that happened people treated blacks like sub-humans for years...

also slavery still happens

Abe Lincoln. Nuff said.

dragoon9105 wrote:Point stands was a Majority vote. And the Civil war didn't start just from the concept of abolition.

there was never a vote

true, if you choose something that is bad like MURDER or HUMAN TRAFFICKING or RAPE you will get a majority of people who agree that those things are bad.

you realize however that in this country a majority of people enjoy reality TV, a majority of people believe that Einstein failed Math when he was 15, and a majority of people believe that sugar causes people to be hyperactive...

just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right

a person can be smart, but people as a whole are stupid shits and the majority's opinion is usually influenced by either the one that they hear the most, or the one that people around them spout off the most. This is why advertising works, and why most people are the same religion and have the same political ideals as their parents. 1 bad idea perpetuated for 20 generations will sound like a good idea when 2,000,000 people all believe it.

just like Christianity. Chances are a lot of the rules and 'sins' sounded retarded as shit when it started. But now that its old, it seems more reasonable.

While oligarchies don't really work for the fact that the royal bloodlines and elites are too self-centered, a system more like what exists in Starship Troopers seems like a great way to fix the flaws of the Oligarchy by requiring each individual to earn his own 'elite' status through a vested interest in the success of the nation. If you carry some of the responsibility, you'll make better decisions with the authority.

Right now, people that hold no responsibility vote. And that power to vote is a great authority. But 'tax cuts' sounds great, until you have to handle the responsibility of trying to cut spending to allow that to happen, or spend some time in the government and realize how little money even exists there in the first place.

Yes, we all know that a majority of voters are retards. This has little to do with the roles of a government.

Your idea is simple: the government should just let people do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt other people. Correct?

Please define hurting other people.

Use Mill's definition. It's better than anything one of us would come up with, even if it isn't perfect.

CivBase wrote:
Please define hurting other people.

physical harm, thievery, destruction of property.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:Please define hurting other people.

physical harm, thievery, destruction of property.

What about public nudity? Child pornography? Blackmail? Fraud?


BB, I googled "Mill's definition of harm" and the results said something like 'harm is when someone's actions injure the interest of others'. Does that sound right? In that case, what define's someone's 'interests' and how can they be 'injured'?


We don't need to continue this debate. In fact, I'd really rather not since we all know it wont accomplish anything. This is, more or less, what separates libertarian and conservative ideals. Neither is right in any earthly sense; it's a matter of opinion.

CivBase wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:Please define hurting other people.

physical harm, thievery, destruction of property.

What about public nudity? Child pornography? Blackmail? Fraud?


BB, I googled "Mill's definition of harm" and the results said something like 'harm is when someone's actions injure the interest of others'. Does that sound right? In that case, what define's someone's 'interests' and how can they be 'injured'?


We don't need to continue this debate. In fact, I'd really rather not since we all know it wont accomplish anything. This is, more or less, what separates libertarian and conservative ideals. Neither is right in any earthly sense; it's a matter of opinion.

well, child pornography, blackmail, and fraud all do cause harm to people

again, if you are going to come up with examples, try to come up with examples that not everyone already thinks are bad things. you will be hard pressed to find any decent people who think child pornography doesn't harm children or ANYONE who thinks that blackmailing someone isn't harmful...

public nudity is an ok example... I don't think harms anyone, except potentially the individual who is nude. The reason it is illegal is because religion tells people to be ashamed of their bodies, and that has trickled down to all parts of society over time. even if it WASN'T illegal most people wouldn't walk around naked all the time because it is impractical and you would likely hurt yourself. this boils down entirely to the idea of SEX = BAD that is prevalent in our society, other, more primitive cultures walk around with their genitals hanging out wearing clothes only where it will protect them, and their societies don't crumble and die... at least not until we show up and start forcing our "superior" ideals on them

KrAzY wrote:well, child pornography, blackmail, and fraud all do cause harm to people

again, if you are going to come up with examples, try to come up with examples that not everyone already thinks are bad things. you will be hard pressed to find any decent people who think child pornography doesn't harm children or ANYONE who thinks that blackmailing someone isn't harmful...

You were just making the case against popular sovereignty. Voters are stupid, right? If people can't simply impose their morals on others through popular vote and the government can only intervene in cases when people are causing harm to each other - there needs to be an adequate definition of harm. NT's definition of harm did not include any of those examples.

KrAzY wrote:public nudity is an ok example... I don't think harms anyone, except potentially the individual who is nude. The reason it is illegal is because religion tells people to be ashamed of their bodies, and that has trickled down to all parts of society over time. even if it WASN'T illegal most people wouldn't walk around naked all the time because it is impractical and you would likely hurt yourself. this boils down entirely to the idea of SEX = BAD that is prevalent in our society, other, more primitive cultures walk around with their genitals hanging out wearing clothes only where it will protect them, and their societies don't crumble and die... at least not until we show up and start forcing our "superior" ideals on them

So you think public nudity is okay and that's fine. Other people (a large majority) don't feel at all comfortable with that idea, though. Should the government be able to outlaw public nudity?

physical harm includes emotional harm... also blackmail and fraud are also both types of thievery

popular sovereignty works when you are talking about something that is OBVIOUSLY bad, something that does hurt people.

its when the government starts stepping in and blocking things like censorship of things that the majority isn't comfortable with... Public Nudity is an example here. People should be allowed to express themselves, even if it makes other uncomfortable, unless their expression is causing Physical harm or unpreventable Emotional Distress then the government should have no right to ban that form of expression.

don't argue that a nude person in a room causes unpreventable emotional distress, if a naked person is in the room and bothers you all you have to do is look away. I personally do not like body piercings or tattoos, but I don't think they should be illegal, I just don't look at them. if you can't help but stare at a person's genitals then that is a personal problem, nobody is forcing you to look at them.

to be clear, I don't particularly enjoy being around nude people either. However, all that clothing does is force you to not look, clothes shouldn't be necessary for that. I do life drawing with nude people about 4 times a week, I don't know anybody who spends that whole time staring at the guy's dick or the girls vagina... and anyone that does is just immature

also stop saying (a large majority) I don't care about majority rules here, if you are going to debate, debate with your own beliefs or arguments. I care about what you have to say, not what they say. why do you personally think that the government should be allowed to make anything that the mob deems bad ILLEGAL

KrAzY wrote:physical harm includes emotional harm... also blackmail and fraud are also both types of thievery

But what are the boundaries for emotional harm? I could say that a lot of things cause me emotional harm that aren't illegal. Public nudity could certainly be included in 'emotional harm'.

Also, neither blackmail nor fraud are thievery. Blackmail is a threat and fraud is deception. Neither involve taking things that aren't yours - they're underhanded ways of making things yours.

KrAzY wrote:popular sovereignty works when you are talking about something that is OBVIOUSLY bad, something that does hurt people.

How do you define the obviousness of something other than by how many people agree with you? That essentially means that popular sovereignty works when the majority agrees with you. You've already pointed out that such is not the case.

KrAzY wrote:its when the government starts stepping in and blocking things like censorship of things that the majority isn't comfortable with... Public Nudity is an example here. People should be allowed to express themselves, even if it makes other uncomfortable, unless their expression is causing Physical harm or unpreventable Emotional Distress then the government should have no right to ban that form of expression.

What if public nudity causes emotional distress? Your opinion of the body is different from mine. Something that causes me 'emotional harm' may not have the same effect on you and vice-versa.

KrAzY wrote:don't argue that a nude person in a room causes unpreventable emotional distress, if a naked person is in the room and bothers you all you have to do is look away. I personally do not like body piercings or tattoos, but I don't think they should be illegal, I just don't look at them. if you can't help but stare at a person's genitals then that is a personal problem, nobody is forcing you to look at them.

The 'if you don't like it here, go' policy stops working when there's nowhere else to go. That's why public nudity is outlawed, not private nudity.

KrAzY wrote:to be clear, I don't particularly enjoy being around nude people either. However, all that clothing does is force you to not look, clothes shouldn't be necessary for that. I do life drawing with nude people about 4 times a week, I don't know anybody who spends that whole time staring at the guy's dick or the girls vagina... and anyone that does is just immature

I'm also sure nobody every compliments how well you drew the genitals. People tend to avoid those areas of the paintings for the same reason people don't want public nudity.

KrAzY wrote:also stop saying (a large majority) I don't care about majority rules here, if you are going to debate, debate with your own beliefs or arguments. I care about what you have to say, not what they say. why do you personally think that the government should be allowed to make anything that the mob deems bad ILLEGAL

I'm only trying to distinguish between your ideas and majority rule.

actually we spent a whole week being forced to ONLY draw the pelvic section of both male and females, I have about 20 pages in my sketchbook dedicated to the genitals because they are important to the function and the movement of the entire human body. I was indeed praised on my ability to understand and draw a penis. just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't a vital part of art or animation.


also I never said if you don't like it leave. there is always somewhere else you can look. If you are uncomfterable by the mere PRESENCE of the nude human figure then you should always be uncomfterable, Genitals don't go away just because you aren't looking at them, and all clothes do is make you not see them if you are intentionally looking at them.

you still havn't answered any of my questions about why you feel that the government should be allowed to ban something just because you don't like it.

(you being the "vast majority" since you refuse to answer me as an individual)



to be clear I do not believe that people should start walking around Naked all the time, I am using this example that YOU brought up as a government censorship issue. Personally I think that people should always wear clothes simply because they are practical, and personally I find clothed women more attractive than naked women. also gentials are ugly and strange as fuck to look at. But people are way too sensitive about it and the government should not make it illegal to show any part of your body, as long as you aren't intentionally trying to hurt someone (aka flashing people or children). Personally I never would go naked infront of anyone. but that is MY choice, not the governments.



im not going to argue the schematics of blackmail and fraud with you, because it does not make sense for EITHER of those to be used if you aren't actively attempting to posses something that isn't rightfully yours... WHICH IS THEFT

KrAzY wrote:actually we spent a whole week being forced to ONLY draw the pelvic section of both male and females, I have about 20 pages in my sketchbook dedicated to the genitals because they are important to the function and the movement of the entire human body. I was indeed praised on my ability to understand and draw a penis. just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't a vital part of art or animation.

My point was that just because you are okay with it doesn't mean everyone else is. Of course they'll comment on it if that's all you're drawing - it's part of the class. When other subjects are present in your art, though, I would assume that the genitals receive very little commentary.

KrAzY wrote:also I never said if you don't like it leave. there is always somewhere else you can look. If you are uncomfterable by the mere PRESENCE of the nude human figure then you should always be uncomfterable, Genitals don't go away just because you aren't looking at them, and all clothes do is make you not see them if you are intentionally looking at them.

The presence of genitals and the presence of a nude human are not synonymous.

KrAzY wrote:you still havn't answered any of my questions about why you feel that the government should be allowed to ban something just because you don't like it.

(you being the "vast majority" since you refuse to answer me as an individual)

I never knew you asked that question. My answer would simply be that we disagree about the roles of the government. I think that the government should be involved in issues of morality.

KrAzY wrote:im not going to argue the schematics of blackmail and fraud with you, because it does not make sense for EITHER of those to be used if you aren't actively attempting to posses something that isn't rightfully yours... WHICH IS THEFT

'attempting to posses something that isn't rightfully yours'

Define 'rightfully'.

Of course I want the country's laws to match with my own values and ideals. Just about everyone does. You do too, KrAzY; so does NT, and Ron Pau,l and Obama, and Santorum. Everybody thinks that their version of right and wrong is... well... right. The question is how to implament morality and punishment into law for a country as diverse as the United States.

You don't like majority rule for many justified reasons and I agree entirely. But what else can we use? You can't have a government without power to enforce morals, though. (And just because everyone agrees on a moral, like 'don't murder' doesn't mean it's not moral enforcement. Then you're just going back to majority rule)

The government shouldn't enforce morals at all. It may work for those that already follow those morals, but its just fucking over other people.

There is absolutely no good reason why a government should enforce any morals.

The comfort of the few never outweighs the rights of the many.

For instance, drugs. I don't do drugs, I don't like them, I even naturally judge people that use them and apply a stigma to the act. But there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be legally allowed to ingest all that stuff.

If anyone tries to limit the freedoms of other people, that makes you selfish and a piss poor human being, no matter which Lord Pheonix you align yourself with.

KristallNacht wrote:The government shouldn't enforce morals at all. It may work for those that already follow those morals, but its just fucking over other people.

There is absolutely no good reason why a government should enforce any morals.

I ended my last post the way I did for a reason. 'Don't murder' is a moral, no matter how you justify it. Our government can't not enforce morals any more than it can completely remove itself from the economy. Having less involvement in morals is one thing, but what you're calling for is social anarchy.

KristallNacht wrote:The comfort of the few never outweighs the rights of the many.

Nobody's talking about the comfort of the few. Morals are dictated at the moment by the many - they're willing to give up rights in exchange for certain comforts and securities. Whether or not you like that system that's how things currently work. If you think you have a better system feel free to share. Social anarchy, though, is not a better system.

KristallNacht wrote:For instance, drugs. I don't do drugs, I don't like them, I even naturally judge people that use them and apply a stigma to the act. But there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be legally allowed to ingest all that stuff.

Even when it endangers the people around the user? Drinking and driving doesn't hurt anyone until the drunk driver hits someone.

KristallNacht wrote:If anyone tries to limit the freedoms of other people, that makes you selfish and a piss poor human being, no matter which Lord Pheonix you align yourself with.

I disagree. This has nothing to do with religion so shut up about it already. A persons morals may be affected by the religious affiliation, but that is completely irrelevant. Culture, gender, ethnicity, and wealth also affect one's morals. Nobody is asking for the Pope to take over the presidency; you're just making a fool out of yourself.

CivBase wrote:
I ended my last post the way I did for a reason. 'Don't murder' is a moral, no matter how you justify it. Our government can't not enforce morals any more than it can completely remove itself from the economy. Having less involvement in morals is one thing, but what you're calling for is social anarchy.

Except 'don't murder' defends the rights of that other individual.

CivBase wrote:
Nobody's talking about the comfort of the few. Morals are dictated at the moment by the many - they're willing to give up rights in exchange for certain comforts and securities. Whether or not you like that system that's how things currently work. If you think you have a better system feel free to share. Social anarchy, though, is not a better system.

Laws are dictated by the vocal. If there are more vocal anti-drug individuals than vocal pro-drug individuals, it looks like a majority is anti-drug. Except the large amount that don't care either way because it doesn't affect them (not that it effects anti-drug individuals anyway)

CivBase wrote:
Even when it endangers the people around the user? Drinking and driving doesn't hurt anyone until the drunk driver hits someone.

But is drunk driving represent the use of alcohol as a whole? When statistics show that drinking greatly increases the risks driving, the two shouldn't be allowed to mix. Much like meth. Meth itself is safe in terms of the fact it can only really hurt those that use it, which is their right. But chances are driving while meth'd up is probably very dangerous, and as the risks towards the rights of others is too great, shouldn't be allowed.

Just because I can kill a person with a fork, doesn't mean a fork should be illegal (unless science shows that 60% of people exposed to forks then killed someone with a fork)

CivBase wrote:
I disagree. This has nothing to do with religion so shut up about it already. A persons morals may be affected by the religious affiliation, but that is completely irrelevant. Culture, gender, ethnicity, and wealth also affect one's morals. Nobody is asking for the Pope to take over the presidency; you're just making a fool out of yourself.

Morals are almost entirely based on religion. Culture, gender, ethnicity, and wealth more determine ethics.

Besides my comment use the concept of Lord Pheonix for emphasis, not literally directed towards religion.



oh, and about social anarchy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

KristallNacht wrote:Except 'don't murder' defends the rights of that other individual.

What rights? And what about all those other cases that I mentioned earlier that KrAzY took on?

KristallNacht wrote:Laws are dictated by the vocal. If there are more vocal anti-drug individuals than vocal pro-drug individuals, it looks like a majority is anti-drug. Except the large amount that don't care either way because it doesn't affect them (not that it effects anti-drug individuals anyway)

Which is one of the reasons why we use a republic instead of a pure democracy.

KristallNacht wrote:But is drunk driving represent the use of alcohol as a whole? When statistics show that drinking greatly increases the risks driving, the two shouldn't be allowed to mix. Much like meth. Meth itself is safe in terms of the fact it can only really hurt those that use it, which is their right. But chances are driving while meth'd up is probably very dangerous, and as the risks towards the rights of others is too great, shouldn't be allowed.

I'm not saying we should re-enact prohibition. So you agree that an action with a potential to harm others should be outlawed? How much potential is necessary? Someone high on meth has greater potential to harm others even when not driving (obviously, though, that potential is significantly decreased). What potential is the dividing line?

KristallNacht wrote:Just because I can kill a person with a fork, doesn't mean a fork should be illegal (unless science shows that 60% of people exposed to forks then killed someone with a fork)

Wait... I'm confused now. What is your stance?

KristallNacht wrote:Morals are almost entirely based on religion. Culture, gender, ethnicity, and wealth more determine ethics.

Your morals are probably not the exact same as LP's or KrAzY's, though, even though you share similar religious beliefs. On the same note, my morals are not the same as many other Christians. Religion has an effect, but it is not the deciding factor.

In this case, ethics and morals are more-or-less synonymous since the government's actions in morals is dictated by the morals of the population (effectively, their ethics).

CivBase wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:Just because I can kill a person with a fork, doesn't mean a fork should be illegal (unless science shows that 60% of people exposed to forks then killed someone with a fork)

Wait... I'm confused now. What is your stance?

I'm Pro Fork

Well put, LP.

Can we just agree that we have different opinions on how involved the government should be with morals and leave it at that?

CivBase wrote:
I'm not saying we should re-enact prohibition. So you agree that an action with a potential to harm others should be outlawed? How much potential is necessary? Someone high on meth has greater potential to harm others even when not driving (obviously, though, that potential is significantly decreased). What potential is the dividing line?

Is there really proof that meth users have greater potential to harm? Hell, aderal is mostly just meth as is. And that dividing line is determinate on a typical Risk Management system. Is it high potential for minor harm, and zero chance of death, and very low potential for medium harm? Is it high potential for death? They already have risk management system for determining what kinds of risk are acceptable.