|
Sexuality/Gender Norms (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| prolikewhoa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
What institution truly has a monopoly on morality, though? Don't say religion, because religion is merely a word we use to describe a process.
Why is the observation of secularity necessarily cellular? So long as it is stemming from any given authority, whether it be federal or otherwise, what difference does that make? If you're not gravitating toward "absolute tolerance" - an obviously impossible pitfall - then your result is inevitably going to be in the very same flux it always has been.
Tolerance of any sort is always essentially harmful, but to whom and how much does it cost? |
there is no one institution in my mind... i think that there are many contributing factors and periods of history that have led us where we are today. i think that many of those factors were indeed influenced by religion. you got prohibition from the temperance revivals in the early 20th century, for example.
i think there are instances where tolerance could actually reverse costs, at least monetary costs, to society. drug prohibition, in particular could reduce the costs to society in a myriad of ways. for one, it would save the federal government the apx $15 billion annually that it spends enforcing the war on drugs. not to mention the 500,000 people in jail right now for nonviolent drug offenses. or the almost $50 billion in lost revenue annually that could be derived from the taxation of now illegal drugs.
i'm just using drug prohibition as an illuminating example here, but my point is that there is a line on morality being the basis of illegality.
let's say a person smokes crack. they stay at home, and do not endanger anyone. i think this should be legal. i do not think this person should have their property seized and be thrown in jail.
let's say a person smokes crack, and then runs naked around his neighborhood, causing a car accident, then that's a crime. that person directly harmed a person and their property by reckless endangerment. that is different than the simple act of altering their consciousness. |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Wait... so you're confusing me here... you're saying that everything should be tolerated provided it isn't harmful; harmful to be defined by legislators (and/or the judiciary), and then questioning the legitimacy of that which legislators and the courts base their definition of harmful on? How can you say legislators and the courts should determine what is to be tolerated then question the whether or not they have made sound judgments regarding same in the past? Why would you give them that authority if you question whether it has been well exercised traditionally? |
they should derive their definition of harmful from the declaration of independence!
| quote: | | We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. |
everyone has the right to their life, their liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - inherent in this definition is that these rights not infringe upon the rights of any other, as all men are created equal. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
they should derive their definition of harmful from the declaration of independence!
|
But the declaration a) does not apply to any place but the US and North Vietnam (which essetially plagerized it for their own declaration of independance, and b) the declaration is not part of the constitution and has no legal weight.
My question remains; if you think they have a track record of poor decisions regarding tolerance then why would you let them be the arbiters of what should be tolerated? |
|
|
| ivofivo |
| Let's be serious.... |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
let's say a person smokes crack. they stay at home, and do not endanger anyone. i think this should be legal. i do not think this person should have their property seized and be thrown in jail. |
Whose home? |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Whose home? |
their own :p |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| See, now I know you're full of . Crackheads don't own homes! |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
But the declaration a) does not apply to any place but the US and North Vietnam (which essetially plagerized it for their own declaration of independance, and b) the declaration is not part of the constitution and has no legal weight.
My question remains; if you think they have a track record of poor decisions regarding tolerance then why would you let them be the arbiters of what should be tolerated? |
i'm not sure how we got to this point of contention. all i'm saying is that there are inherent hypocrisies in what is illegal and what is not. those hypocrisies don't make sense. if something is only harmful to an individual, and that individual is a consenting adult, the government shouldn't have the right to throw that individual in jail for doing it.
do i have the logistic means to set out how we should go about changing laws and deciding what to and what not to legalize? no. however, off the top of my head, in a perfect world, i would legalize gambling, prostitution, illegal drugs, bigamy, polygamy, sodomy, gay marriage, and suicide/assisted suicide.
does this mean i agree or want to partake in any of these things? no. it just means that adults have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to.
there would be inevitable controversy and problems doing this, but i think in the end we would have a more free, just society. we would unburden our prison/judicial/law enforcement systems immensely and concentrate on real crimes with real victims. emotional victims don't count. it may hurt someone's family that they chose to buy drugs with their paychecks, but that doesn't mean we should throw that person in jail for hurting their family. let me use an absurd example - imagine if i could throw my ex boyfriend in jail because he broke up with me. i was hurt, right? doesn't that make it wrong?
right/wrong are personal, subjective measures of morality. the government should only be concerned if actions hurt the person or property of another.
just my opinion. |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
See, now I know you're full of . Crackheads don't own homes! |
they do on TV!!!
/breaking bad |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
|
I suppose my contention is with the idea that anyone group of people should be given the authority to determine what is tolerable. Personally, I prefer the current system where people are free to express their objections and everyone else is free to either accept those views, dismiss them out of hand, or challenge them directly. |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I suppose my contention is with the idea that anyone group of people should be given the authority to determine what is tolerable. Personally, I prefer the current system where people are free to express their objections and everyone else is free to either accept those views, dismiss them out of hand, or challenge them directly. |
right, but people can get thrown in jail for things that the current state doesn't tolerate that i don't think should be considered crimes. that's all i'm saying. i don't want a group of people deciding anything for me. i want to decide for myself, as long as i'm not hurting anyone. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
right, but people can get thrown in jail for things that the current state doesn't tolerate that i don't think should be considered crimes. that's all i'm saying. i don't want a group of people deciding anything for me. i want to decide for myself, as long as i'm not hurting anyone. |
You can't. We live in a community and give the courts and armed police forces the right to dispense our laws. Somebody has to do it.
Majority rules. |
|
|
|
|
