Satenza

Actually making discrimination good for society no longer means discrimination would be unfair and therefore would be a valid reason. Also isn't discrimination subjective anyway? I can beleive your christian morals to be discrimination, whereas you can beleive mine to be discriminating. So discrimination doesn't stop being discrimination but whats classed as discrimination would, wouldn't it? And really, who thinks discrimination is good for society? The only reason you keep questioning me is to wait for me to trip up in a hope you can win this discourse, but your rejection of seperating the states principles from the majoritys decision in voting is wild. How can a state's reason be seperated from the decisions it's subjects make if such decision is agaisnt the states reason for existing? Thats like voting no to democracy yet I am going agaisnt my own train of thought because i have voted and therefore accepted democracy as the best way to change things. I have given you an answer to this a long time ago, just answer my question (which you have been avoiding) and accept my relevant answer to your question. Have you ever read On Liberty? If so do you recall how many mistakes and contradictions are made within it? Not everyone can be constantly consistent in all statements, yet you make me out to be some sort of idiot who because of this doesn't deserve the ability to discuss things with you. So really, as I attempt to iron out Mills contradictions and deliver this system to you as the one i beleive to be best for society could you be just a little less self-righteous and a little more understanding of my beleif. Thats not to say you can't critisize it yet when you make a contradiction to be the flaw and therefore failure of a system then it's quite a hard task you lay before me. Frankly I now understand why people write books instead of argue, because they are long dead before the next person can respond to them. You have a very clever way of belittling people, thanks for insulting my intelligence. So well done, nice job at getting personal. I think you owe me an answer to my question.

Fine, if we remove the states principles away from this then we will see. Voting for discrimination would be a contradiction because there would be no such thing as discrimination if the majority thought that too. So in actual fact he is voting to destroy discrimination. And I found the problem i laid before your state interesting. Can you answer how you would deal with it and any problems you have with my state again?

The only inconsistancy you see is that if someone wishes to vote for discrimination. But the principles of the state mean that the person doesn't understand the foundation of why the state exists which is the individual is sovereign. So they would be voting against the state they are accepting (by voting) to take part in. And how would you get around the problem i laid before your state?

Einstein was a brilliant scientist. Although was his beleif universally true? If not then why should I care what his beleif is? Saying religion has to correlate with science is completley true. We have science which produces evidence, and therefore christianity to be valid should fit with science. If not then it leads us to God being able to changes the laws of his creation and so makes all science invalid. Or to sum up your argument 'God created it, so he can change it!' Which doesn't fit at all in a debate if the rules can change. Infact it's not a debate. It's faith in God which isn't a debate. 1. God created science 2. Science therefore does not have to correlate with my correct religion because God created it and can therefore change it. 3. Therefore God exists. That isn't a valid argument.

People to this day use the Bible to justify murder. They justify it by the mentality that becaue God slayed people that went against his word they can do the same too. Thats not much of an interpretation to me. However thats not my point, there are many better books or principles where you can learn morals without the human sacrifice and genocide.

I also hate the fact people use the Bible to justify such repression, ilegitimate authority and atrocitys over others. However they do use the Bible because it states that this almighty God who people beleive is right in every action he takes commits such atrocity. We can see by our standard of morals that it is not acceptable yet these people find this book justifies those things. Which is why i do not hold the Bible in high regard as a moral codebook, and I can find much more valuable books to be insights into how we should live.

I did not say you stated that only the Bible can be valuable from protecting us from immorality. Which is exactly my point, why would you hold a book in such high regard that mixes in it's morals with human sacrifice, genocide and much much more which allow this book if in the wrong hands to justify almost any atrocity we can imagine.

Why do you beleive the Bible to be so valuable if you don't beleive in it's religion? The majoirty of men outside of the state of nature would feel it natural too not murder or steal from his fellow man. Before the Bible was written, our societys protected us from such 'immorality' so why is it so special?

That expectation of society is made unreal by people who still after all society has been through beleive that their opinion and only their opinion has right over others. If we end this discussion with your sole critisism of the state being that society is not ready for it then i will gracefully stop. I would have thought a christian man could understand this system of rule over following a Bible, as it was the church that made an error in the first place because of this very reason. The church executed the son of God because they beleived their morals where absolute and what he was preaching was wrong. Think if Jesus had lived in this society he would have been free from such absolute morality and could have lived longer and told the world a lot more. If a state which took the morals from the Bible to be absolute was to exist, who's to say another coming of Gods son wouldn't change the New Testements morality? Like Jesus did to the Old Testement? You beleive the Bibles morals to be absolute yet who are you to excercise this judgement that the Bible will not once again change? Truth through persecution always prevails however it has to wait for a society to accept such truth.

Just exactly what are his conclusions? That music which some humans beleive to be better than some other music causes water crystals to look different? How is that at all relevant to even evidence of a God? It's subjective music and phrases written down. I really don't see where you are coming from with this. So are you saying pretty water crystals being created beacuse listeneing to classical music and exposing it to postive phrases should make anyone beleive that at least a God can exists? 1. Water crystals form when i subject them to certain conditions. 2. They become even prettier when i expose them to nice phrases or classical music. 3. God exists because of this. The whole thing doesn't even suggest any type of God and if anything just a natural beauty.

The individual has rights. The only thing which is absolute in this system is that negative freedom progress' society. Which is the states principle, which is like saying within this state I currently live in democracy is good for the people. Whether someone else beleives that to be wrong is irrelevant to this states way of electing and so on. Who said they have no rights? If someone takes away anothers freedom then they go to jail. If someone doesn't understand freedom then they are educated to understand it. How would that ever happen? As long as people don't break laws then they will remain in society. This system is built on negative freedom - negative freedom is not a moral and it is not subjective. It's one's ability to make a free choice.

I have said that this state is all about freedom and the individual for the past ten pages.

Ok this state DOES hold the individual to be sovereign.

If the state holds certain principles such as the individual being sovereign then that directly affects that persons decision to vote for discrimination because a vote for discrimination would assume the individual is not sovereign. Edit: Your taking the morality and beleifs of the state away from it when the state consists of more than morals and beleifs of it's people but of it's principles as to why it exists in the first place.

I'm explaining how a particular state would exist, i don't see why I can't use the state to show that an individual who joins a state when he doesn't agree with it's principles should not be evicted from the state.

I don't see why thats a cop-out. You can do whatever you wish.

The only reason would be too want a different system of rule which goes against the principle of the the state which is the individual is sovereign. And therefore should have never joined the state in the first place.

In this society there are no unfair prejudices in the voting system because everything is realative. So discrimination means that they are voting against their own beleif of whats best for society.

It doesn't matter. That is not the reason for the vote. The vote is for discrimination. If you are going to discuss a philosophical thought experiment, you have to do it properly. Maybe I should write it like this, so you quit changing it. If they are voting for discrimination, and discrimination is the reason, under your system of thought that vote is acceptable. This is speaking to the universality of your belief system. You are not to assume anything about the government they are in, or their right to vote. Ceteris paribus. Discrimination isn't a reason for voting. Discrimination is not voting for your beleif. Thats like saying "I'm voting for homosexuality my reason is homosexuality" which doesn't make sense.

It's obvious they want a different system of rule. Why would someone vote for discrimination without that want?

They are voting for discrimination and their reason is they want a different system of rule.

I don't have a problem with voting for a different system of rule and their vote therefore has a reason and no longer is discrimination.

However they are voting against the state's principles. Something which they would of had to agree too when joining the state. If they beleive discrimination in essance to be best for society they are voting for a different system of rule.

The whole society is based on freedom and that individual is sovereign. So voting against this would assume they don't understand this. So there vote would not count.

Voting for no reason or against their beleifs would mean that person does not understand freedom and so they should not be allowed to part-take.