I'm not sure what you're trying to say

 

 

Are you trying to say citzens should rule?

No, I'm trying to say that increasing the risk of crime for your own freedom is a selfish thing to do.

Not so.

Double morals are a healthy thing.

For instance, it would be considerably better if I was King.

However

If someone else was King then it might not be considerably better.

 

Ergo I have double morals.

 

It is also the case with Communism...It could be considerably better if we did, but we don't, so it is worse.

 

Double morals are merely our way of saying 'I'd like that power, but I wouldn't like someone else to have that power.'

 

 

If you don't have them then you can't function in society because you don't compromise.

Also what do you mean by increasing crime rate for your own means is selfish? Where did that even come from?

Archi, double morals is bad because it means you would not let someone else have a luxury you would given the opportunity take yourself. And double morals is the entire reason why compromise is necessary, else the decision would just start of as fair in the first place. I for example am without double morals, I would not prevent one who deserves an opportunity as much as myself from seizing it if I would have seized it myself given the chance.

 

Icu, as Res said, he would have stricter policies as a leader than he would have chosen to have as a civilian.

He also said he wanted to try reduce crime rate.

If he was leader yes, but he only wanted freedom as a civilian.

Archi, double morals is bad because it means you would not let someone else have a luxury you would given the opportunity take yourself. And double morals is the entire reason why compromise is necessary, else the decision would just start of as fair in the first place. I for example am without double morals, I would not prevent one who deserves an opportunity as much as myself from seizing it if I would have seized it myself given the chance.

 

Who would decide who deserved the opportunity?

 

For instance. You and I are neighbours. There is money tree growing on the boundry line, I say 'I am having the money tree', you say 'We should split the money tree', I agree.

You then find the tree bare, and I have a new car.

 

Now, either you have to take on some double morals, because I can't be trusted to treat you in the same regard as you treat me....or you need to take on some double morals because you are treating yourself differently from how you are treating me.

Ergo, double morals are born out of the world not being perfect.

It wouldn't be a fine choice, those that have broken and not re-earned the trust of those it affects do not deserve it.

So going with a tiered system of morals.

Makes sense.

Not a morals, just the simple "Who has done something to not deserve it?"

Yup, you are tiering.

'This person won't give me this, so I won't give them this.'

 

Same as before 'If I was King I would be awesome, if someone else was King they might not be awesome.'

 

Double Morals...They exist because society couldn't function without them.

If he was leader yes, but he only wanted freedom as a civilian.

Acting differently based on the context is probably to be expected, if not a good thing. A leader should have different priorities than a civilian, and should be able to differentiate between his needs and those of his people. As a civilian he may want more freedom, but as a leader he has to be able to draw the line between it and the safety of the people he should be leading.

More like "That person mugged me, I won't lend him the last buck he needs for a lottery ticket."

So basically not-applicable to running a country?

 

'Everyone can have the welfare state....except you, you once kicked a ball through my window so now we can die in the gutter.'

There you go at it wrong again, there's a difference between a right and an opportunity for exceptionality.

So....basically...you have 1 set of morals, which are embodied as rights...and another set of tiered morals.

 

You are exactly the same as Resistance or me...or most everyone else.

 

 

Although, if we wanted to put it into the correct context:

'Everyone can have the welfare state....except you, you refused to stop eating cake and now weigh 500 kilograms'

'Everyone can have the welfare state....except you, you come from another country and we can't afford to pay for the rest of the world.'

'Everyone can have the welfare state....except you, you don't have a job, your parents didn't have jobs, their parents didn't have jobs either, and you have 13 children, who also don't have jobs.'

'Everyone can have the welfare state....except you, you tried to detonate an atomic bomb in Oslo.'

'Everyone can have the welfare state....except you, you stole fifty million dollars of tax payers money, flew to Switzerland, lived the high life for 30 years, and when you ran out of money and suffered from cancer, returned to your home.'

'Everyone can have the welfare state....except you, you have already had two liver transplants and you haven't stopped drinking, your drinking right now.'

'Everyone can have the welfare state....except you, you aren't an organ doner.'

'Everyone can have the welfare state....except you, you intentionally shot your leg off to claim on insurance.'

 

Double Morality is an inherant part of being human, without it, the state cannot function.

Again, welfare is a right, I am talking about giving someone the opportunity for something only they will get, at least at that time.

 

And unless the not involves breaking a law, then no not is a reason for them not to be given the opportunity.

 

 

Stop trying to make it look like it's a withdrawal of a right, exceptionality is not a right and is something you'd usually have to do a lot to deserve, I would however give anyone a shot at it at long has they hadn't done something to make them undeserving of it.

I think I have successfully proved my point.

Now it just remains for you to join up the dots, which can be done at your own leisure.

All this talk of morals. I guess you could say mine are pretty much the same with a few minor differences, but in the end, I just don't give a [bleep] about things like that. The money tree was an awesome point, but me personally, unless it directly effected my life (ex, I needed the money to keep my home or something) I really wouldn't care if you took it to buy a new car. Well, as long as you were a friendly and kind neighbor that I liked. If I didn't like you, I might have to go knocking on your door. >:0

Forget the arguement Archi

 

Mather is a god sent from the heavens above in the holy land of Norway, part of the holy league of Scandinavia that has been whispered throughout the legends as the place where the creator had his holiday home and taught the schools there (thus why Norweigens are so amazing)

 

 

Any idea said by a Norweigen is obviously better than anything we could ever even comprehend. All of the stuff we hear about in Norway is infact a lie, Norway ascended years ago, Mather is using a super network that transmits data faster than the speed of light all the way from the great beyond, all of which he invented by himself in his infancy.

Thats just what we understand...the truth is far more shocking.

Forget the arguement Archi

 

Mather is a god sent from the heavens above in the holy land of Norway, part of the holy league of Scandinavia that has been whispered throughout the legends as the place where the creator had his holiday home and taught the schools there (thus why Norweigens are so amazing)

 

 

Any idea said by a Norweigen is obviously better than anything we could ever even comprehend. All of the stuff we hear about in Norway is infact a lie, Norway ascended years ago, Mather is using a super network that transmits data faster than the speed of light all the way from the great beyond, all of which he invented by himself in his infancy.

Not bad enough to make it explode. C'mon, you can do better.

ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!! (Not for long) I is a teenaged anarchist. Once I turn like twenty I'll take polotics seriously, or untill the next president comes into play.

 

I've stopped taking interest in presidential politics since Obama came into the office.

 

He's all compromise this and caring that. FIGHT THOSE DARN CONSERVATIVES RIGHT NOW. BEAT THEM TO THE GROUND.

 

Politics should be about majority parties lording over the minority, mass initiatives to get supporters out to vote, heated arguments about which set of policies is better than the other, and refuse to accept anything less! Victory or death! Wooooooooooooooo