SLOWSTORM Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Which brings me back to subjective consensus morality. People vote, but what they vote doesn't mean it can't change in the future. Which means that if people vote to ban gay marriage, they are no more forcing their views of morality on people than you do when you support different laws. Wham! Gotcha! :wink: Satenza, you walked into that one with your mouth open! Good logic, Locke. When you are learning, you are growing. If you stop learning, you stop growing. If you stop growing, you die. Train hard, eat fried chicken, and take a one-a-day. (And cook that broccoli 'til it's yella and pour cheese all over it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Which brings me back to subjective consensus morality. People vote, but what they vote doesn't mean it can't change in the future. Which means that if people vote to ban gay marriage, they are no more forcing their views of morality on people than you do when you support different laws. Wham! Gotcha! :wink: Satenza, you walked into that one with your mouth open! Good logic, Locke. I walked into nothing, I have been talking about my personal opinion whether society in general reflects that is completley different and I agreed with Locke. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Yes, i have been giving you only my opinion based on the harm principle. What the majority decides goes as long as they decide on it for the correct reasons and not for what I explained before. Correct reasons is subjective. Your philosophy would have to be fine with the majority deciding on it for any reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Correct reasons is that they beleive in what they are doing is best for society as a whole. So the vote is subjective to them which is should be. If they vote against what they beleive then they are going against the principle of why democratic state exists in the first place - they don't know their freedom or influence and so shouldn't take part. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Correct reasons is that they beleive in what they are doing is best for society as a whole. So the vote is subjective to them which is should be. If they vote against what they beleive then they are going against the principle of why democratic state exists in the first place - they don't know their freedom or influence and so shouldn't take part. Finally. Now I can show you why your initial point is inconsistent with your own beliefs. The only other arguments are from a religious point or a socilogical point. Some don't want gay people to marry because they find it 'weird' and some religious people don't want gay people to marry because they find it goes against their religion. However the law should be blind too both religious and sociological discrimination and allow any minority too conduct themselves anyway they wish which mirrors everyone else's laws. According to your own belief, it doesn't matter why they decide it is better for society to ban it, as long as they as a majority think that it is better. So according to your own belief, the law should not be blind to any reason, sociological or religious if the majority thinks what is being banned is wrong. It doesn't matter where their sense of morality comes from, according to you, as long as they believe what they are doing is right. This is why your initial point, that sparked all of this discussion, is contradictory to your own set of beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I said should be blind to religious and socilogical discrimination. The people of society should vote for firstly what they beleive to be best for society not for their own gain (unless they beleive their own gain is best for society). Discrimination is different to reason, discrimination would be that person voting against something for the fact they don't themselves like it. If a man doesn't like homosexuality yet beleives allowing it is best for society then by voting against homosexuality he is going against his beleifs and discriminating. If he has a reason for the banning then that is a lot different to discriminating against it. By discrimination i mean they are banning something for nothing as there is no reason. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 I said should be blind to religious and socilogical discrimination. The people of society should vote for firstly what they beleive to be best for society not for their own gain (unless they beleive their own gain is best for society). Discrimination is different to reason, discrimination would be that person voting against something for the fact they don't themselves like it. If a man doesn't like homosexuality yet beleives allowing it is best for society then by voting against homosexuality he is going against his beleifs and discriminating. If he has a reason for the banning then that is a lot different to discriminating against it. By discrimination i mean they are banning something for nothing as there is no reason. If you believe that banning gay marriage is discrimination it still doesn't effect that it's being done because people think it's best for society. Period. Also, read this line carefully: However the law should be blind too both religious and sociological discrimination and allow any minority too conduct themselves anyway they wish which mirrors everyone else's laws. Notice the word "however?" You were specifically referencing the first part of your post. The only other arguments are from a religious point or a socilogical point. The point is that under your own beliefs, the reason doesn't matter. Yet in your initial post, you claimed the reason does in fact matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I said should be blind to religious and socilogical discrimination. The people of society should vote for firstly what they beleive to be best for society not for their own gain (unless they beleive their own gain is best for society). Discrimination is different to reason, discrimination would be that person voting against something for the fact they don't themselves like it. If a man doesn't like homosexuality yet beleives allowing it is best for society then by voting against homosexuality he is going against his beleifs and discriminating. If he has a reason for the banning then that is a lot different to discriminating against it. By discrimination i mean they are banning something for nothing as there is no reason. If you believe that banning gay marriage is discrimination it still doesn't effect that it's being done because people think it's best for society. Period. I said it's fine as long as people have a reason if they choose to ban it for no reason at all then it is discrimination. Also, read this line carefully: However the law should be blind too both religious and sociological discrimination and allow any minority too conduct themselves anyway they wish which mirrors everyone else's laws. Notice the word "however?" You were specifically referencing the first part of your post. Actually, the first part was in referance to my own personal opinion which is why I seperated each part from each other. The second paragraph refers to what the state should do. I was not calling religious or social beleif discrimination. The only other arguments are from a religious point or a socilogical point. The point is that under your own beliefs, the reason doesn't matter. Yet in your initial post, you claimed the reason does in fact matter. The absence of a reason matters, as long as the reason is present and is what the person beleives to be best for society then it doesn't matter. If anyone is to vote against what they beleive is best for society there vote shouldn't count. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 You are still changing your original post. No where in your initial post did you say that "having any reason at all makes it not discrimination." Further, you would have to accept that if the reason the people have is discrimination and they think that will help society best, then that's what should be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Discrimination in this society is 'having no reason at all'. So if someones reason for banning homosexuality is 'having no reason at all' that 'no reason at all' does not count as a reason and it's therefore still discrimination. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Discrimination in this society is 'having no reason at all'. So if someones reason for banning homosexuality is 'having no reason at all' that 'no reason at all' does not count as a reason and it's therefore still discrimination. If the majority of people "just don't like" homosexual marriage, and they think society would be better without it, discrimination is the reason. The point though, is under your system of belief, there doesn't need to be a reason at all. The reason can simply be "I think this is better," as long as the majority of people agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Discrimination in this society is 'having no reason at all'. So if someones reason for banning homosexuality is 'having no reason at all' that 'no reason at all' does not count as a reason and it's therefore still discrimination. If the majority of people "just don't like" homosexual marriage, and they think society would be better without it, discrimination is the reason. I don't see that, if the majority of people don't like it and think society will be better without it they arn't discriminating because they have reason for it. The point though, is under your system of belief, there doesn't need to be a reason at all. The reason can simply be "I think this is better," as long as the majority of people agree. Practically speaking yes, there couldn't be anyway of working out why someone voted against something. However the fact that it's subjective allows things to change. The people would be taught through education and so forth that when they vote they require a reason. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Then all discrimination has a reason. If you are saying, "It's better this way" is a reason, then everyone who discriminates does it for a reason. Everyone who discriminates thinks it better to discriminate. You're talking in circles. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 If people think it's better to have no reason then they still have no reason. How would that be relevant to any policy? Can you provide an example? Edit: Oh you are saying me classing "It's better this way" as a reason allows for discrimination. Well people would be educated on the harm principle and therefore theoreticaly wouldn't just vote out of "it's better this way" but out of what they truley think is best for society. However since morals are subjective they should have the ability too vote as long as they have a reason. Discrimination meaning not having a reason and so shouldn't happen. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Edit: Oh you are saying me classing "It's better this way" as a reason allows for discrimination. Well people would be educated on the harm principle and therefore theoreticaly wouldn't just vote out of "it's better this way" but out of what they truley think is best for society. However since morals are subjective they should have the ability too vote as long as they have a reason. Discrimination meaning not having a reason and so shouldn't happen. Quit bringing up your harm principle. That's irrelevant from a universal perspective because only you think it's the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 This discussion is based on using a harm principle style of governing people. So yes it is important. What they beleive to be harm is very important. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 This discussion is based on using a harm principle style of governing people. So yes it is important. What they beleive to be harm is very important. No it's not. So not it's not important. I continually have said that the harm principle is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't matter to anyone in this discussion except you. You keep using it as a way to get out of admitting your own beliefs are inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 How are they now inconsistent? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 How are they now inconsistent? Your initial post, which you have yet to retract, is inconsistent with your belief that any reason is an okay reason to ban anything in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Just because i didn't say "not having any reason at all is discrimination" doesn't mean I am being inconsistent. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlanders Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Satenza and locke, you're both lost in the abstract universe and nothing of what you're saying are making sense anymore ;P Also, people never vote based on what they believe is better for society. Someone that doesn't like gays will vote for something that disavantages gays, regardless of the fact that gays are persons aswell and that they should be able to marry, and such. 2480+ total Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Just because i didn't say "not having any reason at all is discrimination" doesn't mean I am being inconsistent. You said that people should not ban things on sociological or religious reasons, yet you said any reason is good enough for a majority to ban something. That is inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Just because i didn't say "not having any reason at all is discrimination" doesn't mean I am being inconsistent. You said that people should not ban things on sociological or religious reasons, yet you said any reason is good enough for a majority to ban something. That is inconsistent. No I said discrimination. Such as "I beleive homosexual people are alright, and not harming anyone. However my religion deems that it isn't right therefore i will vote against it". Since their beleif is that it won't harm anyone yet they go against their own beleif. Or "I think homosexual activity should be banned, but wait. The rest of society beleives otherwise therefore i will go against my own beleif and vote for what everyone else wants". With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Once again you use the harm principle to avoid the reality of your own beliefs. No I said discrimination. Such as "I beleive homosexual people are alright, and not harming anyone. However my religion deems that it isn't right therefore i will vote against it". Since their beleif is that it won't harm anyone yet they go against their own beleif. It doesn't matter if they believe if it will harm anyone or not, if they believe it's better to vote against it, under your beliefs that is what should be done. How many times are you going to run back and hide behind your "harm principle" just to avoid being inconsistent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 The whole principle is to decide whats harmful and whats not harmful for society. If they beleive that it's not harmful to society then it doesn't harm society in anyway and is therefore better for society to have individuals living life experiments so that society can progress. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now