February 13, 200719 yr Author 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. If someone is voting to ban homosexual marriage, because they think it's immoral, they clearly think it's better for society to not have immoral things legal. Whether or not you consider that "voting against harm" is your call, but they obviously think they are doing what's best for society.
February 13, 200719 yr And therefore they are fine to vote that way. 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.
February 13, 200719 yr Author If they are voting for the reason of discrimination, and they think discrimination is better for society, then you are being inconsistent with your original post.
February 13, 200719 yr 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. 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.
February 13, 200719 yr Author 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. Discrimination is the reason. Didn't you read my post?
February 13, 200719 yr 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. 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.
February 13, 200719 yr Author 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. Unless discrimination is better for the society in their eyes, according to you.
February 13, 200719 yr 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. 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.
February 13, 200719 yr Author 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. So? They are still voting for what's best for society. Your belief is based on the idea that since it's subjective, and can always be changing. Your belief should have no problem with voting for a different system of rule.
February 13, 200719 yr 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. 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.
February 13, 200719 yr Author 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. The reason is still discrimination.
February 13, 200719 yr They are voting for discrimination and their reason is they want a different system of rule. 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.
February 13, 200719 yr Author They are voting for discrimination and their reason is they want a different system of rule. No. The different system of rule is an after effect of voting for discrimination. Quit changing the wording just to suit your needs.
February 13, 200719 yr It's obvious they want a different system of rule. Why would someone vote for discrimination without that want? 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.
February 13, 200719 yr Author It's obvious they want a different system of rule. Why would someone vote for discrimination without that want? 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.
February 13, 200719 yr It's obvious they want a different system of rule. Why would someone vote for discrimination without that want? 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. 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.
February 13, 200719 yr Author It's obvious they want a different system of rule. Why would someone vote for discrimination without that want? 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. If I am voting against homosexuality because I have unfair prejudices against them, then my only reason is discrimination. I've already stated that the vote for discrimination is under the belief that discrimination will help society. Under your belief system, that is an acceptable vote. Yet it is inconsistent with your original post.
February 13, 200719 yr 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. 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.
February 13, 200719 yr Author 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. Let me see if I can make this more clear. 1. You said the law should be blind to social and religious discrimination. 2. You admit that if someone thinks discrimination is better for society, they should vote for that. And if the majority votes, it should be. Those viewpoints are inconsistent.
February 13, 200719 yr 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. 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.
February 13, 200719 yr Author 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. That's a cop out. I'm done discussing with someone who uses a cop out in a serious discussion.
February 13, 200719 yr I don't see why thats a cop-out. You can do whatever you wish. 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.
February 13, 200719 yr Author I don't see why thats a cop-out. You can do whatever you wish. Because it's a thought experiment. You can't use anything else, such as the state, to make your argument more acceptable. Your system of belief is universal, not tied to a specific state. By amending it about the state and whether or not they should have joined, you are just coping out.
February 13, 200719 yr 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. 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.
Create an account or sign in to comment