Locke Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 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. Because we are discussing a universal set of beliefs, so they have to withstand scrutiny in any universal situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 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. 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 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. If. That isn't universal though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Ok this state DOES hold the individual to be sovereign. 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 Ok this state DOES hold the individual to be sovereign. You can't change my hypothetical scenario, even though you've been doing it for the past 10 pages. Bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I have said that this state is all about freedom and the individual for the past ten pages. 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...
Binyam Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I have said that this state is all about freedom and the individual for the past ten pages. See, here is the thing. You have been stating that, in your hypothetical state, that one's freedom is subjected to whether they understand freedom. This, in itself, is a flawed process. In a state with no absolutes and individual sovereignty, who defines freedom? At some point something has to be solid. If I go down to the sandy beach and try to build a house, what will keep it there when the storm comes? At some point there has to be something that is not subject to change, or the system will fail. It will fail for many reasons, but foremost among them is that humanity is inherently imperfect and will not always do the right thing. If society removes one's status in society for "not understanding freedom", then the system has already failed because it now has a class of individuals that have no rights. If they have no rights, then the rule of law does not apply to them and the "free" class can do with them as they wish. If those individuals who "don't understand freedom" are removed from society, then the system is destined for failure because sooner or later there won't be anyone left in society but the one with the strongest will. Any system must have a foundation to be built on. That foundation cannot constantly shift back and forth or the system WILL fail. If the system fails, then it is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Don't bother. He doesn't understand the need to universalize his beliefs in order for them to pass the scrutiny of a subjective stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I have said that this state is all about freedom and the individual for the past ten pages. See, here is the thing. You have been stating that, in your hypothetical state, that one's freedom is subjected to whether they understand freedom. This, in itself, is a flawed process. In a state with no absolutes and individual sovereignty, who defines freedom? At some point something has to be solid. If I go down to the sandy beach and try to build a house, what will keep it there when the storm comes? 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. At some point there has to be something that is not subject to change, or the system will fail. It will fail for many reasons, but foremost among them is that humanity is inherently imperfect and will not always do the right thing. If society removes one's status in society for "not understanding freedom", then the system has already failed because it now has a class of individuals that have no rights. 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. If they have no rights, then the rule of law does not apply to them and the "free" class can do with them as they wish. If those individuals who "don't understand freedom" are removed from society, then the system is destined for failure because sooner or later there won't be anyone left in society but the one with the strongest will. How would that ever happen? As long as people don't break laws then they will remain in society. Any system must have a foundation to be built on. That foundation cannot constantly shift back and forth or the system WILL fail. If the system fails, then it is flawed. 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. 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 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 The sad part is that your entire belief system is based on one very specific and unreal expectation of society. There is nothing universal about it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 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. 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 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 That's irrelevant to the point that your statements are inconsistent with each other, and the only way you can make them not inconsistent is by changing the scenario, which you can't due to satisfy your belief system. You keep taking it off subject in order to draw attention away form the fact that your beliefs are inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 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? 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 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 As soon as I realized you were dodging the point again, I didn't even realize your little "problem." You can't make that argument you just did because it assumes a specific state, which goes against the scenario. You can't change it like that if you are actually trying to have a valid belief system. Why can't you understand that? I've said it about 50 times, yet you keep doing it. There is no specific state in mind, quit pretending like there is just so it looks like you aren't contradicting yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 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? 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 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 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? No that doesn't work either. You just made up your own definition of discrimination which is ridiculous. Do you know why it's ridiculous? Under your logic, if discrimination is being voted for by the majority, it is no longer discrimination. That is ridiculous because your initial point said "the law should be blind to discrimination." You wouldn't say that if you believed it wasn't discrimination if the majority agreed because that would be redundant. Discrimination doesn't stop being discrimination just because the majority thinks it should be the case. So now you've moved to changing definitions of words to make it seem as though your views don't contradict themselves. I used to think you were capable of serious philosophical discourse. Apparently that's not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 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. 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 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 1. Discrimination is still discrimination no matter if the majority approves. Slavery was very beneficial to the south and the majority liked it - does that mean it's not discrimination? 2. Apparently some people do think discrimination is good for society. 11 states banned homosexual marriage in the United States in 2004 by a vote of 60% or more in almost every once of them. If your beliefs can't live up to any scenario, that is your fault, not mine. Don't you know the purpose of a thought experiment? I'm not answering your question until you quit making up definitions, changing the scenario, and generally trying to avoid that your system of thought is contradictory. The only way you can get out of saying your views are inconsistent with each other is by changing or ignoring the point. Maybe if you quit doing this 13 pages ago I wouldn't be irritated that you keep talking in circles and making up definitions for words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 1. Discrimination is still discrimination no matter if the majority approves. Slavery was very beneficial to the south and the majority liked it - does that mean it's not discrimination? Yes under our standards it is, yet you assume people then where like us which they where not. By their standards it would not have been discrimination. As it changes with the majoritys thought of what is right and wrong. 2. Apparently some people do think discrimination is good for society. 11 states banned homosexual marriage in the United States in 2004 by a vote of 60% or more in almost every once of them. Can you prove they did this out of discrimination? Perhaps they had valid reasons for this banning. If your beliefs can't live up to any scenario, that is your fault, not mine. Don't you know the purpose of a thought experiment? I understand the purpose of a thought experiment, i know when Descartes couldn't get past his problem of evil he made up an evil demon, yet this sounds absurd if i where to say something similar would it not? I'm not answering your question until you quit making up definitions, changing the scenario, and generally trying to avoid that your system of thought is contradictory. The only way you can get out of saying your views are inconsistent with each other is by changing or ignoring the point. Maybe if you quit doing this 13 pages ago I wouldn't be irritated that you keep talking in circles and making up definitions for words. Definitions for words like this are as i have said realtive to what society beleives is good and bad. 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 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Yes under our standards it is, yet you assume people then where like us which they where not. By their standards it would not have been discrimination. As it changes with the majoritys thought of what is right and wrong. Ridiculous. Discrimination is discrimination. Can you prove they did this out of discrimination? Perhaps they had valid reasons for this banning. Of course I can. I live in one of the states where it happened. I understand the purpose of a thought experiment, i know when Descartes couldn't get past his problem of evil he made up an evil demon, yet this sounds absurd if i where to say something similar would it not? Your beliefs have to satisfy all situations no matter how absurd. It's one of the founding principles of philosophical argumentation. Definitions for words like this are as i have said realtive to what society beleives is good and bad. You saying it doesn't make it true. Discrimination is discrimination. Maybe the people then didn't view it as morally correct, and maybe you would say since morals are subjective it was perfectly moral, but it's still discrimination. Otherwise, if discrimination is subjective, then your initial point is even more ridiculous than before. How can the law be blind to discrimination if discrimination is different for whoever is talking about it? That would mean the law is always blind to discrimination, and your initial post would have been pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Maybe because you beleive in absolutes that is correct, however if discrimination is subjective it doesn't mean the law would be blind to all discrimination. It means it would be blind to the majoritys idea of discrimination. Subjective consensus morality answers that. Also just because you live in a state which had such discrimination in voting doesn't mean this state would. As i already pointed out this is a far out expectation of society and the manner in which one person would decide whats best for society would be after they have been educated on Mills principles. Whether society wishes to change is down to them. 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 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Maybe because you beleive in absolutes that is correct, however if discrimination is subjective it doesn't mean the law would be blind to all discrimination. It means it would be blind to the majoritys idea of discrimination. Subjective consensus morality answers that. That would mean that discrimination almost never exists because it is almost always the majority discriminating against the minority. Your point gets more and more ridiculous the more you elaborate on it. Unlike what you think, discrimination is a real word with a real definition. That doesn't change just by you suggesting it. Also just because you live in a state which had such discrimination in voting doesn't mean this state would. What does that sentence even mean? As i already pointed out this is a far out expectation of society and the manner in which one person would decide whats best for society would be after they have been educated on Mills principles. Whether society wishes to change is down to them. That's ridiculous. Mill's principles aren't the only principles. Quit pretending they are. Here we go again, it can't go a full page without you coming back to specifics. Right around in that circle again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Maybe because you beleive in absolutes that is correct, however if discrimination is subjective it doesn't mean the law would be blind to all discrimination. It means it would be blind to the majoritys idea of discrimination. Subjective consensus morality answers that. That would mean that discrimination almost never exists because it is almost always the majority discriminating against the minority. Your point gets more and more ridiculous the more you elaborate on it. Unlike what you think, discrimination is a real word with a real definition. That doesn't change just by you suggesting it. I beg to differ, discrimination has changed over the centuries and your beleif of homosexuals not allowed to be married may be classed as dicrimination by the majority in the future. The mere fact you can even contest this shows you are imposing your absolute morals onto it. Also just because you live in a state which had such discrimination in voting doesn't mean this state would. What does that sentence even mean? Read the rest of the paragraph it was in then make judgement. As i already pointed out this is a far out expectation of society and the manner in which one person would decide whats best for society would be after they have been educated on Mills principles. Whether society wishes to change is down to them. That's ridiculous. Mill's principles aren't the only principles. Quit pretending they are. Mill sums up the harm principle and the idea the individual is sovereign a lot better than anyone else I have read. Now to end this, what question do you now want me to answer? 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 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Your point on discrimination still doesn't make sense. You originally said the law should be blind to discrimination. Now you say that discrimination is determined by the majority. Laws are determined by the majority. Therefore, laws would never be discriminatory and never need to be blind to discrimination. This shows that you are now changing what you originally thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Yes they would, take for example a english law which forbids blasphemy, if the people where to decide that blasphemy was to be against the law one year. Then the next year they decided that was discrimination towards people who do not beleive in God they would get the law removed. 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