Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 02:23:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
568 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But who's "sensibilities" are we catering to? Does this mean that if
> > > > one guy in the mall that I frequent thinks my girlfriend should wear a
> > > > full length dress instead of slacks then she should and if she doesn't
> > > > then she's "uncivilized" and "narcissistic"? The argument nakedness
> > > > is wrong in that most people feel that covering up is the "right" thing
> > > > to do is fundmentally flawed.
> > >
> > > We're catering to the sensibilities of the local culture and the laws
> > > they enact. If enough people in one society decide public sex acts
> > > should be illegal then they should be free to create laws to that effect.
> > > If you can convince enough people that public sex is wonderful, then
> > > you should be able to get the law changed. Until then, either obey it
> > > or pay the consequences. Or move to Canada ;^)
> >
> > What if I convince enough people that slavery is wonderful? Should
> > we encat a law authorizing slavery? Or, a little less extreme than
> > the above example, what if I convince enough people that men wearing
> > skirts is wonderful? The point I'm trying to make is that the majority
> > is not always right. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the
> > majority is often wrong.
>
> Who said anything about the majority? I just said "enough people".
Isn't that a majority?
> The problem with your argument is that it implies all laws are bad
> so long as one person disagrees. Well, if that one person likes to
> kill people, you've got a problem. Without laws you have anarchy.
I'm saying that laws that infringe on one's personal freedom's are wrong.
The Principle of Life Ownership states:
"I own my own life. I can do whatever I want to with it. This is a right that I
take for myself. No one has a right to take my life away from me— all of it, or
any portion of it— without my CONSENT. No one may diminish the quantity— or the
quality— of my life. To be consistent, I also extend this right to everyone
else, because all people are fundamentally equal. Everyone has the right to his
or her own life." [1]
Basically what this means is that you don't have the right to kill, rape, or
tortue someone because their life does not belong to you hence why laws against
these things are warrented and neccessary. But public nudity, gay marriage,
smoking pot, body piercing, and pre-marital sex are perfectly fine since these
don't take away a person's ability to live a life of their choosing away from
them
-Orion
--
[1] http://freethought.mbdojo.com/lifeownership.html. A good article as long as
you can see past the atheistic tone of the article (assuming you're not an
atheist).
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) No. Check out what "Pure Democracy is Evil" has to say about majority rule. I love the silly quotes at the bottom. (URL) The problem with your argument is that it implies all laws are bad (...) Agreed. Except for one small detail. You don't (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Who said anything about the majority? I just said "enough people". The problem with your argument is that it implies all laws are bad so long as one person disagrees. Well, if that one person likes to kill people, you've got a problem. Without (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
