Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:59:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
662 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
>
> > > > Who said anything about the majority? I just said "enough people".
> > >
> > > Isn't that a majority?
> >
> > No. Check out what "Pure Democracy is Evil" has to say about majority
> > rule. I love the silly quotes at the bottom.
>
> So I agree that unfettered democracy is evil. I think what Orion is
> asking you is for a definition of "enough people." I'm curious too.
I don't think any one definition fits all situations. Look at the
peanuts on airplanes issue. Apparently these peanuts cause an extreme
amount of suffering for a rather small number of people. The
relativly light pain caused to others by substituting pretzels is
smaller in comparison. I guess what I'm trying to say is the balance
of good to evil is not directly proportional to the number of people.
A well constructed government will take this into account.
> > The minute you show up in *public*, prancing around naked with your
> > various body piercings flailing about, you impinge upon *my* freedom
> > to ignore you.
> I think there is a degree of behavior that could be called impinging
> on your freedom, but simply choosing not to wear as many clothes as
> you while going about my perfectly natural business doesn't seem
> like that.
Not to you, but if a large number of people start to vomit at the
sight of your naked hairy body, dingleberries and all, then it's an
issue for society. That said, if you can find enough people who
don't mind, then go ahead and behave that way amongst them.
> > And don't get me started on the marriage thing. Marriage is NOT a
> > right.
> Um, I think that every way you can look at it, you're wrong.
> Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says you're
> wrong. But hey, we in the US don't give a stinking rat's turd what
> the UN says, right? OK, so how about the fact that marriage is a
> right in English common law -- the very foundation of our judicial
> system? The normal limitation (and this applies for appropriate age
> and other mental capacity issues) on this right is to those with
> "sufficient understanding to deal in the common transactions of
> life."
We're back to that matter of scope. I think we agree with a lot of
what the UN has to say. Just not everything.
> > It's a construct invented by organized religion and supported
> > by the government, ostensibly to provide some stability for children
> > in order to safeguard our future.
>
> It almost certainly predates religion.
What makes you think that? Perhaps we're working with a different
definition of religion.
> > Demonstrate an equivalent benefit
> > to society when it's extended to gay couples.
> The benefit to society would be the affirmation that homosexuals are
> people too. It would help, in the long run, if not immediately, to
> remove the strife experienced between homosexuals and the
> close-minded bigots who oppose their equal access to the law.
> Further, I reject that the governing of marriage and more
> specifically, reproduction, actually does provide the benefit you
> cite. What do you think, that people would stop raising children
> with we did away with the institution of marriage as an object of
> governance?
I agree there would be a benefit for some, but I think overall there
would be a greater loss of benefits for others. See my reply to
Orion.
I don't believe people would stop raising children, but I do think they
would do a much poorer job of it if you remove or substantially reduce
the support structures currently in place. Do you think schools should
be completely funded by children and their parents? It's a similar
issue.
Don
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) But you're making a ridiculous comparison. An action by a person that produces a substantially unhealthy state for others is very different than one who does not. The occurrances of people reacting to the sight of a naked body, even a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Peanuts on Airplanes (was Re:Skin)
|
| (...) So this is an interesting example, because the negative effects are pretty well understood, and the costs of an alternative are pretty well understood. Of course what may not be so understood is how many other substances can cause fatal (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) So I agree that unfettered democracy is evil. I think what Orion is asking you is for a definition of "enough people." I'm curious too. (...) I think there is a degree of behavior that could be called impinging on your freedom, but simply (...) (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
|
|
|
|
