• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

Tucker Case said:
If the pro-dancing neighbor chooses to dance in the street, then the anti-dancing neighbor is being forced to live in a pro-dance environment. What gives you the right to force him to live in a pro-dancing environment?

If someone is anti-dancing, they have a right to try and promote legislation that dictates that dancing should not be allowed in the environment in which they live. If someone is pro-dancing, they have just as much of a right to try and promote pro-dancing legislation.

I'm not against forcing morality upon others at the local level, I'm against forcing morality of any sort on the federal level.

Doing so on the federal level removes the choice form the local person to promote their beliefs through legislation.

I would never support an anti-dancing law, In fact I would ardently oppose such a law.

The is that by forcing people to live in an environment that they are morally opposed to, by way of federal legislation, you effectively remove their right to choose. If the nation has a pro-dancing law, then that ther is no place within that nation that allows for people to live in a dance-free environment.

If a person finds residing in a pro-dancing environment immoral, they are having the opposing morality forced upon them.

It is not simply a matter of "If you don't like X behavior, then don't engage in X behavior".

Some people legitimately feel just LIVING in an enviroment that promotes X behavior is immoral.

by removing their ability to live in an anvironment that is freee form X behavior, you in fact force them to engage in something that they find immoral.

That is forcing one's own morality upon others.

By allowing each local area to decide the matter for themselves, we in effect lessen the degree upon which morality is forced upon others.

By allowing choice, we do NOT force morality upon others, we force CHOICES upon others.

If your local area decides to ban X behavior, you are now faced with three choices:

1. Move to an area that allows X behavior.
2. Choose to say but lobby to get the local ordinances changed to allow X behavior.
3. Deal with it because you choose NOT to engage in 1 or 2.

All three are legitimate choices.


Now, the reverse is also true. If a person wants to ban X behavior, but locally X behavior is allowed they now have three choices to make:

1. Move to an area that does not allow X behavior
2. Choose to stay but lobby to get the local ordinance changed to not allow X behavior
3. Deal with it because they choose NOT to engage in 1 or 2



If this practice is adopted nationwide, and kept as local as possible, the end effect is that NOBODY, of any stripe, has ANY morality FORCED upon them. They ALL have choices that they can make.

Even if the three choices are unappealing to the person in question, the fact is that choice does exist.

To me, forcing things upon people is the removal of the ability to make some sort of choice. Morality cannot be forced upon someone if the country were to adopt, because there would always exist a choice.
Click to expand...

Freedom is the default. There would be no pro-dancing law. Freedom is what this country was founded on. It's our greatest attribute as a nation.

If living in a free society hurts people's personal morality, this country may not be the place for them. Our Constitution is set up so the minority doesn't suffer the tyranny of the majority. Freedom is the overriding value. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. If you don't like living in an environment where I swing my fists but hurt no one, that's your problem. If you outlaw me being able to swing my fists, you've punched my nose.
 
winston53660 said:
Because they banned dancing which is a form of expression. And if the anti-dancers don't like it they can choose to protest, damn the dancers to hell or just not look.
Click to expand...

False. They are not banned from dancing. If a local ordinance bans dancing, it only does so locally. Dancers are still free to express themselves where dancing is legal.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Our Constitution is set up so the minority doesn't suffer the tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't this apply when the minority chooses to live under a certain morality?

Don't you see how this means that local jurisdiction should have primacy over federal jurisdiction?
 
Tucker Case said:
Why doesn't this apply when the minority chooses to live under a certain morality?

Don't you see how this means that local jurisdiction should have primacy over federal jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

The minority can live under their certain morality. They can't force others to live the same lifestyle they choose for themselves. My dancing doesn't doesn't alter their lifestyle. When you say that they don't want to live in a environment, you are essentially saying that they want to control other people's lives. This flies in the face of freedom. My dancing causes them no harm. If they can't explain to their kids why they don't dance, they should rethink their policy.

I agree with local jurisdictions having primacy over many things. But it shouldn't trample on freedoms insured federally. My position isn't really an black or white either way, it lies in the grey area.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
My dancing doesn't doesn't alter their lifestyle. When you say that they don't want to live in a environment, you are essentially saying that they want to control other people's lives.
Click to expand...

They are not saying they want to control other people's lives, they are saying that they want to control their own lives. People still have control over their own lives because they can make choices. By removing their ability to live in a dance-free environment, you do in fact control them. You ask them to look askance when they encounter dancing. you force, literally FORCE them to do something that they otherwise would not do by making them live in an environment that allows dancing.

To do something by force is to remove a person's alternatives. Banning dancing in Town X does not remove the alternatives of a person who wants to engage in the activity. They are still FREE TO DO SO, just not in Town X.

Saying that passing legislation at the local level to enforce a code of morality is forcing one's morality upon others is erroneous because the alternative still exists, just not within that locality.

This means that a resident of Town X could still dance the night away to their heart's content. They cannot ban residents of Town X from dancing, they can only prohibit dancing within the confines of Town X.

In oater words, there is no force. There is no coercion. There is no "force" to prevent a behavior, only a law preventing the behavior within the town limits.

By making it illegla to pass such legislation, you actually remove the choice of passing that legislation. They cannot go to another locale and try to enforce this legislation. The only situation where choice and freeedom are removed are those situations where the ability to choose is removed.

If the ability to pass legislation is removed, that choice is removed.

Teh issue is not simply being able to dance or not. If it can only be decided locally, it becomes literally imposisbel toe ban dance universally. Just as it becomes literally impossible to force everyone to live in a pro-dancing environment.

The ONLY way to guarantee that freedom is never infringed upon is to allow all localities to dictate what freedoms they allow/disallow by themselves and not at the behest of a larger federal authority.

Freedom is not just limitted to personal activities. It also includes teh ability to live in certain environments of one's choosing. It is about the ultimate decision of choice.

Look at things from an objective perspective. If my true desire is to allow liberty to all, then that includes liberties which I disagree with, such as living in an environment that holds teh same morality.

Whenever one freedom is granted, another is taken away, the opposing view's freedom to live in an environment that doesn't have that freedom.

All freedoms entail a choice. The choice to engage, and the choice to not engage. This includes freedoms that may not seem like freedoms on the surface.

Democracy is about allowing people's voices to be heard equally. The only way to oppose oppresion is to not give extra weight to those views which we agree with.

True freedom only occurs if we allow people to abstain from partaking.

This means that true freedom comes with a cost.



For example, I don't dance. I simply do not do it. But I do not want to live in a dance-free environment either. They are two different rights.

I have the right to dance but I am currently allowed to not partake of that right.

I have the ability to live in a environment that allows dancing, but I am NOT allowed to NOT partake in that right.

The choice is removed.

Thus, freedom has been infringed upon.

To truly support freedom, you MUST, absolutely MUST, allow those who dissent to NOT partake of that freedom.

The only way to do this is to allow them a choice.



Just because one doesn't agree with someone engaging or disengaging from said freedom, does not mean that they should remove that freedom of choice to engage or disengage.

By keeping it so that these things are only decided at the most local of levels, you never remove freedom of choice.


If one can truly show how banning a behavior in a local region legitimately removes someone's choice to engage in said behavior, you have an argument, but that cannot exist if the ordinaces are kept strictly local.

How is the ability to dance removed by a local ordinance banning dance? If said person still has the right to dance elsewhere, do they not still have that right?

There is no forcing anyone not to dance, there is only prevention of dancing within a a certain boundry, as determined by the people.

One cannot punish a person who leaves the town in order to dance. That person is simply engaging in their right to dance.

They are not subjecting the otehr residents to dancing simply because they want to. Instead they are engaging in thier own rights while not removing anyone else's.
 
Tucker Case said:
False. They are not banned from dancing. If a local ordinance bans dancing, it only does so locally. Dancers are still free to express themselves where dancing is legal.
Click to expand...

A ban is not a ban:confused:
 
winston53660 said:
LOL good one
Click to expand...

That song has been running in my head every time I type up something on this absurd dancing ban. :mrgreen:


My main point has been that if the person still has a choice, ther right has not been removed. I think it gives teh minority viewpoint more freedom to allow them to do things that I personally disagree with.

A better example than the dancing one being used isthat of prostitution.

I still have the right to get a prostitute in this country without risk of being incarcerated for it, I just have to go to Nevada to do so.

At the same time, I ALSO have the right to live in a prostitution-free evironment.

If I want to live in the reverse environemnt, I simply have to move to Nevada, OR lobby to have my local rules changed.

I can also choose to not take either of these stances (which is my personal choice at the moment).

For me, this is more equivilant to the discussion at hand.
 
Tucker Case said:
They are not saying they want to control other people's lives, they are saying that they want to control their own lives. People still have control over their own lives because they can make choices. By removing their ability to live in a dance-free environment, you do in fact control them. You ask them to look askance when they encounter dancing. you force, literally FORCE them to do something that they otherwise would not do by making them live in an environment that allows dancing.

To do something by force is to remove a person's alternatives. Banning dancing in Town X does not remove the alternatives of a person who wants to engage in the activity. They are still FREE TO DO SO, just not in Town X.

Saying that passing legislation at the local level to enforce a code of morality is forcing one's morality upon others is erroneous because the alternative still exists, just not within that locality.

This means that a resident of Town X could still dance the night away to their heart's content. They cannot ban residents of Town X from dancing, they can only prohibit dancing within the confines of Town X.

In oater words, there is no force. There is no coercion. There is no "force" to prevent a behavior, only a law preventing the behavior within the town limits.

By making it illegla to pass such legislation, you actually remove the choice of passing that legislation. They cannot go to another locale and try to enforce this legislation. The only situation where choice and freeedom are removed are those situations where the ability to choose is removed.

If the ability to pass legislation is removed, that choice is removed.

Teh issue is not simply being able to dance or not. If it can only be decided locally, it becomes literally imposisbel toe ban dance universally. Just as it becomes literally impossible to force everyone to live in a pro-dancing environment.

The ONLY way to guarantee that freedom is never infringed upon is to allow all localities to dictate what freedoms they allow/disallow by themselves and not at the behest of a larger federal authority.

Freedom is not just limitted to personal activities. It also includes teh ability to live in certain environments of one's choosing. It is about the ultimate decision of choice.

Look at things from an objective perspective. If my true desire is to allow liberty to all, then that includes liberties which I disagree with, such as living in an environment that holds teh same morality.

Whenever one freedom is granted, another is taken away, the opposing view's freedom to live in an environment that doesn't have that freedom.

All freedoms entail a choice. The choice to engage, and the choice to not engage. This includes freedoms that may not seem like freedoms on the surface.

Democracy is about allowing people's voices to be heard equally. The only way to oppose oppresion is to not give extra weight to those views which we agree with.

True freedom only occurs if we allow people to abstain from partaking.

This means that true freedom comes with a cost.



For example, I don't dance. I simply do not do it. But I do not want to live in a dance-free environment either. They are two different rights.

I have the right to dance but I am currently allowed to not partake of that right.

I have the ability to live in a environment that allows dancing, but I am NOT allowed to NOT partake in that right.

The choice is removed.

Thus, freedom has been infringed upon.

To truly support freedom, you MUST, absolutely MUST, allow those who dissent to NOT partake of that freedom.

The only way to do this is to allow them a choice.



Just because one doesn't agree with someone engaging or disengaging from said freedom, does not mean that they should remove that freedom of choice to engage or disengage.

By keeping it so that these things are only decided at the most local of levels, you never remove freedom of choice.


If one can truly show how banning a behavior in a local region legitimately removes someone's choice to engage in said behavior, you have an argument, but that cannot exist if the ordinaces are kept strictly local.

How is the ability to dance removed by a local ordinance banning dance? If said person still has the right to dance elsewhere, do they not still have that right?

There is no forcing anyone not to dance, there is only prevention of dancing within a a certain boundry, as determined by the people.

One cannot punish a person who leaves the town in order to dance. That person is simply engaging in their right to dance.

They are not subjecting the otehr residents to dancing simply because they want to. Instead they are engaging in thier own rights while not removing anyone else's.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying. But what if all localities ban dancing? Then what?

Also, federal civil rights would trump any banning of black people after dark in a town too.

But let's say you are on probation. You get permission to go to your sister's wedding in Mexico. You smoke some pot while down there. You come back and get drug tested by your probation officer. Your probabtion gets revoked for committing an action in another locality.
 
Tucker Case said:
That song has been running in my head every time I type up something on this absurd dancing ban. :mrgreen:


My main point has been that if the person still has a choice, ther right has not been removed. I think it gives teh minority viewpoint more freedom to allow them to do things that I personally disagree with.

A better example than the dancing one being used isthat of prostitution.

I still have the right to get a prostitute in this country without risk of being incarcerated for it, I just have to go to Nevada to do so.

At the same time, I ALSO have the right to live in a prostitution-free evironment.

If I want to live in the reverse environemnt, I simply have to move to Nevada, OR lobby to have my local rules changed.

I can also choose to not take either of these stances (which is my personal choice at the moment).

For me, this is more equivilant to the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...

I understand your logic here and I think it is well thought out on your behalf. I disagree with it though because dancing is a form of expression on par with speech. I have problem with say a church banning it in their church.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I see what you are saying. But what if all localities ban dancing? Then what?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is possible for that to happen with any right. Even prostitution is legal in one state.

Also, federal civil rights would trump any banning of black people after dark in a town too.
Click to expand...

I've already adressed how there cannot be rights granted to some but not others. If a town bans all people after dark, then they ban all people after dark. Tehy cannot discriminate based on color.

But let's say you are on probation. You get permission to go to your sister's wedding in Mexico. You smoke some pot while down there. You come back and get drug tested by your probation officer. Your probabtion gets revoked for committing an action in another locality.
Click to expand...

Then you broke the law either way. The law is that while you are on probation you are not to smoke weed. Where you do it is irrelevant to the matter. In this case, the person is in violation of their probation, regardless of where it occurs.

Now, if there were a drug test for all people returning from Amsterdam, and all people who tested positive were then charged with a crime, you'd have a comparitive issue.
 
Tucker Case said:
How so? Let's say it were my morality to live in a region that bans abortion? Where can said person live in the US that allows them this right?
Click to expand...

You can move to one of the 35 countries that ban abortion?

There are locations that don't perform abortions in this country. Wouldn't that satisfy that desire for all intents and purposes?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Okay, I was watching Jon Stewart last nite, and Joe the War Correspondent actually said, "Hey guys, you want a story? Come here." When the press all approached him he told them, "I'm not the story."

This guy is the real life asshat of the year.
Click to expand...

He's an asshat for playing the media out like that? LMAO!!

He's not the story. Iraq is the story. And the mainstream media has decided to abandon reporting about it because, well, things have improved there. They cannot simply run the preferred narrative that Iraq is a quagmire, a total failure, or otherwise.

Dude played the media folks as suckas.
 
winston53660 said:
I understand your logic here and I think it is well thought out on your behalf. I disagree with it though because dancing is a form of expression on par with speech. I have problem with say a church banning it in their church.
Click to expand...

Dancing in a courtroom is illegal if the judge finds it to be contempt of court.

That is the inroad to the logic as described. (Thank you for the compliment by the way.)
 
Tucker Case said:
Dancing in a courtroom is illegal if the judge finds it to be contempt of court.

That is the inroad to the logic as described. (Thank you for the compliment by the way.)
Click to expand...

Well that would like yelling fire in a crowded theater
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You can move to one of the 35 countries that ban abortion?
Click to expand...

The goal is to allow the freedom within this country, not force them outside of the country.

There are locations that don't perform abortions in this country. Wouldn't that satisfy that desire for all intents and purposes?
Click to expand...

Yes. I believe it would so long as these places are allowed to prevent abortions from being performed within their boundries. But to my knowledge, should a clinic choose to set up shop anywhere within this country, they can do so. Thus, such a place cannot exist within this country, and freedom is infinged upon.
 
winston53660 said:
Well that would like yelling fire in a crowded theater
Click to expand...

Which means that, although a person is perfectly free to yell fire, they are limitted upon where they are able to do this.

It opens up the argument that reasonable boundries can be created that limit certain forms of expression within those boundries.
 
Tucker Case said:
Which means that, although a person is perfectly free to yell fire, they are limitted upon where they are able to do this.

It opens up the argument that reasonable boundries can be created that limit certain forms of expression within those boundries.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm thinking tiddie bars. Down the road from me use to be tiddie bar row. They zoned them out as sexually oriented businesses. Odd thing is that stretch of Northwest Hwy has only gone down hill from there turning into a little crackville with tons of empty buildings.
 
winston53660 said:
Yeah I'm thinking tiddie bars. Down the road from me use to be tiddie bar row. They zoned them out as sexually oriented businesses. Odd thing is that stretch of Northwest Hwy has only gone down hill from there turning into a little crackville with tons of empty buildings.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the type of thing that I'm thinking about. Personally, I don't frequent titty bars myself, but I think people have a right to do so. I also think they have a right to live in a town free form titty bars.

I would prefer not to live next door to a titty bar, especially if I had children.

In order for me to support this personal right, I must in turn support similar personal rights which I may not agree with in nature, or else I am engaging in hypocrisy.

That's the bitch about freedom. In order to guarantee as many freedoms as possible that I agree with, I must also be equally willing to support many freedoms which I personally find thoroughly objectionable (such as a local dancing ban).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom