View Poll Results: which laws?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • abortion laws

    7 18.42%
  • animal cruelty laws

    1 2.63%
  • both

    7 18.42%
  • neither

    4 10.53%
  • all laws

    17 44.74%
  • no laws

    2 5.26%
Page 8 of 23 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 224

Thread: legislating morality

  1. #71
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,769

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    1. Demonstrate this.

    2. Demonstrate this.

    3. Demonstrate this.

    4. The burden is on the person killing to show sufficient reason.

    5. Thank you for actually attempting an argument. As to your argument, that they were worthless Jews, I would counter that the burden of proof remains on you to show why Jews are of less value than other people.



    How do you counter my argument?
    Which one?
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    Which one?
    Any part of it.

  3. #73
    Educator Soupnazi630's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    11-08-14 @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    855

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    Which laws are examples of people forcing their morals onto others?
    Banning prostitution for adults.

    Outlawing recreational drugs for adults.

    Obscenity laws.

    Gun control.

    Taxes.

    Only a partial list

  4. #74
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    1. Demonstrate this.

    2. Demonstrate this.

    3. Demonstrate this.

    4. The burden is on the person killing to show sufficient reason.

    5. As to your argument, that they were worthless Jews, I would counter that the burden of proof remains on you to show why Jews are of less value than other people.
    1. Demonstrate what?
    2. Demonstrate what?
    3. Demonstrate what?
    4. And they did. The simple fact of being the hated Jew was enough.
    5. Oy Vey! You just don't get it. It is not on me to show any such thing.
    It is not my argument, it is what they believed about the Jew. Do you really not understand that?

    This is what they though of the Jews.
    Nazi Party Pamphlet
    Those Damned Nazis (1932)

    [...]

    Why Do We Oppose the Jews?


    We oppose the Jews because we are defending the freedom of the German people. The Jew is the cause and beneficiary of our slavery He has misused the social misery of the broad masses to deepen the dreadful split between the right and left of our people, to divide Germany into two halves thereby concealing the true reason for the loss of the Great War and falsifying the nature of the revolution.

    The Jew has no interest in solving the German question. He cannot have such an interest. He depends on it remaining unsolved. If the German people formed a united community and won back its freedom, there would be no place any longer for the Jew. His hand is strongest when a people lives in domestic and international slavery, not when it is free, industrious, self-aware and determined. The Jew caused our problems, and lives from them.

    That is why we oppose the Jew as nationalists and as socialists. He has ruined our race, corrupted our morals, hollowed out our customs and broken our strength. We owe it to him that we today are the Pariah of the world. He was the leper among as long as we were German. When we forgot our German nature, he triumphed over us and our future.

    The Jew is the plastic demon of decomposition. Where he finds filth and decay, he surfaces and begins his butcher’s work among the nations. He hides behind a mask and presents himself as a friend to his victims, and before they know it he has broken their neck.

    The Jew is uncreative. He produces nothing, he only haggles with products. With rags, clothing, pictures, jewels, grain, stocks, cures, peoples and states. He has somehow stolen everything he deals in. When he attacks a state he is a revolutionary. As soon as he holds power, he preaches peace and order so that he can devour his conquests in comfort.

    What does anti-Semitism have to do with socialism? I would put the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with socialism? Socialism has to do with labor. When did one ever see him working instead of plundering, stealing and living from the sweat of others? As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.

    What does anti-Semitism have to do with nationalism? I would put the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with nationalism? Nationalism has to do with blood and race. The Jew is the enemy and destroyer of the purity of blood, the conscious destroyer of our race. As nationalists we oppose the Jews because we see the Hebrews as the eternal enemy of our national honor and of our national freedom.

    But the Jew, after all, is also a human being. Certainly, none of us doubts that. We only doubt that he is a decent human being. He does not get along with us. He lives by other laws than we do. The fact that he is a human being is not sufficient reason for us to allow him to subject us in inhumane ways. He may be a human being — but what kind of a human being is he! If someone slaps your mother in the face, do you say: “Thank you! He is after all a human being!” That is not a human being, it is a monster. Yet how much worse has the Jew done to our mother Germany, and is still doing today!

    There are also white Jews. True, there are scoundrels among us, even though they are Germans, who act in immoral ways against their own racial and blood comrades. But why do we call them white Jews? You use the term to describe something inferior and contemptible. Just as we do. Why do you ask us why we oppose the Jews when you without knowing it are one too?

    Anti-Semitism is not Christian. That means that it is Christian to allow the Jews to go on as they are, stripping the skin from our bodies and mocking us. To be a Christian means to love one’s neighbor as oneself! My neighbor is my racial and blood brother. If I love him, I have to hate his enemies. He who thinks German must despise the Jews. The one requires the other.

    Christ himself saw that love did not always work. When he found the moneychangers in the temple, he did not say: “Children, love one another!” He took up a whip and drove them out.

    We oppose the Jews because we affirm the German people. The Jew is our greatest misfortune.

    [...]



    [...]

    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  5. #75
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,769

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Any part of it.
    What's the # of the post?
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  6. #76
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,989

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    By "sufficient cause" I meant sufficient cause to justify it.
    Then that would be "sufficient just cause" or "Sufficient cause to justify it". That's not what you said.

    And it's obvious why you didn't say it...because that's a subjective thing.

    Whether or not something is "justified" is subjective in nature.

    Again, you're erroniously demanind people to prove a negative.

    You claim that it's "objective", so it's incumbant upon you to prove that it's objective.

    If someone else claims that it's subjective, they have to prove that it's subjective.

    It's not ones responsability or "burden" to disprove your claim. The burden of proof for YOUR claim is on you. They only have to prove their claim.

    As already pointed out by other posters, there are individuals who believe that the Holocaust was absolutely justified. There are others who believe it wasn't justified. That inherently proves that there's a subjective view of "justification" regarding the holocaust.

    If you want to claim that there's an OBJECTIVE view of "justification" regarding the holocaust, that's on you. Either you need to somehow prove how it's "objectively" good or how it's "Objectively" bad. But the burden of proof is on you for that.

    Justify means to prove it's a "good" reason. What is "good" is an entirely subjective notion, as demonstrated by the fact that different people view different actions as "Good" or "Bad. If you want to suggest that it's "objective", then you need to provide proof of that.

    How do you test whether something is just or not?

    How do you prove something is just or not?

    How do you measure if something is just or not?

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    1. Demonstrate what?
    2. Demonstrate what?
    3. Demonstrate what?
    4. And they did. The simple fact of being the hated Jew was enough.
    5. Oy Vey! You just don't get it. It is not on me to show any such thing.
    It is not my argument, it is what they believed about the Jew. Do you really not understand that?

    This is what they though of the Jews.
    Nazi Party Pamphlet
    Those Damned Nazis (1932)

    [...]

    Why Do We Oppose the Jews?


    We oppose the Jews because we are defending the freedom of the German people. The Jew is the cause and beneficiary of our slavery He has misused the social misery of the broad masses to deepen the dreadful split between the right and left of our people, to divide Germany into two halves thereby concealing the true reason for the loss of the Great War and falsifying the nature of the revolution.

    The Jew has no interest in solving the German question. He cannot have such an interest. He depends on it remaining unsolved. If the German people formed a united community and won back its freedom, there would be no place any longer for the Jew. His hand is strongest when a people lives in domestic and international slavery, not when it is free, industrious, self-aware and determined. The Jew caused our problems, and lives from them.

    That is why we oppose the Jew as nationalists and as socialists. He has ruined our race, corrupted our morals, hollowed out our customs and broken our strength. We owe it to him that we today are the Pariah of the world. He was the leper among as long as we were German. When we forgot our German nature, he triumphed over us and our future.

    The Jew is the plastic demon of decomposition. Where he finds filth and decay, he surfaces and begins his butcher’s work among the nations. He hides behind a mask and presents himself as a friend to his victims, and before they know it he has broken their neck.

    The Jew is uncreative. He produces nothing, he only haggles with products. With rags, clothing, pictures, jewels, grain, stocks, cures, peoples and states. He has somehow stolen everything he deals in. When he attacks a state he is a revolutionary. As soon as he holds power, he preaches peace and order so that he can devour his conquests in comfort.

    What does anti-Semitism have to do with socialism? I would put the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with socialism? Socialism has to do with labor. When did one ever see him working instead of plundering, stealing and living from the sweat of others? As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.

    What does anti-Semitism have to do with nationalism? I would put the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with nationalism? Nationalism has to do with blood and race. The Jew is the enemy and destroyer of the purity of blood, the conscious destroyer of our race. As nationalists we oppose the Jews because we see the Hebrews as the eternal enemy of our national honor and of our national freedom.

    But the Jew, after all, is also a human being. Certainly, none of us doubts that. We only doubt that he is a decent human being. He does not get along with us. He lives by other laws than we do. The fact that he is a human being is not sufficient reason for us to allow him to subject us in inhumane ways. He may be a human being — but what kind of a human being is he! If someone slaps your mother in the face, do you say: “Thank you! He is after all a human being!” That is not a human being, it is a monster. Yet how much worse has the Jew done to our mother Germany, and is still doing today!

    There are also white Jews. True, there are scoundrels among us, even though they are Germans, who act in immoral ways against their own racial and blood comrades. But why do we call them white Jews? You use the term to describe something inferior and contemptible. Just as we do. Why do you ask us why we oppose the Jews when you without knowing it are one too?

    Anti-Semitism is not Christian. That means that it is Christian to allow the Jews to go on as they are, stripping the skin from our bodies and mocking us. To be a Christian means to love one’s neighbor as oneself! My neighbor is my racial and blood brother. If I love him, I have to hate his enemies. He who thinks German must despise the Jews. The one requires the other.

    Christ himself saw that love did not always work. When he found the moneychangers in the temple, he did not say: “Children, love one another!” He took up a whip and drove them out.

    We oppose the Jews because we affirm the German people. The Jew is our greatest misfortune.

    [...]



    [...]

    1. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
    2. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
    3. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
    4. The burden is on them to show that that is a sufficient cause.
    5. None of that is an argument for the holocaust being morally acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    What's the # of the post?
    #17

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Then that would be "sufficient just cause" or "Sufficient cause to justify it". That's not what you said.

    And it's obvious why you didn't say it...because that's a subjective thing.

    Whether or not something is "justified" is subjective in nature.

    Again, you're erroniously demanind people to prove a negative.

    You claim that it's "objective", so it's incumbant upon you to prove that it's objective.

    If someone else claims that it's subjective, they have to prove that it's subjective.

    It's not ones responsability or "burden" to disprove your claim. The burden of proof for YOUR claim is on you. They only have to prove their claim.

    As already pointed out by other posters, there are individuals who believe that the Holocaust was absolutely justified. There are others who believe it wasn't justified. That inherently proves that there's a subjective view of "justification" regarding the holocaust.

    If you want to claim that there's an OBJECTIVE view of "justification" regarding the holocaust, that's on you. Either you need to somehow prove how it's "objectively" good or how it's "Objectively" bad. But the burden of proof is on you for that.

    Justify means to prove it's a "good" reason. What is "good" is an entirely subjective notion, as demonstrated by the fact that different people view different actions as "Good" or "Bad. If you want to suggest that it's "objective", then you need to provide proof of that.

    How do you test whether something is just or not?

    How do you prove something is just or not?

    How do you measure if something is just or not?
    Justification is not subjective, if it were subjective then it could not be proven or disproven in court, yet it can.

    The burden of demonstrating justification is on those arguing for justification.

  8. #78
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    Which laws are examples of people forcing their morals onto others?


    All laws are moral choices.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  9. #79
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    1. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
    2. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
    3. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
    4. The burden is on them to show that that is a sufficient cause.
    5. None of that is an argument for the holocaust being morally acceptable.
    1. And again. Demonstrate what?
    Stop playing games. You have not provided any reference to what you want addressed.

    2. And again. Demonstrate what?
    Stop playing games. You have not provided any reference to what you want addressed.

    3. And again. Demonstrate what?
    Stop playing games. You have not provided any reference to what you want addressed.

    4. And again. They did. It is their Country and they demonstrated it far more then sufficiently.
    In their country, they are the arbiters of what they do. Not you.

    5. Wtf? They are their own arbiter of what is right and wrong. Not you.



    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Justification is not subjective, if it were subjective then it could not be proven or disproven in court, yet it can.

    The burden of demonstrating justification is on those arguing for justification.
    Ahhh hello!
    Laws are artificial and subjective creations.
    Only within that artificially created and subjective framework can then the objectivity of proven or disproved happen.
    Last edited by Excon; 04-24-14 at 06:35 PM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #80
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,989

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Justification is not subjective, if it were subjective then it could not be proven or disproven in court, yet it can.
    Justice and Lawful are two different things. "Justice" can't be proven in court. Whether or not something is LEGAL can be objectively proven in court.

    Now you're right, you can determine if something objectively has "justification"...but only by measuring it against subjective standard.

    IE...

    Our SUBJECTIVE legal system says it's okay to kill someone in self defense.

    So you can OBJECTIVELY show that you were justified in killing someone by showing it was done in self defense. So it would be objectively justified as it relate sto our SUBJECTIVE legal system. But it would not be OBJECTIVELY justified in some kind of innate, objective fashion.

    The holocaust was absolutely not justified as it relates to international law. That's objectively correct. However, that's again moving the goal posts. International law is subjective. You didn't make a statement regarding LAW though, you made a statement of absolutes.

    The holocaust is objectively not justified under international law.

    The holocaust is subjectively not justified ethically, morally, or in some kind of "absolute" notion of right and wrong.

    You can PROVE something is not justified under a specific set of laws, because those laws are a concrete indisputable thing. US Law, for example, is US law.

    You can't PROVE something is not justified morally in a universal sense, because morality is in and of itself subjective. There's is not clear way to PROVE what is or isn't moral.

    You can PROVE something is not justified morally as it relates to YOUR moral code, because then like the law example you're speaking of a SPECIFIC set of morals. But your morals are not the absolute truth of the universe.

Page 8 of 23 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •