• 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!

Should People Who Believe in Fate be Banned from Government?

Should people who believe in fate be banned from government?

  • Yes, fatalism is anti-social.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, fatalism contradicts the exercise of influence.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, fatalists are equal members of society.

    Votes: 9 100.0%

  • No, fatalists deserve the right to influence others.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    9
I've never heard of anyone whose life code ius "fatalism". Any such "belief" is is probably just a chosen form of expression. Believing in "fate" is just like believing in "god".

Most of our owners/rulers/puppet masters purport belief in "god". We not only don't reject them for believing in something unproven and invisible, we seem to DEMAND it of them. So "fatalism" is a non-issue.
 
Daktoria said:
For better or worse. Denying prescience while believing in fate allows someone to get away with self-fulfilling prophecy as a matter of coincidence.
Click to expand...

Everybody's gotta be motivated by something, Dak. Don't see why a fatalists bull**** smells any worse than a non-fatalists bull****. Policy must be made regardless of unintended consequences.
 
Kandahar said:
You don't need to convince anyone of anything to deserve respect. But you DO need to convince others that you are correct if you want to keep people with certain beliefs out of power. You don't get to ban them from office just because you don't like their views; you keep them out of office by beating them in elections. Otherwise it's nothing more than a dictatorship...in which case your poll question should stop beating around the bush and just read "Should Daktoria be the dictator of the world?"
Click to expand...

No, some beliefs, such as fatalism, are inherently disrespectful. You can reread my OP and the original post you quoted for justification.

This isn't about me not liking fatalism. It's about the analytic definition therein.
 
specklebang said:
I've never heard of anyone whose life code ius "fatalism". Any such "belief" is is probably just a chosen form of expression. Believing in "fate" is just like believing in "god".

Most of our owners/rulers/puppet masters purport belief in "god". We not only don't reject them for believing in something unproven and invisible, we seem to DEMAND it of them. So "fatalism" is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

Are you saying abstract values don't deserve respect?

You sound like an anarchist who believes in might makes right.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Everybody's gotta be motivated by something, Dak. Don't see why a fatalists bull**** smells any worse than a non-fatalists bull****. Policy must be made regardless of unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

I agree. Every form of BS should be banned. Fatalism is just one form.
 
I think what I'm opinionating is that abstract values are integrally accepted and respected in our society. I'm not saying that there is anything right or wrong about this, I'm just elucidating my observation.

I'm unable to comprehend how you arrived at your opinion of my position. Anarchist? Might makes right? Not how I feel and I don't see how I might have expressed that.



Daktoria said:
Are you saying abstract values don't deserve respect?

You sound like an anarchist who believes in might makes right.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
I think what I'm opinionating is that abstract values are integrally accepted and respected in our society. I'm not saying that there is anything right or wrong about this, I'm just elucidating my observation.

I'm unable to comprehend how you arrived at your opinion of my position. Anarchist? Might makes right? Not how I feel and I don't see how I might have expressed that.
Click to expand...

Your justification for denying God was that God is invisible.

Visibility is a form of might, so you seemed to believe that might makes right.
 
I see. I used the term invisible as being non-evidential, nothing more.

I think you're reaching a bit here ;)
Daktoria said:
Your justification for denying God was that God is invisible.

Visibility is a form of might, so you seemed to believe that might makes right.
Click to expand...
 
Daktoria said:
No, some beliefs, such as fatalism, are inherently disrespectful.
Click to expand...

YOU are not the sole arbiter of what is "inherently disrespectful." If the voters agree, then they won't elect such people to office. And if they don't agree, then why should YOUR opinion trump theirs?
 
Daktoria said:
Believing in fate suggests that some people are entitled to authority while others are obligated to endure punishment for no reason besides luck.

Therefore, should fatalists be banned from government because they don't treat everyone as created equal?
Click to expand...

If anyone should be banned from government it should be the idiots who think we should tax people at more than 25% while not tax other segments of the population at all and the idiots who justify giving our hard earned tax dollars away to other countries, the idiots who think we should be spending billions of dollars on useless programs.These people are dangerous to the financial well being of this country.
 
Kandahar said:
YOU are not the sole arbiter of what is "inherently disrespectful." If the voters agree, then they won't elect such people to office. And if they don't agree, then why should YOUR opinion trump theirs?
Click to expand...

What opinion are you talking about?

I haven't said I like or want anything in this thread.

Anyway, yes, I agree that nobody's opinion should trump anyone else's.

That's why fatalism is antisocial. It suggests that some opinions are intrinsically more valuable.
 
jamesrage said:
If anyone should be banned from government it should be the idiots who think we should tax people at more than 25% while not tax other segments of the population at all and the idiots who justify giving our hard earned tax dollars away to other countries, the idiots who think we should be spending billions of dollars on useless programs.These people are dangerous to the financial well being of this country.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I wasn't thinking about that.

I was thinking about political correctness. For example, self-hating men and whites born into elite social status who support feminist and multicultural affirmative action.
 
Do you realize that you are identifying everyone in every administration for at least the past 50 years?

25% would be a good maximum if everyone had to pay it. There are so many exceptions that many people don't pay that much. Notice that nobody ever says lets dump these millions of tax code pages and start over?


jamesrage said:
If anyone should be banned from government it should be the idiots who think we should tax people at more than 25% while not tax other segments of the population at all and the idiots who justify giving our hard earned tax dollars away to other countries, the idiots who think we should be spending billions of dollars on useless programs.These people are dangerous to the financial well being of this country.
Click to expand...
 
Daktoria said:
Would you please explain what's religious about fatalism?
Click to expand...

It is an a priori belief about the nature of the world - many faiths engage in fatalism, believing that the end of the world is set. Christians, for example, as well as Muslims and Jews. Many believe in fatalism of a more individual and particular nature, such as Presbyterians and other Calvinists.


What I think you are trying to ask is "Should those who accept a Hegelian view of history" be allowed to govern. In which case the answer is "also yes", as A) it is up to the American people whom we choose to govern us - we are sovereign and can do any dang thing we like and B) there is nothing inherently wrong with seeing history as progressing through stages of social/political/economic development.
 
Daktoria said:
What opinion are you talking about?

I haven't said I like or want anything in this thread.

Anyway, yes, I agree that nobody's opinion should trump anyone else's.

That's why fatalism is antisocial. It suggests that some opinions are intrinsically more valuable.
Click to expand...

ALL LAW makes this assumption. The law about speed limits suggests that some persons' opinions (an expert hired by the state) or a majority of peoples' opinions (if speed limits are set locally) about how fast you can safely drive are more valuable than the opinion of the 17 year old who thinks he is indestructible. Every law has at its' heart a moral value - an opinion - that we have decided is more intrinsically valuable than it's opposite.
 
If we're going to allow people who believe in imaginary friends in the sky into government, we might as well allow every other wingnut, irrational crazy too.
 
Hell, I've been trying to get banned from government for years! Absolutely! I am now officially a fatalist.
 
cpwill said:
It is an a priori belief about the nature of the world - many faiths engage in fatalism, believing that the end of the world is set.
Click to expand...

A priori beliefs are deontological, not teleological. Religion is based on intelligent design appeals to the aesthetically agreeable, beautiful, and sublime. That requires learning from experience, not thinking before you act.

Christians, for example, as well as Muslims and Jews. Many believe in fatalism of a more individual and particular nature, such as Presbyterians and other Calvinists.
Click to expand...

This is induction. For comparison, prohibiting the color blue doesn't discriminate against squares which happen to be blue. Squares can be other colors, nor is blue limited to just squares.

Prohibiting fatalism doesn't discriminate against religions which happen to believe in it. Does prohibiting murder discriminate against religions which tolerate that too?

What I think you are trying to ask is "Should those who accept a Hegelian view of history" be allowed to govern. In which case the answer is "also yes", as A) it is up to the American people whom we choose to govern us - we are sovereign and can do any dang thing we like and B) there is nothing inherently wrong with seeing history as progressing through stages of social/political/economic development.
Click to expand...

The problem here is how historicism is particularly subjective. It depends on what you believe proper progress is.

If anything, tolerating historicism is the equivalent of tolerating witch hunts because minorities who believe history should progress in a different direction are discriminated against.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
ALL LAW makes this assumption. The law about speed limits suggests that some persons' opinions (an expert hired by the state) or a majority of peoples' opinions (if speed limits are set locally) about how fast you can safely drive are more valuable than the opinion of the 17 year old who thinks he is indestructible. Every law has at its' heart a moral value - an opinion - that we have decided is more intrinsically valuable than it's opposite.
Click to expand...

Eh... jurisprudence can be analytic instead of dialectic. Instead of merely taking people's opinions as authoritative, we can evaluate people's judgments as complete and consistent. Those judgments which accommodate 100% of necessity-contingency relationships while prohibiting contingencies that make necessities self-destructive are permissible. Those judgments which do not are discriminating, and therefore, prohibitive.

This is why fatalism is prohibited - it depends on free will to be believed in, but then denies free will.

Similarly, we set speed limits because people who drive recklessly on roads destroy the driving experience.
 
I suppose that's the main problem I have with religions, the fatalism. However, life is fatal, with or without the belief. We all die (every creature amongst us). But, how you let your beliefs influence your work and your politics is a biggy. Optomists probably do a better job improving things in ways that aren't going to stress others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom