• 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

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
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?
 
No, people should not be banned from office for their philosophical or religious convictions.


Now whether you should vote for such a person or not is a different question...
 
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?

no. that would constitute a religious test and be unconstitutional.
 
No, people should not be banned from office for their philosophical or religious convictions.


Now whether you should vote for such a person or not is a different question...

...so you think arguments by stolen concepts should be permitted even if they threaten the downfall of civilization?

For example, fatalism is acknowledged by free will, yet it denies free will.

If free will is denied, then there is no premise by which civilization can be distinguished from a state of nature.
 
no. that would constitute a religious test and be unconstitutional.

Would you please explain what's religious about fatalism?
 
I don't think believing in fate is a good trait for a political leader. However, I exercise my preference in how I vote, not by trying to legally ban them from participating at all.
 
I don't think believing in fate is a good trait for a political leader. However, I exercise my preference in how I vote, not by trying to legally ban them from participating at all.

What happens when your preference is weaker than anti-social preferences?
 
...so you think arguments by stolen concepts should be permitted even if they threaten the downfall of civilization?

For example, fatalism is acknowledged by free will, yet it denies free will.

If free will is denied, then there is no premise by which civilization can be distinguished from a state of nature.

Anybody can believe what they want and still serve in government so long as a majority of the electorate decide, for whatever reason, they are worth serving in government.
 
Anybody can believe what they want and still serve in government so long as a majority of the electorate decide, for whatever reason, they are worth serving in government.

Whats that called anyway...democracy or something :)
 
Anybody can believe what they want and still serve in government so long as a majority of the electorate decide, for whatever reason, they are worth serving in government.

Can you explain how "government" exists as long as society subscribes to mob justice?
 
Whats that called anyway...democracy or something :)

Definitely "something". It sounds more like a witch hunt, and in turn, fatalism.
 
NoFateCap2.jpg

Believing in fate does not necessarily mean that the believer claims prescience.
 
...so you think arguments by stolen concepts should be permitted even if they threaten the downfall of civilization?

For example, fatalism is acknowledged by free will, yet it denies free will.

If free will is denied, then there is no premise by which civilization can be distinguished from a state of nature.

Who determines if some abstract concept "threatens the downfall of civilization"? You? Thanks but no thanks. There are plenty of people who think Obama's views on health care threaten the downfall of civilization; there are plenty of people who think Mitt Romney's views on crony capitalism threaten the downfall of civilization. They are free to make that case to the voters, but they don't have any right to ban people from running for office in the first place. Just as YOU don't have any right to ban people from office for supporting some abstract concept that pisses YOU off. If you think that fatalism threatens the downfall of civilization, then go convince a majority of voters that you're right.
 
Believing in fate does not necessarily mean that the believer claims prescience.

For better or worse. Denying prescience while believing in fate allows someone to get away with self-fulfilling prophecy as a matter of coincidence.
 
Can you explain how "government" exists as long as society subscribes to mob justice?

I could, but fatalism has nothing to do with mob justice, so if you want to lash out at your critics, you don't really need my replies on the issues to do so.
 
Who determines if some abstract concept "threatens the downfall of civilization"? You? Thanks but no thanks. There are plenty of people who think Obama's views on health care threaten the downfall of civilization; there are plenty of people who think Mitt Romney's views on crony capitalism threaten the downfall of civilization. They are free to make that case to the voters, but they don't have any right to ban people from running for office in the first place. Just as YOU don't have any right to ban people from office for supporting some abstract concept that pisses YOU off. If you think that fatalism threatens the downfall of civilization, then go convince a majority of voters that you're right.

If I say 2+2=4, is it wrong just because I say so?
 
Lets look at groups that believe in fate.

1. Christians (the whole Jesus is coming back thing) (I fall into this group)
2. Jews
3. Muslims
4. A bunch of other religions (not all mind you)
5. People who believe that the world is getting better over time (I fall into this group) by means of innovation in greater individual wealth
6. People who think society is about to fall apart due to some problem from meteorites to a world economic collapse for one reason or another
7. Futurists such as those who believe in a singularity
etc

It doesn't leave much of the population out really.
 
I could, but fatalism has nothing to do with mob justice, so if you want to lash out at your critics, you don't really need my replies on the issues to do so.

Are majorities predetermined in accordance with the distribution of emotions in advance of an election?
 
If I say 2+2=4, is it wrong just because I say so?

You are not special. Your ideas are not so self-evidently perfect that you get to be the sole arbiter of who is and isn't "threatening the downfall of civilization." If your belief that fatalism threatens the downfall of civilization is as obvious as 2+2=4, then it should be quite easy for you to convince the voters of it, and thus there is no need to ban anyone as they simply won't win elections in the first place.
 
Are majorities predetermined in accordance with the distribution of emotions in advance of an election?

Again - the issue has nothing to do with fatalism.
 
You are not special. Your ideas are not so self-evidently perfect that you get to be the sole arbiter of who is and isn't "threatening the downfall of civilization." If your belief that fatalism threatens the downfall of civilization is as obvious as 2+2=4, then it should be quite easy for you to convince the voters of it, and thus there is no need to ban anyone as they simply won't win elections in the first place.

Why is anyone obligated to convince others of anything to deserve respect?

You sound like you're on an inquisition right now.
 
Why is anyone obligated to convince others of anything to deserve respect?

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?"
 
Back
Top Bottom