Pretty easy to slam people when you don't have to worry about pesky facts or making a real argument actually based in reality.

The article is based on the general idea that conservatives what to change the world in their image and thats not the case, everyone is out to change the world. It's weather it's always a good idea or not, we are losing our rights and we can't even vote on it.

I think there's some misuse of terms here, the issue described is not about morality.

Laws are made to protect people and to keep things in control instead of chaos. Morality and ethics does play a part in many laws, but the issue seem to be about laws that protect us from others, versus laws that protect us from ourself. I don't know what term should be used to differentiate these 2 kind of laws but it isn't morality. But morality is not irrelevant when making these decicions, after all there must be a good reason why evolution developed it.

About laws that are made to protect people from themselves, I think people are just too stupid to always know what's best for them, so there is Some use for this kind of laws too. Plus stuff like allowing unrestricted use of any drugs, would eventually hurt other people too, not just the users.

The US was founded in the ideal that it was for the people by the people, the two party system has worked US against each other while they take our rights away and impose morality driven laws, they use moralities to endear us to get them voted in and then when the smoke clears, we find out we have no more rights.
Prop 187, we as californians voted to take away services for illegal aliens by a wide margin, one judge took away that vote, the system is fucked

............................................

Making laws = forcing certain rules onto people.
Taking your own morality into account when making laws = forcing your own morality onto others = a recipe for oppression :(


So people don't know what is best for them, but those few people who make up the government and make the laws, they do know what is best? Yes, people make mistakes, but giving a few of them the power to rule over others by making them 'government officials' doesn't turn those few into all knowing superhumans that know what is best.

This is the principal we in the adult industry we need to revive..esp for those of us in the US. :thumbsup

So who should be recognized as "smart enough" to tell us what our morals should be as individuals? This is the key factor I think Vendzilla is trying to make...each individual has the right to judge what morals each wants to live by..no one individual has the right to tell someone else what their morals should be. As for legalizing drugs...how do you know what the effects on society would be? Do you have exact data to analyze of the future because you are psychic?

Yes if you take into account a morality that only small group of people share, then you're asking for trouble. But what i was talking about is the kind of moral principles that Majority of people share. Many laws are influenced by this kind of common morality(ethics), like it's just "wrong" to kill, steal, etc.

Political systems aren't perfect, but democracy has worked quite well compared to other options today, or do you think full communism would work better. Well it seems that people will never have the same opinion about everything and you are forced to make compromises when doing laws, some people will always be left feeling unhappy about something.

You are confusing ethics with morality. Ethics are a universal set of rules to prevent injustice: Don't commit murder, don't steal, don't rape,...
It's best described as the non-aggression principle: All human beings are free to do what they want as long as they don't cause damage to another human being or his property. If someone does cause damage to your property, then you have the right to defend yourself and your property or to retaliate.

Morality are your own personal rules. The guidelines or code by which you chose to live your life.

Forcing rules based on your own morality or the shared morality of a large group of people is equally unethical. It doesn't matter if 100 or 50000 or 10 million people agree to commit murder or steal or rape, it doesn't change the fact that it is unethical.

Ben Franklin said it best: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".

or:

"Democracy is 12 thugs with aids and herpes gangraping your mother" -- u-Bob, 2010



Who said anything about communism, I'm talking about the opposite of communism: liberty, freedom, personal responsibility, voluntary association, real free markets (not the corporatist system we have today),...

Who's "smart enough" to make decicions that affect us all? Well that's the main focus of political systems to find out the "smartest" decicions. In most western countries people have right to vote who gets more power to make these decicions. Like I said before, laws should reflect the opinion of majority in democracy, if not, then the system has some flaws. And opinions are influenced by morality, but morality affects also the stuff we do to others, not just what we do to ourselves.

About net effect of legalizing all drugs, no I can't predict that or about how much positive effects it would give, but I'm pretty sure that common opinion as well as scientific studies suggest that fully legalizing ALL drugs would increase problems.

preaching to the choir, my quotation marks represent the actual party

This is where we run into the problem; tyranny of the majority.

I think a lot of people are confusing some terms here, hence I said "legalizing morality" is sort of misleading title. Terms morality and ethics are very closely related to each other, but both of them are based on what we humans "feel" and that isn't really truly universal. Morality of majority is pretty much the same thing as ethics.

Well that was just one example, and true communism actually aims to some of those goals, but so does democracy too, and anarchy... although in practice aiming for something isn't same thing as being able to get there. I'm just wondering what would be better system then than a central goverment that has more power than regular people. After all they're chosen by common people to present themselves and there are laws that restrict their power, so common people do have some power still, or at least should have.

The problem with the article that was posted to start this thread is that it is eight kinds of off base. When you legislate morality you are basically forcing your view/beliefs/morals onto another person or group of people.

Legalizing abortion is not legislating morality. Nobody is being forced to have an abortion. Nobody is being forced to partake in the abortion process. Therefor it might be a moral issue, but legalizing it is not legislating morality.

The same can be said for gay marriage. If gay marriage is legal it doesn't force a person to become gay in order to get married nor does it force someone to partake in, or approve of, gay marriage.

In reality opposing both of these things is legislating morality because it is basically saying: "I am opposed to this on moral grounds and because I am opposed to it I want to deny you the ability to have it." By trying to stop it you are trying to force your morality onto another person.

A better example might be the pledge of allegiance. In 1954 lawmakers added the line 'one nation under god' to it. All across the country millions of schoolkids start their day saying the pledge. Among them are thousands of kids who are of different religions or who are being raised in a way where they don't believe in god in the way traditional Christianity does. these kids are now being forced to partake in something they don't morally agree with. Sure, they could opt not to say it or ask to leave the room, but that then singles them out and potentially causes more problems for the. Even if they stand quiet or don't say that line they are still being forced to participate in an environment that they are morally opposed to. That is legislating morality.

Actually, conservative lawyers are defending the right of homosexuals to marry in California and one of them very succinctly explained why popular opinion does not matter, the Constitution applies to everyone there are no exceptions in it and civil rights are not up for a vote and never really have been

In the Bush years the conservatives were after adult companies. I'm sure you know they're opposed to pornography and were opposed to the Lawrence vs Texas in which the Supreme Court stated the government has no right to be in your bedroom. And conservatives objected saying basically that they can legislate what people do in their own homes for the greater good, to you know protect the children from pornos and what not.

My partner's parents both are very conservative and think TV should be censored, his mother even says everyone should be watching the religious channels. THey think the Bible must be taught at school not by choice but by force ie all kids must learn in, it won't be an electable class. They America is a Christian nation and all the secularism has to go - 10 commandments must be shown publicly, prayer in school must be mandatory, and so on. They even support all these fallen preachers by sending them money and to them it's no problem as long as the preachers work for the Christian cause

But yes, liberal democrats do believe that they can tell you what to do, many openly state so. In its current form the GOP also actively endorses meddling in people's lives.

They both legislate morality but from a different point of view.

Libertarians are more the ones who don't believe you should legislate what people can and can't do.

Abortion is a mute point - the Constitution gives you a right to your body and do to it as you please - man or woman. If a woman wants to have an abortion ok, that doesn't affect me, it doesn't force me to have an abortion. It simply states have one if you want to. It doesn't affect conservatives because you can elect NOT to have an abortion if you don't want it. And simply because it's illegal doesn't mean the woman won't abort anyways.

What is wrong with mandating food labels? Not that the sheep care, but I care. I don't like eating food that has fake food dies, corn sugar crap and other such additives. Again here, it doesn't prevent you from eating it, just don't read the label. I want to know what's in my food.

In the US there are limits as to what is up for vote by the majority, limits defined pretty well in the constitutional amendments. The rest really is left up to vote and for the majority to decide.

we are losing rights because people do not care
your rights in America are spelled in the Constitution, how many people out there know their rights? Not that many. And many are willingly giving them up re: TSA and car searches 100 miles from the border

from http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=492_0_2_0
I'm not a lawyer, but this is clearly a technicality, the proposition writers evidently did not think it trough. It is also posing a precedent problem that could later be used for something more nefarious. Judges don't make laws they enforce them, he can't (and shouldn't) allow constitutional gaps since he's sworn to defend it.

is this a page from "doublespeak for dummies"?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

Small correction: the constitution doesn't give you those rights. You don't have rights because someone gave them to you. You don't have rights because someone wrote it on a piece of paper and called it the constitution. If you consider rights to be something that can be given to you, it also means it can be taken away from you.

Rights cannot be taken away from you. You are born with your rights and you'll die with your rights. People cannot take your rights away from you. They can violate your rights, but they cannot take them away. If they violate your rights, they're committing an act of aggression, they are committing an act of injustice and you have the right to defend yourself.

That has to be the most one sided moralist imposing thread you've started Vendzilla.

Legislating against Abortion and Gay marriages is imposing morals on society. As for seat belts, well that's just common sense. You might not want to wear one but what about your passengers?