|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 27, 2023 20:52:38 GMT
It is still the case that legal killing is not murder. In the UK for instance homicides may be justifiable, excusable or criminal, depending upon the circumstances of the killing and the state of mind of the killer. As a matter of fact all legal systems make important distinctions between different types of homicide. In Nazi Germany the Holocaust in the sense of the Final Solution at least (as I understand it) was the result of Nazi policy, largely internally unopposed, agreed on at such events as the infamous Wannsee Conference rather than through the passing of a final, fatal 'Holocaust law'. (Other laws depriving Jews of civil rights were certainly passed though). But at appears you are attempting a Reductio ad Hitlerum also known as playing the Nazi card, usually an attempt to invalidate someone else's argument on the basis that the same idea was promoted or practised by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. And as I do not use the Holocaust to score points or otherwise in discussions out of respect unfortunately I will not reply to this example again. I can't see how this is relevant. It must be obvious that anything at a time and in a place which is legal is not illegal until the law changes - even if today we find it reprehensible. Such as burning witches or torturing heretics for instance. The point is just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s not immoral or should be acceptable. I agree. Law and morality are very close, though not necessarily related. In the case of the US, abortion at least the immorality and acceptability of which was strongly influenced by a religious minority. In other (most other Western countries in fact) abortion remains legal to a more permissive degree and is seen as moral, especially in legally controlled circumstances. But the corollary of your point of course is that just because something is illegal it can still be moral and acceptable. The majority in the US and on the 'abortion' board poll here certainly think so. That is not to say that popularity of something necessarily makes it right of course.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 28, 2023 0:15:27 GMT
The point is just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s not immoral or should be acceptable. I agree. Law and morality are very close, though not necessarily related. In the case of the US, abortion at least the immorality and acceptability of which was strongly influenced by a religious minority. In other (most other Western countries in fact) abortion remains legal to a more permissive degree and is seen as moral, especially in legally controlled circumstances. But the corollary of your point of course is that just because something is illegal it can still be moral and acceptable. The majority in the US and on the 'abortion' board poll here certainly think so. That is not to say that popularity of something necessarily makes it right of course.
So since the majority says drugs should be legal since people will just do them anyway, that's wrong, true?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 28, 2023 2:36:55 GMT
It was legal for the nazis to kill Jews during world war It is still the case that legal killing is not murder. Semantics. If abortion is acceptable when it's legal, then it should be unacceptable when it isn't. That seems to be a bit of a snag for those who let the law dictate morality.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2023 18:52:53 GMT
It is still the case that legal killing is not murder. Semantics. If abortion is acceptable when it's legal, then it should be unacceptable when it isn't. That seems to be a bit of a snag for those who let the law dictate morality. To be fair it is more of a legal reality than just semantics, and someone's idealistic "should be" unacceptable is another one's "isn't in fact" as (for instance) the years of Prohibition showed. Those who let the law dictate morality are usually those who, as per my recent remark, don't realise the two are close, but not the same. When a law is widely unpopular it is normally widely disregarded or broken in protest. Ask those on the Boston Tea Party.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2023 20:28:34 GMT
So since the majority says drugs should be legal since people will just do them anyway, that's wrong, true? As it happens I favour decriminalisation in most cases (except when other crimes are committed by users) in favour of a health-led policy since the 'war on drugs' has long been lost as prohibition of this sort never works. And let us not forget that is people that kill people, not drugs, that is if we accept the same sort of argument used by the pro gun lobby... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_don%27t_kill_people,_people_kill_people#:~:text=The%20statement%20%22people%20kill%20people,will%20kill%20using%20any%20method.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 28, 2023 20:35:22 GMT
So since the majority says drugs should be legal since people will just do them anyway, that's wrong, true? As it happens I favour decriminalisation in most cases (except when other crimes are committed by users) in favour of a health-led policy since the 'war on drugs' has long been lost as prohibition of this sort never works. And let us not forget that is people that kill people, not drugs, that is if we accept the same sort of argument used by the pro gun lobby... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_don%27t_kill_people,_people_kill_people#:~:text=The%20statement%20%22people%20kill%20people,will%20kill%20using%20any%20method.
And pedos won't kill kids they're legally allowed to rape. Does that mean it should be done? We KNOW it's inching there anyway, does that mean it's a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2023 20:41:38 GMT
As it happens I favour decriminalisation in most cases (except when other crimes are committed by users) in favour of a health-led policy since the 'war on drugs' has long been lost as prohibition of this sort never works. And let us not forget that is people that kill people, not drugs, that is if we accept the same sort of argument used by the pro gun lobby... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_don%27t_kill_people,_people_kill_people#:~:text=The%20statement%20%22people%20kill%20people,will%20kill%20using%20any%20method.
And pedos won't kill kids they're legally allowed to rape. Does that mean it should be done? We KNOW it's inching there anyway, does that mean it's a good thing?
As already explained, and I think you really know since you argue on that basis, there is a difference between what is legal and that which is moral. But I have no idea where you got the idea we are "inching towards ... pedos being legally allowed to rape" but the casual, and offensive, association of pedophilic crime and abortion just shows how confused your arguments are getting. As mentioned above the best law is that which has the support of the majority of the people, otherwise it falls into disrepute. In the case of abortion it seems likely that the rich will still get their terminations out of state; it is the poorest who will (once the illegal abortions market gets up steam) use dubious methods or suffer the economic and mental consequences of unwanted children the most, as I have shown already. It is also arguable that the most progressive laws are those which expand freedom and rights as the Founding Fathers discerned.. and not those which take them away.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 28, 2023 23:05:33 GMT
And pedos won't kill kids they're legally allowed to rape. Does that mean it should be done? We KNOW it's inching there anyway, does that mean it's a good thing?
As already explained, and I think you really know since you argue on that basis, there is a difference between what is legal and that which is moral. But I have no idea where you got the idea we are "inching towards ... pedos being legally allowed to rape" but the casual and offensive association of pedophilic crimes and abortion just shows how confused your arguments are getting.
Actually they're not confused at all. Society wouldn't be normalizing kids being given explicit pornography, rape pornography, violent child pornography, by adults, teachers, etc., and grown adults twerking in thongs around little children and naked drag queens hugging little boys, if it wasn't looking to legalize these same people being able to have sex with kids.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2023 23:10:21 GMT
As already explained, and I think you really know since you argue on that basis, there is a difference between what is legal and that which is moral. But I have no idea where you got the idea we are "inching towards ... pedos being legally allowed to rape" but the casual and offensive association of pedophilic crimes and abortion just shows how confused your arguments are getting. Actually they're not confused at all. Society wouldn't be normalizing kids being given explicit pornography, rape pornography, violent child pornography, by adults, teachers, etc., and grown adults twerking in thongs around little children and naked drag queens hugging little boys, if it wasn't looking to legalize these same people being able to have sex with kids. This comment once again tells one more about you, and your obsessions, than anything else. It certainly has nothing to do with abortion.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 28, 2023 23:26:19 GMT
Actually they're not confused at all. Society wouldn't be normalizing kids being given explicit pornography, rape pornography, violent child pornography, by adults, teachers, etc., and grown adults twerking in thongs around little children and naked drag queens hugging little boys, if it wasn't looking to legalize these same people being able to have sex with kids. This comment once again tells one more about you, and your obsessions, than anything else. It certainly has nothing to do with abortion.
Neither do drugs killing people, yet you commented on that.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2023 23:30:36 GMT
This comment once again tells one more about you, and your obsessions, than anything else. It certainly has nothing to do with abortion.
Neither do drugs killing people, yet you commented on that.
My reply was to a point you raised. I did not offer a rather worrying list of my purient moral fears and fancies.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 28, 2023 23:36:12 GMT
Neither do drugs killing people, yet you commented on that.
My reply was to a point you raised. I did not offer a rather worrying list of my purient moral fears and fancies.
My point was merely on whether drugs should be legal since the majority thinks so, you're the one who delved into if drugs kill people, the gun lobby, etc.
So if majority says it should be legal to have sex with kids of any age, would you support that?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 29, 2023 1:50:50 GMT
Semantics. If abortion is acceptable when it's legal, then it should be unacceptable when it isn't. That seems to be a bit of a snag for those who let the law dictate morality. To be fair it is more of a legal reality than just semantics, and someone's idealistic "should be" unacceptable is another one's "isn't in fact" as (for instance) the years of Prohibition showed. Those who let the law dictate morality are usually those who, as per my recent remark, don't realise the two are close, but not the same. When a law is widely unpopular it is normally widely disregarded or broken in protest. Ask those on the Boston Tea Party. The law is irrelevant to a discussion about the morality of abortion, but morality is not irrelevant to a discussion about the legality of abortion. When morality and law disagree, the former should win every time.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 9:31:40 GMT
To be fair it is more of a legal reality than just semantics, and someone's idealistic "should be" unacceptable is another one's "isn't in fact" as (for instance) the years of Prohibition showed. Those who let the law dictate morality are usually those who, as per my recent remark, don't realise the two are close, but not the same. When a law is widely unpopular it is normally widely disregarded or broken in protest. Ask those on the Boston Tea Party. The law is irrelevant to a discussion about the morality of abortion, but morality is not irrelevant to a discussion about the legality of abortion. When morality and law disagree, the former should win every time. I think the two are connected and just as relevant. One reason the abortion rights of women have been circumscribed in the US lately is because a powerful religious conservative lobby think it is immoral, and so a change in the law was very important to getting their views enforced and so reflecting them. It led to a long, and ultimately successful campaign to change things down the years and the fight continues to get abortion outlawed nationwide.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 29, 2023 9:40:32 GMT
The law is irrelevant to a discussion about the morality of abortion, but morality is not irrelevant to a discussion about the legality of abortion. When morality and law disagree, the former should win every time. I think the two are connected and just as relevant. One reason the abortion rights of women have been circumscribed in the US lately is because a powerful religious conservative lobby think it is immoral, and so a change in the law was very important to getting their views enforced and so reflecting them. It led to a long, and ultimately successful campaign to change things down the years and the fight continues to get abortion outlawed nationwide. That's an adequate example of the latter.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 9:56:51 GMT
My reply was to a point you raised. I did not offer a rather worrying list of my purient moral fears and fancies.
My point was merely on whether drugs should be legal since the majority thinks so, you're the one who delved into if drugs kill people, the gun lobby, etc.
My comparison was just to show a similar logic employed elsewhere, to the evident satisfaction of those who use it. You appear obsessed with paedophilia again. But no I would not. As careful explained earlier in this thread morality and law, although related, are not the same. Raping children meanwhile is not a right which has previously been taken away, and is not favoured by a majority. Here you are arguing from a proposition which will never happen, creating a false comparison. A red herring is a type of fallacy. No one is saying that opposition to abortion as immoral is not a position one can reasonably hold - if that is what you are implying.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 9:57:55 GMT
I think the two are connected and just as relevant. One reason the abortion rights of women have been circumscribed in the US lately is because a powerful religious conservative lobby think it is immoral, and so a change in the law was very important to getting their views enforced and so reflecting them. It led to a long, and ultimately successful campaign to change things down the years and the fight continues to get abortion outlawed nationwide. That's an adequate example of the latter. Never the less the campaign showed how important a law change was to the imposition of a moral position.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 29, 2023 14:45:34 GMT
My point was merely on whether drugs should be legal since the majority thinks so, you're the one who delved into if drugs kill people, the gun lobby, etc.
My comparison was just to show a similar logic employed elsewhere, to the evident satisfaction of those who use it. You appear obsessed with paedophilia again. But no I would not. As careful explained earlier in this thread morality and law, although related, are not the same. Raping children meanwhile is not a right which has previously been taken away, and is not favoured by a majority. Here you are arguing from a proposition which will never happen, creating a false comparison. A red herring is a type of fallacy. No one is saying that opposition to abortion as immoral is not a position one can reasonably hold - if that is what you are implying.
It's obviously favored by some majority since CA struck down a bill that would make human trafficking a felony punishable by severe prison sentences. No, obviously CA wants it to be a crime you can do a wrist slap on, and then get right back to a multi billion dollar a year industry. It's obviously favored by a majority since public schools are full of explicit, violent, rape, child, incest, pornography books that they deem perfectly acceptable for school children to read, and recite in class, but they don't want parents reciting any passages in front of the school board. If any random guy on the street gave a 10 year old a porn book, his ass would be in jail, a teacher does it, oh you don't want kids to learn.
THIS video can't even be accessed unless you sign in to confirm you're over 13. Perfectly acceptable for school kids?
And in the same public schools where stuff like this is happening, stuff like this is happening.
Side note, yeah teachers are SOOOOOO underpaid if one can post $50,000 bond for stalking and sexually harassing a teenager.
Now right NOW the majority might say grown ass adults having sex with kids is wrong and shouldn't be legalized, but is that going to be the case after a generation or two of 'naked drag queens hugging kids is perfectly fine, kids seeing grown men's genitalia in public is harmless, men showering with teenage girls in school is totally acceptable, kids need to read graphic pornography of 7 year olds being raped by their daddies and taught if a girl's crying during sex just shove your dick in her mouth to shut her up, because that's going to make them well rounded and prepare them for the real world, and just don't tell your parents anything because they're a bunch of phobes who don't know anything'? You really think there's NO agenda here whatsoever, and wasn't 20 years ago when they first invented thong underwear for toddlers, or 2 years ago when Cuties was made?
Oh, and majority doesn't approve of this? Why are SO many people attacking Sound of Freedom? Calling it false, a conspiracy theory, a MISREPRESENTATION of child trafficking, calling it AS BAD as actually trafficking kids, and movie theaters sabotaging showings so people can't see it? Why is all the mainstream media attacking a movie that says child trafficking is evil?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2023 15:32:32 GMT
You culture war people in the US are stark raving bonkers. It's like a disease with you people.
You will never change your individual views, and just bang on and on on... Just agree to disagree.
Where's the middle ground, understanding both sides? I don't like abortions, and think there are plenty of contraception options available to all now to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but also understand that sometimes for several reasons an abortion may be required.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 29, 2023 15:50:38 GMT
You culture war people in the US are stark raving bonkers. It's like a disease with you people. You will never change your individual views, and just bang on and on on... Just agree to disagree. Where's the middle ground, understanding both sides? I don't like abortions, and think there are plenty of contraception options available to all now to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but also understand that sometimes for several reasons an abortion may be required. Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It is never “required”, unless the mothers life is in serious danger and thankfully those are extremely rare cases.
|
|