|
Post by phludowin on Jul 16, 2018 15:37:05 GMT
The law is completely irrelevant, there's no moral obligation for you to obey the law. Laws reflect the ethics and morality of a society. Therefore, I can safely dismiss this opinion of yours.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 16, 2018 15:44:44 GMT
The law is completely irrelevant, there's no moral obligation for you to obey the law. Because ... because what a piece of paper says is completely irrelevant. I find it really amusing that as an atheist you would look to a piece of paper for moral guidance, remind you of anyone on this board? Hint - these people believe in the Abrahamic god. By this logic the french had no right to fight against the german imposed regime during WW2, it would be wrong to protest if protesting was made illegal etc
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 16, 2018 15:46:02 GMT
The law is completely irrelevant, there's no moral obligation for you to obey the law. Laws reflect the ethics and morality of a society. Therefore, I can safely dismiss this opinion of yours. and? "Person(s) x hold opinion x therefore I should hold it" is not a valid argument. edit - also laws dont neccessarily reflect that, there a unpopular laws.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jul 16, 2018 19:33:36 GMT
It depends on the person and what is being judged. The people in question are historical figures (Laura ingalls Wilder, Albert Einstein...) What is being judged is racism via today's standards. There is no comparison between the two.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 16, 2018 21:37:54 GMT
I insist on making the choice for my own body. So you do insist on making the choice for your own body when it comes to going through airport security? You don't feel like going through all of that on a particular day, or you don't want to be patted down or whatever, and you say, "I insist on making the choice for my own body, and I'm not choosing for you to do this to me today. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body? I'm not going through this security rigamarole, and I'm walking back to my gate and getting on my plane whenever I feel like getting on my plane." You are totally and wilfully missing the point here and ignoring what kls says. It is all about choice in how we decide our bodily autonomy. She already said that in matters of safety and health that we have the freedom to weigh up costs, risks and benefits. In the case you keep referring to one decides whether the submission to regulation regarding perceived violation of our bodily autonomy at the airport is worth the benefit of travelling on the aircraft at that time and all that it involves. You are being disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jul 16, 2018 21:42:51 GMT
goz. That's terrapin's mo. He was the first cantankerous ahole I ever put on ignore here.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 16, 2018 21:50:33 GMT
because what a piece of paper says is completely irrelevant. I find it really amusing that as an atheist you would look to a piece of paper for moral guidance, remind you of anyone on this board? Hint - these people believe in the Abrahamic god. By this logic the french had no right to fight against the german imposed regime during WW2, it would be wrong to protest if protesting was made illegal etc The piece of paper is not the law. The piece of paper is the means by which 'the law' is codified and disseminated for all to see/read. " Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behaviour. Law is a system that regulates and ensures that individuals or a community adhere to the will of the state. State-enforced laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or established by judges through precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people." What does this have to do with atheism? or otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 16, 2018 22:32:46 GMT
goz . That's terrapin's mo. He was the first cantankerous ahole I ever put on ignore here. I know! ...butt being another cantankerous ahole myself, we seem to rub along OK. I guess I am lucky not to be on ignore?
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jul 16, 2018 22:42:48 GMT
Yea but more because unless you’re experiencing the environment those people were how strongly can you really judge?
Am I in any way authorized to doubt the decisions made by a 14th century South American farmer?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 16, 2018 23:08:47 GMT
So you do insist on making the choice for your own body when it comes to going through airport security? You don't feel like going through all of that on a particular day, or you don't want to be patted down or whatever, and you say, "I insist on making the choice for my own body, and I'm not choosing for you to do this to me today. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body? I'm not going through this security rigamarole, and I'm walking back to my gate and getting on my plane whenever I feel like getting on my plane." You are totally and wilfully missing the point here and ignoring what kls says. It is all about choice in how we decide our bodily autonomy. She already said that in matters of safety and health that we have the freedom to weigh up costs, risks and benefits. In the case you keep referring to one decides whether the submission to regulation regarding perceived violation of our bodily autonomy at the airport is worth the benefit of travelling on the aircraft at that time and all that it involves. You are being disingenuous. You're not understanding my point. Does she ever let anyone else decide what she can and can't do with her body, including places she can and can't go, where she can and can't park a car, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 16, 2018 23:17:19 GMT
You are totally and wilfully missing the point here and ignoring what kls says. It is all about choice in how we decide our bodily autonomy. She already said that in matters of safety and health that we have the freedom to weigh up costs, risks and benefits. In the case you keep referring to one decides whether the submission to regulation regarding perceived violation of our bodily autonomy at the airport is worth the benefit of travelling on the aircraft at that time and all that it involves. You are being disingenuous. You're not understanding my point. Does she ever let anyone else decide what she can and can't do with her body, including places she can and can't go, where she can and can't park a car, etc.? No. She chooses whether to obey/follow laws, regulations, restrictions, guidelines, morals etc. as outlined above. Choice followed by consequences of action taken. I seriously suggest you look up the United Nations', human rights. It outlines this concept. Just because it is not always followed does not make it invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 16, 2018 23:21:27 GMT
You're not understanding my point. Does she ever let anyone else decide what she can and can't do with her body, including places she can and can't go, where she can and can't park a car, etc.? No. She chooses whether to obey/follow laws, regulations, restrictions, guidelines, morals etc. as outlined above. Choice followed by consequences of action taken. I seriously suggest you look up the United Nations', human rights. It outlines this concept. Just because it is not always followed does not make it invalid. I didn't ask that, though. You're not even understanding what I'm asking. Does she ever let anyone else decide what she can't and can't do. For example, does she let anyone else make laws?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 16, 2018 23:29:04 GMT
I say no. Nor will it be wrong when future generations judge ours harshly by their morality. Morality always evolves, never devolves! Future morality will always be superior to past morality unless society is devastated and has to start all over.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 16, 2018 23:42:12 GMT
I insist on making the choice for my own body. So you do insist on making the choice for your own body when it comes to going through airport security? You don't feel like going through all of that on a particular day, or you don't want to be patted down or whatever, and you say, "I insist on making the choice for my own body, and I'm not choosing for you to do this to me today. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body? I'm not going through this security rigamarole, and I'm walking back to my gate and getting on my plane whenever I feel like getting on my plane." I wouldn't say that. That doesn't even make sense. I know the rules and wouldn't by a plane ticket if I was unwilling to follow the rules.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 16, 2018 23:48:05 GMT
No. She chooses whether to obey/follow laws, regulations, restrictions, guidelines, morals etc. as outlined above. Choice followed by consequences of action taken. I seriously suggest you look up the United Nations', human rights. It outlines this concept. Just because it is not always followed does not make it invalid. I didn't ask that, though. You're not even understanding what I'm asking. Does she ever let anyone else decide what she can't and can't do. For example, does she let anyone else make laws?You are right. I am not understanding what you are asking. Virtually NO citizen solely 'makes laws'. "Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behaviour. Law is a system that regulates and ensures that individuals or a community adhere to the will of the state. State-enforced laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or established by judges through precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people." Laws are made. Each citizen goes through the process I have described several times above as to how it affects their bodily autonomy and the choice and its concommitent consequences in a cost risk benefit scenario. Ultimately it is her decision what she does in each situation, and the point is, that this is exactly how it should be.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 16, 2018 23:48:09 GMT
So you do insist on making the choice for your own body when it comes to going through airport security? You don't feel like going through all of that on a particular day, or you don't want to be patted down or whatever, and you say, "I insist on making the choice for my own body, and I'm not choosing for you to do this to me today. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body? I'm not going through this security rigamarole, and I'm walking back to my gate and getting on my plane whenever I feel like getting on my plane." I wouldn't say that. Other people decided what you can do with your body, and also decided that they can pat you down, when you're in an airport, right?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 16, 2018 23:49:52 GMT
I didn't ask that, though. You're not even understanding what I'm asking. Does she ever let anyone else decide what she can't and can't do. For example, does she let anyone else make laws?You are right. I am not understanding what you are asking. Virtually NO citizen solely 'makes laws'. "Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behaviour. Law is a system that regulates and ensures that individuals or a community adhere to the will of the state. State-enforced laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or established by judges through precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people." Laws are made. Each citizen goes through the process I have described several times above as to how it affects their bodily autonomy and the choice and its concommitent consequences in a cost risk benefit scenario. Ultimately it is her decision what she does in each situation, and the point is, that this is exactly how it should be. Right, other people decide at least to some extent. And all of those laws are about what you can and can't do with your body and what can and can't be done to your body, no?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 16, 2018 23:53:05 GMT
Is it wrong to hire a prostitute to choke you for sexual pleasure while wearing a gorilla mask? If yes, the I don't want to be right.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 16, 2018 23:53:15 GMT
I say no. Nor will it be wrong when future generations judge ours harshly by their morality. Morality always evolves, never devolves! Future morality will always be superior to past morality unless society is devastated and has to start all over.I hope you are right, butt I very much doubt it. There have been some serious 'blips' in the accepted morality at some times in history (and without wishing to invoke Godwin's Law) with the recent rise of Nazism as a semi-modern reminder. Ask any German about this and certainly amongst the older generations there is an embarrassment and guilt about how they were conned into the really nasty elements of Nazism. it seems that propaganda can create its own 'morality'.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 16, 2018 23:57:21 GMT
You are right. I am not understanding what you are asking. Virtually NO citizen solely 'makes laws'. "Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behaviour. Law is a system that regulates and ensures that individuals or a community adhere to the will of the state. State-enforced laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or established by judges through precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people." Laws are made. Each citizen goes through the process I have described several times above as to how it affects their bodily autonomy and the choice and its concommitent consequences in a cost risk benefit scenario. Ultimately it is her decision what she does in each situation, and the point is, that this is exactly how it should be. Right, other people decide at least to some extent. And all of those laws are about what you can and can't do with your body and what can and can't be done to your body, no? Of course, that was never at issue. The issue is what decision an individual has the right to make as outlined above TOO many times. Have you ever heard of conscientious objectors? Even in your own example she has the right to submit to the search and in a sense give permission for that to happen OR decide she will not travel and submit to the search. The crimes of assault and rape attest to this where consent was not given and bodily autonomy was breached illegally. This is NOT rocket surgery!
|
|