Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well if you think drugs should be legal, then some doctors may say it is okay to come to work drunk, maybe it "relaxes them before a surgery." ... Maybe drugs help the president think and take away the stress while he's at work.
Your statement that no hard worker who cares about there job under the influence of alcahol is a personal statement, so many other people may disagree with you there when they want to come to work drunk, and it IS there freedom right? so why not? So if that did happen... then all of the sudden you would say it was wrong they they arent hard workers? I think not, at least to what you said earlier.
And also to what you said earlier about "moral objectivism" ... some people may not agree with this. if someone gets really mad at someone, and decides its "okay" to murder them, where do you REALLY say, that is wrong. I mean, obviously human nature will tell you that... but what if the person responds, "well my nature was to kill him, it felt right" .... you would simply have no morals to stand against him, and pretty much have to agree.
See this is where I see a hole in the cloth with ultra liberalism... Please explain how you can disagree with these situations, based on what you said earlier, that people should go by what they feel and other peoples opinions don't matter.
I explained already. You should be free to do what you want as long as it doesn't involve harming others and it doesn't interfere with other's rights. Murder does both because it's harm and it takes away people's right to live. Land, life, and liberty. Sound familiar? And about the job thing. Notice I've said before what they do is personal business. That's their privacy. I never said that applies to work. You're never going to have a job that doesn't have rules. It won't happen. And I'm not a liberal. I'm a Libertarian. I don't like the ideology of most liberals. There are other obvious crimes too. Robbery, rape, etc. The thing is, some are actually wrong. Others are wrong just because people think they are. Abortion isn't wrong just because people don't like it. Rape is wrong for obvious reasons. I really don't need a book to tell me what and what isn't obviously wrong. We humans are smarter than we think. We are able to think critically. We know we wouldn't want a certain kind of treatment, so we wouldn't do it to someone else. Some things are just considered immoral because of the viewpoint of somebody. I am a vegan, but I will not say eating meat is immoral. I just don't do it myself. It is your personal freedom to eat it. It is none of my business, so I have no right to criticize you for it.
My point is, some people are going to disagree with your claimed "obvious" reasons. Some may say homosexuality, or plural marriage is wrong for "obvious" reasons, but there are obviously many people who argue that.
If someone argued to you that murder was a natural human way of fighting, that it served them right, than your "obvious" reasons aren't going to mean anything. Does this make any sense?
Yes, you may think someone coming to work drunk is wrong and that there should be rules against it. But without morals, how do you justify rules? Just because they're obvious? Just because it's human nature? Let me tell you, human nature usually has humans doing the "wrong" thing.... it is rules or.... morals... that are stopping them.
My point is this type of viewpoint really has no solid ground, that what you may see as "obviously wrong," may be claimed "completely natural" to another. Oh, but Land, Life, and Liberty right? It's all about making everyone happy, no matter what the consequences.
Well, if this is the case, let's all get high, party at my place, Bush you're invited too...matter of fact, even Obama too.
Ok, now I'm convinced you're just trying to insist that you can't be moral without religion. Let me make this clear. NOT EVERYONE NEEDS A BOOK TO TELL THEM WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T IMAGINE SUCH A THING BEING POSSIBLE, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T. I'll give you some advice. Look up the most secular nations. Find a list and write down the nations. Next, find a list of the nations with lowest crime rates. You'll be surprised. Last time I checked, the Scandinavian nations (Norway, Sweden, Finland) were the most secular nations. Funny how they were also the nations with lowest crime and one of the highest life expectancies.
That's not what I'm saying. I know plenty of non-religious people who are moral and "good" people. So all of your all-caps typing was a waste of your time, sorry to say.
The point is, liberalism as a whole, liberatarian, etc... have no boundaries, and if you look deep enough, they can't argue that there should be laws, or morals, or rules... because literally they have no right to say anything is wrong based on beliefs like the ones you have listed above.
I'm trying to prove a point, you're getting defensive with capital letters (online yelling) ... What does this prove?
No, you're insisting that nothing can be immoral unless people think it is. There are things which are wrong no matter who doesn't think so. Many people know that. And yes, you can define moral and immoral. Acts of harm against human beings is wrong whether you believe it is or not. Do I even have to define what makes something immoral and what doesn't? It isn't hard. And did you just say that Libertarians call things immoral based on belief? Wow, just wow. I'm convinced now that you're just not going to listen to what is thrown right in front of your face, so this is useless. Simple summary. If you don't want to be treated a certain way, don't treat others that way. Don't do anything that violates their rights or harms them. That is not belief. That's reality whether you believe it or not. If you don't believe it, that's your problem not mine. I'm done with this thread because it's quite clear that you're just making statements based on your assumptions and your own skewed interpretation of what others think. That became clear when you said Libertarians define immoral by belief when I clearly stated what defines moral and immoral countless times. And nobody got defensive. I'm just annoyed at you ignoring what I'm saying and asking the same questions again in different words. And I like how you only payed attention to the caps lock and completely ignored everything else I said. You didn't address anything else that was stated. There is moral and immoral written in stone, whether you want to believe it or not. I don't need a book to tell me what is right or wrong. I'm done with this conversation because it's now clear what you're trying to do and all it proves is that you can't address my statements directly.
Well, like it or not, those would be classified your beliefs. And just because some other people may agree with you, some other people may not think that humans have distinct lines.... and your answers seemed unclear to me, I don't see how you say things are set in stone now, it contradicts what you were saying earlier. None the less, I got some ideas of what liberals think. Sorry you got so annoyed-but thats city-data for you I guess. Thanks for replies!
Yes, drug use should be legal. The ones that ARE harming themselves (not all drugs are harmful, such as psychedelic mushrooms) have every right if that's what they want to do. What someone else does is not hurting you, so it's nobody's business except for their own. You don't get mad at your neighbor for using cheap toilet paper, do you? Same thing should apply for drugs. If they're getting high in their own home and not stealing from you to support their habit, there should be no problem. And I'm not even going to go into how ineffective the war on drugs is. All it does is create street violence. You would think they learned that after the years of prohibition.
By the way, you have a right to eat bad food if you want. Why should that bother your neighbors? It shouldn't.
My eating bad food would never infringe on others. However If I smoked pot and say.. raised kids then in the end it does infringe on others.. (my kids).
Additionally.. if I do drus and then decide to drive my car.. I infringe on others. Saying drugs should be legal because it doesn't infringe on others is misguided (in my opinion).
My eating bad food would never infringe on others. However If I smoked pot and say.. raised kids then in the end it does infringe on others.. (my kids).
Additionally.. if I do drus and then decide to drive my car.. I infringe on others. Saying drugs should be legal because it doesn't infringe on others is misguided (in my opinion).
Making drugs legal would not make child abuse or intoxicated driving legal.
And pot-smokers are allowed to raise kids regardless of the legality of pot.
So, I don't think the kids-raising argument flies; many, many things that arguably should not be exposed to kids are not legislated. Ultimately, parents (and drivers) will make the decisions about what they feel is or is not responsible (not to mention whether they act on that knowledge) - laws can't do that.
Making drugs legal would not make child abuse or intoxicated driving legal.
No I agree. However, greater access to heroin would mean more stupid people making those decisions while under the influence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b. frank
And pot-smokers are allowed to raise kids regardless of the legality of pot.
I'm no legal expert by a long shot but I'm assuming DCS would want to get involved with a family where the parents were constantly breaking the law and smoking pot in the home. I could be wrong though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b. frank
So, I don't think the kids-raising argument flies; many, many things that arguably should not be exposed to kids are not legislated.
My point is drugs ultimately alter the thought process whereas eating poorly doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b. frank
Ultimately, parents (and drivers) will make the decisions about what they feel is or is not responsible (not to mention whether they act on that knowledge) - laws can't do that.
I agree. However, those decisions are much easier if your mind isn't clouded by drugs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
