U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-26-2009, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
857 posts, read 1,217,201 times
Reputation: 558

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
No sir, you are quite wrong for you see, morality (just as religion) is different for everyone. Read: my morals are not your morals. To impose a moral code (as in imposing religion) goes against the morale of the constitution. By your definition, if a mass amount of the population believed that honor killings and stoning kids were the right thing to do - the moral thing to do - by your definition, that would be incorporated into our law, would it not? By your definition, if a large segment of the population believed for something to be moral or just to do, then we could incorporate that belief into our law just because of popularity, right?
that is exactly how every democratic culture established its laws, by an agreement of what the most people deem to be acceptable. if anything, and i do mean anything, was deemed okay by our legislature by whatever number of votes needed, it would become law. we elect these officials to represent our set of morals. Democracy= right by majority.

Quote:
The constitution would be my base. I don't know, the whole notion of not infringing on another's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even if you don't agree with the way they go about it. Shucks, I couldn't really tell ya! But hey, that's just me.
Not so my dear friend. The constitution is the supreme law of our land. Not God, not morals, not your own personal beliefs.
And where did the constitution come from, oh that's right it was the creation of a bunch of representatives who came together and came to an agreed upon set of standards, that means the constitution was based on morals! I find it ironic that your answer for an anti-morality based system is a morality based system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2009, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,594,038 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
that is exactly how every democratic culture established its laws, by an agreement of what the most people deem to be acceptable. if anything, and i do mean anything, was deemed okay by our legislature by whatever number of votes needed, it would become law. we elect these officials to represent our set of morals. Democracy= right by majority.

And where did the constitution come from, oh that's right it was the creation of a bunch of representatives who came together and came to an agreed upon set of standards, that means the constitution was based on morals! I find it ironic that your answer for an anti-morality based system is a morality based system.
Thanks for this post man. My thoughts exactly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 942,458 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaykay View Post
Actually, aren't most laws based on what we as a society deem morally acceptable or unacceptable? Why is murder illegal? Why is theft illegal?
Murder infringes upon the right to live.

Theft infringes upon the right of liberty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
KB09, your interpretations as to what violates people's rights to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" may be different from those of others....particularly when you get to that "pursuit of happiness" (which is NOT a part of the Constitution actually....IIRC it's only in the Declaration of Independence).
Okay, I can understand and agree with that. Tell me, what are your interpretations of it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I can't think of more fair way to make laws than based on what the majority of the population wants the laws to be.
Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that would be a very good article to read concerning your post.

Recall the famous quote that democracy is when the 51% of the people get to rule over the over 49%.

You are not totally opposed to a majority rule because it does not directly affect you. Say if Christianity were to be outlawed (or the entire construct of religion), or anything that you might consider a freedom, you would be up in arms. But, it would be fair right? Majority rules right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
that is exactly how every democratic culture established its laws, by an agreement of what the most people deem to be acceptable. if anything, and i do mean anything, was deemed okay by our legislature by whatever number of votes needed, it would become law. we elect these officials to represent our set of morals. Democracy= right by majority.
And you forget my friend, we are not a pure democracy; in other words, the majority does not rule (take the Bush elections or the entire construct of the Electoral College for example). Our founding father's saw this and designed a document (although imperfect) to counteract the phenomenon of majority rule when you have a government based off of democracy; let's not forget that before democracy became popular it was known as anarchy. It is that very reason (coupled with the fact that they did not trust the common man with political decisions) that we have a system of checks and balances. Tyranny reigns when people become so complacent that they do not care (or know) that the government and elected officials are repressing them and their freedoms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
And where did the constitution come from, oh that's right it was the creation of a bunch of representatives who came together and came to an agreed upon set of standards, that means the constitution was based on morals!
Your point?

Just because it may have been based off of morals does not mean that it is still acceptable to use such reasoning today. Or, did you forget that our constitution is a living document that changes the interpretation and meaning as the language and times evolves and changes? Please, don't tell me you did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
I find it ironic that your answer for an anti-morality based system is a morality based system.
You've misunderstood; I'm not for an anti-morality system per se, I'm for not letting other's impose their morals and beliefs onto me. IMHO, it's better to live and let live than to force ideals, opinions, and beliefs onto other's under the notion of majority rules.

Again though, how does this relate to the topic at hand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,594,038 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
Murder infringes upon the right to live.

Theft infringes upon the right of liberty.



Okay, I can understand and agree with that. Tell me, what are your interpretations of it?



Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that would be a very good article to read concerning your post.

Recall the famous quote that democracy is when the 51% of the people get to rule over the over 49%.

You are not totally opposed to a majority rule because it does not directly affect you. Say if Christianity were to be outlawed (or the entire construct of religion), or anything that you might consider a freedom, you would be up in arms. But, it would be fair right? Majority rules right?



And you forget my friend, we are not a pure democracy; in other words, the majority does not rule (take the Bush elections or the entire construct of the Electoral College for example). Our founding father's saw this and designed a document (although imperfect) to counteract the phenomenon of majority rule when you have a government based off of democracy; let's not forget that before democracy became popular it was known as anarchy. It is that very reason (coupled with the fact that they did not trust the common man with political decisions) that we have a system of checks and balances. Tyranny reigns when people become so complacent that they do not care (or know) that the government and elected officials are repressing them and their freedoms.



Your point?

Just because it may have been based off of morals does not mean that it is still acceptable to use such reasoning today. Or, did you forget that our constitution is a living document that changes the interpretation and meaning as the language and times evolves and changes? Please, don't tell me you did.



You've misunderstood; I'm not for an anti-morality system per se, I'm for not letting other's impose their morals and beliefs onto me. IMHO, it's better to live and let live than to force ideals, opinions, and beliefs onto other's under the notion of majority rules.

Again though, how does this relate to the topic at hand?
Like it or not....if the majority of the people want something to be against the law, it will be.

We will vote for legislators who will enact the laws we want. If the laws are unconstitutional, the Constitution can be changed and we will vote for legislators who will change it to our liking.

The majority will always win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
857 posts, read 1,217,201 times
Reputation: 558
Hey guys we are off topic here, I am going to start a new thread
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 942,458 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Like it or not....if the majority of the people want something to be against the law, it will be.

We will vote for legislators who will enact the laws we want. If the laws are unconstitutional, the Constitution can be changed and we will vote for legislators who will change it to our liking.

The majority will always win.
So in the cases of slavery, interment camps, and the women's movement the majority won huh?

Okay, I get your point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,594,038 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
So in the cases of slavery, interment camps, and the women's movement the majority won huh?

Okay, I get your point.
They did. Of course I don't want to see any of those things making a comeback and I find them completely repulsive, but you know as well as I do that the majority did win all three times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 942,458 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
They did. Of course I don't want to see any of those things making a comeback and I find them completely repulsive, but you know as well as I do that the majority did win all three times.
Dude...I think you need to go and reread your history books.

In all three cases, there was an overwhelming, disproportionate amount of people against the issue in each case. Blacks were considered property things, women were considered second class to men (and black women? whew! a doozie), and Japanese Americans were distrusted so much that they were put in camps without so much of a whimper from the public.

Abe Lincoln's goal was not to end slavery (he wanted to severely p*ss off the southern states and tell them what to do, even though they weren't legally part of the union - remember, slavery was still legal in the rest of the union); it just kinda...happened that way. We know that many people were still against blacks because of the enactment of the Jim Crow laws that were enforced all the way up until the capital (and they were still being enforced into the 20th century! Hmmm. Imagine that!). That's a whole lot of people.

The earliest roots of the women's suffrage began during the amendment of the Constitution and did not end until the early 20th century.

Timeline of Women's Suffrage in the United States

And many historians consider the time when the women's movement was completely, without a shadow of a doubt over, is when abortion was legalized across the board.

It took women over 200 years to get the right to collectively vote. By your logic, if they were the majority they would've gotten what they wanted back in 1776.

In the case of the Japanese camps. If indeed it was by majority rule (or let's call it for what it is, mob rule) then the Japanese would have still been in those camps through WWII (which they weren't), and would've still been in there to the 50's; you have to remember, there was still a commonly held distrust for the Japanese Americans during that time period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2009, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,594,038 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
Dude...I think you need to go and reread your history books.

In all three cases, there was an overwhelming, disproportionate amount of people against the issue in each case. Blacks were considered property things, women were considered second class to men (and black women? whew! a doozie), and Japanese Americans were distrusted so much that they were put in camps without so much of a whimper from the public.

Abe Lincoln's goal was not to end slavery (he wanted to severely p*ss off the southern states and tell them what to do, even though they weren't legally part of the union - remember, slavery was still legal in the rest of the union); it just kinda...happened that way. We know that many people were still against blacks because of the enactment of the Jim Crow laws that were enforced all the way up until the capital (and they were still being enforced into the 20th century! Hmmm. Imagine that!). That's a whole lot of people.

The earliest roots of the women's suffrage began during the amendment of the Constitution and did not end until the early 20th century.

Timeline of Women's Suffrage in the United States

And many historians consider the time when the women's movement was completely, without a shadow of a doubt over, is when abortion was legalized across the board.

It took women over 200 years to get the right to collectively vote. By your logic, if they were the majority they would've gotten what they wanted back in 1776.

In the case of the Japanese camps. If indeed it was by majority rule (or let's call it for what it is, mob rule) then the Japanese would have still been in those camps through WWII (which they weren't), and would've still been in there to the 50's; you have to remember, there was still a commonly held distrust for the Japanese Americans during that time period.
I will admit - I don't remember that much from my history classes.

However, I think you missed the point. My point regarding women was the women were discriminated against largely before they could vote. So, as far as I'm concerned, they didn't count in my definition of the "majority." Not because I'm a sexist...but because I meant "a majority of voters" rather than just a "majority." Until women could vote, they were not a part of the "majority" for that purpose.

I understand that women gained suffrage back in 1920...but most people (including women) largely believed that a woman's role was in the home and that she was subordinate to her husband until the 1960's or 1970's. Therefore, even then the majority of voters supported any restrictions. Once the majority no longer supported the restrictions is when they were lifted.

The blacks...same goes there...the majority of voters did not include a significant representation of blacks until the poll taxes and other restrictions aimed at reducing the number of black voters were lifted and until the majority believed that blacks were equal to whites. And of course no blacks were allowed to vote at all until sometime in the 1860's or 1870's.

As far as the Japanese internment camps, I don't know the details of that at all.

Regardless, we have a new thread now devoted to this discussion. This thread remains about abortion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2009, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Texas
8,668 posts, read 19,750,096 times
Reputation: 21272
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb09 View Post
Murder infringes upon the right to live.

Theft infringes upon the right of liberty.
Well, this brings us back to square one if you want to look at it that way. Abortion infringes on the baby's right to life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:51 PM.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top