03-07-2003 03:50									#91
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Ok -- it's great that we're telling people that it's wrong to kill people by killing people as example. No, we are telling people that it is wrong to MURDER people. DUH! After all, we don't put people that kill in self-defense in jail .

Yes -- we're telling people that it's wrong to murder through the example of executions.

It just doesn't jive with me.

	03-07-2003 03:52									#92
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by skywalker You don't get it. We (judging from the comments of people in this thread) couldn't care less about our right to drink alcohol in some tiny, out-of-the-way town.

You don't get it, why should the majority of people care if this judge put the Ten Commandments in a courtroom?

Doesn't bother me one way or the other.

Besides whether they are there or not, that judges decisions will STILL be influenced by his religion. Same with all of those SCOTUS judges, they are still influenced by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

ACK!

	03-07-2003 03:53									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Yes -- we're telling people that it's wrong to murder through the example of executions. It just doesn't jive with me.

It doesn't have to. That's what's great about opinions. They are like *******s, everyone's got one .

Yeah, we are telling people it is wrong to murder and using executions (which cannot be murder, technically) to prove the point.

	03-07-2003 03:54									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Besides whether they are there or not, that judges decisions will STILL be influenced by his religion. Same with all of those SCOTUS judges, they are still influenced by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

You can't take the person out of the person .

	03-07-2003 03:54									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Yes -- we're telling people that it's wrong to murder through the example of executions. It just doesn't jive with me. It doesn't have to. That's what's great about opinions. They are like *******s, everyone's got one .

My little addition to that quote

"everyone's got one and they all stink.......except mine."

ACK!

	03-07-2003 03:54									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

skywalker,

quote: So. He still didn't, and you said he did.

My bad. I thought he originally brought it up, the point is, I knew that I didn't.

quote: HE may not think that it's ok personally, but the majority would, so sucks for him.

So, then, we come back to the main point. You guys believe that rights are whatever the government says they are, yet you still can't get around the Holocaust example, or any other similar ones.

quote: You don't get it. We (judging from the comments of people in this thread) couldn't care less about our right to drink alcohol in some tiny, out-of-the-way town.

Unless you live there and want to drink, of course.

Imran,

quote: You are forgetting the Commerce Clause. What power does Congress have to ban sex?

Umm, none, but the Commerce Clause was never intended to be used as the convenient federal loophole to get around individual rights that it's used for today.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Commerce Clause is still subject to due process concerns, right?

quote: A BETTER example is if a State Legislature banned sex, after such a law. Then yea, it's ok. Wouldn't like it, but it's still ok.

Really? So you're telling me that having sex isn't a right, and it's something that the government can and should be able to take away?

I understand you're going into law, but look outside of the law - not all law is good, proper, or moral.

	03-07-2003 03:55									#97
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Tuberski You don't get it, why should the majority of people care if this judge put the Ten Commandments in a courtroom? Doesn't bother me one way or the other. Besides whether they are there or not, that judges decisions will STILL be influenced by his religion. Same with all of those SCOTUS judges, they are still influenced by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. ACK!

But it does bother a lot of people.

However, if a bunch of people don't like the law, they'll CHANGE it.

	03-07-2003 03:58									#98
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Commerce Clause is still subject to due process concerns, right?

Yes, but so? This has little to do with your hypo. The Court will throw out this law because of the Commerce Clause.

quote: Really? So you're telling me that having sex isn't a right, and it's something that the government can and should be able to take away?

No, I'm not telling you that. When did I ever say 'SHOULD'? The government (the Supreme Court or Congress through an Amendment) can say that sex isn't a right.... and then they can take away what you considered your sexual rights.

quote: I understand you're going into law, but look outside of the law - not all law is good, proper, or moral.

DUH!! Are we falling into the same Floyd trap that everyone that doesn't agree with me is evil and/or stupid?

I just believe that law should be changed by democratic process and not unelected judges. You really don't believe in democracy (if your rights are all protected), so we come at it from different perspectives.

	03-07-2003 04:02									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Yes, but so? This has little to do with your hypo. The Court will throw out this law because of the Commerce Clause.

I was making a different point - the point I was making was that just because the Commerce Clause theoretically gives a certain power to the government, it still isn't certain the government can exercise that power.

quote: No, I'm not telling you that. When did I ever say 'SHOULD'? The government (the Supreme Court or Congress through an Amendment) can say that sex isn't a right.... and then they can take away what you considered your sexual rights.

You are saying that is a proper power of government - hence, they SHOULD BE ABLE TO, not that they SHOULD DO IT.

quote: DUH!! Are we falling into the same Floyd trap that everyone that doesn't agree with me is evil and/or stupid?

Not at all. I'm just saying that anyone who doesn't behave morally is, well, immoral, and that absolute morals are rather self-evident.

quote: I just believe that law should be changed by democratic process and not unelected judges.

True, but what happens when the majority votes to violate your rights? Do those rights suddenly cease to exist, or are they just being violated?

	03-07-2003 04:02									#100
	Got spare money?

quote: the Commerce Clause was never intended to be used as the convenient federal loophole to get around individual rights that it's used for today.

and

quote: That's what's great about opinions. They are like *******s, everyone's got one

and

quote: So if the Supreme Court said there was no right to have sex

are all examples of why SCOTUS should be sticking to Strict construction viewpoints.

	03-07-2003 04:05									#101
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: You are saying that is a proper power of government - hence, they SHOULD BE ABLE TO, not that they SHOULD DO IT.

Oh, I see now. Yeah, state governments at least.

quote: that absolute morals are rather self-evident.

You've done it now, I'm on the floor laughing! Absolute morals are anything BUT self-evident!

quote: True, but what happens when the majority votes to violate your rights? Do those rights suddenly cease to exist, or are they just being violated?

It depends. If there are rights encapsulated in writing somewhere in law and they ignore them, then they are being violated. IF there are no rights written down, or if they repeal the written down rights, then those rights suddenly cease to exist (bye, bye rights).

	03-07-2003 04:08									#102
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Floyd, well, how about we just ask everyone what these "absolute morals" are?

	03-07-2003 04:10									#103
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Imran,

quote: You've done it now, I'm on the floor laughing! Absolute morals are anything BUT self-evident!

So murder being wrong is not self-evident, in your opinion?

And I know I ask a lot of questions, but I ask them to fully understand your opinion.

quote: IF there are no rights written down, or if they repeal the written down rights, then those rights suddenly cease to exist (bye, bye rights).

So if 50% + 1 votes to eradicate, say, the right to life of 50% - 1, this is morally defensible?

	03-07-2003 04:11									#104
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Floyd, well, how about we just ask everyone what these "absolute morals" are?

I've got a better idea. How about you ask 100 people if murder is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if, say, stealing is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if it's wrong to kidnap someone and chain them in a basement.

	03-07-2003 04:12									#105
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

[rant]SO WHAT if it is morally defensible? We aren't arguing over whether or not something is moral. We are arguing over whether or not something is constitutional!!!!!! For heaven's sake, get it right![/rant]

	03-07-2003 04:13									#106
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I've got a better idea. How about you ask 100 people if murder is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if, say, stealing is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if it's wrong to kidnap someone and chain them in a basement.

And what do you suggest we do if they disagree with you?

	03-07-2003 04:16									#107
	Suffering from ads?

quote: And what do you suggest we do if they disagree with you?

The point of the exercise is to show that the vast majority of people either believe that some absolutes exist, or that the Holocaust was perfectly moral and legitimate. Imran, for example, believe the Holocaust was perfectly moral and legitimate, because not everyone agreed it was wrong, but I'd wager that is a minority opinion.

And no, I'm not trying to determine morals based on majority vote. Again, the point is to show you that most people believe in absolutes.

	03-07-2003 04:18									#108
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Floyd - my point is that our only way to base morals IS by majority vote.

Unless you have a better idea...

	03-07-2003 04:21									#109
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Floyd - my point is that our only way to base morals IS by majority vote. Unless you have a better idea...

I have lot's of better ideas, all of which revolve around you granting me that the majority can be wrong.

	03-07-2003 04:26									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I accept and agree that there is an objective morality.

However, there is no objective means of determining what it is. Everyone has a subjective opinion.

Actually, I just thought of a reason why it might not even be objective:

An inherent property of it is that it cannot be proven to others. Therefore, it is by definition subjective.

	03-07-2003 04:47									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I've got a better idea. How about you ask 100 people if murder is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if, say, stealing is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if it's wrong to kidnap someone and chain them in a basement.

But, if even one person says they are not wrong, then it obviously isn't an absolute moral is it?

ACK!

	03-07-2003 04:53									#112
	Support Apolyton

off-topic, but Tuberski, it seems that you ALWAYS put the " ACK!" in your post... why not in your sig?

	03-07-2003 04:55									#113
	Put an end to popups!

For the same reason "Jon Miller" and "have a nice day are not sigs"

I don't, however know what that reason is, you'll have to ask Jon Miller or panag.



ACK!

	03-07-2003 04:57									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

good point

though panag raises other questions

	03-07-2003 05:28									#115
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Sava -

quote: I answered this before... you ignored it. I only illustrated the state's rights issue to point out the two-faced arguing I see all too often.

Your "answer" was the "establishment" clause, but you didn't explain how this guy's plaque infringed upon your freedom. It seems to me the true test of whether or not religion has been established is if the act infringes upon the freedom of non-adherents. As for your accusation of hypocrisy, that too is invalid. The fact David and I support federalism (the 10th Amendment) doesn't mean we believe states can do away with people's rights. If you said the states should be allowed to legalise medical marijuana, would that mean you also believe the states should be allowed to do whatever they want wrt everything else?

skywalker -

quote: Because the rule itself isn't inherently religious. There are secular reasons for its existance. For example, if a majority, or even just a significant number, of people have church on Sundays, it would cause severe problems if they got in trouble for going to church instead of work. Thus, the law is making things convenient for a lot of people, yet not promoting religion.

Huh? Blue laws are a holdover from the past when Bible thumpers thought it inappropriate to drink booze on Sundays - the Lord's day. Since they couldn't ban drinking on Sundays, they banned buying booze on Sundays.

quote: Plus sunday is a weekend

Which makes blue laws even more repugnant.

	03-07-2003 05:29									#116
	Put an end to popups!

quote: So murder being wrong is not self-evident, in your opinion?

That's right. I, personally, don't think it is morally wrong if I murdered Hitler in 1941. Though Hitler, and the Nazis, might consider that immoral behavior .

quote: So if 50% + 1 votes to eradicate, say, the right to life of 50% - 1, this is morally defensible?

To the majority, yes.

quote: Imran, for example, believe the Holocaust was perfectly moral and legitimate, because not everyone agreed it was wrong, but I'd wager that is a minority opinion.

Now, now... twisting arguments will get you nowhere. I never said that I, personally, believed the Holocause was moral and legitimate, but that the people that were in charge of it did.

quote: Again, the point is to show you that most people believe in absolutes.

Most people believe in absolutes? If it was absolute wouldn't ALL people believe in them?

Furthermore, that's a relativist argument. An absolutist wouldn't say that since most people believe in this, it MUST be true!

	03-07-2003 05:31									#117
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Sava - Your "answer" was the "establishment" clause, but you didn't explain how this guy's plaque infringed upon your freedom.

As I've said before, it doesn't have to infringe upon his freedom, it just has to be unconstitutional.

	03-07-2003 05:34									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Sava -

quote: I'm not fond of dry laws, but in that case, I believe local governments have the right to set their own policies in regards to substance sale and production. I simply don't see how such laws are an attack on "individual rights". Is it so terrible to wait one day to buy a beer, or to drive to the next town or country? Geez... get a grip.

Well there you have it, you complain that a plaque is violating your freedom and then you say the states have the "right" to violate our freedom.

	03-07-2003 05:36									#119
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

How did we start talking about this anyway?

	03-07-2003 05:38									#120
	Remove this text

Either Floyd or Sava brought it up.