NationStates Jolt Archive

As I'm sure many of you know, one reason the proposals in the UN queue are rarely supported enough to become resolutions is the fact that there is rarely enough time available for everyone who might support the proposal to read it and give their vote. Another reason is that even though certain nations may agree with the ideals of the proposal, fine points may cause them to not support it. Therefore, we need to unite and gain support before we submit a proposal to the United Nations. I have noticed that many nations support the proposal to repeal the "Gay Rights" resolution for the same reasons I do: the UN does not, nor should it, have the authority to change civil laws such as marriage in individual states. I would, however, be in support of a resolution that required that gays and lesbians be given the same basic civil rights and political freedoms as other citizens, just as members of different races deserve those rights. Marriage, however, is not necessarily a right unless the national governments deem it suitable; this is why marriage licenses are required in several countries. Therefore, nations have the right to refuse marriage rights to criminals, noncitizens, and yes, even homosexuals. I ask anyone who agrees with me or even wishes to debate this to post a reply; hopefully we can gain enough support to draft an effective proposal. Thank you for your interest and your patience.

United Socialist States of Nargopia, Sandarac

Repealing Gay Rights won't make gays unable to marry. You have to repeal about three or four resolutions, and that's going to be difficult.

Besides, the majority of the UN, including me, supports the Gay Rights resolution.

I support Gay-Rights as well.... Pointless endeavor... In truth, I could care less about governments.... people are what matter.

Frisbeeteria also unites in opposition to this repeal. Good thread title, didn't even have to diddle with the language.

Talbania also supports gay rights.

Let's see... 'Unite over repeal of "Gay Rights"'.
Well, it really seems to be doing its job. We all seem united in our views of this repeal.

Ain't unity grand?

As I'm sure many of you know, one reason the proposals in the UN queue are rarely supported enough to become resolutions is the fact that there is rarely enough time available for everyone who might support the proposal to read it and give their vote. Another reason is that even though certain nations may agree with the ideals of the proposal, fine points may cause them to not support it. Therefore, we need to unite and gain support before we submit a proposal to the United Nations. I have noticed that many nations support the proposal to repeal the "Gay Rights" resolution for the same reasons I do: the UN does not, nor should it, have the authority to change civil laws such as marriage in individual states. I would, however, be in support of a resolution that required that gays and lesbians be given the same basic civil rights and political freedoms as other citizens, just as members of different races deserve those rights. Marriage, however, is not necessarily a right unless the national governments deem it suitable; this is why marriage licenses are required in several countries. Therefore, nations have the right to refuse marriage rights to criminals, noncitizens, and yes, even homosexuals. I ask anyone who agrees with me or even wishes to debate this to post a reply; hopefully we can gain enough support to draft an effective proposal. Thank you for your interest and your patience.

United Socialist States of Nargopia, Sandarac


*adds another name to the list of "People Who Didn't Read the FAQ when they checked their National Soverignty at the Door"*

The United Socialist States of Owenarcia also fully supports gay rights. As far as the government is concerned they can do whatever they like with their own lives as long as it is in accordance with the law.


thanks,

*adds another name to the list of "People Who Didn't Read the FAQ when they checked their National Soverignty at the Door"*

Surely you'd have a much shorter list if you kept a list of people who did read the FAQ. ;)

The main argument of repeals against gay rights is that it is against the religion of somethingsomethingsomething....

How are we to know that there are no religions that advocate gay marriages, maybe even enforce gay marriages. (but I don't see how the religion will survive past one generation...)?

If you ban gay rights, would you be banning one's right to religion? (darn, that felt good...other side of the fence!)

AP supports Gay Rights

The main argument of repeals against gay rights is that it is against the religion of somethingsomethingsomething....

How are we to know that there are no religions that advocate gay marriages, maybe even enforce gay marriages. (but I don't see how the religion will survive past one generation...)?

If you ban gay rights, would you be banning one's right to religion? (darn, that felt good...other side of the fence!)

Wicca and pretty much all of the forms of Satanism either view homosexuality to be just as normal as a tree (if not more so) while there are a multitude of minor religions that don't care who you have fun time with in the bedroom. Of those religions who do oppose it, I can't think of one that is not having problems with internal agreement over whether or not to allow homosexuality. So, really, religion is not an excuse.

Of those religions who do oppose it, I can't think of one that is not having problems with internal agreement over whether or not to allow homosexuality. So, really, religion is not an excuse.

Even if they weren't having such problems, it still wouldn't be an excuse.

To the author - the NSUN has to the right to do anything its members vote for, as long as it doesn't break the game rules. And I think you'll find that its members are overwhemingly in favour of respecting homosexual couples as equal to heterosexual couples.

Your right. Religion is no excuse. I will always support the repeal of gay rights, definition of marriage and so on. You have your view, and I respect that. I know I can't change anybodys view on that issue, and to debate it is ridiculous really. So, without a debate I just ask that you respect my POV. Afterall, the UN is run democratically. So I do get to vote based on my beliefs. :)

Well here is what I have decided about this issue: while I am not against gay rights, I would be against gay "marriage". I think we should repeal the marriage definition resolution, and set it as one man and one woman while giving gays some sort of civil union. This is why I think this: two men or two women cannot naturally have children. Therefore, they are not quite the same union has a man and a woman. Would anyone care to comment?

Well here is what I have decided about this issue: while I am not against gay rights, I would be against gay "marriage". I think we should repeal the marriage definition resolution, and set it as one man and one woman while giving gays some sort of civil union. This is why I think this: two men or two women cannot naturally have children. Therefore, they are not quite the same union has a man and a woman. Would anyone care to comment?

Not a hope in hell.

Marriage is about two people who love each other, not what might pop out of one of them 9 months later. ;)

The Holy Empire of Hoobajuia

enfatically supports the repeal of "gray rights" as well as any repitious laws that exist to create a special laws for ANY minority group. It is our belief that if you have opposeable thumbs, a written language base, or are in gernal a bonafide human (and not a cabbage in a person suit), then all laws of the nation apply to you equally. the creation of all these additional laws are rather silly when you think about it, its a special law that specifically says all the other laws apply. If we begin creating special laws for one minority group where does it stop? do we have to get a law for Red Heads Rights? or Left Handers Rights? seriously a resolution to enforce the previous resolutions is a bit futile.. if the previous resolutions are not enforceable in the first place why would a second one make it more so?

The Holy Empire of Hoobajuia

enfatically supports the repeal of "gray rights" as well as any repitious laws that exist to create a special laws for ANY minority group. It is our belief that if you have opposeable thumbs, a written language base, or are in gernal a bonafide human (and not a cabbage in a person suit), then all laws of the nation apply to you equally. the creation of all these additional laws are rather silly when you think about it, its a special law that specifically says all the other laws apply. If we begin creating special laws for one minority group where does it stop? do we have to get a law for Red Heads Rights? or Left Handers Rights? seriously a resolution to enforce the previous resolutions is a bit futile.. if the previous resolutions are not enforceable in the first place why would a second one make it more so?Of course, the point is that not all groups of people in the world are as " enlightened " as you. " We " don't care about you, because as far the the U.N. cares, you already do the right thing !

These laws are designed to effect specifically those who would other-wise not " do the right hing " ...

So what if we had to pass laws to protect " left handers " ?

The point is that we can do so in order to protect a minority in one country ... while also making sure there are laws to apply to protect that minority in any other place should a similar " problem " arise ...

" We use what tool we have, we use any means, overt or devious to defeat them ... "

Well here is what I have decided about this issue: while I am not against gay rights, I would be against gay "marriage". I think we should repeal the marriage definition resolution, and set it as one man and one woman while giving gays some sort of civil union. This is why I think this: two men or two women cannot naturally have children. Therefore, they are not quite the same union has a man and a woman. Would anyone care to comment?

Oh, so people shouldn't get married if they have hysterectomies or vasectomies too, right? And if they choose not to have kids, of course we'll have to keep them from getting married, right?

Marriage isn't about babies, it's about love!

I think the author of this thread wasn't actually against Gay Rights. They just might be stating the fact that they believe the UN, aka us since we are probably all UN members here, doesn't have the right to make decisions that take away from the nations.

Thank you. That is exactly correct. Nargopia, as a socialist nation, believes that gay couples actually should have the right to marry. However, as an independent nation, it also believes that the U.N. does not have the right to breach national sovereignty with resolutions like these. If a nation is declaring genocide against homosexuals, the U.N. can step in. If a nation is following the fascist tradition of trying to create a pure race by eliminating all others, the U.N. can step in. But in a civil issue like marriage, the U.N. can only encourage and advise, not demand.

HOWEVER, the United Nations is meant to protect the fundamental rights of the people, and in my opinion ability to marry the one you love is a fundamental right.

Thank you. That is exactly correct. Nargopia, as a socialist nation, believes that gay couples actually should have the right to marry. However, as an independent nation, it also believes that the U.N. does not have the right to breach national sovereignty with resolutions like these. If a nation is declaring genocide against homosexuals, the U.N. can step in. If a nation is following the fascist tradition of trying to create a pure race by eliminating all others, the U.N. can step in. But in a civil issue like marriage, the U.N. can only encourage and advise, not demand.

Did you not read the FAQ before joining the UN? The UN can and is supposed to "breach national sovereignty". That's the whole point. :rolleyes:

Thank you. That is exactly correct. Nargopia, as a socialist nation, believes that gay couples actually should have the right to marry. However, as an independent nation, it also believes that the U.N. does not have the right to breach national sovereignty with resolutions like these. If a nation is declaring genocide against homosexuals, the U.N. can step in. If a nation is following the fascist tradition of trying to create a pure race by eliminating all others, the U.N. can step in. But in a civil issue like marriage, the U.N. can only encourage and advise, not demand.

*adds another name to the list of "People Who Did Not Read The FAQ Before Joining The UN"*

* Desperately points to his post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7717638&postcount=20) above before it is washed away *

The Holy Empire of Hoobajuia

enfatically supports the repeal of "gray rights" as well as any repitious laws that exist to create a special laws for ANY minority group. It is our belief that if you have opposeable thumbs, a written language base, or are in gernal a bonafide human (and not a cabbage in a person suit), then all laws of the nation apply to you equally. the creation of all these additional laws are rather silly when you think about it, its a special law that specifically says all the other laws apply. If we begin creating special laws for one minority group where does it stop? do we have to get a law for Red Heads Rights? or Left Handers Rights? seriously a resolution to enforce the previous resolutions is a bit futile.. if the previous resolutions are not enforceable in the first place why would a second one make it more so?

The Incoporated States of All Things Fabulous emphatically supports the denial of "special rights" to any majority group. We as a democratic socialist nation believe all people are created equal and should not be given preferential treatment simply because they have the percieved benefit of being born heterosexual or are born of any other percieved supieror or more normal condition. If we begin endorsing special rights for majority members of society, where will it stop? Do we have laws that automatically give majority groups better jobs, more economic stability, and more pyschological stability simply because it is convient and mainstream? I would certainly hope not.

A repeal of gay rights would only serve to promote countries who do not favor equality, which is something we cannot support.

I think the author of this thread wasn't actually against Gay Rights. They just might be stating the fact that they believe the UN, aka us since we are probably all UN members here, doesn't have the right to make decisions that take away from the nations.

To be honest, I don't really believe that for a second (speaking generally regarding the dissenters). From what I've seen, I believe most nations use the "national soverignty" issue as a way to get their Repeal passed- and, once it is passed, will put forward their own Proposals to force the UN to adopt the opposite of what the Resolution stated, in this case banning Gay Rights. I honestly believe the "national soverignty" claim is just a ploy used by these nations who are angered because the UN doesn't fit their worldview and wants it to be that way.

Now, this is not to say that all nations who suggest this Repeal on the "national soverignty" grounds do so because they want to mold the UN into their worldview- I'm just saying that from what I've seen, I have reason to believe that most who use the claim do so just to eventually push their worldview through.

Now, this is not to say that all nations who suggest this Repeal on the "national soverignty" grounds do so because they want to mold the UN into their worldview- I'm just saying that from what I've seen, I have reason to believe that most who use the claim do so just to eventually push their worldview through.
Given that only a single repeal has ever passed the NSUN (so far - "Repeal the 40 hour work week" is up for vote as I type), that's an awful lot to extrapolate from one incident.

Have you seen a whole bunch of "Axis of Evil" nations trying to push their agendas, now that they're legal again? Somehow I've missed that.

I have seen more than a few blatantly partisan repeal proposals floated, but gererally speaking they stand no chance of ever making quorum.

You have too little faith in your fellow delegates, RomeW.

Of course, the point is that not all groups of people in the world are as " enlightened " as you. " We " don't care about you, because as far the the U.N. cares, you already do the right thing !

These laws are designed to effect specifically those who would other-wise not " do the right hing " ...

So what if we had to pass laws to protect " left handers " ?

The point is that we can do so in order to protect a minority in one country ... while also making sure there are laws to apply to protect that minority in any other place should a similar " problem " arise ...


Well said and point well received. My issue was not entirely with the Gay Rights resolution in and of itself, but rather with narrow and repitious laws that serve no purpose other that to iriterate existing laws. Though I obviously chose my words carelessly, allow me to expand on what I was meaning:

The issue of gay marrige and the right to do so has already been addressed by the UN many times:
Resolutions
# 7 - Sexual Freedom
#13 - Gay Rights (the point of contention)
#20 - Religious Tolerance (insofar as I have interpurerted bias often steming from religious views on the matter.)
#27 - Universal Bill of Rights (see: article 4)
#81 - Rights of Minorities and Women.
#82 - Definition of Marriage

the two points of the Gay Rights resolution are 1) non-descrimination and 2)the right to marry

the two articles are covered by other resolutions, that I feel are more broadbased, covering/protecting more 'minority' groups, it is this sort of encompassing mindset I hope to engender, rather than a litany of resolutions each granting a sperate group the same rights they already have.

though it is not necessary to repeal the Gay Rights resolution, I would encourage future human rights proposals to avoid such acute focus as demonstrated therein.

Every Human has within them the basic rights of which they have been granted through their government, and by their creator, whomever that may be.

The Unites Socialist States of Snoogit cannot tolerate any impedence of such rights regardless of their personal beliefs and or judgement system. We cannot allow these rogue anarchist nations dictate our human rights affairs! They would rather chop off their citizens heads over giving them rights!

If this is allowed, then the UN is bowing to anarchy, and the USSS will not allow that to happen.

The issue of gay marrige and the right to do so has already been addressed by the UN many times:
Resolutions
# 7 - Sexual Freedom
#13 - Gay Rights (the point of contention)
#20 - Religious Tolerance (insofar as I have interpurerted bias often steming from religious views on the matter.)
#27 - Universal Bill of Rights (see: article 4)
#81 - Rights of Minorities and Women.
#82 - Definition of Marriage

the two points of the Gay Rights resolution are 1) non-descrimination and 2)the right to marry

the two articles are covered by other resolutions, that I feel are more broadbased, covering/protecting more 'minority' groups, it is this sort of encompassing mindset I hope to engender, rather than a litany of resolutions each granting a sperate group the same rights they already have.


Hmm

*stratches chin and ponders if anyone in the anti-"Gay Rights" camp will take the hint...*

* Desperately points to his post above before it is washed away *

*follows hyperlink*

*Shields eyes from harmful doses of italics and graphic exploitation of underage quotation marks*

Given that only a single repeal has ever passed the NSUN (so far - "Repeal the 40 hour work week" is up for vote as I type), that's an awful lot to extrapolate from one incident.

Have you seen a whole bunch of "Axis of Evil" nations trying to push their agendas, now that they're legal again? Somehow I've missed that.

I have seen more than a few blatantly partisan repeal proposals floated, but gererally speaking they stand no chance of ever making quorum.

You have too little faith in your fellow delegates, RomeW.

What I meant was those proposed Repeals that you mentioned that I see on the forums, especially when concerning Gay Rights or abortion. 98% of the time the argument is "national soverignty", with a few references- either directly or indirectly- that what was Resolved is "wrong". Now, I understand that most proposals of that nature haven't a snail's chance of reaching quorum (and, in my opinion anyway, the "Repeal 40-Hour Workweek" Resolution should not have either) because most of them are poorly written and/or argued, but the essence of what I was getting at is when I see the "national soverignty" argument stated anywhere- either in this thread or not- supporting a Repeal of Gay Rights or of abortion, I simply don't believe it. What I do believe is that, if given the chance, most of those nations who use the "national soverignty" argument use it just to repeal these Resolutions and institute Resolutions that ban what was previously allowed.

I know that, since this UN is highly liberal, something like that would never happen- I'm just saying that whenever I see the "national soverignty" argument that I just don't believe it. That's all.

Every Human has within them the basic rights of which they have been granted through their government, and by their creator, whomever that may be.

The Unites Socialist States of Snoogit cannot tolerate any impedence of such rights regardless of their personal beliefs and or judgement system. We cannot allow these rogue anarchist nations dictate our human rights affairs! They would rather chop off their citizens heads over giving them rights!

If this is allowed, then the UN is bowing to anarchy, and the USSS will not allow that to happen.

:headbang:

ANOTHER Name gets added to the list of "PEOPLE WHO DID NOT READ THE FAQ BEFORE JOINING THE UN".

I'm thinking of going into a second, expanded edition...

I strongly agree that the Gay Rights Resolution should be repealed. The UN should not dictate to member nations what there policies on social issues like these should be. If liberal countries want to have gay rights then they should be allowed and conservative nations should be allowed to not have them.

Liberal nations should not dictate to me on how run my country. It's not like I'm forcing them to ban homosexuality and jail gays.

Liberal nations should not dictate to me on how run my country. It's not like I'm forcing them to ban homosexuality and jail gays.

What are you doing in the UN then?

If liberal countries want to have gay rights then they should be allowed and conservative nations should be allowed to not have them.
Plenty of conservative nations allow rights for all their citizens. You probably meant homophobic, not conservative.

I strongly agree that the Gay Rights Resolution should be repealed. The UN should not dictate to member nations what there policies on social issues like these should be. If liberal countries want to have gay rights then they should be allowed and conservative nations should be allowed to not have them.

Liberal nations should not dictate to me on how run my country. It's not like I'm forcing them to ban homosexuality and jail gays.

Just because the people being oppressed are in your country and not mine doesn't make it any less evil in my eyes, and doesn't mean that I don't feel the same obligation to help these people in whatever way I can that I would if they were in my nation.

Conservative nations aren't necessarily "homophobic," and the term is used to vilify those who don't follow your blanket acceptance of the gay agenda.

Maubachia is a nation in which no special rights are given to any minorities, whatever their excuse. That's right, there are no "hate crimes," as no citizen is considered to have more value than another based on arbitrary criteria. It's this aspect of the Gay Rights movement that nations like Maubachia are loathe to accept.

It's like when you hear on the news that a "straight-A" student was accidentally killed in a gang shooting. Like it would have been less of a loss if that kid was a "straight-C" student.

Conservative nations aren't necessarily "homophobic," and the term is used to vilify those who don't follow your blanket acceptance of the gay agenda.

Using terms such as "gay agenda" isn't helping your cause to prove that conservative nations aren't homophobic...

But is it this agenda you mean? (http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html)

No, that's not the agenda that I mean, but I appreciate the humor.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. By Gay Agenda, I mean the furtherment of special rights for gays, including the "right" not to be denied employment, housing, or adoption. Gay Marriage is another tenet of the Agenda. We could support civil unions, but Marriage is a sacrament. It also includes the classification of any crime against a gay person as a Hate Crime, which implies that crimes against heteros are less offensive. Please note that I would support legislation that classifies the intimidation of minorities (including gays) as a crime, which would not otherwise be considered criminal activity (i.e. burning a cross on someone's lawn is an intimidation tactic, which without the symbolism would otherwise just be criminal mischief).

No, that's not the agenda that I mean, but I appreciate the humor.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. By Gay Agenda, I mean the furtherment of special rights for gays, including the "right" not to be denied employment, housing, or adoption. Gay Marriage is another tenet of the Agenda. We could support civil unions, but Marriage is a sacrament. It also includes the classification of any crime against a gay person as a Hate Crime, which implies that crimes against heteros are less offensive. Please note that I would support legislation that classifies the intimidation of minorities (including gays) as a crime, which would not otherwise be considered criminal activity (i.e. burning a cross on someone's lawn is an intimidation tactic, which without the symbolism would otherwise just be criminal mischief).

Civil Union ~ Marriage; they are the same thing since the inception of Common Law, Common Law created Civil Union as the legal definition of Marriage; as to what it was originally, before the governmental usurpation of the institution within the descent of powers from Augustus Caesar. There is no differentiation of concepts. In government, assuming you are a Republic, there are no "sacraments". Such a term is religious in nature (and actually only specific to two sects of Christianity; Catholicism and Orthodox).

The Republic recognizes no special "sacrament" in relation to religions. That's for the individual governments of the religious bodies to do amongst their own membership; not the form, function or place of the general government... You seem to be having a inherant discrepency in your mode of government, and how it is operating; which is creating your problems in these regards. Because you're trying to establish Theocratic Monarchialism under the guise of a Republic.

We could support civil unions, but Marriage is a sacrament.
Your government decides what is and isn't a sacrament? We've always left that to the churches.

We let our government decide tax policy and health policy and inheritance policy, you know, government-type stuff that relates to contract law between married-type people. Last time I looked, those policies were gender-irrelevant. Tacking religious language like 'sacrament' into our code of law makes no sense, because we don't regulate churches. We just tax them, same as everyone else.

We beg to differ. In Maubachia, only the Church can perform Marriages, which are in turn recognized by the State.

Marriages are indeed Civil Unions, but not all Civil Unions are Marriages.

And no, we don't tax the Church in Maubachia. In fact, we try to tax as little as possible.

As an aside, it is difficult to conduct business in NationStates as a true republic, as one man seems to be making all of the decisions. *wink*

We beg to differ. In Maubachia, only the Church can perform Marriages, which are in turn recognized by the State.

Marriages are indeed Civil Unions, but not all Civil Unions are Marriages.

And no, we don't tax the Church in Maubachia. In fact, we try to tax as little as possible.

As an aside, it is difficult to conduct business in NationStates as a true republic, as one man seems to be making all of the decisions. *wink*

"The Church"? Sorry, that is a violation of UBR Article 1. You can't enforce religious views on individuals. Also, the concept is adverse to the principle of a Republic. You indeed are trying to forment Theocratic Monarchialism under the guise of a "Republic"... Being a Republic is more in line with functional ideals than governmental mode of leadership.

According to The Republic, the nation is ruled over by a Philosopher King who operated by libertine ethics for the betterment of all people; including minorities; of the Republic. Whether the Philosopher King is elected or appointed, is of no concern; but the Republic only exists, as long as the ideals of Libertine function are furthered... Without it, it degrades either to Monarchialism or Anarchism... You, sir, are not a republic as long as you do not maintain the form and function of The Republic.

Actually, we're more of an Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune:

WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an
autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes...
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would...
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one lives there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal
affairs...
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more...
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

Let's face some facts guys, lots of people are for gay marriage and lots are against it, and most of those have very entrenched views. In my sister nation, Jagonian Colonies, no gay marriage is allowed whereas here it is allowed. And sorry, guys, accidentally using non-un member nations profile to post this.
*looks worried and prays the mods leave him alone* :(
In RL I am against Gay marriage, and in NS I am too, and here's why:
-it is against my religion, as a Roman Catholic, for there to be homosexuality at all, but the wider Roman Catholic community has learned to modernise and move with the times.
-but allowing the Holy Sacrament of Marriage to be changed for gays would undermine :gundge: the principles on which it is founded, that of a union between a man and a woman. :fluffle:
- also how is it that those who are against Gay Marriage are always the ones who think they hold the moral high ground because somehow only liberals can be right. The Catholic Church will not follow the road of the Anglicans by allowing homosexuality in the future, and the liberals will never get off their high horses and talk about compromises, like civil unions, so its unlilkely their will be any changes in this debate. But please guys, think about this when you flame me as you flame all those who disagree with you. You think you're right and I accept that, and indeed am pleased to be able to join in this debate. But you never want to accept that I think I'm right and that I believe strongly about this.
Thank you in advance for not stopping to think about what I said. Flamers - :sniper: watch out when you're out and about, the sniper :mp5: and terrorist will come for you.
Just kidding,
The Holy Republic of Jagonian Territories
(representing the Theocracy of Jagonian Colonies)

Let's face some facts guys, lots of people are for gay marriage and lots are against it, and most of those have very entrenched views. In my sister nation, Jagonian Colonies, no gay marriage is allowed whereas here it is allowed. And sorry, guys, accidentally using non-un member nations profile to post this.
*looks worried and prays the mods leave him alone* :(
In RL I am against Gay marriage, and in NS I am too, and here's why:
-it is against my religion, as a Roman Catholic, for there to be homosexuality at all, but the wider Roman Catholic community has learned to modernise and move with the times.
-but allowing the Holy Sacrament of Marriage to be changed for gays would undermine :gundge: the principles on which it is founded, that of a union between a man and a woman. :fluffle:
- also how is it that those who are against Gay Marriage are always the ones who think they hold the moral high ground because somehow only liberals can be right. The Catholic Church will not follow the road of the Anglicans by allowing homosexuality in the future, and the liberals will never get off their high horses and talk about compromises, like civil unions, so its unlilkely their will be any changes in this debate. But please guys, think about this when you flame me as you flame all those who disagree with you. You think you're right and I accept that, and indeed am pleased to be able to join in this debate. But you never want to accept that I think I'm right and that I believe strongly about this.
Thank you in advance for not stopping to think about what I said. Flamers - :sniper: watch out when you're out and about, the sniper :mp5: and terrorist will come for you.
Just kidding,
The Holy Republic of Jagonian Territories
(representing the Theocracy of Jagonian Colonies)

Oh, don't get me wrong; I have no inherant problem with a nationstate not viewing homosexuality and homosexual marriage in a libertine view. What I have a contention with, is nationstates declaring themselves fair, and libertine democracies and/or Republics, and then moving upon a view or principle contrary to that, by intermixing theocratic forms into libertine governments... It's inherantly hypocritical.... Intermixing the powers of ecclesiastical and general government.

I myself hold religious views, personally, but I am a Republic, rooted in libertine beliefs. So to translate my personal morality, based upon religious view, into general law; is a sin, as an abuse of my own power. Irregardless of whether those of us in Leadership of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, or of a number of people in this Republic, who view the particular acts of another as a sin in the eyes of their ecclesiastical order... Such views are inherantly blocked from enforcement by the general government by the seperation clause.

I consider the inability of a person, in power over a nation, to distinguish ecclesiastical power and general power, a mental deficiency. The two are completely seperate, as far as God and sin is concerned, it is operated on this earth through the ecclesiastical powers of the bodies of churches in relation to their membership: The general government plays no part, what-so-ever in the enforcement or operations of ecclesiastical discipline. The churches can do that amongst their own membership. It is the purpose of the General Government to look out for the interests and liberties of each individual citizen, regardless of their beliefs, in arbitration.

Conservative nations aren't necessarily "homophobic," and the term is used to vilify those who don't follow your blanket acceptance of the gay agenda.

Maubachia is a nation in which no special rights are given to any minorities, whatever their excuse. That's right, there are no "hate crimes," as no citizen is considered to have more value than another based on arbitrary criteria. It's this aspect of the Gay Rights movement that nations like Maubachia are loathe to accept.

It's like when you hear on the news that a "straight-A" student was accidentally killed in a gang shooting. Like it would have been less of a loss if that kid was a "straight-C" student.

In TilEnca no special treatment is given to minorities either. But to ensure the rights of all people are protected, so that all people can be treated equally, some laws have been put in to place.

For example Elves can not be denied a job just because they are Elves, but if they are totally unsuitable for the position, then the person doesn't have to give them the job just because they are an Elf.

Same for gays, dwarves, atheists and so on and so on and so on.

We don't give anyone special treatment, but we do ensure that no one is given negative treatment. Because everyone is equal, and should be treated as such.

I am happy you have a nice peaceful nation where everyone loves each other, and no one would consider doing anything evil to anyone else just because they look different or act different. But the whole of the NSUN is not like that, and if we have to write laws in to your nation that have no real affect (because everyone is so nice) what does it hurt?

The resolution that someone (I really can't remember who started this thread btw) is trying to repeal does not say "Gays must have rights, and you have to give them jobs and good homes and nice cars and a pony" - it just says their rights have to be protected. There is no "hetrosexual rights" resolution because no one thought that straight people needed a law to protect them. A sad indictment on humanity, if ever I saw one.

(OOC)

Stuart : But you get all the protection. Gay's get laws, blacks get laws, women get laws. I am straight, white guy. Who's protecting me?
Carter : Congress

(Spin City)

Hey people. I agree that every person who acts like a normal person has the basic rights like everyone else. This is the reason that criminals do not have the rights of a normal citizen. The same should be with gay couples. It is a proven fact that gay relationships were not in the thought process while the human body was being made. And if this threat grows to much it could lead to the declne of the human population in the world. Also the central government does have the right to decide on this issue because it goes beyond just marriage, it goes straight to the basic rights of man which is clearly governed by the national government. We must rally together to stop this great threat. No one said it would be easy to solve this problem. But if it saves this world then it would be worth it. So everyone come togetherand stop this madness. As soon as i am able i will make a proposal to over rule all of the resolutions that support gay couples.

Hey people. I agree that every person who acts like a normal person has the basic rights like everyone else. This is the reason that criminals do not have the rights of a normal citizen. The same should be with gay couples. It is a proven fact that gay relationships were not in the thought process while the human body was being made. And if this threat grows to much it could lead to the declne of the human population in the world. Also the central government does have the right to decide on this issue because it goes beyond just marriage, it goes straight to the basic rights of man which is clearly governed by the national government. We must rally together to stop this great threat. No one said it would be easy to solve this problem. But if it saves this world then it would be worth it. So everyone come togetherand stop this madness. As soon as i am able i will make a proposal to over rule all of the resolutions that support gay couples.

1. The world doesn't really have a population shortage.

2. The gay part of the population seems to be constant.

3. A single proposal trying to do what you want is illegal.

4. Shame on you for comparing gays to criminals and calling gay couples a threat. Shame on you!

Hey people. I agree that every person who acts like a normal person has the basic rights like everyone else. This is the reason that criminals do not have the rights of a normal citizen. The same should be with gay couples. It is a proven fact that gay relationships were not in the thought process while the human body was being made. And if this threat grows to much it could lead to the declne of the human population in the world. Also the central government does have the right to decide on this issue because it goes beyond just marriage, it goes straight to the basic rights of man which is clearly governed by the national government. We must rally together to stop this great threat. No one said it would be easy to solve this problem. But if it saves this world then it would be worth it. So everyone come togetherand stop this madness. As soon as i am able i will make a proposal to over rule all of the resolutions that support gay couples.

Not that moronic argument again...

Gay marriage, will not lead to the population downfall of humans. Not everyone is, or will turn, homosexual, merely because gays can marriage.

Without diving directly into this arguement, I would like to say that I am fairly sick of hearing "If you don't like it you should leave the UN." If you don't like it, this is exactly where you should be! If you were truely A REPUBLIC, you wouldn't be trying to get everyone that doesn't agree with YOUR views out of the international governing body so that you can complete YOUR agenda. It's called checks and balances.

Secondly, I DID READ THE FAQ, and I am STILL against this resolution because of the infringements on national sovereignty AND because of my moral beliefs. Without quoting, the rules say that the UN has exactly the rights that we give it, as voting members. Therefore, if I believe that a resolution is violating national sovereignty, and enough people agree with me, then it would be me in the right, not you. And just because these people are not in the majority, it does not mean that their arguements are not valid, it just means that their view isn't currently MAINSTREAM.

Finally, and I did not do enough research on this one, so I may be wrong, I admit, I don't believe that there is a current LAW that separates church and state. There are also no ties between RL religion and NS religion. Therefore, whatever your nation does as a separation between church and state is up to you, but my country CAN be run by the Church if I so wish it (as long as it doesn't break any laws), because it is MY nation and there is NO WAY that you can even pretend to generalize all religions in NS because none of us could ever dream up all of the possibilities.

We beg to differ. In Maubachia, only the Church can perform Marriages, which are in turn recognized by the State.

Sounds like my nation where we have laws stating that only ordained members of the clergy can perform marriages, and in fact until the Definition of Mariage was passed defining marriage as a "civil joining" the government didn't even recognize them.

Without diving directly into this arguement, I would like to say that I am fairly sick of hearing "If you don't like it you should leave the UN." If you don't like it, this is exactly where you should be! If you were truely A REPUBLIC, you wouldn't be trying to get everyone that doesn't agree with YOUR views out of the international governing body so that you can complete YOUR agenda. It's called checks and balances.

Secondly, I DID READ THE FAQ, and I am STILL against this resolution because of the infringements on national sovereignty AND because of my moral beliefs. Without quoting, the rules say that the UN has exactly the rights that we give it, as voting members. Therefore, if I believe that a resolution is violating national sovereignty, and enough people agree with me, then it would be me in the right, not you. And just because these people are not in the majority, it does not mean that their arguements are not valid, it just means that their view isn't currently MAINSTREAM.

Finally, and I did not do enough research on this one, so I may be wrong, I admit, I don't believe that there is a current LAW that separates church and state. There are also no ties between RL religion and NS religion. Therefore, whatever your nation does as a separation between church and state is up to you, but my country CAN be run by the Church if I so wish it (as long as it doesn't break any laws), because it is MY nation and there is NO WAY that you can even pretend to generalize all religions in NS because none of us could ever dream up all of the possibilities.


:)

Without diving directly into this arguement, I would like to say that I am fairly sick of hearing "If you don't like it you should leave the UN." If you don't like it, this is exactly where you should be! If you were truely A REPUBLIC, you wouldn't be trying to get everyone that doesn't agree with YOUR views out of the international governing body so that you can complete YOUR agenda. It's called checks and balances.

Since the only one pushing the concept and principle of The Republic is me, I will assume your pedantic diatribe is directed at me. I have no where told anyone in this thread to leave the UN.... And to mention further, no other has either.


Secondly, I DID READ THE FAQ, and I am STILL against this resolution because of the infringements on national sovereignty AND because of my moral beliefs. Without quoting, the rules say that the UN has exactly the rights that we give it, as voting members. Therefore, if I believe that a resolution is violating national sovereignty, and enough people agree with me, then it would be me in the right, not you. And just because these people are not in the majority, it does not mean that their arguements are not valid, it just means that their view isn't currently MAINSTREAM.

First of all, there is no such thing as "infringement of national sovereignty"... That argument does not exist. Infringment exists only where it is against law, and this is most certainly a legal act... Your national sovereignty, by will of UN vote, as been suspended in this area. Now, you can argue that this area is best left to states, with reasons why. Your argument stands this out. The UN has agreed that this area is international, and imposed upon the sovereignty (by full authority and force) to make all nations right in this matter according to agreement.


Finally, and I did not do enough research on this one, so I may be wrong, I admit, I don't believe that there is a current LAW that separates church and state. There are also no ties between RL religion and NS religion. Therefore, whatever your nation does as a separation between church and state is up to you, but my country CAN be run by the Church if I so wish it (as long as it doesn't break any laws), because it is MY nation and there is NO WAY that you can even pretend to generalize all religions in NS because none of us could ever dream up all of the possibilities.

Not directly, states may have state operated churches, and religious operated governments.... However, under Article 1 of the Universal Bill of Rights, no member nation may impose that religion against other religious views. And, if you are a Republic, your nation cannot be run by religious authority.... Because it is contrary to the principle of The Republic. I don't give a damn about what you do, but if you are, you are a Republic in name only, in operation you are a Theocratic Oligarchy.... I don't dictate this, the author of The Republic has.... And unless you live by that definition, you are not a Republic....

The reason why "Gay Rights" was passed, and stands, is because nations were too incompitent to represent their own populace, and therefore the United Nations of these NationStates had to pass legislation mandating the principle of this issue...

The purpose of government is to represent the interests of all of their people... Any alteration from that course, and the government is invalid, and holds no rights in the eyes of this Republic. Failure to recognize the interests of gays, particular ethnic groups, particular sexes, and the like, is a failure for that government to live by its duties to its people.

.....I knew that that was going to be an incoherent, pointless 2 am rant.... :D :D

Does anybody else find it amusing that all of Takania's criticisms of other governments come from his apparent worship of an outdated Greek political book? Last I checked, any nation here could call themselves whatever they wished and run their nation however they wished and they didn't have to cater to the musings of Plato. But hey, my name's on the list of people who didn't read the FAQ before joining the U.N., so maybe I don't have enough credibility to make an effective argument on the point.

I believe what Tekania is saying that you can call yourself a "Republic" but if you're not following the ideals of a "Republic" you are, in practice, not one.

Does anybody else find it amusing that all of Takania's criticisms of other governments come from his apparent worship of an outdated Greek political book? Last I checked, any nation here could call themselves whatever they wished and run their nation however they wished and they didn't have to cater to the musings of Plato. But hey, my name's on the list of people who didn't read the FAQ before joining the U.N., so maybe I don't have enough credibility to make an effective argument on the point.

*scribbles and makes it boldface*

:D

Actually, you don't have to cater to Plato or any other Disney character. And you can call yourself whatever you want (OOC:with few restrictions) and run whatever form of governance you want in your own country.

I could make that entry in gold leaf if you like - would only cost a few dollars per copy extra, but hey, you're good for it...

:p

We support GLBT Rights, governments shouldn't try to legilate morality.

GLBT? That's a new one. I had to have it translated for me.

Morality is not the real issue here. The real issue is people not liking something because it is different. They'll use any weapon they can, no matter their morality, to do away with it.

Morality is not the real issue here. The real issue is people not liking something because it is different. They'll use any weapon they can, no matter their morality, to do away with it.

Not necessarily. True, some use morality as a cop-out to not liking gays, or for fearing them, or for thinking "it's gross". But not everyone is insincere in their opposition to homosexual marriage on moral gronds.

Not necessarily. True, some use morality as a cop-out to not liking gays, or for fearing them, or for thinking "it's gross". But not everyone is insincere in their opposition to homosexual marriage on moral gronds.

And honestly those are the people who scare me the most. If I say "I find it morally offensive that two people I don't know and will never meet are going to marry" then would you not think that maybe I was just putting myself above everyone else - that they should not get to do something just because I think it is wrong?

Not necessarily. True, some use morality as a cop-out to not liking gays, or for fearing them, or for thinking "it's gross". But not everyone is insincere in their opposition to homosexual marriage on moral gronds.

Sincerity does not matter. It's still pretty much what I said. They hate because it is different. They can blame it on their beliefs, but in the end it is still them.

And honestly those are the people who scare me the most. If I say "I find it morally offensive that two people I don't know and will never meet are going to marry" then would you not think that maybe I was just putting myself above everyone else - that they should not get to do something just because I think it is wrong?

And honestly those are the people who scare me the most. If I say "I find it morally offensive that a person I don't know and will never meet is going to murder" then would you not think that maybe I was just putting myself above everyone else - that they should not get to do something just because I think it is wrong?

Note: I am not comparing homosexual marraige to murder. I am just pointing out that every governmental action you have supported does the same thing -- impose and enforce moral and ethical decisions on another person just because you (in the general sense) think an activity is wrong.

And honestly those are the people who scare me the most. If I say "I find it morally offensive that two people I don't know and will never meet are going to marry" then would you not think that maybe I was just putting myself above everyone else - that they should not get to do something just because I think it is wrong?

I understand what you mean, but I disagree with your reasoning behind it. You point out gays as people "I don't know" and "will never meet again". Are you suggesting that we should not be interested in issues involving peope we don't know or will never meet again? I've never met many political leaders. I've never met Steve Young. I don't know people like David Koresh or Heaven's Gate's "Do". But does that mean I shouldn't be appalled with Waco or Heaven's Gate Hale-Bopp self-massacre? Does that mean it's not right for me to take part in elections, as I don't know the people involved? Am I not right in watching the 49ers play because I'm not directly involved in the result? I don't know Slobodan Milosevic, does that mean that I, or others in the world who've never met him, shouldn't be interested in punishing him for genocide? Apathy and Indifference are forces which destroy nations and peoples, not build them up.

I don't mean to suggest that homosexuality is a crime like genocide or as vulgar as mass-suicide of applesauce and vodka, but the fact that it doesn't directly affect one isn't a good enough basis for support of it. At least, it isn't a good enough basis for me.

Sincerity does not matter. It's still pretty much what I said. They hate because it is different. They can blame it on their beliefs, but in the end it is still them.

Yes, for those that hate gays, it will always come back to their pretext of gays, rather than legitimate beliefs, as the reason for their opposition to gay marriage.

However, not everyone who opposes gay marriage hates gays.

Yes, for those that hate gays, it will always come back to their pretext of gays, rather than legitimate beliefs, as the reason for their opposition to gay marriage.

However, not everyone who opposes gay marriage hates gays.

There is still the case of a difference happening from what they consider the norm. So it is still that hatred of difference. Anything else is just an excuse people tell themselves to not bother facing the reality of it.

GLBT? That's a new one. I had to have it translated for me.Goats ( cheese ) Lettuce Bacon Tomato ( sand-wich ) ...

Or, Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Trans-gender ...

...Anything else is just an excuse people tell themselves to not bother facing the reality of it.

...and speaking of pretexts :rolleyes:

And honestly those are the people who scare me the most. If I say "I find it morally offensive that a person I don't know and will never meet is going to murder" then would you not think that maybe I was just putting myself above everyone else - that they should not get to do something just because I think it is wrong?

Note: I am not comparing homosexual marraige to murder. I am just pointing out that every governmental action you have supported does the same thing -- impose and enforce moral and ethical decisions on another person just because you (in the general sense) think an activity is wrong.

But that is just my problem. Two people marrying does not have a bad effect on anyone else. Someone murdering someone else does. So yeah - I would say that finding it morally offensive that someone is going to kill someone else is more acceptable than finding it morally offensive that two people who are in love are going to marry.

I realise that does mean I am making moral judgements about other people making moral judgements, but since I am not trying to forbid anyone from doing anything I don't feel so bad about it :}

...and speaking of pretexts :rolleyes:

To be honest, I find no evidence among humanity to say my statement is false.

I understand what you mean, but I disagree with your reasoning behind it. You point out gays as people "I don't know" and "will never meet again". Are you suggesting that we should not be interested in issues involving peope we don't know or will never meet again? I've never met many political leaders. I've never met Steve Young. I don't know people like David Koresh or Heaven's Gate's "Do". But does that mean I shouldn't be appalled with Waco or Heaven's Gate Hale-Bopp self-massacre? Does that mean it's not right for me to take part in elections, as I don't know the people involved? Am I not right in watching the 49ers play because I'm not directly involved in the result? I don't know Slobodan Milosevic, does that mean that I, or others in the world who've never met him, shouldn't be interested in punishing him for genocide? Apathy and Indifference are forces which destroy nations and peoples, not build them up.

I don't mean to suggest that homosexuality is a crime like genocide or as vulgar as mass-suicide of applesauce and vodka, but the fact that it doesn't directly affect one isn't a good enough basis for support of it. At least, it isn't a good enough basis for me.

It's not so much that it doesn't affect me, but that it doesn't affect anyone. Two people chosing to marry is not going to have a negative impact on anyone, unless they chose to let it by being morally offended.

Mass murder, genocide, cult suicide - they to tend to have a negative impact on people whether they chose to let it or not.

There is still the case of a difference happening from what they consider the norm. So it is still that hatred of difference. Anything else is just an excuse people tell themselves to not bother facing the reality of it.

OOC: Some people are just so indocrinated that they will believe what they believe without any emotion or reason tied to it. Take my stepather, for example. Unlike my brother (flaming homophobe, but still supports civil unions) and my mother (slightly homophobic, detests deviance and the "gay agenda"), my stepfather is not homophobic even in the slightest. He respects homosexuals, has no problem with their orientation, and supports equal protection for homosexuals against discrimination in the workplace, etc. He just doesn't agree with gay marraige. He doesn't hate their difference, like my mother or my brother. He just has been indocrinated so well by the Catholic Church that he believes it's not something that should happen. And like almost all Americans, and everyone else for that matter, what he assumes is that what he believes should be enforced by the government. Now my stepfather is a very unusual man, and I know that his position is a rarity amidst the homophobes and bigots. But he and others like him do exist, and we should acknowledge that.

Goats ( cheese ) Lettuce Bacon Tomato ( sand-wich ) ...

Or, Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Trans-gender ...

Not an actual goat sandwhich? I thought we were the only ones who made those :]

OOC: Some people are just so indocrinated that they will believe what they believe without any emotion or reason tied to it. Take my stepather, for example. Unlike my brother (flaming homophobe, but still supports civil unions) and my mother (slightly homophobic, detests deviance and the "gay agenda"), my stepfather is not homophobic even in the slightest. He respects homosexuals, has no problem with their orientation, and supports equal protection for homosexuals against discrimination in the workplace, etc. He just doesn't agree with gay marraige. He doesn't hate their difference, like my mother or my brother. He just has been indocrinated so well by the Catholic Church that he believes it's not something that should happen. And like almost all Americans, and everyone else for that matter, what he assumes is that what he believes should be enforced by the government. Now my stepfather is a very unusual man, and I know that his position is a rarity amidst the homophobes and bigots. But he and others like him do exist, and we should acknowledge that.

OOC: Once again, dislike of difference.

But that is just my problem. Two people marrying does not have a bad effect on anyone else. Someone murdering someone else does.

And I'm going to have to point out something else. Let's say that two women get married, and they have many relatives who, due to their beliefs, find that objectionable. Some of them are in extreme emotional distress and under great pressure because they believe that their family members are committing a horrible sin and will suffer eternal torture for it. Let's go further and say that one relative (in a moment of extremely irrational behavior) kills herself because of the shame of being associated with such grave sinners. Is this emotional distress and possible suicide not "a bad effect"? Part of the argument I've seen used for outlawing homicide is that it has such negative social effects.

So yeah - I would say that finding it morally offensive that someone is going to kill someone else is more acceptable than finding it morally offensive that two people who are in love are going to marry.

Ah. More acceptable. Well now I just have to throw in the towel. The "more acceptable" argument is just too solid.

I realise that does mean I am making moral judgements about other people making moral judgements, but since I am not trying to forbid anyone from doing anything I don't feel so bad about it :}

That's understandable.

OOC: Once again, dislike of difference.

Nope. Belief due to indocrination by those who have a dislike of difference.

Maybe you could...I don't know...explain how what I described earlier conststutes a dislike of difference. That's generally considered better debating than simply repeating an earlier statement without justification.

Nope. Belief due to indocrination by those who have a dislike of difference.

Maybe you could...I don't know...explain how what I described earlier conststutes a dislike of difference. That's generally considered better debating than simply repeating an earlier statement without justification.

I was, in real life, given the same indoctrination and grew up in a similar environment. I chose to go against that indoctrination. He can also choose to go against it.

I never said it was a logical or perfect arguement. Sometimes two people marrying can have bad affects - I don't disagree.

But honestly? My sister marrying her girlfriend can not possibly have any affect on Mr Smith from GeminiLand. Yet his bible tells him it's a sin, so he MUST condem two people he has never met, never will meet and will never be influenced by. And it's not because he doesn't like my sister, or my girlfriend. It's just because he has been told it by someone, and he thinks he has to believe it himself.

That's what I find offensive.

I was, in real life, given the same indoctrination and grew up in a similar environment. I chose to go against that indoctrination. He can also choose to go against it.

Ah. You are assuming that he has exactly the same phsychological capacities as you do. That's incredibly egocentric of you. I thought you were grown out of that. Poor Piaget was so wrong... :(

I never said it was a logical or perfect arguement. Sometimes two people marrying can have bad affects - I don't disagree.

But honestly? My sister marrying her girlfriend can not possibly have any affect on Mr Smith from GeminiLand. Yet his bible tells him it's a sin, so he MUST condem two people he has never met, never will meet and will never be influenced by. And it's not because he doesn't like my sister, or my girlfriend. It's just because he has been told it by someone, and he thinks he has to believe it himself.

That's what I find offensive.

I find it offensive too, and sympathize with the situation. Unfortunately, that does not address my point. :(

Ah. You are assuming that he has exactly the same phsychological capacities as you do. That's incredibly egocentric of you. I thought you were grown out of that. Poor Piaget was so wrong... :(

Actually, I'm not. But mental capacity doesn't have that much to do with it. The information is out there, and in enough mountainloads he could fiind it accidentally with ease. And even so, some of the people who make the change have psychological capacities far less than my own for dealing with that area.

But honestly? My sister marrying her girlfriend can not possibly have any affect on Mr Smith from GeminiLand. Yet his bible tells him it's a sin, so he MUST condem two people he has never met, never will meet and will never be influenced by. And it's not because he doesn't like my sister, or my girlfriend. It's just because he has been told it by someone, and he thinks he has to believe it himself.

According to your previous argument here: It's not so much that it doesn't affect me, but that it doesn't affect anyone. Two people chosing to marry is not going to have a negative impact on anyone, unless they chose to let it by being morally offended.

Mass murder, genocide, cult suicide - they to tend to have a negative impact on people whether they chose to let it or not.
"Mr. Smith in Geminiland" condemning gay marriage, whatever the reason, has no direct effect on your sister and her girlfriend, either. Isn't your, your sister's, and her girlfirend's distaste for Mr. Smith who you don't know and will never meet comparable to his disagreement with you and your sister and her girlfriend on gay marriage? Why is it justifiable for you to dislike 'anti-gay marriage', but not for them to dislike gay marriage?

Actually, I'm not. But mental capacity doesn't have that much to do with it. The information is out there, and in enough mountainloads he could fiind it accidentally with ease. And even so, some of the people who make the change have psychological capacities far less than my own for dealing with that area.

*sigh*

1.) He doesn't spend his time rummaging through research or reading newspaper articles and such like that. He spends his time working to improve the lives of his immediate family.
2.) You are still assuming that he can conquer a significant psychological block when you have not assessed his capacities in that area. As Bottle has noted on more than a few occasions, the vast majority of people embrace the religion they were taught, and continue to believe in that religion throughout their lives (and if Bottle says it, she probably has the research to back it up). That suggests to me that it is a very unusual person who manages to escape the indocrination. Furthermore, even if there are people with far less psychological capability than you to change, who have managed to do so, that does not lead me to the conclusion that anyone could do it. It simply suggests to me that you have a highly exceptional amount of that particular psychological capacity.

*sigh*

1.) He doesn't spend his time rummaging through research or reading newspaper articles and such like that. He spends his time working to improve the lives of his immediate family.
2.) You are still assuming that he can conquer a significant psychological block when you have not assessed his capacities in that area. As Bottle has noted on more than a few occasions, the vast majority of people embrace the religion they were taught, and continue to believe in that religion throughout their lives (and if Bottle says it, she probably has the research to back it up). That suggests to me that it is a very unusual person who manages to escape the indocrination. Furthermore, even if there are people with far less psychological capability than you to change, who have managed to do so, that does not lead me to the conclusion that anyone could do it. It simply suggests to me that you have a highly exceptional amount of that particular psychological capacity.

1) He doesn't have to search for it on purpose.
2) Actually, I'm not that high on the idea of change myself, despite what I do ICly. You should see the arguements I come up with to not upgrade my Pent 2. The difference is that I don't lie to myself as to why I oppose it. It's what I'm comfortable with.

While I'm assuming he hasd the capacity, you are assuming he does not. To be honest, I see no evidence that any person lacks the capacity to change if they want to. I see plenty of cases where it is easily argued they choose not to change. The one you presented is no different.

"Mr. Smith in Geminiland" condemning gay marriage, whatever the reason, has no direct effect on your sister and her girlfriend, either. Isn't your, your sister's, and her girlfirend's distaste for Mr. Smith who you don't know and will never meet comparable to his disagreement with you and your sister and her girlfriend on gay marriage? Why is it justifiable for you to dislike 'anti-gay marriage', but not for them to dislike gay marriage?

No. Because their dislike of him is based on something he is doing - he is stopping people (or trying to stop people) marrying (not my sister and her girlfriend, but possibly gay couples in GeminiLand) because of his views. They are not stopping anyone doing anything with their views, except maybe they are stopping people (or trying to stop people) being bigotted. But quite honestly they are not even doing that - they are just saying that what they do in this instance is their business, and not the business of anyone elses. They don't mind him holding those views, as long as he doesn't act on them to opress other people.

We have the same laws regarding racism. People can have racist thoughts - there is nothing we can do to stop them - but we have laws preventing people from acting on them. If someone suggested banning interacial marriages in this day and age they would be laughed off the stage, and then quite possibly arrested under the race relations acts. Yet someone suggests banning gay marriage and we are told we have to be tolerant of that view, because its based in religion.

I find that reasoning to be flawed, and unacceptable.

1) He doesn't have to search for it on purpose.
2) Actually, I'm not that high on the idea of change myself, despite what I do ICly. You should see the arguements I come up with to not upgrade my Pent 2. The difference is that I don't lie to myself as to why I oppose it. It's what I'm comfortable with.

While I'm assuming he hasd the capacity, you are assuming he does not. To be honest, I see no evidence that any person lacks the capacity to change if they want to. I see plenty of cases where it is easily argued they choose not to change. The one you presented is no different.

I am not assuming he does not have the capacity to change. In my experience with him, I have seen him change in many areas, but never in the area of his religious beliefs, no matter how persuasive or reasonable and polite my arguments. That's what suggests to me that he has a psychological block when it comes to religion, and can't overcome it.

I am not assuming he does not have the capacity to change. In my experience with him, I have seen him change in many areas, but never in the area of his religious beliefs, no matter how persuasive or reasonable and polite my arguments. That's what suggests to me that he has a psychological block when it comes to religion, and can't overcome it.

Or he just refuses to change.

Or he just refuses to change.

Heh. We've already concluded that he refuses to change. Right now we are on the subject of the cause of that refusal. One explanation would be that he doesn't like change, which is apparently not the case, given that he has made significant changes in areas other than religion. So we can discard that explanation. Another explanation could be that the religion just fits well with his bigotry, but that has already been addressed as well (and yes I ignored your attempt to suggest that he has definitely stumbled across proof that would contradict his views, because quite fankly that's just pretty damn unlikely, given his habits). Also, the fact that he has not changed on any other religious positions that have nothing to with bigotry but are still utter nonsense, indicates that his has nothing to do with bigotry. So we are left with the conclusion that he has a psychological problem.

Heh. We've already concluded that he refuses to change. Right now we are on the subject of the cause of that refusal. One explanation would be that he doesn't like change, which is apparently not the case, given that he has made significant changes in areas other than religion. So we can discard that explanation. Another explanation could be that the religion just fits well with his bigotry, but that has already been addressed as well (and yes I ignored your attempt to suggest that he has definitely stumbled across proof that would contradict his views, because quite fankly that's just pretty damn unlikely, given his habits). Also, the fact that he has not changed on any other religious positions that have nothing to with bigotry but are still utter nonsense, indicates that his has nothing to do with bigotry. So we are left with the conclusion that he has a psychological problem.

1) I suggested it was easy for him to find the information, not that he had ran across it.
2) Or, we're left with a case of him not liking change in one area.

1) I suggested it was easy for him to find the information, not that he had ran across it.

Then that point was irrelevant. There's no reason for him to look for it, regardless of the ease of finding it. He already thinks he has the truth, so why would he look for it? (That was a rhetorical question.)

2) Or, we're left with a case of him not liking change in one area.

Correct. He refuses to change with respect to that area. Which would indicate that he has a psychological/mental block in that particular area.

My suspicion is that, like most people, he has to have a sort of base which never changes in order to feel secure, and due to his social environment and his indocrination, his religious beliefs ended up being that base. My base ended up being the core of my self-concept. If you don't mind answering a personal question, I would like to know what your base was or is.

Then that point was irrelevant. There's no reason for him to look for it, regardless of the ease of finding it. He already thinks he has the truth, so why would he look for it? (That was a rhetorical question.)

Not if he runs across it accidentally, which was also part of that point.

Correct. He refuses to change with respect to that area. Which would indicate that he has a psychological/mental block in that particular area.

Refusing to change is not a siign of a psychological/mental block. It is a sign of a person making a choice.

My suspicion is that, like most people, he has to have a sort of base which never changes in order to feel secure, and due to his social environment and his indocrination, his religious beliefs ended up being that base. My base ended up being the core of my self-concept. If you don't mind answering a personal question, I would like to know what your base was or is.

Was? Catholicism. Still somewhat is. These days, I rely on logic to override my moral base.

Not if he runs across it accidentally, which was also part of that point.

I've already noted that it is extremely unlikely for him to run across it accidentally, given his habits.

Refusing to change is not a siign of a psychological/mental block. It is a sign of a person making a choice.

I see. When a woman can't mentally commit to a relationship because all of her past relationships ended badly, that's probably a choice also. My inability to truly open up to RL peers is a choice, not a result of the fact that I was derided for doing so throughout my elementary and secondary school years. My stepfather's inability to change his religious beliefs is a choice, not a result of his indocrination and social environment. You must be a very strong believer in free will. It's unfortunate that it's not a rational belief.

Was? Catholicism. Still somewhat is. These days, I rely on logic to override my moral base.

Do you? Consistently?

These days, I rely on logic to override my moral base.

Your self proclaimed illogical moral base continues to scare me DLE;), despite not knowing what that base is.

I've already noted that it is extremely unlikely for him to run across it accidentally, given his habits.

Unlikely? Yes. Extremely? Maybe. Impossible? No.

I see. When a woman can't mentally commit to a relationship because all of her past relationships ended badly, that's probably a choice also. My inability to truly open up to RL peers is a choice, not a result of the fact that I was derided for doing so throughout my elementary and secondary school years. My stepfather's inability to change his religious beliefs is a choice, not a result of his indocrination and social environment. You must be a very strong believer in free will. It's unfortunate that it's not a rational belief.

Irrational belief? Not likely. I have found it is a case of people letting things affect them. Your first example let her past affect her and chooses to continue to let it do so. So do the others. Nothing there to oppose the idea it is choice.

Do you? Consistently?

As much as I can.

Wait a minute. I would like to delve into the Catholic comment, having been raised in it myself, and no longer practicing, or being able solidly proclaim a beleif in a God and Jesus being his son. I can think of some inconsistencies, having to do with the old testament and the philosophy of Jesus. Which is to be expected, as part of Jesus purpose was to explain God and refute old beliefs.

However, the moral philosophies of the church are not exactly what I would consider illogical, nor inconsistent. Provide a moral belief of Jesus that fits that criteria. I am interested.

Irrational belief? Not likely. I have found it is a case of people letting things affect them. Your first example let her past affect her and chooses to continue to let it do so. So do the others. Nothing there to oppose the idea it is choice.


Texan may have already commented on this, but here is why I think it more a matter of capacity than choice. If you have no reason for your beliefs, you have no reason to believe in anything. So, how do you determine if you have reasons for your beliefs? Self reflection. Looking at your beliefs and reasons, and questioning them. Some have the capacity to do so, most do not. It requires the ability to detach yourself from your beliefs and objectively analyze them. If you lack that capacity, you are without the ability to make the choice as to whether to do so or not.

AP, as one experienced with how religious arguements go, I advise you not to pursue that avenue. I would rather it be left as is. This has nothing to do with my ability to argue it, but with me dodging the arguement due to past experience with it. That is something I have definitely chosen to let affect me.

Texan may have already commented on this, but here is why I think it more a matter of capacity than choice. If you have no reason for your beliefs, you have no reason to believe in anything. So, how do you determine if you have reasons for your beliefs? Self reflection. Looking at your beliefs and reasons, and questioning them. Some have the capacity to do so, most do not. It requires the ability to detach yourself from your beliefs and objectively analyze them. If you lack that capacity, you are without the ability to make the choice as to whether to do so or not.

If you lack the capacity, you're possibly also only as mature as a seven year old in the mental area.

I find no evidence people lack the capacity, just that most people do not use it and are not practiced enough with it in the few cases where they try. It isn't something you're suddenly an expert at overnight.

AP, as one experienced with how religious arguements go, I advise you not to pursue that avenue. I would rather it be left as is. This has nothing to do with my ability to argue it, but with me dodging the arguement due to past experience with it. That is something I have definitely chosen to let affect me.

I won't attack you, as I am no longer Catholic, and do not believe it right to for those with religious beliefs to persecute others. As that contradicts the idea of religion (Catholicism). However, you are right, this is not the place into into such a topic, as others can not be trusted to act in such a manner. Another time perhaps.

Past events effect you. You have no choice over that. The difference is if you are able to look back on those events, and direct how those events affect you. Which you are capable of doing. A choice for you are capable of recognizing and making. But others are not.

You can also choose to not let them affect you at all, though in some cases this requires several choices. It is a case of deciding to not pay any attention to what happened and going on.

If you lack the capacity, you're possibly also only as mature as a seven year old in the mental area.

I find no evidence people lack the capacity, just that most people do not use it and are not practiced enough with it in the few cases where they try. It isn't something you're suddenly an expert at overnight.

It is about as abstract as contemplating and explaining the creation of the universe. As it as attempt to analyze how you arrived at the conclusions you have.

That propensity for abstract thought is recognizable, perhaps, by all. Yes, I see that you are able to that, or, yes I suppose that is how it all started. But not attainable, as not everyone is capable of understanding how to explain and engage in such an activity. That does not mean they are like a child. That means their propensity for abstract thought is not capable of reaching that level. And are perhaps more developed in another area mental propensity.

You can also choose to not let them affect you at all, though in some cases this requires several choices. It is a case of deciding to not pay any attention to what happened and going on.

Fine, there you have it. I lack your capacity for selective amnesia, and therefore can not choose to not pay attention to things that have happened, forget about them, and move on. I can, however, reflect on them, and determine how to let them affect me. Others may be unable to do either.

Okay, this is going to be ridiculous, but: Do you lack it, or are you unpracticed with using it?

LOL...

Not, ridiculous, but a question that must be asked given my comment.
I believe that I lack it, otherwise, I would excercise that ability.
There are many things in my life I would love to forget, time spent in Yemen when a child for one, ridicule in school or at work for another, well, I guess, there are people in general I would prefer never to have met.

However, I can not, and realize that there will be others. Looking back on those events, I choose not to belittle myself because of thier beliefs, and instead go on doing what I do as best I know how. I also try to understand why they act they way they do, so that if I have a child similar to myself, I can explain to them why others treat him/her that way.

It would be great to be able to forget. but I can not.

How do you excercise selective amnesia?

Not necessarily. True, some use morality as a cop-out to not liking gays, or for fearing them, or for thinking "it's gross". But not everyone is insincere in their opposition to homosexual marriage on moral gronds.

Most often, its the "icky" factor, which is silly.

And honestly those are the people who scare me the most. If I say "I find it morally offensive that two people I don't know and will never meet are going to marry" then would you not think that maybe I was just putting myself above everyone else - that they should not get to do something just because I think it is wrong?

(Supporting TilEnca)

How does that phrase go... "Judge not lest ye be judged"? Oh, and that other one, "Look not to the mote in your brothers eye..."?

You know, all those phrases that are "happily ignored" in service to the 'icky factor'.

:rolleyes:

And honestly those are the people who scare me the most. If I say "I find it morally offensive that a person I don't know and will never meet is going to murder" then would you not think that maybe I was just putting myself above everyone else - that they should not get to do something just because I think it is wrong?

Note: I am not comparing homosexual marraige to murder. I am just pointing out that every governmental action you have supported does the same thing -- impose and enforce moral and ethical decisions on another person just because you (in the general sense) think an activity is wrong.

If you're not comparing homosexual marriage to murder, you've created a logical fallacy - "straw man" arguement - and your statement goes to meaningless.

The government does not deal in morality, it deals in legality, much difference.

And if someone else is going to murder someone else somewhere else, and I'm not going to hear about it, I don't care. Do you have any concept of how many crimes happen in a day? Does this mean these crimes - defined as unconsensual actions against another person - should be legal? No.

What the hell that has to do with two people deciding consensually to get married, I don't know, but as your logic is demented in the first place, and you removed any logical connection, methinks you need to restate.

I understand what you mean, but I disagree with your reasoning behind it. You point out gays as people "I don't know" and "will never meet again". Are you suggesting that we should not be interested in issues involving peope we don't know or will never meet again? I've never met many political leaders. I've never met Steve Young. I don't know people like David Koresh or Heaven's Gate's "Do". But does that mean I shouldn't be appalled with Waco or Heaven's Gate Hale-Bopp self-massacre? Does that mean it's not right for me to take part in elections, as I don't know the people involved? Am I not right in watching the 49ers play because I'm not directly involved in the result? I don't know Slobodan Milosevic, does that mean that I, or others in the world who've never met him, shouldn't be interested in punishing him for genocide? Apathy and Indifference are forces which destroy nations and peoples, not build them up.

I don't mean to suggest that homosexuality is a crime like genocide or as vulgar as mass-suicide of applesauce and vodka, but the fact that it doesn't directly affect one isn't a good enough basis for support of it. At least, it isn't a good enough basis for me.

You are (illogically) comparing consensual actions to non-consensual actions. This undermines your arguement.

As far as David Koresh goes - and he was hurting whom before the Feds stepped in and caused all the ruckus? No one? So why get involved?

And before we start the real ruckus about it - that operation was a SNAFU all the way around, never had to happen but did.

Yes, for those that hate gays, it will always come back to their pretext of gays, rather than legitimate beliefs, as the reason for their opposition to gay marriage.

However, not everyone who opposes gay marriage hates gays.

So give a non- "icky factor" reason, Chip.

It's not so much that it doesn't affect me, but that it doesn't affect anyone. Two people chosing to marry is not going to have a negative impact on anyone, unless they chose to let it by being morally offended.

Mass murder, genocide, cult suicide - they to tend to have a negative impact on people whether they chose to let it or not.

Well, cult suicide is one of those "and?" situations, but I'll agree on the rest of it.

Consensual v Nonconsensual.

OOC: Some people are just so indocrinated that they will believe what they believe without any emotion or reason tied to it. Take my stepather, for example. Unlike my brother (flaming homophobe, but still supports civil unions) and my mother (slightly homophobic, detests deviance and the "gay agenda"), my stepfather is not homophobic even in the slightest. He respects homosexuals, has no problem with their orientation, and supports equal protection for homosexuals against discrimination in the workplace, etc. He just doesn't agree with gay marraige. He doesn't hate their difference, like my mother or my brother. He just has been indocrinated so well by the Catholic Church that he believes it's not something that should happen. And like almost all Americans, and everyone else for that matter, what he assumes is that what he believes should be enforced by the government. Now my stepfather is a very unusual man, and I know that his position is a rarity amidst the homophobes and bigots. But he and others like him do exist, and we should acknowledge that.

*acknowledges that indoctrinated people who are not thinking through their opinions exist*

Ok, now what?

And you can drop the "almost all Americans and everyone else" bullshit.

But that is just my problem. Two people marrying does not have a bad effect on anyone else. Someone murdering someone else does.

And I'm going to have to point out something else. Let's say that two women get married, and they have many relatives who, due to their beliefs, find that objectionable. Some of them are in extreme emotional distress and under great pressure because they believe that their family members are committing a horrible sin and will suffer eternal torture for it. Let's go further and say that one relative (in a moment of extremely irrational behavior) kills herself because of the shame of being associated with such grave sinners. Is this emotional distress and possible suicide not "a bad effect"? Part of the argument I've seen used for outlawing homicide is that it has such negative social effects.

Another "straw man". Homocide is nonconsensual. Suicide is the ultimate consensual act, as you do it to yourself.

To state it another way - you graduate school. Your weird aunt Edna is so offended, she commits suicide. So should you be prevented from graduating so aunt Edna won't do something to herself?

BTW - this is called "blackmail".

Ah. You are assuming that he has exactly the same phsychological capacities as you do. That's incredibly egocentric of you. I thought you were grown out of that. Poor Piaget was so wrong... :(

An arguement of "because people are generally stupid sheep, anyone who is not a stupid sheep should not do anything that would offend the flock" is stupid. See also Galileo, Copernicus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King jr, (etc).

I am not assuming he does not have the capacity to change. In my experience with him, I have seen him change in many areas, but never in the area of his religious beliefs, no matter how persuasive or reasonable and polite my arguments. That's what suggests to me that he has a psychological block when it comes to religion, and can't overcome it.

So... he's stupid and closed-minded. So what? Why should one individuals inability to accept that the world that exists is bigger then him have anything to do with what people he will never meet do?

This is an "its icky" arguement, and as such, dismissed.

Heh. We've already concluded that he refuses to change. Right now we are on the subject of the cause of that refusal. One explanation would be that he doesn't like change, which is apparently not the case, given that he has made significant changes in areas other than religion. So we can discard that explanation. Another explanation could be that the religion just fits well with his bigotry, but that has already been addressed as well (and yes I ignored your attempt to suggest that he has definitely stumbled across proof that would contradict his views, because quite fankly that's just pretty damn unlikely, given his habits). Also, the fact that he has not changed on any other religious positions that have nothing to with bigotry but are still utter nonsense, indicates that his has nothing to do with bigotry. So we are left with the conclusion that he has a psychological problem.

So what? He has a problem, he gets it fixed or he doesn't - responsibility for his own life. If he had a sucking chest wound, he calls 911 or fixes it himself or calls for help or dies. Simple.

Then that point was irrelevant. There's no reason for him to look for it, regardless of the ease of finding it. He already thinks he has the truth, so why would he look for it? (That was a rhetorical question.)



Correct. He refuses to change with respect to that area. Which would indicate that he has a psychological/mental block in that particular area.

My suspicion is that, like most people, he has to have a sort of base which never changes in order to feel secure, and due to his social environment and his indocrination, his religious beliefs ended up being that base. My base ended up being the core of my self-concept. If you don't mind answering a personal question, I would like to know what your base was or is.

His "security" is not relevant here. The action of the other has no direct effect on his life.

I see. When a woman can't mentally commit to a relationship because all of her past relationships ended badly, that's probably a choice also. My inability to truly open up to RL peers is a choice, not a result of the fact that I was derided for doing so throughout my elementary and secondary school years. My stepfather's inability to change his religious beliefs is a choice, not a result of his indocrination and social environment. You must be a very strong believer in free will. It's unfortunate that it's not a rational belief.

1) The woman is making a choice on future events, based on (fallacical) proof from prior events. A prior relationship has no direct bearing on a future relationship.
2) That's your choice to do or not do. I chose to do what you didn't do, as a result, I throttled my fears into submission and got on with my life. As you can perceive the difficulty, choosing to let your fear rule you is your choice and you will accept the consequences of that choice.
3) Free will is a very rational belief - we always have the capacity to choose except when it is removed (ie - being murdered).

The government does not deal in morality, it deals in legality, much difference.



Yeah, so different that court rulings are based on moral arguments.

Laws are not without intent. Intent for lawsare not without moral reasoning. Courts interpret the laws. Court interpretations of laws are based on the intent. So, courts make decisions by comparing an act to the moral intentions of the law, or state moral objections to that intent. Government is all about morality. Liking it, disliking it, objecting to it, and imposing it.

LOL...

Not, ridiculous, but a question that must be asked given my comment.
I believe that I lack it, otherwise, I would excercise that ability.
There are many things in my life I would love to forget, time spent in Yemen when a child for one, ridicule in school or at work for another, well, I guess, there are people in general I would prefer never to have met.

However, I can not, and realize that there will be others. Looking back on those events, I choose not to belittle myself because of thier beliefs, and instead go on doing what I do as best I know how. I also try to understand why they act they way they do, so that if I have a child similar to myself, I can explain to them why others treat him/her that way.

It would be great to be able to forget. but I can not.

How do you excercise selective amnesia?

Actually, you show no sign of lacking it, just signs of not being practiced with it.

You practice it by working your best to forget what happened. For each person, that is different. But each does it in their own way.

But I see a paradox in that. Consciously trying to forget an event over time is to consciously recall it.

I can not consciously purge my memories. And therefore have no choice on the matter.

You only have no choice because you choose not to have one.

Your talking about repressing a memory, not choosing to forget.

Memory repression is not always a concious decision, but it is still a decision. Choosing to forget is a concious decision.

The ability to have control over mental processes dictated by genetics and environment is interesting. As you are implying the conscious destruction of physical synapsis in the brain if you are not discussing repression. Consciously thinking about an event would strengthen the ability to recall the memory, which is a physical entity, not destroy it, as the neural network with respect to that synapsis are being excercised. So, what steps are required for doing this? Personal are fine. It is an interesting concept, as you are stating that free will of the mind has control over the physical makeup of mind, and that will can alter that makeup. Which is interesting as the makeup of the mind allows for consciousness. By this new reasoning, a retarded person chooses to be retarded. As free will has precedent over the genetic makeup of the brain.

Okay, that was unexpected...

Give me a few minutes to organize an arguement.

OOC: LOL, was on the phone and it was awhile before refreshing and revealing your second to last comment. Before that, was not sure if you actually meant elliminating memories. Just curious as to how you purport do it...

Expect the Unexpected
Choose your Destiny
Insert further fallacious comments here :)

How was that unexpected?

It was unexpected because I was not expecting a case of taking it to mean messing with the physical body.

Whether or not you are able to destroy or alter your brain chemistry at will is beyond my level of knowledge on that subject.

Ahh, well... that is the very reason why your ability to consciously forget events/selective amnesia, had me so confused, as to do so reuires altering the physical state of your mind-destroying a memory.

Chemical and biorythms, you may be able to-meditation and such (conscious drug use). Physical alterations is a tough one though. Good luck on that. Anything on it would be interesting;)

Yeah, so different that court rulings are based on moral arguments.

Laws are not without intent. Intent for lawsare not without moral reasoning. Courts interpret the laws. Court interpretations of laws are based on the intent. So, courts make decisions by comparing an act to the moral intentions of the law, or state moral objections to that intent. Government is all about morality. Liking it, disliking it, objecting to it, and imposing it.

:rolleyes:

That which you consider "moral" is not "legal" until it is law. At that point, it can be challenged, changed, thrown out, whatever.

The government does not deal in morality, it deals in legality, much difference. Anti Pharisaism
Yeah, so different that court rulings are based on moral arguments.

Laws are not without intent. Intent for lawsare not without moral reasoning. Courts interpret the laws. Court interpretations of laws are based on the intent. So, courts make decisions by comparing an act to the moral intentions of the law, or state moral objections to that intent. Government is all about morality. Liking it, disliking it, objecting to it, and imposing it.

That which you consider "moral" is not "legal" until it is law. At that point, it can be challenged, changed, thrown out, whatever.

:rolleyes: Do you read?

That which you consider "legal" and the "law" is nothing more than the "morals" of the majority of government officials as presented in legislative intent and court opinion. As such, it can be, and is, challenged, changed, thrown out, whatever, as government officials change or are disproven. There is not much difference.

Until it is law, it is not law.

Look at what happened over the "displaying the 10 Commandments" bs lately.

:rolleyes: Do you read?

That which you consider "legal" and the "law" is nothing more than the "morals" of the majority of government officials as presented in legislative intent and court opinion. As such, it can be, and is, challenged, changed, thrown out, whatever, as government officials change or are disproven. There is not much difference.

Not true. While the morals of government officials may be considerable factors in some laws, this is not true for all laws. Consider laws regulating the velocity of vehicles. Is it a MORAL decision to define how fast I can drive my car? Probably not. It's a decision of practicality and overall saftey.

That said, personal morality does play a role in passing some bills, and it is important to acknowledge this. It is of the utmost importance that lawmakers seek to find a primarily practical basis for laws, allowing personal morals to influence but not dominate legislation.

Until it is law, it is not law.

Look at what happened over the "displaying the 10 Commandments" bs lately.

Give me 4 pounds of C4, a good detonator, and ten minutes alone with that thing and I'll solve the problems with where to display it. I just hope my getaway driver is fast.

Rofl

Not true. While the morals of government officials may be considerable factors in some laws, this is not true for all laws. Consider laws regulating the velocity of vehicles. Is it a MORAL decision to define how fast I can drive my car? Probably not. It's a decision of practicality and overall saftey.

That said, personal morality does play a role in passing some bills, and it is important to acknowledge this. It is of the utmost importance that lawmakers seek to find a primarily practical basis for laws, allowing personal morals to influence but not dominate legislation.

There is a difference between ethics and morality, a representative upholds the morality of his constituents, while expressing his ethics if they be in disagreement. A judge upholds the morals expressed in legislative intent, so long as legal and personal ethics do not dictate the need to deviate from that intent.

And, yes, it is morals that govern how fast you are allowed to drive. And it is the moral decision that governs how you are allowed to drive your car.

It is understood that everyone has moral obligation not to harm others. Drivers can choose to go in excess of a certain speed to reach their destination in a lower amount of time. However is it reasonable to allow some to reach their destination in a lower amount of time with the increased risk to others? Morality says no. Such, there are laws against reckless endangerment. Morality sets the practical basis.

In either event, my point that the government does dabble in morality still holds. That was the point of my post. I concede you can find a law to which morality may not play a role if you look long and hard, however, safety is not one of them. Suprisingly, nor is procedure.

-Denny Crane AP Attorney General

Until it is law, it is not law.

Look at what happened over the "displaying the 10 Commandments" bs lately.

What you say is irrelevant. Laws are based in part on morality. If you want to say the government does not dabble in morality, say how it does not. Illustrate how all that it does is detached from morality. In other words: Outline how the government does not dabble in morality.
You can not. Case closed. Better luck next time. But, try in vein as you must. Your fun to listen to.

With respect to ten commandments. Explain how the morals of the writers of the constitution did not lead to them including a seperation of church and state clause that courts must uphold.

OOC: Or is the game not fun whenever you have to reasonably explain your comments?

Give me 4 pounds of C4, a good detonator, and ten minutes alone with that thing and I'll solve the problems with where to display it. I just hope my getaway driver is fast.


I'll drive you. However, afterwords, you must help me apoxy a bible to the LGBT vietnam veterans memorial at the CA state Capitol. As it was placed at a universal memorial to vietnam veterans illegally.

What you say is irrelevant. Laws are based in part on morality. If you want to say the government does not dabble in morality, say how it does not. Illustrate how all that it does is detached from morality. In other words: Outline how the government does not dabble in morality.
You can not. Case closed. Better luck next time. But, try in vein as you must. Your fun to listen to.

With respect to ten commandments. Explain how the morals of the writers of the constitution did not lead to them including a seperation of church and state clause that courts must uphold.

OOC: Or is the game not fun whenever you have to reasonably explain your comments?

How is a speeding ticket a moral decision? How about at what rate taxes are spent?

As to the 10 Comms, the State wanted them posted, the Feds said no, the State level decision was overturned. If the whole was moral, then how could you overturn it - unless there are multiple moralities, whcih makes the entire concept worthless.

Reckless endangerement. As stated above.

Based on moralitry with respect to the marginal utility of a dollar. You earn more, pay more. Minority moral opinion is a flat tax. If fed programs benefit all, then all should pay equally, as it is not fair for some to pay disproportionally for programs that benefit all.

Federally, it is a moral principle and law that church and state be seperate, to prevent religious persecution among other things. As part of the union they are beholden to that law. Sound Familier?

Try again.

Try explaining why something is not moral when you state it, otherwise, it is just diarhea of the mouth.

Any way, you said government is in the business of legality, not morality, much difference. You can start by explaining that comment. How legality is independant of morality in governments. Then work down.

I'll drive you. However, afterwords, you must help me apoxy a bible to the LGBT vietnam veterans memorial at the CA state Capitol. As it was placed at a universal memorial to vietnam veterans illegally.

No sweat. I've got several we can choose from. Collecting Bibles is a minor hobby that I use to annoy people with.

Now, to call up this old teacher of mine for supplies...

LOL... Awesome..

Such an endeavor warrants a call sign, would you be interested in joining a Team Instigate?;)

Reckless endangerement. As stated above.

Based on moralitry with respect to the marginal utility of a dollar. You earn more, pay more. Minority moral opinion is a flat tax. If fed programs benefit all, then all should pay equally, as it is not fair for some to pay disproportionally for programs that benefit all.

Federally, it is a moral principle and law that church and state be seperate, to prevent religious persecution among other things. As part of the union they are beholden to that law. Sound Familier?

Try again.


I concede you can find a law to which morality may not play a role if you look long and hard, however, safety is not one of them. Suprisingly, nor is procedure.

If you've already conceeded the point, I need say nothing else, as you've accepted you are in error. :D

Try explaining why something is not moral when you state it, otherwise, it is just diarhea of the mouth.

"2+2 = 4".

Explain how that is moral.

Case dismissed.

And it's diarrhea. Two r's. ;)

If you've already conceeded the point, I need say nothing else, as you've accepted you are in error. :D
Nice try. You said government is in the business of legality not morality. However, morals are intwined with laws. As there are moral intents behind several laws governments adopt, whether they be statute or common. So, you are in error and wrong, not I.

Anyway, I conceded that Thgin can find a law to which morality may not apply, there is a difference between that and he will find one that without a doubt morality was not considered or used as reasoning for its inception and subsequent apllication. All reasoning for a statutes inception are made available when reviewed by courts.

So, burden is still on you to state how legality is mutually exclusive from morality with respect to government enactment of any and all laws.

The comment that 2+2=4

It is moral to provide correct mathematical proofs, or proofs in good faith with the statement that they may be inaccurate, in a public forum, as others may observe and adopt stated mathematical principles. Therefore it would immoral to state 2+2=5, as it is untrue, and could mislead others. In government hearings purgery is immoral because of the consequences of the act, therefore, it is deemed illegal. Same rules stated above holds for government hearings.

Try again. Next time in the context to which the statement was made: laws, morals, and government.

Now, how is government adoption of laws without moral consideration?

Well, cult suicide is one of those "and?" situations, but I'll agree on the rest of it.

Agreed. Not to mention that anti-suicide laws in of themselves are impossible to enforce.

Agreed. Not to mention that anti-suicide laws in of themselves are impossible to enforce.

The law is a detterant.;)

In the US, anti-suicide laws prevent roughly 295,013,070 people from electing to self-terminate out of fear for the legal repercussions of doing so. It works great!:p

The law is a detterant.;)

In the US, anti-suicide laws prevent roughly 295,013,070 people from electing to self-terminate out of fear for the legal repercussions of doing so. It works great!:p

Erm - what possible repercussions could there be? That the corpse will have to sit in a jail cell for a year before being burried?

The law is a detterant.;)

In the US, anti-suicide laws prevent roughly 295,013,070 people from electing to self-terminate out of fear for the legal repercussions of doing so. It works great!:p

Ah...I see. :D

So give a non- "icky factor" reason, Chip.

Why should I? You, DLE, and TilEnca are pretty much blindly convinced you're right and everyone else is either a neandrathal or a neandrathal that you will never entertain ideas to the contrary. You're already certain of an end, and you'll use whatever argumentative and illogical powers in your arsenal to find means to reach it. I could cite lots of things that are non-"icky factor" and you'd convince yourself that they are "icky factor"s. I have trouble taking any of your points seriously because I know their based on sort of a closed mind, a mind already decided. I don't know if you'd ever even consider my point of view to be accurate. Thus, I don't see any reason point to waste my breath by voicing it.

Does anybody else find it amusing that all of Takania's criticisms of other governments come from his apparent worship of an outdated Greek political book? Last I checked, any nation here could call themselves whatever they wished and run their nation however they wished and they didn't have to cater to the musings of Plato. But hey, my name's on the list of people who didn't read the FAQ before joining the U.N., so maybe I don't have enough credibility to make an effective argument on the point.

Oh, you are most free to run your own nation how-ever you wish, and call yourself whatever you like.

And I am most free to call you a bunch of hypocritical, anal-retentive, ignoramouses for calling yourself something you are not :) [case-closed]

If you do not match the invented form and function of a Republic, you are not a Republic, no matter how much you scream and rant like a baby that you are :). Live with it...

Oh, you are most free to run your own nation how-ever you wish, and call yourself whatever you like.

And I am most free to call you a bunch of hypocritical, anal-retentive, ignoramouses for calling yourself something you are not :) [case-closed]

If you do not match the invented form and function of a Republic, you are not a Republic, no matter how much you scream and rant like a baby that you are :). Live with it...

We just call ourselves a republic cause - well mostly cause it sounds nice. "The Most Serene Republic" sounds a lot better than "a group of people who live in" :}

While I am not going to be as rough about it, I agree with "Chip" in his views. Perceiving refusal to change a religious belief as a "psycological problem" and something about "stupidity" and "mental block," is only showing your utter lack of respect for anyone's beliefs but your own. Using the arguement "He is closed-minded and not willing to change something that I believe is wrong and therefore he has a problem" only further prooves your hypocricy, as you are describing yourself, only you don't have any "problems." Personally, I have reflected on my religion, decided to go against when I was slightly younger, and more recently, after getting into my faith a lot deeper, have reverted back to it wholeheartedly. Now, am I further along in my endeavors that you because I have reasoned everything out after viewing both opinions completely, or am I still behind in them because I have not refused them again? I don't think that any of us should try and prove either, we're just believing different things.

Also, If you were "raised" a Catholic, it means absolutely nothing about your knowledge of religion, it only shows that you were tought the lines to memorize, not what you should be thinking while saying them or why you really say them. It also only proves that any recent "research" you have done has been "close-minded," and a "mental block" has been put against any reasoning in your head. If you're only looking for proof that something doesn't exhist, that's exactly all that you're going to find (I realize that some of you actually have been COMPLETELY on both sides, and still made up your mind against, and I completely respect that).

After wrongly telling me that I'm using religion to put myself above you, that religion is false because you say so and you think you have proof, and flaming me because I'm "stupid, closed-minded, and have a psychological problem," please come up with an UNBIASED, RESPECTFUL reply. You are all very good debaters and bring up good points..... if only you weren't after eachother's throats while doing it.

[edit] wait......maybe I will be as rough about it.....

Morality does not reason, ethics reasons. Morality is dictatorial.

Anyone who argues from morals, has no arguement. (As much has been proven time and time again in debate). Morality declares a view, coins the view, holds the view, and will die with the view (regardless if it makes sense).... Ethics seeks to construct views, not declare them.

For a crime to exist, there has to be a victim, that which lacks victims, cannot be a crime.

Homosexuals are people, they enjoy the same rights of all other people.

Homosexuality does not have victims, so therefore cannot be a crime.

It is valid, and right for the UN to protect the rights of people, against the acts, intentions or directions of others... And the UN has exercized the right, rightly, by suspending the governmental sovereignty of nationstates, who are members of this body, who have failed to live up to their governmental responsibility to protect the rights of their people (including homosexuals), in this case; and to force, against nationstate governmental concerns to the contrary, to provide the same rights they grant to others, to homosexuals.

At the core of the issue, it essentially a DUTY of the NSUN to do this.

Nations who have had their local laws overturned, on this issue, have had their laws overturned, because they failed as a government, to their duty as a government.

Why should I? You, DLE, and TilEnca are pretty much blindly convinced you're right and everyone else is either a neandrathal or a neandrathal that you will never entertain ideas to the contrary. You're already certain of an end, and you'll use whatever argumentative and illogical powers in your arsenal to find means to reach it. I could cite lots of things that are non-"icky factor" and you'd convince yourself that they are "icky factor"s. I have trouble taking any of your points seriously because I know their based on sort of a closed mind, a mind already decided. I don't know if you'd ever even consider my point of view to be accurate. Thus, I don't see any reason point to waste my breath by voicing it.

Okay, now you're including people who were not even arguing with you and throwing words into other people's mouths.

First off, I'm pretty much convinced the entirety of humanity is close to being neandrathals when it comes to civilization attempts (you have to admit, we don't act anywhere near the ideals of civilization). Note I said the entirety. It's pretty hard to find the idea of me holding anyone as an exception when you see that word. Some people are just better at getting close to the ideal than others. Nor, for that matter, have you seen me ever hide this view or try to disguise it.

Second off, I wasn't arguing with you. For all I care, that man in your example can condemn gay marriage until the Apocalypse comes, goes, and comes again. As long as he's not trying to change laws or use it as an excuse for attacking or isolating, people have the right to choose whether or not to listen to him and I see no reason to bother trying to silence him. He can expect to have problems in my nation with its ideals if he somehow ends up there, but that's his problem for choosing to travel there anyway.

Before you jump on people, make sure they were actually arguing about your point.

While I am not going to be as rough about it, I agree with "Chip" in his views. Perceiving refusal to change a religious belief as a "psycological problem" and something about "stupidity" and "mental block," is only showing your utter lack of respect for anyone's beliefs but your own. Using the arguement "He is closed-minded and not willing to change something that I believe is wrong and therefore he has a problem" only further prooves your hypocricy, as you are describing yourself, only you don't have any "problems." Personally, I have reflected on my religion, decided to go against when I was slightly younger, and more recently, after getting into my faith a lot deeper, have reverted back to it wholeheartedly. Now, am I further along in my endeavors that you because I have reasoned everything out after viewing both opinions completely, or am I still behind in them because I have not refused them again? I don't think that any of us should try and prove either, we're just believing different things.

I'm not the one who accused him of having psychological problems, a mental block, being stupid, or being closed minded. In fact, I attacked most of those in my arguement. Pretty much my arguement amounted to the idea there is no evidence a person is incapable of changing their viewpoint if they choose to and that people who do not change their viewpoint are refusing to change. That arguement, with a few alterations, can be applied to quite a bit, including myself. Nor did I say that refusing to change is a bad thing (though, in this case, I probably hinted at it more than a few times, but I tried to dodge that).

Also, If you were "raised" a Catholic, it means absolutely nothing about your knowledge of religion, it only shows that you were tought the lines to memorize, not what you should be thinking while saying them or why you really say them. It also only proves that any recent "research" you have done has been "close-minded," and a "mental block" has been put against any reasoning in your head. If you're only looking for proof that something doesn't exhist, that's exactly all that you're going to find (I realize that some of you actually have been COMPLETELY on both sides, and still made up your mind against, and I completely respect that).

You do realize that, in real life, I still am a Catholic, right? I've examined both sides and come to the conclusion that my own needs to adapt in certain areas but that the majority of my beliefs should not change.

After wrongly telling me that I'm using religion to put myself above you, that religion is false because you say so and you think you have proof, and flaming me because I'm "stupid, closed-minded, and have a psychological problem," please come up with an UNBIASED, RESPECTFUL reply. You are all very good debaters and bring up good points..... if only you weren't after eachother's throats while doing it.

[edit] wait......maybe I will be as rough about it.....

Being after each other's throats? Please. This is not after each other's throats. Until you've been on a forum where a simple spelling mistake has caused your entire arguement to be concluded as false and idiotic, you don't know what "at each other's throats" means. This place is downright civilized (and I never use that word lightly, considering my views) compared to some areas.

Religion is good to use in its place. In a case where evidence is needed and we're talking about something that goes beyond religion, I would say it's not a good idea to use it, as you can't actually back up what you are saying beyond blindly relying on a set of beliefs that not everyone shares. Now, a debate on whether Judas actually betrayed Jesus because of internal will or because he was forced to by destiny or a debate on how Allah commanded people to dress are other matters that require religion.

Morals are principles of right and wrong as they govern standards of general behaviour. Morals can and ought to be be valid and sound. For instance it is the duty of government to protect the rights of people, against the acts, intentions or directions of others. For instance, to volitionally and without authorization or priviledge act with intent to cause a harmful or offensive touching to another is deemed wrong by society. Why? Because if no one has physically harmed or threatened to harm you or another, and if you are not without food, then causing physical harm to another is not justified, therefore to batter another is wrong is wrong in such a situation. That is a moral principle adopted by society and enacted into law. It is valid as the conclusion follows logically from the premises, and sound, as failure to be protecting yourself, others or out of the neccessity to survive does not justify violence against another given the meaning of the term justification.

An ethic is a system of moral standards or principles. Environmental ethics, medical ethics, lawyering ethics, governmental ethics, personal ethics, etc... these are the moral standards that govern the practice of the individual or occupation.

Rights, are nothing more than the ethics of individuality as recognized by government. As such they can differ from society to society, and be uniform via unification and imposition, i.e by joining the UN the morals of that body are imposed upon the NS as governmental ethics with respect to passed resolutions.

AP in no way endorses repealing gay rights because it has a moral disregard towards homosexuals, but rather, because it is under the umbrella of human rights. The only argument for it remaining despite a human rights initiative is that it is good to have one. A moral argument

What AP does not endorse is a failing to recognize that NS sovereignty is a moral argument, that moral arguments can be valid and sound, and that denying them carte blanche is illogical or ignorant depending on the individual. Good news is the behaviour associated with both actions, being illogical or ignorant, can be changed.:)

First off, I'm pretty much convinced the entirety of humanity is close to being neandrathals when it comes to civilization attempts (you have to admit, we don't act anywhere near the ideals of civilization). Note I said the entirety. It's pretty hard to find the idea of me holding anyone as an exception when you see that word. Some people are just better at getting close to the ideal than others. Nor, for that matter, have you seen me ever hide this view or try to disguise it.

Using own principles of what constitutes an ideal civilization (utopia). Moral argument, therefore invalid.


Second off, I wasn't arguing with you. For all I care, that man in your example can condemn gay marriage until the Apocalypse comes, goes, and comes again. As long as he's not trying to change laws or use it as an excuse for attacking or isolating, people have the right to choose whether or not to listen to him and I see no reason to bother trying to silence him. He can expect to have problems in my nation with its ideals if he somehow ends up there, but that's his problem for choosing to travel there anyway.

Using governmental ideals to illustrate problems a person will encounter. Moral Argument to prove a point, invalid.


Religion is good to use in its place. In a case where evidence is needed and we're talking about something that goes beyond religion, I would say it's not a good idea to use it, as you can't actually back up what you are saying beyond blindly relying on a set of beliefs that not everyone shares. Now, a debate on whether Judas actually betrayed Jesus because of internal will or because he was forced to by destiny or a debate on how Allah commanded people to dress are other matters that require religion.

Explicit use of good and bad. Moral argument, thus invalid.

Seems a bit ridiculous to do this does it not?

Morality does not reason, ethics reasons. Morality is dictatorial.

Illogical. Or explain the difference in reasoning between ethics and morals as you see it. 'Not much' as Vasti would say. Non-existent as philosophers would say.


Anyone who argues from morals, has no arguement. (As much has been proven time and time again in debate). Morality declares a view, coins the view, holds the view, and will die with the view (regardless if it makes sense).... Ethics seeks to construct views, not declare them.

Ethical views are based on what type of reasoning, and how different is that from morals. Are the two closely related? How so?

For a crime to exist, there has to be a victim, that which lacks victims, cannot be a crime.

Homosexuals are people, they enjoy the same rights of all other people.

Homosexuality does not have victims, so therefore cannot be a crime.

Crime is violation of law. What is law, how is it developed? What are rights? How are they developed. What role does morality play in both? How about ethics?

It is valid, and right for the UN to protect the rights of people, against the acts, intentions or directions of others... And the UN has exercized the right, rightly, by suspending the governmental sovereignty of nationstates, who are members of this body, who have failed to live up to their governmental responsibility to protect the rights of their people (including homosexuals), in this case; and to force, against nationstate governmental concerns to the contrary, to provide the same rights they grant to others, to homosexuals.

Use of rightly, a statement that an act is not wrong. A moral argument. Invalid. Responsibility, Moral argument, invalid reasoning.

At the core of the issue, it essentially a DUTY of the NSUN to do this.

Concept of duty, an entirely moral concept, invalid reasoning.

Nations who have had their local laws overturned, on this issue, have had their laws overturned, because they failed as a government, to their duty as a government.

Argument based on assessment of duty, moral argument, Invalid.

A moral argument against the use of moral arguments. Interesting to say the least.;)

Still want me to change my NS name?;)

Erm - what possible repercussions could there be? That the corpse will have to sit in a jail cell for a year before being burried?

That is why it is a joke, and faulty logic Til. Using that people are alive to state an anti suicide law works as a deterrant.

Using own principles of what constitutes an ideal civilization (utopia). Moral argument, therefore invalid.

Have I not always said my morality is illogical?

Using governmental ideals to illustrate problems a person will encounter. Moral Argument to prove a point, invalid.

Not related to morality. Related to the fact my nation enjoys espionage, technology theft, reverse-engineering technology it has, and manipulating others for its own goals.

Explicit use of good and bad. Moral argument, thus invalid.

Main Entry: 1good
Pronunciation: 'gud
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): bet·ter /'be-t&r/; best /'best/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gOd; akin to Old High German guot good, Sanskrit gadhya what one clings to
1 a (1) : of a favorable character or tendency <good news> (2) : BOUNTIFUL, FERTILE <good land> (3) : HANDSOME, ATTRACTIVE <good looks> b (1) : SUITABLE, FIT <good to eat> (2) : free from injury or disease <one good arm> (3) : not depreciated <bad money drives out good> (4) : commercially sound <a good risk> (5) : that can be relied on <good for another year> <good for a hundred dollars> <always good for a laugh> (6) : PROFITABLE, ADVANTAGEOUS <made a very good deal> c (1) : AGREEABLE, PLEASANT <had a good time> (2) : SALUTARY, WHOLESOME <good for a cold> (3) : AMUSING, CLEVER <a good joke> d (1) : of a noticeably large size or quantity : CONSIDERABLE <won by a good margin> <a good bit of the time> (2) : FULL <waited a good hour> (3) -- used as an intensive <a good many of us> e (1) : WELL-FOUNDED, COGENT <good reasons> (2) : TRUE <holds good for society at large> (3) : deserving of respect : HONORABLE <in good standing> (4) : legally valid or effectual <good title> f (1) : ADEQUATE, SATISFACTORY <good care> -- often used in faint praise <his serve is only good -- Frank Deford> (2) : conforming to a standard <good English> (3) : CHOICE, DISCRIMINATING <good taste> (4) : containing less fat and being less tender than higher grades -- used of meat and especially of beef
2 a (1) : VIRTUOUS, RIGHT, COMMENDABLE <a good person> <good conduct> (2) : KIND, BENEVOLENT <good intentions> b : UPPER-CLASS <a good family> c : COMPETENT, SKILLFUL <a good doctor> d (1) : LOYAL <a good party man> <a good Catholic> (2) : CLOSE <a good friend> e : free from infirmity or sorrow <I feel good>
- good·ish /'gu-dish/ adjective
- as good as : in effect : VIRTUALLY <as good as dead>
- as good as gold 1 : of the highest worth or reliability <his promise is as good as gold> 2 : well-behaved <the child was as good as gold>
- good and /"gud-&n/ : VERY, ENTIRELY <was good and mad>
usage An old notion that it is wrong to say "I feel good" in reference to health still occasionally appears in print. The origins of this notion, which goes back to the turn of the century, are obscure, but they seem to combine someone's idea that good should be reserved to describe virtue and uncertainty about whether an adverb or an adjective should follow feel. Today nearly everyone agrees that both good and well can be predicate adjectives after feel. Both are used to express good health, but good may connote good spirits in addition to good health.

I just bolded multiple cases that are not based on morality, but general usage, that can apply to my use of the word "good." Arguement rejected.

Seems a bit ridiculous to do this does it not?

Nope.

Illogical. Or explain the difference in reasoning between ethics and morals as you see it. 'Not much' as Vasti would say. Non-existent as philosophers would say.

Ethics are a system of views, extrapolated from the interoperation between people in a logical framework, so as to set standards.

Morals are a set of standards, declared by an authority, purely out of power of opinion, and are never logically constructed.


Ethical views are based on what type of reasoning, and how different is that from morals. Are the two closely related? How so?

Logic. They differ from morals, in that morality never tries to logically explain itself. Only to try to make itself equal to ethics through the use of sophistry and deceit.


Crime is violation of law. What is law, how is it developed? What are rights? How are they developed. What role does morality play in both? How about ethics?

Crime is a violation of law, but law is established by logic, through ethics... Rights exist by logical extrapolation and reason. They are not "developed" they exist as a product of logic. Morality should not play a role, because morality does not exist in reason, it seeks nothing but its own ends.


Use of rightly, a statement that an act is not wrong. A moral argument. Invalid. Responsibility, Moral argument, invalid reasoning.

Right as opposed to wrong, subjective, but true in ethics. Responsibility as well exists by ethics. The government exists by the power of the people, and therefore is responsible to the people, since they are the ultimate wielder of power. For a government to be valid, and responsible, it must seek out the interests of all of its people, regardless of their status before the government, wether in majority or minority.... Failure to do so, invalidates your own existance, because you have failed to act towards those (the people) whom you are responsible to. And therefore are wrong (ethically) for such failure of responsibility. It's not invalid, you are just too blinded by your Pharisiatic motives of tyranical overlording of your populace, to see logical truth.


Concept of duty, an entirely moral concept, invalid reasoning.

Duty is a product of responsibility, founded by ethics, based upon logic and reason.


Argument based on assessment of duty, moral argument, Invalid.

Assessment of duty is ethics, duty is from responsibility, based in law by ethics on logic and reason. Pharisiatic view of it being moral, invalidated by reason.


A moral argument against the use of moral arguments. Interesting to say the least.;)

An ethical argument, against moral declarations. Morality does not argue, it tries to declare, because morality does not reason, and therefore, cannot argue.


Still want me to change my NS name?;)

Yes, you are still a Pharisee. Pharisiatic view is based upon declatory moral view, as opposed to reasoned ethical view.

Ethics are a system of views, extrapolated from the interoperation between people in a logical framework, so as to set standards.

Morals are a set of standards, declared by an authority, purely out of power of opinion, and are never logically constructed.


See - I would differ slightly

I would say that morals come from within, while ethics come from without.

In both cases you believe something through experience (not necessarily logic) or because you have learned it that way.

But morals are what you believe, and ethics are what is generally believed in a given situation.

Example : University professors who sleep with their students.

Morally - since they are both (generally) over the age of consent, and both consenting adults, morally there is nothing to stop them doing this.

Ethically - it is (as far as I know) generally considered wrong because of the perceived abuse of power - a professor has a position of power over the student, so he should not abuse it by sleeping with them.

That is what I would consider the difference between morals and ethics.

Are we maybe a little off topic here? How did we get on to morals and ethics and the difference between them?

The topic drift started on page 3. I would say this is the topic now.

we believe that the gays of the u.n. need no rights, the fact that men attract men is frightening..

work must be done to reverse these tendencies.
rights to those who are cured shall suffice.

we believe that the gays of the u.n. need no rights, the fact that men attract men is frightening..

work must be done to reverse these tendencies.
rights to those who are cured shall suffice.

This "person" is a prime example of the difference between ethics and morality.

Ethics are a system of views, extrapolated from the interoperation between people in a logical framework, so as to set standards.

Extrapolated from a logical framework of competing morals.

Here:

Ethics ethics are principles or standards of human conduct, a code of moral principles governing the appropriate conduct for an individual or groups, and, by extension, the study of such principles, sometimes called moral philosophy.

Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, is considered a normative science, because it is concerned with norms of human conduct, as distinguished from the formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic.

You confuse ethics with logical reasoning. However, morals can be formulated using logical reasoning. Morals are not dictative, they are derived by a personal conscience, and can be adopted as an ethic or part of ethics, which are then dictative. When the reasoning is such that it leads to an outcome all reasonable persons would, or what society declares all reasonable persons should, it becomes a practical law, as dictated by reason, or law, as dictated by statute.

Morals are a set of standards, declared by an authority, purely out of power of opinion, and are never logically constructed.

Never huh... Read above. Force shiites on reason, yes, but only in the short term.

Logic. They differ from morals, in that morality never tries to logically explain itself. Only to try to make itself equal to ethics through the use of sophistry and deceit.

Again, confusing ethics with logical reasoning. Again, absent logical reasoning a moral philosophy is not adopted by group of individuals who have competing moral philosophies. That which is best supported by reason is adopted as the ethic. Professional ethics, for example.

Crime is a violation of law, but law is established by logic, through ethics... Rights exist by logical extrapolation and reason. They are not "developed" they exist as a product of logic. Morality should not play a role, because morality does not exist in reason, it seeks nothing but its own ends.

See above. Nice utopian vision of laws.

Right as opposed to wrong, subjective, but true in ethics. Responsibility as well exists by ethics. The government exists by the power of the people, and therefore is responsible to the people, since they are the ultimate wielder of power. For a government to be valid, and responsible, it must seek out the interests of all of its people, regardless of their status before the government, wether in majority or minority.... Failure to do so, invalidates your own existance, because you have failed to act towards those (the people) whom you are responsible to. And therefore are wrong (ethically) for such failure of responsibility. It's not invalid, you are just too blinded by your Pharisiatic motives of tyranical overlording of your populace, to see logical truth.

Subjective but true?
Again, using responsibility, a moral outlook. As it is moral, you declared it invalid. I illustrate the application of your train of thought.
Wrong use of Pharisaism.
Again logical truth (practical law) is not an ethic. It can be, the two are not mutually exclusive as one branch can strengthen the other.


Duty is a product of responsibility, founded by ethics, based upon logic and reason.

Again, confusion or self delusion. At least we agree ethics, a standard of morals, can be founded on logic, a form of reasoning.

Assessment of duty is ethics, duty is from responsibility, based in law by ethics on logic and reason. Pharisiatic view of it being moral, invalidated by reason.

Again unsound, so, your personal form of reason, yes, logical reasoning no.
Also, wrong interpretation of pharisaism.

An ethical argument, against moral declarations. Morality does not argue, it tries to declare, because morality does not reason, and therefore, cannot argue.

Again, ethics are the adoption of moral reasonings. Ethics (the moral standards of one individual or group), can be argued against the Ethics of another. The one better founded on reasoning prevails.

Yes, you are still a Pharisee. Pharisiatic view is based upon declatory moral view, as opposed to reasoned ethical view.

I always explain, as I am an emperor of anti Pharisaism.
Again, you operate with the wrong definition of Pharisaism-Think rules, and the acceptance of formally being disproven.

See Rachel Carson and Immanuel Kant for an analysis of morals and ethics and their underlying reasoning. Or for instant gratification, see the ethics resource center, or the clarkson center for business ethics.

Logical reasoning is based on validity and soundness. Validity being that the conclusion follows from the premises provided. Soundness implies that the underlying premises of the conclusion can not be disproven or are known to be true.

This "person" is a prime example of the difference between ethics and morality.

No, the moral argument for why gays should have rights is supported by better reasoning than what was proffered by that individual NS. Therefore, the moral ideaology that gays should be treated equally under the law is the adopted ethic.

I pegged you as Kantian.... Kant was incompitent, his view lacks firm logical consistency. And results in relativism to the extreme. Which results in the degredation of capability of government these days. Please reffer to Aristotle, who forumlated the logical view of ethics vs. morality.

Ethics exist by reason and logic. Formulated from inter-relation of people.

Morality is declatory, existing by matter of opinion, apart from reason.

The two are not similar, nor on the same level. A true government, operates only on ethical grounds, and not moral ones, as morality is a product of individual opinion; and therefore cannot be a matter for law; since it eventually leads to the Kantian problem of Tyrany by majority power. (Which Aristotle firmly opposed by logic, as well as Plato).

For a government to deal fairly with its populace, it must act in ethical arbitration, rather than dictatorial morality. The purpose of Philosopher Kings, to extrapolate, arbitrate and rull by force of reason, as opposed to force of power. Seeking the best interest of each person, as opposed to either the whole (communism) or the most (democracy).

This is why Homosexuals possess equal rights to non-homosexuals; since by reason, they cannot be in commision of "wrong", since in order to "wrong" there must be a "wronged" party. Since there is no basis of wrong commited to another, there can be no ethical reason; and therefore stands of morality against it, are invalid for establishment of law, as they propose to victimize the one, purely on the will of the majority in power.

Of course, homosexual acts commited outside of a consentual situation, can be ethically illegal, on the grounds of wrong commited to another in violation of the other. But then it is no more "homosexual" but rather "rape" and such, commited as a wrong against another. Since there is then delination of "victim" and "perpetrator".

Attempts of reasoning out homosexual marriage in the grounds of the Gay Rights resolution has occured: All logically fail in the end: since they are inherantly made from the unreasoned stance of the moralist, such as yourself: as opposed to reasoning out the situation into an ethical framework...

One could "reason" that barring homosexual marriage is a way to "inhibit" the transmission of disseases, since there are STD's transmitted through serial-monogamous, and polygamous homosexual acts.... Of course, these same diseases are transmitted though serial-monogamous and polygamous heterosexual acts.... So application to it only in the realm of homosexuality is invalid, and illogical (and therefore clearly based in the realm of morality). The only consistency would be to apply this set of criteria, to all forms of serial-monogamous and polygamous sexual activity... But, it then fails the moralist again, because it in no way would be applicable to pure monogamous homosexual unions; leaving the ethical right of gays to still marry (in pure monogamous unions).

This is why reasoned ethics, are always superior to kantian moral relativism.... Kant is a dismal failure, and present governments, following his mode, show his dismal failure in their inconsistent, unethical, yet "moral" operation.

I pegged you as Kantian.... Kant was incompitent, his view lacks firm logical consistency. And results in relativism to the extreme. Which results in the degredation of capability of government these days. Please reffer to Aristotle, who forumlated the logical view of ethics vs. morality.

Have looked at Aristotle, such Greek outlooks is where the difference between normative and formal sciences occurs. Am interested in how Aristotles view of ethics lends creedence to your outlook on a difference between ethics and morality, and how ethics is equal to logical reasoning.

And no I am not Kantian, his metaphysics of morals is an outlook on morality based on reason. I am more of a cross between Rand and Orwell.

Ethics exist by reason and logic. Formulated from inter-relation of people.
Morality is declatory, existing by matter of opinion, apart from reason.

The two are not similar, nor on the same level. A true government, operates only on ethical grounds, and not moral ones, as morality is a product of individual opinion; and therefore cannot be a matter for law; since it eventually leads to the Kantian problem of Tyrany by majority power. (Which Aristotle firmly opposed by logic, as well as Plato).

Aristotle was moraly opposed to tyranny and majority rule. His moral philosophy was based on logical reasoning. No different than what Has been previously stated/

Again Kant was reference for reason. Rachel Carson is better, and labeled first. Again, look at how the incorporation of moral philosophies into ethics works. Utilitarianism, albeit worthless, is not an individual moral philosophy dictated by one, but rather a moral philosophy others incorporate into their personal ethics over others, such as contractarian or rational actors.


For a government to deal fairly with its populace, it must act in ethical arbitration, rather than dictatorial morality. The purpose of Philosopher Kings, to extrapolate, arbitrate and rull by force of reason, as opposed to force of power. Seeking the best interest of each person, as opposed to either the whole (communism) or the most (democracy).

Equate morality as dictorial given you leave as a matter individual opinion. Ethical arbitration is nothing different than moral arbitration. Seeking the interests of each as opposed to the whole, or the most
is a moral outlook on government, which is the ethic of philosopher kings.

This is why Homosexuals possess equal rights to non-homosexuals; since by reason, they cannot be in commision of "wrong", since in order to "wrong" there must be a "wronged" party. Since there is no basis of wrong commited to another, there can be no ethical reason; and therefore stands of morality against it, are invalid for establishment of law, as they propose to victimize the one, purely on the will of the majority in power.

Equality is a moral philosophy upon which the disbursement of equal rights founds itself. When the moral concept of equality is adopted as society's ethic of granting rights, then denying rights without adequate justification violates that code of ethics and is deemed immoral

Of course, homosexual acts commited outside of a consentual situation, can be ethically illegal, on the grounds of wrong commited to another in violation of the other. But then it is no more "homosexual" but rather "rape" and such, commited as a wrong against another. Since there is then delination of "victim" and "perpetrator".

Law is based on morality, it is our code of ethics. Whether an act is right or wrong, good or bad, is a moral delineation. The moral delineation accepted by society is our code of ethics, our laws. To violate society's code is illegal, unethical, and immoral.

Attempts of reasoning out homosexual marriage in the grounds of the Gay Rights resolution has occured: All logically fail in the end: since they are inherantly made from the unreasoned stance of the moralist, such as yourself: as opposed to reasoning out the situation into an ethical framework...

Mine resulted in another defining marriage. Get your history right if you intend to use it.;)

And mine was reasoned. The rights expressed in the gay rights initiative are granted based on the moral concept of equality outlined in the Human rights initiative. As such, it is not necessary and is redundant. To violate one is to violate another.

This is why reasoned ethics, are always superior to kantian moral relativism.... Kant is a dismal failure, and present governments, following his mode, show his dismal failure in their inconsistent, unethical, yet "moral" operation.

Consistency is independant of morality. If it is deemed moral by society, than it is apart of societies code of ethics.

You are equating ethics to logical reasoning.

Nice attempt at character assisination. A logical fallacy in and of itself.

Any way, in defense of Kant, he developed the categorical imperitive, maxims and practical law. Your maxim on government is expressed as a practical law, which it is not. Now, explain how maxims and practical law are not founded on reason, as they are described in his metaphysics of morals. Just interested if you have actually read the works of the labelled subjective tyrant. To determine if your analysis is objective or not, or if you are engaged in doublethink.

Come on...

Ethics are a system of adopted morals, and as the great thinker Tekania once said, it shall be the case

no matter how much you scream and rant like the baby that you are . Live with it...

Nice try. You said government is in the business of legality not morality. However, morals are intwined with laws. As there are moral intents behind several laws governments adopt, whether they be statute or common. So, you are in error and wrong, not I.

Actually, you said:
Originally Posted by Anti Pharisaism
I concede you can find a law to which morality may not play a role if you look long and hard, however, safety is not one of them. Suprisingly, nor is procedure.

If I can find it - by your own admission - it exists. As it exists... the rest follows logically.



Anyway, I conceded that Thgin can find a law to which morality may not apply, there is a difference between that and he will find one that without a doubt morality was not considered or used as reasoning for its inception and subsequent apllication. All reasoning for a statutes inception are made available when reviewed by courts.

So, burden is still on you to state how legality is mutually exclusive from morality with respect to government enactment of any and all laws.

The comment that 2+2=4

It is moral to provide correct mathematical proofs, or proofs in good faith with the statement that they may be inaccurate, in a public forum, as others may observe and adopt stated mathematical principles. Therefore it would immoral to state 2+2=5, as it is untrue, and could mislead others. In government hearings purgery is immoral because of the consequences of the act, therefore, it is deemed illegal. Same rules stated above holds for government hearings.

Try again. Next time in the context to which the statement was made: laws, morals, and government.

Now, how is government adoption of laws without moral consideration?

If a law is made in compromise, how is it moral? Unless you are making morality incredibly flexible, in which case it could encompass anything at all - which makes the definition rather useless.

Oh - and laws have been made declaring pi equal to 3, so so much for the "untrue, could mislead" arguement.

You said government is not in business of morality, period. Therefore that laws are passed due to moral intentions and reasoning, it is in the business of morality. I can concede that there may be laws not made based on morality. However, that does not matter. That there are laws based on morality, your comment is false.

Why should I? You, DLE, and TilEnca are pretty much blindly convinced you're right and everyone else is either a neandrathal or a neandrathal that you will never entertain ideas to the contrary. You're already certain of an end, and you'll use whatever argumentative and illogical powers in your arsenal to find means to reach it. I could cite lots of things that are non-"icky factor" and you'd convince yourself that they are "icky factor"s. I have trouble taking any of your points seriously because I know their based on sort of a closed mind, a mind already decided. I don't know if you'd ever even consider my point of view to be accurate. Thus, I don't see any reason point to waste my breath by voicing it.

You never know what will happen until you try. Besides which, I asked, and am curious about the possible existance of.

You said government is not in business of morality, period. Therefore that laws are passed due to moral intentions and reasoning, it is in the business of morality. I can concede that there may be laws not made based on morality. However, that does not matter. That there are laws based on morality, your comment is false.

Government is in the business of making laws. How they become laws is not relevant - the moral reasoning is oft lost in time. However, the letter and word of law stands, until changed again.

Though I will give that cultural and societal moral standards play a part in the creation of law. However the law itself is not moral - it is legal.

Gah, methinks this has corkscrewed.

If a law is made in compromise, how is it moral? Unless you are making morality incredibly flexible, in which case it could encompass anything at all - which makes the definition rather useless.

How is compromise immoral? That a group has moral beliefs does not mean they are entirely correct. There could be exceptions to the moral belief, situations where it does not apply. So, compromise would be a waiver, as it is immoral to apply the moral those circumstances. Not useless, just adaptive.

Oh - and laws have been made declaring pi equal to 3, so so much for the "untrue, could mislead" arguement.

Its reasoning is to create a falsehood for simplicities sake. It could be an example of where morality is forsaken for the sake of another variable. As such, it could be overturned by the court. Any way, I conceded that not all laws are based on morality. Your original comment is still false.

Government is in the business of making laws. How they become laws is not relevant - the moral reasoning is oft lost in time. However, the letter and word of law stands, until changed again.

Though I will give that cultural and societal moral standards play a part in the creation of law. However the law itself is not moral - it is legal.

Gah, methinks this has corkscrewed.

How they become laws is relevant, as that is how courts interpret the laws: legislative intent. So, if moral reasoning is behind the law, than the courts use that in basing its decision. Enforcing, rejecting, or altering it, as courts have the power to do.

Laws, in part or in whole, are a reflection of the morals of society and change over time as morals often do. Moral reasoning is not lost, it is recorded. Accepted, rejected, altered, or changed, over time.

DLE, my rant was really towards the general debate, not focused on you at all. I hope I didn't offend, and I know that you were being civilized. The raised Catholic problem came from someone else saying that they were and then began to see reason or something to that effect. As for being at eachother's throats, I guess I'm really set in my "Complete Utopian Bipartisan Debate" ways, though I know I don't exercize such myself.

DLE, my rant was really towards the general debate, not focused on you at all. I hope I didn't offend, and I know that you were being civilized. The raised Catholic problem came from someone else saying that they were and then began to see reason or something to that effect. As for being at eachother's throats, I guess I'm really set in my "Complete Utopian Bipartisan Debate" ways, though I know I don't exercize such myself.

Meh. Misunderstandings happen. I take no offense on here that much, and did nothing to cause me to take offense.

How they become laws is relevant, as that is how courts interpret the laws: legislative intent. So, if moral reasoning is behind the law, than the courts use that in basing its decision. Enforcing, rejecting, or altering it, as courts have the power to do.

Laws, in part or in whole, are a reflection of the morals of society and change over time as morals often do. Moral reasoning is not lost, it is recorded. Accepted, rejected, altered, or changed, over time.

At that level of expansive morality - as in "anyones morals can be turned into law" - ok.

At that level of expansive morality - as in "anyones morals can be turned into law" - ok.

Exactly, that is the case. And the basis for all the talk on judge advocates. Not saying I like it, just that that is how it is.;)

Second off, I wasn't arguing with you. For all I care, that man in your example can condemn gay marriage until the Apocalypse comes, goes, and comes again. As long as he's not trying to change laws or use it as an excuse for attacking or isolating, people have the right to choose whether or not to listen to him and I see no reason to bother trying to silence him. He can expect to have problems in my nation with its ideals if he somehow ends up there, but that's his problem for choosing to travel there anyway.

I included you and TilEnca in the post because you both seemed doggedly convinced of your viewpoints, and expected everyone else to be doggedly convinced, too. My post was less about the argument of gay rights and more about how poor the UN forum is as far as places to find understanding and compromise are concerned.


Before you jump on people, make sure they were actually arguing about your point.

I'll remind you that I'm not the only one with problems of jumping on people for silly reasons.

Since AP wants to rely on Kantian relative moralism. The NSUN has decided through "relative moralist" that Gay Rights is a moral human rights concern, and therefore the majority has determined, rightly, that Gays have rights. And the Resolution stands :) Case Closed!

I included you and TilEnca in the post because you both seemed doggedly convinced of your viewpoints, and expected everyone else to be doggedly convinced, too. My post was less about the argument of gay rights and more about how poor the UN forum is as far as places to find understanding and compromise are concerned.

Understanding? Compromise? The two signs of a newbie to internet arguing.

We don't compromise because, frankly, we don't have to. If proven wrong, I'll change my view, but the only times when I'll bother to compromise is when I no longer feel like continuing that arguement. I've been known to argue for weeks about a single issue before.

I'll remind you that I'm not the only one with problems of jumping on people for silly reasons.

Which is, of course, not what I said.

If you're not comparing homosexual marriage to murder, you've created a logical fallacy - "straw man" arguement - and your statement goes to meaningless.

The government does not deal in morality, it deals in legality, much difference.

And if someone else is going to murder someone else somewhere else, and I'm not going to hear about it, I don't care. Do you have any concept of how many crimes happen in a day? Does this mean these crimes - defined as unconsensual actions against another person - should be legal? No.

What the hell that has to do with two people deciding consensually to get married, I don't know, but as your logic is demented in the first place, and you removed any logical connection, methinks you need to restate.

Actually, if I'm not comparing homosexual marraige to murder, then my point wasn't to compare those two acts, and thus I wasn't making any argument in that vein at all.

I was actually pointing to the fact that all laws are impositions of some kind. It's one of those habits I have as an anarcho-capitalist. My apologies for not making that clearer.

And I think we are going to have to address the basic issue of morality and legality very soon, because that seems a bit of a sore point for you.

*acknowledges that indoctrinated people who are not thinking through their opinions exist*

Thank you. :)

Ok, now what?

That was going to be the end of it, for me. Alas...

Into the breach once more...

And you can drop the "almost all Americans and everyone else" bullshit.

Why should I? Is there some reasoning behind that or are you just continuing your trend of telling me what I should do?

Another "straw man". Homocide is nonconsensual. Suicide is the ultimate consensual act, as you do it to yourself.

To state it another way - you graduate school. Your weird aunt Edna is so offended, she commits suicide. So should you be prevented from graduating so aunt Edna won't do something to herself?

BTW - this is called "blackmail".

I was simply addressing the point that "it has no bad effects on anyone else" and falsifying it. I was not intending to make an argument beyond that. My apologies for not making that clear.

An arguement of "because people are generally stupid sheep, anyone who is not a stupid sheep should not do anything that would offend the flock" is stupid. See also Galileo, Copernicus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King jr, (etc).

I was not making any such argument. It seems I'm not the only one making straw men around here.

You seem to have gotten the impression that I'm making an argument for the continued denial of equal rights to homosexuals. I would never make any such argument, I assure you.

So... he's stupid and closed-minded. So what? Why should one individuals inability to accept that the world that exists is bigger then him have anything to do with what people he will never meet do?

This is an "its icky" arguement, and as such, dismissed.

See my above post.

So what? He has a problem, he gets it fixed or he doesn't - responsibility for his own life. If he had a sucking chest wound, he calls 911 or fixes it himself or calls for help or dies. Simple.

You already admitted that people like him exist, so why are you addressing my continued discussion of that point with DLE?

1) The woman is making a choice on future events, based on (fallacical) proof from prior events. A prior relationship has no direct bearing on a future relationship.

Oh. She's being unreasonable. How incredibly immoral and disgusting of her. Do you make a habit of blaming the victim?

2) That's your choice to do or not do. I chose to do what you didn't do, as a result, I throttled my fears into submission and got on with my life. As you can perceive the difficulty, choosing to let your fear rule you is your choice and you will accept the consequences of that choice. 3) Free will is a very rational belief - we always have the capacity to choose except when it is removed (ie - being murdered).

Well, since "free will is a very rational belief," you won't mind providing some proof of that.

Understanding? Compromise? The two signs of a newbie to internet arguing.

You're insulting my abilities to argue online? First off, I'm not playing this game to argue. I don't get jollies from bashing heads with distant internet fanatics in an unfriendly forum. "internet arguing" is hardly what my objective, and, frankly, it isn't quite the idea behind the NSUN either. Second of all, understanding and compromise are fairly key qualities in person to person relationships. I've tried to address my interactions online at least somewhat closely to my actual interpersonal interactions, and thus, I consider how not to step on other peoples' toes in the forum. If I don't extend understanding, compromise to others here--perhaps even holding my tongue about a mistake--I'll likely garner enemies and disrespect among posters here--people will hate me. That would make the forum a hostile environment. I don't exactly enjoy investing my time amidst hostile environments.

We don't compromise because, frankly, we don't have to. If proven wrong, I'll change my view, but the only times when I'll bother to compromise is when I no longer feel like continuing that arguement. I've been known to argue for weeks about a single issue before.

We? Do you mean representatives from DemonLordEnigma? Or do you mean the internet arguers out there who are, by far, above and beyond my newbie-ness?

And why not compromise? I find it pretty egotistical for one to think one has all the answers and one's opinions are invariably fact. Like I said, if I'm going to enjoy myself in the forum, it probably wouldn't be the best idea for me to bully people around and force my ideals upon them.

Actually, from a political perspective, it greatly behooves me to compromise and extend understanding. There are many, many people in the UN who have differing viewpoints and if I plan to get anywhere in my legislative ambitions I'll need to find common ground. Why go out of my way to be divisive when it hurts my ability to operate as a proposal writer? Why go out of my way to "argue" about things at all? I misinterpreted this thread as a fairly loose, cool discussion, not a heated lynching of opponents. It was probably a mistake for me to post here.

Guess that's just the newbie in me.


I'll remind you that I'm not the only one with problems of jumping on people for silly reasons.
Which is, of course, not what I said.

Here's exactly what you said:

Before you jump on people, make sure they were actually arguing about your point.

The connotation is that jumping on people who aren't arguing your point is a silly thing, unnecisary. You told me not to do it. So...yeah, I think you actually did tell me to not jump on people unnecessarily.

You're insulting my abilities to argue online? First off, I'm not playing this game to argue. I don't get jollies from bashing heads with distant internet fanatics in an unfriendly forum. "internet arguing" is hardly what my objective, and, frankly, it isn't quite the idea behind the NSUN either. Second of all, understanding and compromise are fairly key qualities in person to person relationships. I've tried to address my interactions online at least somewhat closely to my actual interpersonal interactions, and thus, I consider how not to step on other peoples' toes in the forum. If I don't extend understanding, compromise to others here--perhaps even holding my tongue about a mistake--I'll likely garner enemies and disrespect among posters here--people will hate me. That would make the forum a hostile environment. I don't exactly enjoy investing my time amidst hostile environments.

Uh, you do realize I was actually making a point about arguing online as well, right? The point is similar to yours: People do not compromise and do not bother understanding because, as I said, they don't have to. That's part of why I've refered to this forum as the Blender or the Grinder from time to time.

The comment about being a newbie is the idea that the ideal of having those qualities has yet to be beaten out of you by time spent arguing online. What keeps it going is the fact that, often, by the time a person finally reaches seniority and respect in a forum that relies heavily on arguing, such as this one, they have already become so accustomed to the hostile climate and the idea of no compromise and no understanding that they no longer hold it as important for that forum and do not practice it themselves.

My point is that while you are right on with your assessment of the forum, the reality of the situation is not just this forum being that way. If anything, we're one of the friendlier ones because sometimes we actually try to help people.

We? Do you mean representatives from DemonLordEnigma? Or do you mean the internet arguers out there who are, by far, above and beyond my newbie-ness?

Most of the time, when I say "we" I mean the people of DLE. This time, I meant the DLE reps and everyone who refuses understanding and compromise. However, that question was good because it allows me to actually establish I was talking about more than just my nation.

And why not compromise? I find it pretty egotistical for one to think one has all the answers and one's opinions are invariably fact. Like I said, if I'm going to enjoy myself in the forum, it probably wouldn't be the best idea for me to bully people around and force my ideals upon them.

Note to self: Try to convince real life UN that storing ego in Antarctica will not result in said ego eating Antarctica and that the pictures and videotapes of it consuming small towns in Canada are forgeries instead of truth. Also, bug NASA about when the first manned mission to Mars is so ego can be shipped to that planet before it eats a continent.

I usually do it this way: I research, get some facts to back me up (sometimes I skip the research and facts-grabbing when I know the information), and then argue. Sometimes, I am disproven, which I accept. That is a simple system that allows me to argue like the egotistical person I am and still provide people with cases where they can point and say that, sometimes, I am wrong.

Actually, from a political perspective, it greatly behooves me to compromise and extend understanding. There are many, many people in the UN who have differing viewpoints and if I plan to get anywhere in my legislative ambitions I'll need to find common ground. Why go out of my way to be divisive when it hurts my ability to operate as a proposal writer? Why go out of my way to "argue" about things at all? I misinterpreted this thread as a fairly loose, cool discussion, not a heated lynching of opponents. It was probably a mistake for me to post here.

Guess that's just the newbie in me.

Actually, the NSUN has no need of bothering to compromise. It's job is to force the opinions of the majority down the throats of the minority. The idea of compromise is mostly to get people to support the opinion you are shoving down people's throats if it passes. Plus, there are many cases on here where the scenarios do not apply and have to be considered, such as my nation that is proving a thorn in the side of a certain person trying to get tariffs abolished.

To be honest, it's just the inside part that still has the ideals of fairness and diplomacy that we have yet to crush. The fact you have endured with them this long says the newbieness is mostly gone.

Here's exactly what you said:



The connotation is that jumping on people who aren't arguing your point is a silly thing, unnecisary. You told me not to do it. So...yeah, I think you actually did tell me to not jump on people unnecessarily.

Keep in mind: With my posts, context is everything. The context of why that statement was said is just as important as what was actually said. You were replying to Vastiva's comment and included me in it, in a case where I was not even attempting to argue about what you were saying. In addition, take it in consideration with the rest of what I said in reply to those comments.

I admit my system is strange, but this is a case where it appeared to me as though you were accusing me of arguing about your point when I was in a totally different arguement at the time. Thus, why I said what I did. This is a case of misunderstandings happening.

Ok - I haven't been following this cause I am going away, but are you two now arguing about how you argue?

Ok - I haven't been following this cause I am going away, but are you two now arguing about how you argue?

Actually, DLE's post seems to be more explanatory than argumentative when it comes to that part. But now I'm arguing about your argument in relation to them arguing about how they argue, so I'll stop now. :)

I am morally opposed to arguing over whether DLE is explaining his argument to PC. As to do so would violate my personal ethics. As such, I too will refrain from entering such a discussion.

I am morally opposed to arguing over whether DLE is explaining his argument to PC. As to do so would violate my personal ethics. As such, I too will refrain from entering such a discussion.

And I find people who are morally opposed to arguing over others' argument concerning how to argue morally offensive. In response, Powerhungry Chipmunks imposes a harsh tariff on double shot, half decaf, skinny lattes shipped to Anti Pharisaism. Take that!

And I find people who are morally opposed to arguing over others' argument concerning how to argue morally offensive. In response, Powerhungry Chipmunks imposes a harsh tariff on double shot, half decaf, skinny lattes shipped to Anti Pharisaism. Take that!

No, AP is this countries government. As such, it accepts or rejects goods entering the NS, and decides whether or not a tariff will be imposed during trade negotiations. As anything decaffinated is deemed a wussy drink by the entire populace, AP has banned shipment of any such product into its borders for sale, as such goods are wasted here.

1) The woman is making a choice on future events, based on (fallacical) proof from prior events. A prior relationship has no direct bearing on a future relationship.

Oh. She's being unreasonable. How incredibly immoral and disgusting of her. Do you make a habit of blaming the victim?

She's choosing to do what she's choosing to do - that she does not see the choice for what it is, is part of her perceptions, which she has chosen in great part.

The rest is pointless trash.



2) That's your choice to do or not do. I chose to do what you didn't do, as a result, I throttled my fears into submission and got on with my life. As you can perceive the difficulty, choosing to let your fear rule you is your choice and you will accept the consequences of that choice. 3) Free will is a very rational belief - we always have the capacity to choose except when it is removed (ie - being murdered).

Well, since "free will is a very rational belief," you won't mind providing some proof of that.

You always have the ability to choose, except when choice is removed from you - such as by murder, mindf*ckery, or the like. If you can find a situation which does not fall into these categories, I'll be interested.

If you have the ability to choose, you have free will.

You always have the ability to choose, except when choice is removed from you - such as by murder, mindf*ckery, or the like. If you can find a situation which does not fall into these categories, I'll be interested.

If you have the ability to choose, you have free will.

Do you have perfect information? On everything... any question you can answer? Any situation... you know how to reach a desired outcome?

Just curious.... if so, you know where I am going with this...

How is "what you know" relative to "you can make a choice"?

It was *never* stated "you can make a fully informed choice in all situations".

I'm beginning to think "intentionally dense and/or does not read what is written" is just part of the NSUN makeup. Along with Rouge States. :rolleyes:

No, it is just that the concept of free will involves more than the ability to merely choose, but reach a desired outcome. To freely 'will' an event or outcome.

Every other animal makes choices on a daily basis, so it is accepted there is more to the concept.

I'm beginning to think "intentionally dense and/or does not read what is written" is just part of the NSUN makeup. Along with Rouge States. :rolleyes:

It does appear to apply to everyone at some point.

So, a choice is made to reach a desired outcome (you are free to make choices so as to excercise your will for an intended even or outcome). Or, alternatively, choices are free insofar as they are not deterministically caused, and so might not have occurred in just the circumstances in which they did occur.
Do you have perfect information?

The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood cannot and will not support this repeal :upyours:

In favor of Death Penalty and Gay Rights?

You're messing my world view here... o_O

In favor of Death Penalty and Gay Rights?

You're messing my world view here... o_O

Well, let me mess it up further; since I am also a supporter of gay rights and capital punishment. ;)

"World-views" can be bad things, they are like personal religion; they develope their own prejudices and quirks, untill they are no longer capable of dealing realistically with the world around them.

If you have the ability to choose, you have free will.

Well, at least you offered a place to start with that last line.

Since you believe that the ablity to choose constitutes free will, I suggest you take a look at this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=369066&highlight=free+choice+outcome), specifically my discussion with Igwanarno.

No, it is just that the concept of free will involves more than the ability to merely choose, but reach a desired outcome. To freely 'will' an event or outcome.

Wrong, Mom. Not in my definition. You have the ability to choose. There is no guarantee of outcome, one does not assure the other.

:rolleyes:

Every other animal makes choices on a daily basis, so it is accepted there is more to the concept.

Animals choose according to programming. There is no sentience (ie:ability to thing abstractly).

So, a choice is made to reach a desired outcome (you are free to make choices so as to excercise your will for an intended even or outcome). Or, alternatively, choices are free insofar as they are not deterministically caused, and so might not have occurred in just the circumstances in which they did occur.
Do you have perfect information?

*makes notes about assuptions*

Try again, AP. I said "you have the ability to choose". Reading more into that statement - or more particularly, the same thing over and over - defies description. :rolleyes:

You can always choose in an attempt to reach a desired goal - there is no guarantee that goal will be reached.

In favor of Death Penalty and Gay Rights?

You're messing my world view here... o_O

How?

Gay Rights - Right of anyone to choose any lifestyle they choose.

Death Penalty - Responsibility for choice.

Where's the problem?

Well, at least you offered a place to start with that last line.

Since you believe that the ablity to choose constitutes free will, I suggest you take a look at this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=369066&highlight=free+choice+outcome), specifically my discussion with Igwanarno.

:rolleyes:

OOC:Summarize your point or consider it ignored completely.

*makes notes about assuptions*

Try again, AP. I said "you have the ability to choose". Reading more into that statement - or more particularly, the same thing over and over - defies description. :rolleyes:

You can always choose in an attempt to reach a desired goal - there is no guarantee that goal will be reached.

Nah, again, you just latch onto a term because of one aspect that you think serves your purposes, and show blatant disregard for the entire concept, a contempt for ignorance, or a lack of capacity for anything above normative thought processes.;)

In either event, your ability to choose aspect, with respect to it being free will, was discussed earlier, and invalidated.

Just thought explaining things to you, again, until you finally understand, would be a waste of time and abuse of the thread-and that by asking questions, you would come to a realization faster than normal, and on your own. But, alas, the intentionally dense aspect that plagues all UN members to one degree or another is deterministic.

Out of respect for Eco, I will leave this philosophical discussion. And it can be Texan's outreach project if the NS so chooses.

Since you have been a stickler for spelling of late, it is assumption, not assuption.

:rolleyes:

Choose whatever you want to do, AP. After all - you're always free to make your own choices.

:p

:rolleyes:

OOC:Summarize your point or consider it ignored completely.

As you requested...

Per your earlier post, the basic assumption is that if you had a choice, you had free will. To choose is to make a selection between alternatives, or courses of action. [Do I take the red pill, or the green pill?] So in order for a choice to exist, more than one possible alternative (course of action) must exist. (Unless you believe that free will is an epistemological truth and not a metaphysical truth, but if you do, then we shouldn't be having this discussion anyway.)

Let's say a woman comes to a fork in a road. She picks up the fork. Where are the multiple alternatives (courses of action)? In order for her to have a choice, there must exist multiple alternatives. The fact is that there existed only one course of action (alternative), and therefore there was no choice, and therefore no free will.

Now let's take a look at some possibilities.

1.) There are some who hold that each time a choice exists and is carried out, there is one universe for each choice, and so on every time anyone makes a choice, creating a humongous series of roughly parallel universes. To my knowledge, this particular belief has never been demonstrated true, and I think we can safely neglect it for the purposes of this discussion.

2.) Some might attack my use of course of action as equivalent to alternative. Unfortunately, any alleged "choice" we make is a "choice" between behaviors, not objects. Even in the case of the red and green pills where it might look as if "choosing" is selecting an object (and not a course of action), we are still ultimately "choosing" a course of action.

A. Take the red pill.
B. Take the green pill.
C. Take both.
D. Take neither.

Now, we might base that "choice" entirely on our perception of the properties of the objects, which might give the appearance of a "choice" between objects (and not courses of action). This is only an appearance, however. Ultimately, choice is about actions, not objects.

3.) Some people, including myself, speculate that a belief in free will (or choice) is a belief that is false, but a necessary belief. Even the people who believe that the universe is deterministic and that they have no choice still act as though they believe that they have a choice. Is it simply cultural conditioning? Or is it a psychological necessity to believe that one has the power to choose? Is it an adaptive trait, something that allows us to survive more effectively?

As you requested...

Per your earlier post, the basic assumption is that if you had a choice, you had free will. To choose is to make a selection between alternatives, or courses of action. [Do I take the red pill, or the green pill?] So in order for a choice to exist, more than one possible alternative (course of action) must exist. (Unless you believe that free will is an epistemological truth and not a metaphysical truth, but if you do, then we shouldn't be having this discussion anyway.)

Let's say a woman comes to a fork in a road. She picks up the fork. Where are the multiple alternatives (courses of action)? In order for her to have a choice, there must exist multiple alternatives. The fact is that there existed only one course of action (alternative), and therefore there was no choice, and therefore no free will.

You'll have to explain why chosing to leave the fork or to pick up the fork are not two different choices, with different consequences. Otherwise, your reasoning is invalid.



Now let's take a look at some possibilities.

1.) There are some who hold that each time a choice exists and is carried out, there is one universe for each choice, and so on every time anyone makes a choice, creating a humongous series of roughly parallel universes. To my knowledge, this particular belief has never been demonstrated true, and I think we can safely neglect it for the purposes of this discussion.

There may be multiple potential universes, but there is only one universe. You are speaking 4 dimensionally - and time moves in only one direction, so at this point in time there is only one universe. Ok.



2.) Some might attack my use of course of action as equivalent to alternative. Unfortunately, any alleged "choice" we make is a "choice" between behaviors, not objects. Even in the case of the red and green pills where it might look as if "choosing" is selecting an object (and not a course of action), we are still ultimately "choosing" a course of action.

A. Take the red pill.
B. Take the green pill.
C. Take both.
D. Take neither.

Now, we might base that "choice" entirely on our perception of the properties of the objects, which might give the appearance of a "choice" between objects (and not courses of action). This is only an appearance, however. Ultimately, choice is about actions, not objects.

So what? You choose to do something, or do nothing (which, being the absence of doing, is also a "doing by not doing").



3.) Some people, including myself, speculate that a belief in free will (or choice) is a belief that is false, but a necessary belief. Even the people who believe that the universe is deterministic and that they have no choice still act as though they believe that they have a choice. Is it simply cultural conditioning? Or is it a psychological necessity to believe that one has the power to choose? Is it an adaptive trait, something that allows us to survive more effectively?

Meaningless.

You'll have to explain why chosing to leave the fork or to pick up the fork are not two different choices, with different consequences. Otherwise, your reasoning is invalid.

What the hell are you talking about?

Meaningless.

Less so than responding with "meaningless".

you're always free to make your own choices.

:p

No I am not. That is an illusory concept, as illustrated earlier, which you apparently chose not to read. Unless of course you accept illusory choices to be actual choices, which is fine, irrational, but fine.:p

No I am not. That is an illusory concept, as illustrated earlier, which you apparently chose not to read. Unless of course you accept illusory choices to be actual choices, which is fine, irrational, but fine.:p

*looks over glasses at you*

at what point was it demonstrated as "illusory"?

See discussion between DLE and myself. It is in this thread.

(yadda yadda)

A choice between objects or actions is still a choice. That a choice is ultimately made which results in action (or inaction, which is still action via causing nonaction), is still a choice.

Back to your example. Woman sees fork in road. Either she (a) picks it up or (b) does not pick it up. That's a choice - a or b. If (a), the resulting universe has her with fork. If (b), the resulting universe has her without fork. She still made a choice.

In short, the theoretical framework being proposed here (by me) is:

(past) decisions already made ---
(Present) choices being made []
(Future) choices yet to be made <<<

-----------------------------------[]<<<<<<<

The past is fixed, the present is being made, the future contains infinite possibilities based from current conditions and possible ways of reaching those choices.

This does not state a deterministic future. It does give more and more limited choices based on past and present choices (if you decide to go to the store, you won't be there to decide whether or not to pull your girlfriend or your mother out of the fire that will hit your house in that hour due to faulty wiring).

So, Texas, as AP appears to be back on his arrogance kick, if you wouldn't mind dickering out how this is deterministic, based that in 4D, the future has not been determined yet.

So, Texas, as AP appears to be back on his arrogance kick, if you wouldn't mind dickering out how this is deterministic, based that in 4D, the future has not been determined yet.

No, just tirading against those who choose to share their ignorance. In addition to apprising yourself of what free will is you may also want to look into what deterministic theory is in its entirety as well. As free will is more than being able to make a choice, so to is deterministic theory more than one single path to an outcome-whether it be desired or not.

No, just tirading against those who choose to share their ignorance. In addition to apprising yourself of what free will is you may also want to look into what deterministic theory is in its entirety as well. As free will is more than being able to make a choice, so to is deterministic theory more than one single path to an outcome-whether it be desired or not.

Definitional problem here. I'm using "free will" as in "freedom to choose", and you're using it to state the use of the theory of determining your future. These are not the same thing.

So do take your arrogant stance out of the room, if you would. It is not appreciated in the least.

Correct, they are not the ame thing, but are related. Freedom of choice is is a concept free will incorporates, and can stand alone as its own concept. Free will was developed to incorporate choice into an argument against the idea of pre-determined outcomes, or, destiny if you will.

So, decide if you are only talking about freedom of choice, or free will. As the two can stand alone as independant concepts you can not argue that free will is merely freedom of choice, as that ignores the reason the concept of free will was developed.

AP, I could care less why someone else did something else.

You choose when you are confronted with a choice. Whether you do so subconciously or conciously, you do the choosing.

Where that choice will eventually lead is not germaine to the discussion. Choosing to jump off a bridge is a valid choice. So is choosing to do so without a bunjee cord or other device. At that point, you've chosen to have nothing under you and to subject your body to gravity and the (very probable) sudden stop at the end.

You are free to choose.

Some woman is beaten all her life by every man she has been with. She meets a man and begins a relationship. She is free to choose to trust him, to not trust him, to worry about when the beatings will start (which she might choose to assume are a definite possibility), yadda yadda. All of these are choices.

You are free to choose to continue to answer arrogantly - your choice. You are free to choose to decide to be a bully, a jerk, quiescent, prolific, emotional, simplistic, short, long, whatever you want in your answer. Thats your choice - the keyboard is yours, the space is blank. You may even choose not to answer at all.

It is all up to you, your actions, you choose.

As for determinism - I choose to accept that it is a meaningless concept. There is no "destiny", there is no "fate". If you choose to accept that it is meaningful, so be it. That's your choice. REGARDLESS of what you decide to choose, you have proven my point - you are free to choose your own actions.

And I am free to choose not to read anymore arrogance.

You are free to choose to continue to answer arrogantly - your choice. You are free to choose to decide to be a bully, a jerk, quiescent, prolific, emotional, simplistic, short, long, whatever you want in your answer. Thats your choice - the keyboard is yours, the space is blank. You may even choose not to answer at all.

As are you, so do not act upset when your own tactics are emplored against you. It was your choice to do the same to others earlier, and I now jokingly do it to you.

Nice to see a hypocritical character assissination attempt instead of answering the question of whether you are arguing for freedom of choice or free will.

So, let us look at freedom of choice, as that is what you are really talking about, from a philosophical perspective, particularly Claus Janew:

Imagine you are a hunter pursuing a herd of game (or a gang of poachers). The path suddenly forks and you have to decide which of the two directions to take. First you try to read the tracks more closely, and you take into account the habits of your prey and the possible benefit to you, i.e. you try to deduce your decision. If this leads you to a clear-cut conclusion, the route to take will be obvious. It is predetermined and you have no need to choose.

If, on the other hand, you do not arrive at any clear-cut answer, you can just as well toss a coin and let chance "decide". That too is not a conscious choice. (At best it is the decision not to make a choice yourself.)

If the first course is not feasible and the second does not appeal to you, you will make your decision "intuitively" or "instinctively". Now is that chance or determinacy, or maybe both? If, for example, as a result of your efforts you should happen to notice another important feature about the tracks, then both chance and determinacy are involved. Your logically consistent efforts will have led you to chance findings which then play a part in your subsequent deliberations.

Where that choice will eventually lead is not germaine to the discussion.

Then you are not discussing free will. As it is the use of choice to create a desired outcome.

:rolleyes:

I would think it would have been long obvious that was the case. Say, by rereading my original statement.

(garbage removed)

So, let us look at freedom of choice, as that is what you are really talking about, from a philosophical perspective, particularly Claus Janew:

Imagine you are a hunter pursuing a herd of game (or a gang of poachers). The path suddenly forks and you have to decide which of the two directions to take. First you try to read the tracks more closely, and you take into account the habits of your prey and the possible benefit to you, i.e. you try to deduce your decision. If this leads you to a clear-cut conclusion, the route to take will be obvious. It is predetermined and you have no need to choose.

If, on the other hand, you do not arrive at any clear-cut answer, you can just as well toss a coin and let chance "decide". That too is not a conscious choice. (At best it is the decision not to make a choice yourself.)

If the first course is not feasible and the second does not appeal to you, you will make your decision "intuitively" or "instinctively". Now is that chance or determinacy, or maybe both? If, for example, as a result of your efforts you should happen to notice another important feature about the tracks, then both chance and determinacy are involved. Your logically consistent efforts will have led you to chance findings which then play a part in your subsequent deliberations.

:rolleyes:

What you are describing is "method of choosing". Does that mean you could not choose the alternative path for any - or no - reason? No, it does not. You are still making a choice - there is no deterministic element at all.

Is the route predetermined? Nope. A hunter who is aware of the fact that the second trail leads to a locale by which the occupants of the first could be easily ambushed might choose the second. But this is all about elements in making a choice - you have not given any indication of an element which removes choice. The hunter can perceive any information; they are still the final authority for their choice.

In short - the fact remains, you choose. Information by which you choose is irrelevant.

Twelve people view a trial. By your ideology, all should automatically come up with the same conclusion, as all are presented with the same information. This is demonstratably not the case. Ergo, choice is an individualized event.

Next arguement. And can the arrogance. Aspergers or not, you can choose civility.

:rolleyes:

I would think it would have been long obvious that was the case. Say, by rereading my original statement.

Really?

2) That's your choice to do or not do. I chose to do what you didn't do, as a result, I throttled my fears into submission and got on with my life. As you can perceive the difficulty, choosing to let your fear rule you is your choice and you will accept the consequences of that choice. 3) Free will is a very rational belief - we always have the capacity to choose except when it is removed (ie - being murdered).


If you have the ability to choose, you have free will.

Well, at least you offered a place to start with that last line.

Since you believe that the ablity to choose constitutes free will, I suggest you take a look at this thread, specifically my discussion with Igwanarno.
(You did not dispute that assertion by TH)

Definitional problem here. I'm using "free will" as in "freedom to choose", and you're using it to state the use of the theory of determining your future.

Very obvious indeed.

:rolleyes:

What you are describing is "method of choosing". Does that mean you could not choose the alternative path for any - or no - reason? No, it does not. You are still making a choice - there is no deterministic element at all.

Is the route predetermined? Nope. A hunter who is aware of the fact that the second trail leads to a locale by which the occupants of the first could be easily ambushed might choose the second. But this is all about elements in making a choice - you have not given any indication of an element which removes choice. The hunter can perceive any information; they are still the final authority for their choice.

The hunter searches for prey, so his decision is determined by pre-existing information. The choice was pre-determined, if you are a hunter you want prey, you do not ignore where prey is going. WHere both trails lead to prey there is no choice, as prey can be caught at either. The evidence could illustrate which prey is more desirable or where more is found. Where no evidence is presented, it is chance, as either trail may or may not be at either locale. Where there is no certainty or total certainty there is no choice, it is illusory. As you actions are based on pre-determined information, or mere chance.

In short - the fact remains, you choose. Information by which you choose is irrelevant.

see above.

Twelve people view a trial. By your ideology, all should automatically come up with the same conclusion, as all are presented with the same information. This is demonstratably not the case. Ergo, choice is an individualized event.

At first sight that appears to be a valid conclusion. However, not all evidence in a trial is conclusive or concrete. Unlike a known trail to a hunter skilled in tracking. It is the job of the lawyer to interpret non-conclusive evidence to a jury so as to persuade the outcome in their clients favor. So, in some cases, where evidence is conclusive, that is the case, in others, a case relying on evidence yielding multiple interpretations, it is not.

Next arguement. And can the arrogance. Aspergers or not, you can choose civility.

I can. However, one of the condiions is an inability to socialize, which I do not have, it is a spectrum. So there are those who can not make such a choice. As illustrated earlier in the conversation between DLE and I, not everyone has the ability to choose in all circumstances, or to recognize when choice exists.

:headbang: Why am I choosing to put myself through this... but in any case...


What you are describing is "method of choosing". Does that mean you could not choose the alternative path for any - or no - reason? No, it does not. You are still making a choice - there is no deterministic element at all.

Is the route predetermined? Nope. A hunter who is aware of the fact that the second trail leads to a locale by which the occupants of the first could be easily ambushed might choose the second. But this is all about elements in making a choice - you have not given any indication of an element which removes choice. The hunter can perceive any information; they are still the final authority for their choice.

The hunter searches for prey, so his decision is determined by pre-existing information. The choice was pre-determined, if you are a hunter you want prey, you do not ignore where prey is going. WHere both trails lead to prey choosing is chance, as prey can be caught at either. Where no evidence is presented, it is chance, as either trail may or may not be at either locale. Where there is no certainty or total certainty there is no choice, it is illusory. As you actions are based on pre-determined information, or mere chance.


No. He chose at a prior point to become a hunter - he chose at a prior point to gain the skills to become a good hunter. These prior choices affected the skill set he has now, and the perception he has now.

There are two trails. One shows obvious game markings, the other does not. The hunter chooses the one which does not because they decide they do not want to hunt right now, they want some time to think. Or they decide it might rain and figure there is uninterrupted cover down the other path. Or they miss the signs and go down that path. There is no predetermination here - information is available, a choice is made. The means by which the choice are made are not relevant - the individual is still making a choice.



In short - the fact remains, you choose. Information by which you choose is irrelevant.



see above.


Exactly.



Twelve people view a trial. By your ideology, all should automatically come up with the same conclusion, as all are presented with the same information. This is demonstratably not the case. Ergo, choice is an individualized event.


At first sight that appears to be a valid conclusion. However, not all evidence in a trial is conclusive or concrete. Unlike a known trail to a hunter skilled in tracking. It is the job of the lawyer to interpret non-conclusive evidence to a jury so as to persuade the outcome in their clients favor. So, in some cases, where evidence is conclusive, that is the case, in others, a case relying on evidence yielding multiple interpretations, it is not.

It remains a fact, twelve - or a hundred, or a million, or any number - of people viewing a situation can come to any number of conclusions.

As this is the case, each can choose differently. This supports freedom to choose.



Next arguement. And can the arrogance. Aspergers or not, you can choose civility.

I can. However, one of the condiions is an inability to socialize, which I do not have, it is a spectrum. So there are those who can not make such a choice. As illustrated earlier in the conversation between DLE and I, not everyone has the ability to choose in all circumstances, or to recognize when choice exists.

Recognizing when a choice presents itself is not relevant - you still choose. You might not know there's a bomb behind the door, but you still choose to open it. You might not know there is nerve gas in the air, you still choose to breathe.

At no point was it stated "all choices are concious choices" or "all knowledge is always available whenever anyone is making a choice". Or "you are guaranteed an outcome to your liking". What was stated is "you have the ability to choose". Choice exists. That you chose to interpret my use of the words "free will" as relating to a theory you know is your choice - that I chose to ignore the theoretics manifest in such words is my choice.

Here's the statement - you choose. I choose. We all choose. How we choose is not relevant to that statement - you still have choice. What information you have or do not have is not relevant - you still have choice.

You don't know if your partner has AIDS or not, you can still choose to use a condom or not. You could have chosen to get both of you tested. You could have chosen to be promiscuous. You could have chosen never to educate yourself on the topic, to overeducate yourself on the topic, to be celibate, to ignore the whole thing.

Still choice.

Going back to your hunter: One path, zebra tracks. The other path, water buffalo tracks. Which one to choose? Its up to the hunter. How they get to choosing is their choice. They still choose.

:p ROFLMAO.... If you do not know why you are doing this, is it really a choice Vastiva;)

:p ROFLMAO.... If you do not know why you are doing this, is it really a choice Vastiva;)

Yep. "I could be going to bed. I could be arguing with AP more. I choose to argue".

I have to choose to press the keys, read the screen, move the mouse. All these are choices I'm making. :p

Besides which, I enjoy our discussions when you're not acting like a posterboy for Arrogance Unlimited. :p

Choosing to Continue the exodus, I think :p

Going back to your hunter: One path, zebra tracks. The other path, water buffalo tracks. Which one to choose? Its up to the hunter. How they get to choosing is their choice. They still choose.

Assuming the Hunter is just out for whatever crosses his path, yes, that would be a choice.

No. He chose at a prior point to become a hunter - he chose at a prior point to gain the skills to become a good hunter. These prior choices affected the skill set he has now, and the perception he has now.


And those skills have made his choosing a path leading to game determinate upon the evidence.

There are two trails. One shows obvious game markings, the other does not. The hunter chooses the one which does not because they decide they do not want to hunt right now, they want some time to think. Or they decide it might rain and figure there is uninterrupted cover down the other path. Or they miss the signs and go down that path. There is no predetermination here - information is available, a choice is made. The means by which the choice are made are not relevant - the individual is still making a choice.

If he is no longer hunting, then yes, evidence to where game is at is moot.
Where no evidence is used it is chance. An illusory choice.

It remains a fact, twelve - or a hundred, or a million, or any number - of people viewing a situation can come to any number of conclusions.

As this is the case, each can choose differently. This supports freedom to choose.

I mentioned some cases contain conclusive evidence and others do not. That some are determined by the evidence, that others are not. A choice for some, not for all.

Last part...

So, you believe choices are made irrelevant of consequence and information. The only problem I see with that is that if you do not care if information is used or a choice is made without a desired result of that choice, it was not a choice. It was chance. Or not a choice at all, as the choice could have been made or not and it would not have mattered.

You did not choose to be blown up, it was determined by their being a bomb, had you known about the bomb, the door would not have been opened, or if nerve gas was in the air, you would try to hold your breath long enough to escape-or until you become unconscious from choking, afterwards you would breathe, as breathing is involuntary. Nor are they consequences of your choices as such events are not what can be expected from opening doors and breathing in everyday life provided you do not live in an area privy to such occurances being commonplace because of people who are out to get you.

When you have no knowledge that a choice even exists then carrying on is not a choice consciously or sub-consciously with respect to the existence of that choice. As no decision has been made in light of that choice.

Freedom to choose does tend to indicate the choice being conscious. At least as I see it, if you are free to do something, that usually implies volition on the part of the actor, which does not exist subconsciously.

Yep. "I could be going to bed. I could be arguing with AP more. I choose to argue".

I have to choose to press the keys, read the screen, move the mouse. All these are choices I'm making. :p

Besides which, I enjoy our discussions when you're not acting like a posterboy for Arrogance Unlimited. :p

Awesome, I think I have my new slogan:p

Is there even a point to this thread still? We're approaching 300 posts; and it is obvious there is no "uniting" in this effort anywhere.

As a statement of policy. I state the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, as delegate, will not approve any Repeal of Gay Rights. While Actual voting on any Repeal as such, up for vote, is dependent upon Regional decision by vote.

As such; I will make no further comments on this issue, as the Republic considers it dead.

I'm with you. You've got my vote.