NationStates Jolt Archive

It is my impression that when someone here says that a person's actions during a particular incident were wrong, that other posters believe that they are advocating that the government should intervene by creating laws that prevent such occurrences in the future.

How many people actually do think that any law is justified if its nonexistence makes it possible for people to do bad things? And why do people assume that others think that way?

EDIT: Oops. Missed out some very crucial words

It is my impression that when someone here says that a person's actions during a particular incident were wrong, that they are advocating that the government should intervene by creating laws that prevent such occurrences in the future

not necessarily, no

Wrongness and government intervention Are synonyms.

not necessarily, no

Whoops! I didn't mean that, I actually meant to say that a lot of people believe that, not to appear as though I believe it myself! Mistakes like this are why I shouldn't start threads.

It is my impression that when someone here says that a person's actions during a particular incident were wrong, that they are advocating that the government should intervene by creating laws that prevent such occurrences in the future.
I think laws are invoked in discussion on morality a bit like nuclear arms are invoked in discussion concerning international diplomacy - as a sort of placeholder for "Do something about it" with a bit of an edge to the request.

Just because you opose something ethically does not mean you want it to be against the law. Sometimes criminalizing something can be a violation of people's rights, or do more harm than good.

For example, I am ethically opposed to abortion under almost all circumstances. But from a legal perspective, I am pro-choice.

It is my impression that when someone here says that a person's actions during a particular incident were wrong, that other posters believe that they are advocating that the government should intervene by creating laws that prevent such occurrences in the future. it does seem like that doesn't it.

How many people actually do think that any law is justified if its nonexistence makes it possible for people to do bad things? And why do people assume that others think that way?I don't. you'll need a poll for the numbers.

I generally go by what was written. thus unless someone states "THERE SHOULD BE A LAW!!!" I don't make such assumptions.

Are synonyms.

Clever one liner, but you might want to try backing up such an extreemist and absolutist statement if you're serious about it.

It is my impression that when someone here says that a person's actions during a particular incident were wrong, that other posters believe that they are advocating that the government should intervene by creating laws that prevent such occurrences in the future.

Why are you bothering to build a strawman when you're not debating someone? Your time could be better spent drinking.

How many people actually do think that any law is justified if its nonexistence makes it possible for people to do bad things?

I do not. There are plenty of bad things people can do that should not be prohibited. People should be free to be racist, sexist, or homophobic. People should be free to vote for John McCain. People should be free to not donate any of their time to charitable endeavours.

And why do people assume that others think that way?

People conflate lots of things for all kinds of reasons. It's part and parcel of complicated, sophisticated discussions.

Why are you bothering to build a strawman when you're not debating someone?
Build a strawman? I'm simply writing about an impression I've got from the forum. It's hardly a bother.

Your time could be better spent drinking.
I can drink and post at the same time.

I can drink and post at the same time.

That's a bad idea, as I have found out to my misfortune.

It is my impression that when someone here says that a person's actions during a particular incident were wrong, that other posters believe that they are advocating that the government should intervene by creating laws that prevent such occurrences in the future.

How many people actually do think that any law is justified if its nonexistence makes it possible for people to do bad things? And why do people assume that others think that way?

EDIT: Oops. Missed out some very crucial words
For some reason, I doubt that all that many people make either assumption (that there ought to be law, or that the other person is saying there ought to be a law).

However, some of the more contentious topics on NSG (such as abortion) often hinge on the difference between people holding their own beliefs and people seeking to enforce their beliefs on others by changing the law. So that might create the impression that people think that way more than they really do.

For instance, my arguments on that subject always boil down to "you can believe whatever you like, you can say whatever you like, you can try to convince others of whatever you like, but I will not tolerate any attempt to make your personal beliefs be the law that governs me." I only care to argue with people who think there ought to be a law about that.

All I say to the OP is travel to a semi-lawless nation and then ask yourself your question. It is obvious in my travels that humans need the rule of law when their groups exceed 1.

People should be free to vote for John McCain.

Or Obama.

People should be free to vote for John McCain.

Oh how I disagree.

Oh how I disagree.

If people could (and did) vote for Hitler, why not?

If people could (and did) vote for Hitler, why not?

Because I dont believe that the decision of the majority is inherantly the best decision.

Because I dont believe that the decision of the majority is inherantly the best decision.

You're making exactly the questionable assumption the OP points out. Just because a certain decision wouldn't be "best" doesn't mean we are entitled to force people not to make it.

Because I dont believe that the decision of the majority is inherantly the best decision.

I agree; but pray tell, what governmental system would you opt to replace democracy with?

Odd that this thread should pop up now given the epic government intervention planned for next week.

Socialism at its finest.

I agree; but pray tell, what governmental system would you opt to replace democracy with?

I hear Communism works fairly well. :p

Odd that this thread should pop up now given the epic government intervention planned for next week.

Socialism at its finest.

what fanny and freddy... the government made them and guaranteed them, they gotta keep 'em standing... or were you talking about something completely different.

If people could (and did) vote for Hitler, why not?

Because unlike Dubya, Hitler actually took an economically wrecked Germany and rebuilt it into the formidable machine that ran all across Europe until the Allies all ganged up on it.

Dubya (and by extension, John McSame) took a healthy and surplus-happy United States and is slowly in the process of running it into the ground where even post-Versailles Germany looks like a G8 Nation.

Build a strawman? I'm simply writing about an impression I've got from the forum. It's hardly a bother.

I have, in three plus years of posting and lurking, never seen anyone adopt the position you describe. As can be seen from this thread. Not one poster has agreed with the OP.

Now I may be wrong/stupid. Can you refute me? Do you have a link to one single post by another player that supports your impression? If you do, I'll concede. Until then, I'll spend my time dancing around your flaming strawman.

*Has flaming strawman fun*

How many people actually do think that any law is justified if its nonexistence makes it possible for people to do bad things? And why do people assume that others think that way?


Depends on how "bad" those things are.
I think legislation is all about curtailing the freedoms of individuals to ensure the freedoms of all individuals.

So if this is about the hotel refusing to accomodate a soldier, I do not think legislation is warranted. I know of plenty of places (hotels and pubs) in my home town who would in the 80s refuse to serve US army personel, based on the behaviour they had experienced in the past and could reasonably expect again. They should have the choice to do so, as it's a valid concern for their safety and property while only incoveniencing the person refused the service.
If, on the other hand, we're talking about a vital service being refused, say a pharmacy refusing to sell certain medication due to religious beliefs, the person in question would be more than just inconvenienced. Something like that should not be permissible.

i actually believe that it's immoral to legislate morality! :D

Are synonyms.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/youngman_onion.jpg
Kevin Alderman
Serial Killer

As the notorious Cincinnati Slasher, I support this position wholeheartedly.

Because unlike Dubya, Hitler actually took an economically wrecked Germany and rebuilt it into the formidable machine that ran all across Europe until the Allies all ganged up on it.

Dubya (and by extension, John McSame) took a healthy and surplus-happy United States and is slowly in the process of running it into the ground where even post-Versailles Germany looks like a G8 Nation.

So you would vote for Adolf Hitler over George W. Bush or John McCain?

So you would vote for Adolf Hitler over George W. Bush or John McCain?

Hitler's dead and he's not a native-born United States citizen even then so it doesn't matter. I'm voting Obama.

Hitler's dead and he's not a native-born United States citizen even then so it doesn't matter.

That is a quaint way of avoiding a hypothetical question.

I'm voting Obama.

I greatly favor him over McCain, as McCain is too belligerent. Still, I am disappointed that Obama is only cutting spending in war, which is important, but not everything.

Are synonyms.

So every time the gov covertly averts a crisis whether it be national security, preventing war, ordering an evacuation or donating money to some third world country to keep the commies out its automatically evil? So every time a government (which by the way is a made up of people who all possess both good and evil qualities) does anything or intervenes its automatically evil no matter what? Hmmmm... I fail to see the logic in that.

i always assume the worst from governments, but i am frequently pleasantly surprised... its seems a healthier attitude than expecting the best and then frequently being shocked, outraged or made sick to my stomach.

Because I dont believe that the decision of the majority is inherantly the best decision.

Maybe not, but what would prefer? Monarchy? Dictatorship?