Author Topic: Ashcroft's Priority (Read 2475 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2004, 06:23:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by culero
It requires a belief system that includes right to property to be so. Its only a breach of our laws because we've agreed for it to be so.

And what I quoted,

Quote

Morals may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members.

We have decided what is moral, and have passed laws to enforce the 'code'. Theft is dishonesty and therefore immoral. So are a miriad of other things which have laws passed and enforced to at least regulate them in some manner.

Please do not lose sight of the larger idea by focusing on the example... many a newbie fighter pilot did such and flew into the practice target....

culero · « **Reply #16 on:** February 19, 2004, 06:34:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And what I quoted,

We have decided what is moral, and have passed laws to enforce the 'code'. Theft is dishonesty and therefore immoral. So are a miriad of other things which have laws passed and enforced to at least regulate them in some manner.

Please do not lose sight of the larger idea by focusing on the example... many a newbie fighter pilot did such and flew into the practice target....

The larger idea is exactly what I'm focusing on, I just illustrated using the example you offered.

To put it another way - we don't have to agree as to whether or not something is immoral in order to decide whether or not it affects each other adversely.

We should legislate based upon our agreements about the effects of our behaviors on each other, rather than personal choices of morality. We should each be free to decide for ourselves what is moral and what is not.

We don't have to see something as immoral in order for it to need to be illegal, and we don't have to see something that's illegal as necessarily immoral. Morality and law should have no connection in a truly free society.

culero

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #17 on:** February 19, 2004, 07:18:42 AM »

Okay let's try this:

Quote

mor·al (môrl, mr-) adj.
1.Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2.Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3.Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4.Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5.Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6.Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

Goodness or badness in human action or character.....

are there laws against bad human action? Of course.

Are these laws then reinforcing public morals? Yes, by definition.

There are private actions which some would consider immoral, and are not prohibited by law, but there are things considered bad human behavior by the vast majority of human beings (and therefore society) that are prohibited by law. As a sociopath, Ted Bundy had no moral compass. His behavior was against our collective morals and the laws based on those morals.

By definition these are societal morals which become law. These are some curbs to our freedom which we have accepted as good for society.

(I love semantic arguments)

culero · « **Reply #18 on:** February 19, 2004, 07:28:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Okay let's try this:

Goodness or badness in human action or character.....

are there laws against bad human action? Of course.

Are these laws then reinforcing public morals? Yes, by definition.

There are private actions which some would consider immoral, and are not prohibited by law, but there are things considered bad human behavior by the vast majority of human beings (and therefore society) that are prohibited by law. As a sociopath, Ted Bundy had no moral compass. His behavior was against our collective morals and the laws based on those morals.

By definition these are societal morals which become law. These are some curbs to our freedom which we have accepted as good for society.

(I love semantic arguments)

Try to place my argument in the context I intend - freedom. I agree with you regarding what morality is, and that in some cases law reflects that.

What I'm arguing is not that morality has not been a factor, but that it should not be the standard. If we start out by saying we will legislate based on morals, we start down a slippery slope that leads to abuse. We need to draw a line that says when we want to impose our own morals on everyone, we must demonstrate a practical need to do so.

Bundy isn't an example that supports you, because it wasn't his beliefs that made him unacceptable legally. It was the effects of his actions that we can't accept as a society.

Ever read Heinlen? Would you equate "not wasting food" with what Bundy did?

culero (just being silly with that last, really

)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #19 on:** February 19, 2004, 07:35:46 AM »

Bundy doesn't apply?

His character was that he had no "concern with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character"

Pretty much the definition of sociopath, and a direct quote from the definition of 'moral'

No one knows what caused him to go nuts but his symptom was to have no moral compunction to hold him back from doing what he did.

culero · « **Reply #20 on:** February 19, 2004, 07:39:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Bundy doesn't apply?

His character was that he had no "concern with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character"

Pretty much the definition of sociopath, and a direct quote from the definition of 'moral'

No one knows what caused him to go nuts but his symptom was to have no moral compunction to hold him back from doing what he did.

Agreed.

But what he believed or didn't wasn't what we have to legislate against, only his actions and how they affect others are important in that regard. He could have believed exactly as he did and never been a problem if he hadn't acted those beliefs out.

culero

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #21 on:** February 19, 2004, 07:49:53 AM »

Had Bundy 'conformed to standards of what is right or just in behavior' (definition #3 of moral) then he wouldn't have been executed.

There was a Twilight Zone episode where some guy bought a paper and tossed a coin into the paperboys coin box, and it stood on edge. This somehow gave him the power to read minds, and later he learned that someone in line waiting for the bank teller was thinking about robbing the place, so the mind reader turned him in.

Turns out thinking about it wasn't a crime, and the guy was just daydreaming about it.

culero · « **Reply #22 on:** February 19, 2004, 07:55:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

snip
Turns out thinking about it wasn't a crime, and the guy was just daydreaming about it.

Well, there you have it. Should he have been jailed?

culero

Shane · « **Reply #23 on:** February 19, 2004, 07:58:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by culero
Well, there you have it. Should he have been jailed?

culero

only if he imagined the tellers naked as well.

Yeager · « **Reply #24 on:** February 19, 2004, 07:58:39 AM »

The perverts reveal themsleves.

Disgusting people....

Shane · « **Reply #25 on:** February 19, 2004, 07:59:50 AM »

but not quite as disgusting as the prudes.

Yeager · « **Reply #26 on:** February 19, 2004, 08:17:51 AM »

your preference for filth over excessive moral concern is duly noted. Pervert.

Eagler · « **Reply #27 on:** February 19, 2004, 08:35:53 AM »

to those that don't mind the industry of "adult entertainment", I can only assume you do not have issue with your son, daughter, maybe wife, how about your sister or mother even - choosing it as a career choice?

If you do have an issue, ask yourself why? Then ask yourself why/how you can support any of it ...

talk about hypocrites...

Shane · « **Reply #28 on:** February 19, 2004, 08:56:24 AM »

as long as they're adults when they make that career decision.

along with that decision comes choices. on both sides of the fence. could i live with my wife being in the industry as a performer? no. would i remain with her if she chose to enter the industry, not too likely, but that's my choice, see... however if she merely wanted to run a pr0n site, .

sex for money/recreation is nothing new in the history of mankind. and as long as it's consenual i have no bigger moral issues with it.

what's made illegal generally finds a market when it comes to "consumer" goods/services, and operating outside the law introduces all sorts of nasty side-effects. i'd rather keep things in the spotlight of legality, thank you very much.

now if my kid wanted to become a preacher or something, why i'd disown them outright.

Thud · « **Reply #29 on:** February 19, 2004, 10:00:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
to those that don't mind the industry of "adult entertainment", I can only assume you do not have issue with your son, daughter, maybe wife, how about your sister or mother even - choosing it as a career choice?

If you do have an issue, ask yourself why? Then ask yourself why/how you can support any of it ...

talk about hypocrites...

I don't want my daughter to pursue a career as postal worker either, that does not imply I strongly oppose anyone receiving a letter.
Weak argumentation, another opportunistic plea for government intervention in the private lives of citizens from someone who usually states on any given subject: "The governemnt has no business intervening in my life, I want less government and more responsibility.

And I quote: "talk about hypocrites..."