Romney vs. Obama

[Guild McCommunist]

Four more years of Republicans crying every time there's good economic news.

 

[leic7]

Your highly unrealistic example only shows a potential flaw in an extreme scenario, which quite frankly will probably never happen. Therefore, there's no point discussing it, because it's not going to be a realistic critique. Your example not only potentially shows a flaw in my ideals, but it also shows the exact same flaw in your ideals. I repeat my question from earlier: How would the federal government know that a family has a slave that has never set foot outside a property, and never will set foot outside that property? Besides, I still stand by my earlier argument that the slave's mental health would be potentially dangerous to the surrounding society, and therefore should be up to the state to decide. After all, you state that the slave will never set foot, but that doesn't mean they definitely won't. So you see, we're getting into a pointless unrealistic scenario that can go in circles because it's unrealistic. It proves nothing, and only shows a potential flaw in both sides.

As I keep trying to tell you, your definition of what's good for society is not the same as mine. Your definitions of what's good for the society is not the same as the people's definition of over 100 years ago. I agree that "right" is good for society, and "wrong" is bad for society, but we're going to have different beliefs on what is correct. I believe drug legalisation would be very good for society, as it means we're not arresting people for possessing and recreational use in the privacy of their homes, while also able to tax drugs and use them for medical purposes. But of course, you'll have the opposite side saying that the legalisation of drugs might encourage more people to take drugs and could endanger the lives of people. There's no right or wrong here, and that's why I'd rather use a modern example where there are clear divides, as that will help you understand my position.

Should the moral minority always accept the rulings of the moral majority? Absolutely not. If that moral minority absolutely believes what they're doing is the correct thing, then by all means they should do what they want. But of course, as I explained before with family issues, we still have to acknowledge scope when it comes to various issues. If you're a citizen who lives in a completely different state, the social issues of another state should not impact you at all due to the distance. However, if you were a citizen of that state, then you should have the right to be heard, because the odds are the social issues may be more of a frequent sight for you, and you are therefore involved (obviously this depends on the issue, but it's to explain scope). Remember, states can be very innovative, and we want to encourage innovation, especially if you want to get your country out of an economic mess. Drug legalisation for example is one innovative example, but because the federal government has the final say, the states are constricted.

Your last point about creating change, again, doesn't help prove that the federal government should have the final say about everything. The federal government has introduced a lot of negative things, and because the vocal minority who care about these things don't have the resources to advertise heavily and to create awareness about these issues nation-wide, nothing will be sorted. Remember, a lot of people don't care about politics at all, and will shut off instantly when talking about politices. By letting the federal government have the final say, you're placing a huge burden on the people who care about these issues. Besides, what if the majority of US citizens wanted to re-introduce slavery? Should the federal government go ahead and re-introduce it, and force it on states? You're saying they should.

So getting to my point, you haven't stated a single reason why the federal government should have the final say on everything. The reasons you've given also work as reasons as to why the federal government shouldn't have control. Maybe try give me a list of pros and cons, like so:

States having the final say:
+ Encourages innovation to try get the country out of the mess
+ Encourages people to become more politically active as their chances of changing things improve
+ Encourages the state to implement policies they feel fits their morals
- States might make a decision that other states might not feel is correct

Federal Government having final say:
+ Can override any potential mistake that the states make for the benefit of everyone
- Disrespects the citizens of states, as their laws and morals have to comply with the rest of the nation
- Stifles innovation, as now only 1 entity instead of 50 entities can truly make decisions, as they have the final say
- Discourages people from becoming involved in politics, as they now need 50 times the resources to make any real change

I know you've been saying everyone has different "definitions of what's good for society", I acknowledged that. Individuals having different individual opinions is a given. As a society, we sometimes have to choose to act on only one of the opinions, that's also a given. The question is, how to choose?

I thought your suggestion was for the moral minority to always accept the rulings of the moral majority, when we can only choose one opinion for policy. Now you've clarified that's not what you meant. Then, how do you propose we should choose the one opinion?

lol If this information is important, sure, I'll tell you how my state government knows my family owns slaves: I suspect a grudging neighbour must've reported us to the authorities! And no, I can guarantee that our slave will definitely NOT be able to get out. *wink* So, can you finally help us condemn the state's intervention?

The "potential flaw" I was trying to show, is a logical destination from the logical foundation of your chain of reasoning. Because you're using "the smaller group of the two should always have control over their own social issues" as a foundation for "states (not federal gov.) should always have control over their own social issues", it follows that "towns (not the state) should always have control over their own social issues", and that "families (not the town) should always have control over their own social issues", and that "individuals (not family) should always have control over their own social issues". These are logical destinations derived directly from your logical origin. It's basic logic. To uphold your logical foundation means you accept those logical consequences; to not accept all of those consequences means you have to abandon that logical foundation. Which is it?

I've rejected the notion that "the federal government, or any level government, should have the final say on everything" over and over. Heck, even you can remember the reasons I've given "also work as reasons as to why the federal government shouldn't have control", why then, do you still turn around and think that I would secretly believe "the federal government should have the final say about everything"?

 

[KingVamp]

You guys are still going at it? Gees...

 

[retKHAAAN]

You guys are still going at it? Gees...

 

[leic7]

You guys are still going at it? Gees...

hey, election campaigns might be over, but the campaign to promote critical thinking isn't. :|

 

[ComeTurismO]

Well, I got to agree with KingVamp, Obama won, so Romney lovers, go cry End of TOPIC

/LOCKED
/LOL not really
XD

 

[Deleted-185407]

I know you've been saying everyone has different "definitions of what's good for society", I acknowledged that. Individuals having different individual opinions is a given. As a society, we sometimes have to choose to act on only one of the opinions, that's also a given. The question is, how to choose?

I thought your suggestion was for the moral minority to always accept the rulings of the moral majority, when we can only choose one opinion for policy. Now you've clarified that's not what you meant. Then, how do you propose we should choose the one opinion?

lol If this information is important, sure, I'll tell you how my state government knows my family owns slaves: I suspect a grudging neighbour must've reported us to the authorities! And no, I can guarantee that our slave will definitely NOT be able to get out. *wink* So, can you finally help us condemn the state's intervention?

The "potential flaw" I was trying to show, is a logical destination from the logical foundation of your chain of reasoning. Because you're using "the smaller group of the two should always have control over their own social issues" as a foundation for "states (not federal gov.) should always have control over their own social issues", it follows that "towns (not the state) should always have control over their own social issues", and that "families (not the town) should always have control over their own social issues", and that "individuals (not family) should always have control over their own social issues". These are logical destinations derived directly from your logical origin. It's basic logic. To uphold your logical foundation means you accept those logical consequences; to not accept all of those consequences means you have to abandon that logical foundation. Which is it?

I've rejected the notion that "the federal government, or any level government, should have the final say on everything" over and over. Heck, even you can remember the reasons I've given "also work as reasons as to why the federal government shouldn't have control", why then, do you still turn around and think that I would secretly believe "the federal government should have the final say about everything"?

First off, to everyone else, absolutely we should continue to discuss politics. Politics always affects us, every single day of the year, not just for elections. If you think that elections is the only time when politics matter, then you need to change your thinking about politics immediately. Personally I believe that's one of the biggest issues when it comes to politics, the fact that people aren't genuinely interested in politics, and don't do any real research into their vote. People are easily mislead and think that they have no real choice when it comes to politics. If people were to get more involved in politics, the world would be a far different place than what it currently is. I don't believe protests are useful at making changes. I believe the first step is to make people more politically aware, and to make them more politically active.

The only problem is, I don't know how to accomplish that. People love to shut off instantly when discussing anything to do with politics. People love to get angry when people have opposing opinions. People refuse to respect and try to understand where the other person is coming from when it comes to any form of discussion. Ever noticed when people discuss something on a forum, people will start flaming users for having an odd opinion, rather than trying to understand them? It's the overall attitude to discussions and politics that need to change first, but again, I have no idea how to accomplish that. We used to have no problem discussing politics and taking action when needed centuries ago, what changed? When did the right to bare arms change from being to right to fight against tyranny, to being the right to hunt and defend your home?

Back to the response, I agree that the question is "how do we choose which is the correct opinion", which is where my stance of letting the states choose comes from. The easiest rule I can think of to explain my point of view, is to consider what people are affected by the issue. At least by taking this into consideration and localising the amount of power required, you're actually not stating that any view is the correct view. The federal government isn't choosing which is the right approach, but instead, you have people implementing what they feel is the correct approach. Although again, human rights should still be respected.

You're correct in thinking that I would want town councils should also have a right to decide how town issues should be resolved. If a town council feels some of their expenditure should be focused on renovating their roads, by all means they should renovate them. If a town feels like they want to ban smoking in certain areas, by all means they should be allowed to. It's all about who's involved. Are people outside of a town affected by an smoking ban in some town park? This isn't a flaw in my reasoning, it's precisely what I'm promoting. I'm promoting the concept that issues should be localised where possible. Of course, it's highly debatable as to how to decide how large of a scope an issue is. We can go into much more in-depth discussion if we were to focus on a particular issue. However, I don't think many issues have such a massive scope, that it requires the federal government to make the final decision. Economic issues yes, social issues never.

The reason I state that you're implying that the federal government should have the final say about everything, is because you're stating that the federal government were correct to get themselves involved in slavery issues in a state. Unless I'm wrong, you're also arguing that the federal government should always get involved when the moral majority of other states feel like another state is doing wrong. You're effectively saying as a result, that what the federal government says goes, and that's that.

Of course slavery would no longer be an issue, so do you agree that the states should have the right to ignore federal law, and still legalise drugs if their citizens feel it's alright? Do you agree states should have the right to legalise gay marriage, even though the federal government might have it banned? Do you feel it's wrong for the federal government to force a state to ban gay marriage because the moral majority feels otherwise? Now here's the kicker, if you agree with those statements, is that because it just so happens those states made decisions that aligned with your morals?

Please clarify your position anyways, I don't think I'm understanding it properly. The whole reason I participate in discussions is because I want to understand where other people are coming from, so that we can both enhance our knowledge of a particular topic.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

EDIT NOW A 2016 CAMPAIGN THREAD.

So, Clinton vs. Pailin, catfight of the century. Thoughts?

 

[retKHAAAN]

EDIT NOW A 2016 CAMPAIGN THREAD.

So, Clinton vs. Pailin, catfight of the century. Thoughts?

The republicans would have to be retarded to even consider Palin at this point... I wouldn't be surprised though if she rallied teapartiers to "create a third party"...

Not necessarily a better choice, but a more popular choice would be Condoleeza Rice. It looks like they might be pandering to Hispanics with Marco Rubio though...

 

[leic7]

Wouldn't the "Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush" speculation be more entertaining, with all the "back to the future" jokes you could tell with it?

First off, to everyone else, absolutely we should continue to discuss politics. Politics always affects us, every single day of the year, not just for elections. If you think that elections is the only time when politics matter, then you need to change your thinking about politics immediately. Personally I believe that's one of the biggest issues when it comes to politics, the fact that people aren't genuinely interested in politics, and don't do any real research into their vote. People are easily mislead and think that they have no real choice when it comes to politics. If people were to get more involved in politics, the world would be a far different place than what it currently is. I don't believe protests are useful at making changes. I believe the first step is to make people more politically aware, and to make them more politically active.

The only problem is, I don't know how to accomplish that. People love to shut off instantly when discussing anything to do with politics. People love to get angry when people have opposing opinions. People refuse to respect and try to understand where the other person is coming from when it comes to any form of discussion. Ever noticed when people discuss something on a forum, people will start flaming users for having an odd opinion, rather than trying to understand them? It's the overall attitude to discussions and politics that need to change first, but again, I have no idea how to accomplish that. We used to have no problem discussing politics and taking action when needed centuries ago, what changed? When did the right to bare arms change from being to right to fight against tyranny, to being the right to hunt and defend your home?

Back to the response, I agree that the question is "how do we choose which is the correct opinion", which is where my stance of letting the states choose comes from. The easiest rule I can think of to explain my point of view, is to consider what people are affected by the issue. At least by taking this into consideration and localising the amount of power required, you're actually not stating that any view is the correct view. The federal government isn't choosing which is the right approach, but instead, you have people implementing what they feel is the correct approach. Although again, human rights should still be respected.

You're correct in thinking that I would want town councils should also have a right to decide how town issues should be resolved. If a town council feels some of their expenditure should be focused on renovating their roads, by all means they should renovate them. If a town feels like they want to ban smoking in certain areas, by all means they should be allowed to. It's all about who's involved. Are people outside of a town affected by an smoking ban in some town park? This isn't a flaw in my reasoning, it's precisely what I'm promoting. I'm promoting the concept that issues should be localised where possible. Of course, it's highly debatable as to how to decide how large of a scope an issue is. We can go into much more in-depth discussion if we were to focus on a particular issue. However, I don't think many issues have such a massive scope, that it requires the federal government to make the final decision. Economic issues yes, social issues never.

The reason I state that you're implying that the federal government should have the final say about everything, is because you're stating that the federal government were correct to get themselves involved in slavery issues in a state. Unless I'm wrong, you're also arguing that the federal government should always get involved when the moral majority of other states feel like another state is doing wrong. You're effectively saying as a result, that what the federal government says goes, and that's that.

Of course slavery would no longer be an issue, so do you agree that the states should have the right to ignore federal law, and still legalise drugs if their citizens feel it's alright? Do you agree states should have the right to legalise gay marriage, even though the federal government might have it banned? Do you feel it's wrong for the federal government to force a state to ban gay marriage because the moral majority feels otherwise? Now here's the kicker, if you agree with those statements, is that because it just so happens those states made decisions that aligned with your morals?

Please clarify your position anyways, I don't think I'm understanding it properly. The whole reason I participate in discussions is because I want to understand where other people are coming from, so that we can both enhance our knowledge of a particular topic.

The problem with your arguments is, you don't have a solid logical foundation for them, instead, your arguments are based on little fragments borrowed from other arguments such as "no view is the correct view" and "human rights should be respected". You don't seem to actually understand the logical basis for the arguments you've borrowed, you just use the phrases that sound good to you, and the result is, different phrases you end up using actually contradicting each other logically.


So, who is involved in slavery? Should my family be allowed slavery? You still haven't answered that question.

Who is involved in abortion? Who should be allowed to decide whether or not to have an abortion?

Who is involved in same-sex marriage? Whose views should be counted and whose views shouldn't be counted?

Do you know why I said the federal government was correct to get involved in the slavery issue in states? No, "because they're the majority" is not the reason. The reason is, "slavery is wrong". So the federal government would be correct to tell the state to abolish slavery, when the state was sanctioning slavery. By the same token, the federal government would be incorrect to tell the state to sanction slavery, when the state had abolished it; the state should rightfully ignore any such federal request. When it would be correct for the federal government to get involved depends on who's right and who's wrong.

I've used many examples in which "right" and "wrong" can be determined in another discipline, namely science. But it seems the connections have gone over your head. Individuals have different individual realities about how the physical world works, but beyond these individual realities, there's an objective reality. In sciences, we can evaluate who's right and who's wrong, based on what we know of the objective reality. In social sciences, we can do the same. We can evaluate who's right and who's wrong, based on what we know of the objective reality.

"Omega-3 supplements are good for our health" is wrong, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human health, the benefits of Omega-3 supplements do not outweigh the costs of Omega-3 supplements.

Likewise:

"Slavery is good for our society" is wrong, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of slavery do not outweigh the costs of slavery.

"A ban on abortion is good for our society" is wrong, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of abortion ban do not outweigh the costs of abortion ban.

"A ban on same-sex marriage is good for our society" is wrong, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of marriage inequality do not outweigh the costs of marriage inequality.

"A ban on marijuana is good for our society" is wrong, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of marijuana ban do not outweigh the costs of marijuana ban.

Etc. etc. etc.

What's right and what's wrong in public policy, is independent of the size of the group promoting the policy, but dependent on the objective reality of human flourishing. I don't care who's promoting a wrong policy, or how strongly they "feel" about the wrong policy they're promoting, a wrong policy is a wrong policy. If the federal government has a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, the federal government is wrong. If a state has a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, the state is wrong. If I advocate a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, I am wrong. If you advocate a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, you are wrong. etc. etc. The only sensible way forward, is to guide our policy-making by the objective reality. Much like what we do in science.

 

[Deleted-185407]

The problem with your arguments is, you don't have a solid logical foundation for them, instead, your arguments are based on little fragments borrowed from other arguments such as "no view is the correct view" and "human rights should be respected". You don't seem to actually understand the logical basis for the arguments you've borrowed, you just use the phrases that sound good to you, and the result is, different phrases you end up using actually contradicting each other logically.


So, who is involved in slavery? Should my family be allowed slavery? You still haven't answered that question.

Who is involved in abortion? Who should be allowed to decide whether or not to have an abortion?

Who is involved in same-sex marriage? Whose views should be counted and whose views shouldn't be counted?

Do you know why I said the federal government was correct to get involved in the slavery issue in states? No, "because they're the majority" is not the reason. The reason is, "slavery is wrong". So the federal government would be correct to tell the state to abolish slavery, when the state was sanctioning slavery. By the same token, the federal government would be incorrect to tell the state to sanction slavery, when the state had abolished it; the state should rightfully ignore any such federal request. When it would be correct for the federal government to get involved depends on who's right and who's wrong.

I've used many examples in which "right" and "wrong" can be determined in another discipline, namely science. But it seems the connections have gone over your head. Individuals have different individual realities about how the physical world works, but beyond these individual realities, there's an objective reality. In sciences, we can evaluate who's right and who's wrong, based on what we know of the objective reality. In social sciences, we can do the same. We can evaluate who's right and who's wrong, based on what we know of the objective reality.

"Omega-3 supplements are good for our health" is wrong, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human health, the benefits of Omega-3 supplements do not outweigh the costs of Omega-3 supplements.

Likewise:

"Slavery is good for our society" is wrong, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of slavery do not outweigh the costs of slavery.

"A ban on abortion is good for our society" is wrong, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of abortion ban do not outweigh the costs of abortion ban.

"A ban on same-sex marriage is good for our society" is wrong, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of marriage inequality do not outweigh the costs of marriage inequality.

"A ban on marijuana is good for our society" is wrong, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of marijuana ban do not outweigh the costs of marijuana ban.

Etc. etc. etc.

What's right and what's wrong in public policy, is independent of the size of the group promoting the policy, but dependent on the objective reality of human flourishing. I don't care who's promoting a wrong policy, or how strongly they "feel" about the wrong policy they're promoting, a wrong policy is a wrong policy. If the federal government has a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, the federal government is wrong. If a state has a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, the state is wrong. If I advocate a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, I am wrong. If you advocate a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, you are wrong. etc. etc. The only sensible way forward, is to guide our policy-making by the objective reality. Much like what we do in science.

There's no contradiction when an explicit exception is made. Exceptions aren't illogical at all, and they reinforce logical reasoning most of the time. My views are to me, far more logical than your views are, but I'm making no claim that my views are the correct views. Similarly, there's nothing contradictory about the view that states (just like countries in the EU), should have the right to determine their laws, unless it involves human rights, as human rights should also trump laws. That's not illogical nor contradictory. It's again a view, but that doesn't mean that view is correct.

I'm not going to entertain your slavery example as there's no point, as I've already admitted that there are potential flaws to my views. But the fact you have to resort to a ridiculous example actually proves my point that my views are logical, and most of the time work perfectly. The fact is, is that you're not able to provide a modern realistic everyday scenario to prove that social issues shouldn't be localised as much as possible. As for the other topics, they're highly debatable, so there's no point discussing them here. But again, how does that prove that the states at minimum shouldn't be allowed to determine whether or not something should be deemed right or wrong?

As for determining what is right or wrong, you're still missing the point. You can use a logical path to determine what you think is right or wrong, but another person can use a different path entirely to arrive at a different conclusion. You're arguing that to any debate, only one side is correct. But then what's the point of debating if only one side is correct? Are you of the opinion that your view is the only correct view? If these issues were that simple, you would never see a clear divide anywhere.

Have you never been in a position where you were undecided about something because you felt both sides put up a strong argument?

 

[leic7]

There's no contradiction when an explicit exception is made. Exceptions aren't illogical at all, and they reinforce logical reasoning most of the time. My views are to me, far more logical than your views are, but I'm making no claim that my views are the correct views. Similarly, there's nothing contradictory about the view that states (just like countries in the EU), should have the right to determine their laws, unless it involves human rights, as human rights should also trump laws. That's not illogical nor contradictory. It's again a view, but that doesn't mean that view is correct.

I'm not going to entertain your slavery example as there's no point, as I've already admitted that there are potential flaws to my views. But the fact you have to resort to a ridiculous example actually proves my point that my views are logical, and most of the time work perfectly. The fact is, is that you're not able to provide a modern realistic everyday scenario to prove that social issues shouldn't be localised as much as possible. As for the other topics, they're highly debatable, so there's no point discussing them here. But again, how does that prove that the states at minimum shouldn't be allowed to determine whether or not something should be deemed right or wrong?

As for determining what is right or wrong, you're still missing the point. You can use a logical path to determine what you think is right or wrong, but another person can use a different path entirely to arrive at a different conclusion. You're arguing that to any debate, only one side is correct. But then what's the point of debating if only one side is correct? Are you of the opinion that your view is the only correct view? If these issues were that simple, you would never see a clear divide anywhere.

Have you never been in a position where you were undecided about something because you felt both sides put up a strong argument?

Does your explicit exception itself have a logical basis, though? When the logical basis of an exception contradicts the logical basis of the general rule, you have a contradiction. To reconcile such differences, you need to revise the logical basis of either the rule, or the exception, or both. I don't know if you've already revised your earlier position that "states should always make their own laws"?

Or is "states (just like countries in the EU), should have the right to determine their laws, unless it involves human rights, as human rights should also trump laws" you new position now?

What's a "modern realistic everyday" example that's also not "highly debatable"? lol You're right, that's tough. The only thing I can think of that fits the bill is...rape. So, exchange the word "slavery" for the word "rape" in my example, then. Would you support my family's decision to rape our own family members?

It's really too bad that you won't discuss the abortion issue in the context of "state authority vs. federal authority", because that is another good example to show the logical inconsistencies among your arguments.

As for different people taking different logical pathways and arriving at different conclusions, that depends on what the problem is, and what their conclusions are. For example,

2 + _____ + _____ = 4

2 + 1 + 1 = 4
2 + 0 + 2 = 4
2 + 3 + (-1) = 4

...as well as many others, are correct answers. But, there can be incorrect answers:

2 + 1 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 + 2 = 4

are incorrect.

I am not arguing to any debate, only one side is correct. I'm also not saying that my view is the only correct view. What I said was, there's an objective reality, that we can use to evaluate different individual subjective realities with. What this means is the view that can be backed up by the objective reality is the correct view. There can be infinitely many correct views to a given problem, but that does NOT mean all views are equally correct, as shown in the above example.

I have seen debates where both sides gave compelling arguments, of course. Social issues are not the only area where you find strong arguments from different sides of a dispute. This happens in medicine, biology, ecology, psychology, genetics, physics, mathematics, engineering, astronomy, etc. How do people resolve their differences of opinion in those disciplines? They research, check results against objective reality, revise opinion accordingly, rinse and repeat. That's the attitude for doing sciences, and that should be the attitude for "doing" governments, as well.

 

[Deleted-185407]

Does your explicit exception itself have a logical basis, though? When the logical basis of an exception contradicts the logical basis of the general rule, you have a contradiction. To reconcile such differences, you need to revise the logical basis of either the rule, or the exception, or both. I don't know if you've already revised your earlier position that "states should always make their own laws"?

Or is "states (just like countries in the EU), should have the right to determine their laws, unless it involves human rights, as human rights should also trump laws" you new position now?

What's a "modern realistic everyday" example that's also not "highly debatable"? lol You're right, that's tough. The only thing I can think of that fits the bill is...rape. So, exchange the word "slavery" for the word "rape" in my example, then. Would you support my family's decision to rape our own family members?

It's really too bad that you won't discuss the abortion issue in the context of "state authority vs. federal authority", because that is another good example to show the logical inconsistencies among your arguments.

As for different people taking different logical pathways and arriving at different conclusions, that depends on what the problem is, and what their conclusions are. For example,

2 + _____ + _____ = 4

2 + 1 + 1 = 4
2 + 0 + 2 = 4
2 + 3 + (-1) = 4

...as well as many others, are correct answers. But, there can be incorrect answers:

2 + 1 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 + 2 = 4

are incorrect.

I am not arguing to any debate, only one side is correct. I'm also not saying that my view is the only correct view. What I said was, there's an objective reality, that we can use to evaluate different individual subjective realities with. What this means is the view that can be backed up by the objective reality is the correct view. There can be infinitely many correct views to a given problem, but that does NOT mean all views are equally correct, as shown in the above example.

I have seen debates where both sides gave compelling arguments, of course. Social issues are not the only area where you find strong arguments from different sides of a dispute. This happens in medicine, biology, ecology, psychology, genetics, physics, mathematics, engineering, astronomy, etc. How do people resolve their differences of opinion in those disciplines? They research, check results against objective reality, revise opinion accordingly, rinse and repeat. That's the attitude for doing sciences, and that should be the attitude for "doing" governments, as well.

My position was never "states should always have the right to decide their laws". It's that political issues should be localised as much as possible, depending on the people that issue involves. It's very rare for a social issue to have such a wide scope, that it requires every single state to get involved in the issue. If you're disgusted by the idea of same-sex marriage and have the opinion that it's going to warp the children's minds, same-sex marriage in a far away state is not going to affect you or your children. Determining scope is the real issue here.

So there's no new position at all. I've always been of the opinion that human-rights should trump any law, federal or state. The federal government have introduced laws that goes against human rights, and human-rights should still trump those laws. It's immoral for the federal government to kill people without trial, it's immoral for the federal government to lock people up indefinitely without trial, it's immoral for the federal government to keep track of their citizen's online activity. I'm sure we can both agree there? If your reasoning for states to not have the right to manage their own people is because they can ignore human rights, then that very same argument can be used against a federal government.

What you need to present, is evidence that the federal government respects human rights more than the state governments do, and that of course, is impossible. At the end of the day, it's still people in federal government and in state government.

You're again trying to use ridiculous dark-age examples that nobody is ever going to vote for. Nobody is going to legalise violence. Nobody is going to legalise rape. Nobody is going to legalise slavery. Give me an example that has a clear division of opinion. You mention how the abortion discussion could reveal flaws, so tell me what those flaws are. What if the federal government banned abortion, yet a state wants it legalised? What if the federal government allowed abortion yet a state wants to ban it because they feel it's sickening?

Here's the question for you, would you rather have choices, or no choice? With federal government having control over issues, you have no choice, end of story. When states have control, you have 50 variations of how society could be ran. If you feel that abortion and drugs should be legal, you might feel comfortable living in state A. If you feel that abortion is horrible, but drugs are okay, then you might feel comfortable in state B. If you feel that both are horrible, then you might feel comfortable in state C. It provides choice. If the federal government has control, the options of the citizens are limited, even if the majority of the citizens in that state feel otherwise and have strong evidence to suggest that their opinion is superior.

You're promoting the concept that there should be only one single path, and everyone has to take it no matter what. You don't want there to be multiple paths for which citizens can choose from. You want to limit choice and innovation. You want a small group of idiots who hardly work as it is, to decide how the whole country should be ran, instead of the smaller guys who most likely work harder, and have a better idea of what they need solved. You want people who have no real understanding about issues in one state, to make decisions for that state, even though that state probably has a far superior understanding as to what they need.

And on the final point, there wouldn't be divided opinions on anything even if you adopted such a process. Take abortion, some people will feel sick at the idea of removing a bunch of cells close shortly after conception. Others might think it's okay. Both sides can make perfectly logical arguments, but at the end of the day, emotions do affect opinions, and issues like abortion cannot be objectively tested. To assume so, is to imply that having different opinions is impossible in the long-run.

 

[leic7]

My position was never "states should always have the right to decide their laws". It's that political issues should be localised as much as possible, depending on the people that issue involves. It's very rare for a social issue to have such a wide scope, that it requires every single state to get involved in the issue. If you're disgusted by the idea of same-sex marriage and have the opinion that it's going to warp the children's minds, same-sex marriage in a far away state is not going to affect you or your children. Determining scope is the real issue here.

So there's no new position at all. I've always been of the opinion that human-rights should trump any law, federal or state. The federal government have introduced laws that goes against human rights, and human-rights should still trump those laws. It's immoral for the federal government to kill people without trial, it's immoral for the federal government to lock people up indefinitely without trial, it's immoral for the federal government to keep track of their citizen's online activity. I'm sure we can both agree there? If your reasoning for states to not have the right to manage their own people is because they can ignore human rights, then that very same argument can be used against a federal government.

What you need to present, is evidence that the federal government respects human rights more than the state governments do, and that of course, is impossible. At the end of the day, it's still people in federal government and in state government.

You're again trying to use ridiculous dark-age examples that nobody is ever going to vote for. Nobody is going to legalise violence. Nobody is going to legalise rape. Nobody is going to legalise slavery. Give me an example that has a clear division of opinion. You mention how the abortion discussion could reveal flaws, so tell me what those flaws are. What if the federal government banned abortion, yet a state wants it legalised? What if the federal government allowed abortion yet a state wants to ban it because they feel it's sickening?

Here's the question for you, would you rather have choices, or no choice? With federal government having control over issues, you have no choice, end of story. When states have control, you have 50 variations of how society could be ran. If you feel that abortion and drugs should be legal, you might feel comfortable living in state A. If you feel that abortion is horrible, but drugs are okay, then you might feel comfortable in state B. If you feel that both are horrible, then you might feel comfortable in state C. It provides choice. If the federal government has control, the options of the citizens are limited, even if the majority of the citizens in that state feel otherwise and have strong evidence to suggest that their opinion is superior.

You're promoting the concept that there should be only one single path, and everyone has to take it no matter what. You don't want there to be multiple paths for which citizens can choose from. You want to limit choice and innovation. You want a small group of idiots who hardly work as it is, to decide how the whole country should be ran, instead of the smaller guys who most likely work harder, and have a better idea of what they need solved. You want people who have no real understanding about issues in one state, to make decisions for that state, even though that state probably has a far superior understanding as to what they need.

And on the final point, there wouldn't be divided opinions on anything even if you adopted such a process. Take abortion, some people will feel sick at the idea of removing a bunch of cells close shortly after conception. Others might think it's okay. Both sides can make perfectly logical arguments, but at the end of the day, emotions do affect opinions, and issues like abortion cannot be objectively tested. To assume so, is to imply that having different opinions is impossible in the long-run.

I thought your position was initially "it's always immoral for the federal government to get involved in legislation made by the state" because "states should always have the right to decide their laws". Now you're finally saying that was not your position?

So, is it alright for the federal government to get involved, when a state introduced a law that goes against human rights?

For abortion, the only ones involved are the individuals, i.e. the mother and the fetus. If the Irish majority can force their moral views on the Irish minority, i.e. the mother who wishes for an abortion and her fetus, then the EU majority can force their moral views on the EU minority, i.e. this mother and her fetus. If a pro-choice man can be forced to live under the majority rule of the moral majority within the boundaries of Ireland, a pro-life man can be forced to live under the majority rule of the moral majority within the boundaries of EU.

Since you're against that kind of moral majority rule, you are against the Irish moral majority rule on abortion, right? I don't mean the decision itself, but I mean you would be against allowing the Irish majority the right to decide for the minority, correct?

Both federal and state governments can make immoral decisions. The same argument against letting a federal government always have the right to make those decisions is the same argument against letting a state government always have the right to make those decisions. Please explain why I "need to present evidence that the federal government respects human rights more than the state governments do"?

What if the federal government banned abortion, yet a state wants it legalised? The federal government is wrong, the state should have the right to legalise abortion. What if the federal government allowed abortion yet a state wants to ban it because they feel it's sickening? The state is wrong, and the federal government should step in.

About "choice": specify what kind of choice you're talking about? If it's about the choice to rape, the choice to torture, the choice to let poor people die if they cannot afford to pay? Then no, I would rather not have the choice. If the federal government bans those things, so that states don't have the choice to do those things, it's a good thing, actually. However, if it's about the choice to do wonderful things, then yeah, sure.

I clearly demonstrated there could be infinitely many correct answers to a problem, only to have you turn around and repeat I'm "promoting the concept that there should be only one single path, and everyone has to take it no matter what." This is awesome. *sigh* I don't have time to spoon-feed you anymore. Sit in on an introductory logic course, if you wish.

 

[Deleted-185407]

I thought your position was initially "it's always immoral for the federal government to get involved in legislation made by the state" because "states should always have the right to decide their laws". Now you're finally saying that was not your position?

So, is it alright for the federal government to get involved, when a state introduced a law that goes against human rights?

For abortion, the only ones involved are the individuals, i.e. the mother and the fetus. If the Irish majority can force their moral views on the Irish minority, i.e. the mother who wishes for an abortion and her fetus, then the EU majority can force their moral views on the EU minority, i.e. this mother and her fetus. If a pro-choice man can be forced to live under the majority rule of the moral majority within the boundaries of Ireland, a pro-life man can be forced to live under the majority rule of the moral majority within the boundaries of EU.

Since you're against that kind of moral majority rule, you are against the Irish moral majority rule on abortion, right? I don't mean the decision itself, but I mean you would be against allowing the Irish majority the right to decide for the minority, correct?

Both federal and state governments can make immoral decisions. The same argument against letting a federal government always have the right to make those decisions is the same argument against letting a state government always have the right to make those decisions. Please explain why I "need to present evidence that the federal government respects human rights more than the state governments do"?

What if the federal government banned abortion, yet a state wants it legalised? The federal government is wrong, the state should have the right to legalise abortion. What if the federal government allowed abortion yet a state wants to ban it because they feel it's sickening? The state is wrong, and the federal government should step in.

About "choice": specify what kind of choice you're talking about? If it's about the choice to rape, the choice to torture, the choice to let poor people die if they cannot afford to pay? Then no, I would rather not have the choice. If the federal government bans those things, so that states don't have the choice to do those things, it's a good thing, actually. However, if it's about the choice to do wonderful things, then yeah, sure.

I clearly demonstrated there could be infinitely many correct answers to a problem, only to have you turn around and repeat I'm "promoting the concept that there should be only one single path, and everyone has to take it no matter what." This is awesome. *sigh* I don't have time to spoon-feed you anymore. Sit in on an introductory logic course, if you wish.

That was never my position as I've stated. I've stated that issues should be localised as much as possible. If something for example involves the future of the dollar, then obviously the federal government should have the strongest say on what should happen to it. If it comes to gay marriage, the federal government has no right to force it's morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation. And of course, human rights should always trump any law. So your original assumption is indeed incorrect.

Was it alright for the federal government to intervene on slavery? Did human rights actually state that slavery wasn't acceptable back then? I honestly don't know off the top of my head what the human rights were back then, if they even existed that is. But if you want to provide that data, feel free to. But of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate of defining what the role of the federal government should be.

If the federal government is just as immoral as every single other government in existence, then why do you trust them with so much power? Why do you trust them so much that you'll give up your options? Why do you trust them so much that you'll give up your ability to change political issues? Personally, I wouldn't trust the European Union at all with so much power. We barely trust them with our country's finances as it is. Why would we trust essentially complete strangers bar from one individual to determine our social issues?

You are promoting the concept of "there's only one correct answer" when you blatantly stated that the federal government would be wrong to ban abortion.

Let's take a completely different direction here. If we were to let the EU decide what our social laws should be, should the EU be allowed to decide what laws the American people should follow? According to your arguments, yes we should be allowed to run your country. You have no clear definition of who should have control over what. If the federal government should have the right to decide what laws the states should follow, subsequently that means that the EU and Asia and so on should have the right to determine what laws America should follow. After all, if that's what the majority of other countries believe, it should be perfectly fine right? You specifically won't fight back or give out to the other countries for forcing their beliefs onto you though right? Would you be happy with a world government that determines absolutely everything for everyone, and will force you to change your ways if it doesn't meet with theirs?

 

[leic7]

That was never my position as I've stated. I've stated that issues should be localised as much as possible. If something for example involves the future of the dollar, then obviously the federal government should have the strongest say on what should happen to it. If it comes to gay marriage, the federal government has no right to force it's morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation. And of course, human rights should always trump any law. So your original assumption is indeed incorrect.

Was it alright for the federal government to intervene on slavery? Did human rights actually state that slavery wasn't acceptable back then? I honestly don't know off the top of my head what the human rights were back then, if they even existed that is. But if you want to provide that data, feel free to. But of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate of defining what the role of the federal government should be.

If the federal government is just as immoral as every single other government in existence, then why do you trust them with so much power? Why do you trust them so much that you'll give up your options? Why do you trust them so much that you'll give up your ability to change political issues? Personally, I wouldn't trust the European Union at all with so much power. We barely trust them with our country's finances as it is. Why would we trust essentially complete strangers bar from one individual to determine our social issues?

You are promoting the concept of "there's only one correct answer" when you blatantly stated that the federal government would be wrong to ban abortion.

Let's take a completely different direction here. If we were to let the EU decide what our social laws should be, should the EU be allowed to decide what laws the American people should follow? According to your arguments, yes we should be allowed to run your country. You have no clear definition of who should have control over what. If the federal government should have the right to decide what laws the states should follow, subsequently that means that the EU and Asia and so on should have the right to determine what laws America should follow. After all, if that's what the majority of other countries believe, it should be perfectly fine right? You specifically won't fight back or give out to the other countries for forcing their beliefs onto you though right? Would you be happy with a world government that determines absolutely everything for everyone, and will force you to change your ways if it doesn't meet with theirs?

It seems that you're referring to "human rights" strictly in its legal sense? Since those "rights" are usually defined and enforced by a very large governing body, such as the federal government; the "human rights" in the federal legislations are essentially the "morals and beliefs" of the federal government, aren't they? Yet, you're okay with the federal government "forcing its morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation" with that piece of legislation?

Are you of the opinion that it's alright for the federal government to intervene in state laws, so long as such intervention is prescribed by a federal law? I just can't tell what exactly you mean by the federal government "forcing its morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation".

Just in case my question still isn't clear, let me ask again: is it alright for the federal government to get involved, when a state introduced a law that goes against the "human rights" spelled out and protected by federal law? If not, what do you mean by "human rights should always trump any law"?

You've placed yourself in a rather awkward position when you chose to defend the Irish law on abortion. The Irish abortion law was based on the results of a general referendum, which means the ban was essentially "a moral majority ruling", which is something you rejected. So, to both defend the Irish abortion law and reject "a moral majority ruling" would be a contradiction. If you were to make an exception for the "abortion" issue to allow "a moral majority ruling" on, then that would mean you would accept the EU's "moral majority ruling" on "abortion", but you've rejected that already, so it can't be done. If you were to make an exception for "Ireland" to allow "a moral majority ruling" in Ireland, but no exception for "EU", because "local issues should be localised as much as possible" and Ireland is more "local" than the EU, then you would be against the Irish abortion ban, because the Irish individuals should have their own "moral majority ruling" on abortion instead of the Irish government as the individual is more "local" than the government; but you aren't against the Irish abortion ban, another contradiction.

If by "trust", you mean "to let go of all control and to put blind faith in their ability to never do wrong", then no, I don't "trust" any government at all. Neither should any Irish pregnant woman. A government (of any level) should not be allowed the power to uphold a wrong decision. And yes, banning abortion is wrong. It's objectively wrong. I basically treat it like a scientific problem: the outcome of a total ban on abortion produces more tangible harm than tangible good to our society. A policy that overall tangibly harms the society is a wrong policy.

I did say that the international community would have an obligation to get involved when a country's government had made a horribly wrong mistake, did I not? It's either the people in that country fight for justice; or in the case where the balance of power is so skewed in one way within the country that there's no hope of justice for the people, the international community should step in. Justice knows no national boundaries, or state boundaries. Justice has no in-group loyalty. Inviting the international community to pitch in to help correct a single mistake, is a far cry from asking them to run the country for us 24/7 and to make every current and future decision for us. I will not be the person that stands in the way of help that will clearly benefit my people, just because the helpers themselves don't wear the same colour jersey.

 

[Deleted-185407]

It seems that you're referring to "human rights" strictly in its legal sense? Since those "rights" are usually defined and enforced by a very large governing body, such as the federal government; the "human rights" in the federal legislations are essentially the "morals and beliefs" of the federal government, aren't they? Yet, you're okay with the federal government "forcing its morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation" with that piece of legislation?

Are you of the opinion that it's alright for the federal government to intervene in state laws, so long as such intervention is prescribed by a federal law? I just can't tell what exactly you mean by the federal government "forcing its morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation".

Just in case my question still isn't clear, let me ask again: is it alright for the federal government to get involved, when a state introduced a law that goes against the "human rights" spelled out and protected by federal law? If not, what do you mean by "human rights should always trump any law"?

You've placed yourself in a rather awkward position when you chose to defend the Irish law on abortion. The Irish abortion law was based on the results of a general referendum, which means the ban was essentially "a moral majority ruling", which is something you rejected. So, to both defend the Irish abortion law and reject "a moral majority ruling" would be a contradiction. If you were to make an exception for the "abortion" issue to allow "a moral majority ruling" on, then that would mean you would accept the EU's "moral majority ruling" on "abortion", but you've rejected that already, so it can't be done. If you were to make an exception for "Ireland" to allow "a moral majority ruling" in Ireland, but no exception for "EU", because "local issues should be localised as much as possible" and Ireland is more "local" than the EU, then you would be against the Irish abortion ban, because the Irish individuals should have their own "moral majority ruling" on abortion instead of the Irish government as the individual is more "local" than the government; but you aren't against the Irish abortion ban, another contradiction.

If by "trust", you mean "to let go of all control and to put blind faith in their ability to never do wrong", then no, I don't "trust" any government at all. Neither should any Irish pregnant woman. A government (of any level) should not be allowed the power to uphold a wrong decision. And yes, banning abortion is wrong. It's objectively wrong. I basically treat it like a scientific problem: the outcome of a total ban on abortion produces more tangible harm than tangible good to our society. A policy that overall tangibly harms the society is a wrong policy.

I did say that the international community would have an obligation to get involved when a country's government had made a horribly wrong mistake, did I not? It's either the people in that country fight for justice; or in the case where the balance of power is so skewed in one way within the country that there's no hope of justice for the people, the international community should step in. Justice knows no national boundaries, or state boundaries. Justice has no in-group loyalty. Inviting the international community to pitch in to help correct a single mistake, is a far cry from asking them to run the country for us 24/7 and to make every current and future decision for us. I will not be the person that stands in the way of help that will clearly benefit my people, just because the helpers themselves don't wear the same colour jersey.

Throughout your entire argument, you have yet to state a reason why we can't let the states do as they please when it comes to issues with no clear right/wrong. There's no clear right or wrong answer for drug legalisation. There's no clear right/wrong for abortion. There's no clear right/wrong for gay marriage, and so on and so forth. If there was, again, there would never be such heavy divide on the topics. The arguments you've presented are circular. You're trying to nit-pick someone else's arguments, without providing any real reason as to why federal government should have control. Your attacking one side without giving your side any strength.

I'm not sure who decides on human rights from the American approach, so perhaps it works differently there. Either way, regardless of how you look at it, no state is ever going to implement a law that violates an individual's human rights. That's really the point I was trying to bring across anyways. Is it alright for the federal government to force a state to change its ways if it violates human rights? Who knows, no state has introduced a law doing so yet, and I don't see that happening. We'll see what the violation is, what the topic is, and perhaps we'll see what will happen then. It's why the earlier example of slavery is unanswerable. I wasn't around back then, so I have no idea if it was appropriate or not.

You do realise abortion also involves other local citizens as well, and not just the mother and child? It also involves the surgeon who will be performing the abortion, as well as citizens who would have to dispose of the cells and so on and so forth. Abortions involve far more than just the mother. That's why when determining the scope for abortion, it's far larger than just the mother and the child. However, the rest of the EU is not impacted by the abortion of a child in Ireland. Therefore, the scope should be no higher than state level. There's no contradiction. You're not considering the actual scope in an abortion issue.

You have your opinion that abortion is perfectly fine, when there's logical evidence to suggest it's not fine. You're stating that someone is wrong, rather than stating that you disagree with their opinion. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important one. You have to accept that people will have different opinions that are just as logical as yours. You might not understand where another person is coming from, but to state that they're wrong about a subjective topic is logically wrong in itself. I honestly don't get what's so hard for people to understand about that. Again, if issues were that easily resolved logically, you'd never see a huge divide. The fact that huge divides exist, clearly prove that there is no right/wrong. The fact that these issues have been going on for ages and ages clearly again show there is no right/wrong. The fact that these issues have strong logic on both sides clearly show there is no right/wrong. To state that your opinion is correct is ignorant and highly disrespectful to others. If someone was strongly pro-life, while I might be pro-choice, I would listen to their opinion, try to understand it, and then give them my perspective. I would never however tell them they are wrong unless there's a fact they've misunderstood.

Your sense of "justice" is what got your country attacked, and will continue to be attacked in the near future. You have one opinion on what is justice, and another person have their own. Heck, there's logical arguments as to why having a dictatorship can be a good thing, and why democracy is a load of nonsense. If the country's people or state are happy with their decision, you really have no moral right to jump in and tell them what to do.

How would you feel if the EU and Asia decided to attack the US, and take control over your government, because they felt that the US government made the wrong decision with <insert decision you approve of here>?

 

[leic7]

Throughout your entire argument, you have yet to state a reason why we can't let the states do as they please when it comes to issues with no clear right/wrong. There's no clear right or wrong answer for drug legalisation. There's no clear right/wrong for abortion. There's no clear right/wrong for gay marriage, and so on and so forth. If there was, again, there would never be such heavy divide on the topics. The arguments you've presented are circular. You're trying to nit-pick someone else's arguments, without providing any real reason as to why federal government should have control. Your attacking one side without giving your side any strength.

I'm not sure who decides on human rights from the American approach, so perhaps it works differently there. Either way, regardless of how you look at it, no state is ever going to implement a law that violates an individual's human rights. That's really the point I was trying to bring across anyways. Is it alright for the federal government to force a state to change its ways if it violates human rights? Who knows, no state has introduced a law doing so yet, and I don't see that happening. We'll see what the violation is, what the topic is, and perhaps we'll see what will happen then. It's why the earlier example of slavery is unanswerable. I wasn't around back then, so I have no idea if it was appropriate or not.

You do realise abortion also involves other local citizens as well, and not just the mother and child? It also involves the surgeon who will be performing the abortion, as well as citizens who would have to dispose of the cells and so on and so forth. Abortions involve far more than just the mother. That's why when determining the scope for abortion, it's far larger than just the mother and the child. However, the rest of the EU is not impacted by the abortion of a child in Ireland. Therefore, the scope should be no higher than state level. There's no contradiction. You're not considering the actual scope in an abortion issue.

You have your opinion that abortion is perfectly fine, when there's logical evidence to suggest it's not fine. You're stating that someone is wrong, rather than stating that you disagree with their opinion. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important one. You have to accept that people will have different opinions that are just as logical as yours. You might not understand where another person is coming from, but to state that they're wrong about a subjective topic is logically wrong in itself. I honestly don't get what's so hard for people to understand about that. Again, if issues were that easily resolved logically, you'd never see a huge divide. The fact that huge divides exist, clearly prove that there is no right/wrong. The fact that these issues have been going on for ages and ages clearly again show there is no right/wrong. The fact that these issues have strong logic on both sides clearly show there is no right/wrong. To state that your opinion is correct is ignorant and highly disrespectful to others. If someone was strongly pro-life, while I might be pro-choice, I would listen to their opinion, try to understand it, and then give them my perspective. I would never however tell them they are wrong unless there's a fact they've misunderstood.

Your sense of "justice" is what got your country attacked, and will continue to be attacked in the near future. You have one opinion on what is justice, and another person have their own. Heck, there's logical arguments as to why having a dictatorship can be a good thing, and why democracy is a load of nonsense. If the country's people or state are happy with their decision, you really have no moral right to jump in and tell them what to do.

How would you feel if the EU and Asia decided to attack the US, and take control over your government, because they felt that the US government made the wrong decision with <insert decision you approve of here>?

Maybe I "have yet to state a reason why we can't let the states do as they please when it comes to issues with no clear right/wrong", because I don't actually disagree that states should have their autonomy when they aren't clearly wrong? The reason why the federal government should have control when the state is wrong and the federal government is right, is because...the state is wrong and the federal government is right. Ain't that pretty self-explanatory?

I don't know what you consider a human rights issue? Abortion is not a human rights issue? So, you're not sure how the American approach works for human rights, yet, you're pretty sure that "no state is ever going to implement a law that violates an individual's human rights"? Hm.

If you must get into the specifics of what other parties are potentially involved in an abortion, and count all of those who can potentially be impacted by an abortion, even if the potential impact of the abortion on those people is on the periphery of the effects of their usual activities -- currently, that list of people comprises of Irish individuals and non-Irish individuals, as Irish women who are forced to seek abortions in other countries would inevitably come into contact with medical facilities in other countries. If that list of individuals make up your "scope", then you'd need to set the "scope" higher than the state level, because the list of individuals involved protrudes from the borders of Ireland. If you wish to take that route, you can say the rest of the EU is impacted as well by the lack of abortion options in Ireland.

If you wish to take that route, the number of Irish people involved is still the minority. The doctors are individuals who can decide whether or not they're willing to perform the procedure, the medical staff can decide whether they're willing to take part. A general referendum on this issue is a majority rule that forces the majority's morality on the minority, so that the minority, e.g. the doctor who's willing to do the procedure, the staff who's willing to do the procedure, and the woman who needs one, can't express their own morality. If you actually support this, then you're contradicting yourself on moral minority not being forced by the moral majority into adopting the moral expressions of the majority.

If you're still confused about this minority-majority relationship, consider the simple case of self-induced abortion, which technically only involves the mother and the fetus. The Irish law bans even self-induced abortion.

And please don't put words in my mouth, I've never said "abortion is perfectly fine". It's not. Abortion is generally a difficult decision for the woman to make, but sometimes it's just the "best" option she has among all the other more terrible options. And I do accept that other people will have different opinions that are just as logical as mine, and oftentimes, others DO have different opinions that are more logical than mine. But I also know that, sometimes, the other person's opinion just isn't that good. From my experience, it's rare to see a valid argument from the anti-abortion camp, let alone a sound argument.

I totally respect whatever personal view someone might hold in private, they can think whatever thought they want to themselves, live in a parallel subjective reality in their head, and it'd be none of my business. But the moment the discussion enters the domain of public policy, everything need to be grounded by the objective reality, because public policy operates on it and the success of human society depends on it.

When someone gives a different answer, I call it a different answer; when someone gives a wrong answer, I call it a wrong answer. Just because they might feel very strongly about the validity of their answer doesn't mean a wrong answer isn't a wrong answer. And just because there exist huge divides on a topic doesn't mean there can be no right/wrong. "Can you trisect a 60-degree angle with only a compass and an unmarked straightedge?" People have different opinions on this, sometimes strong opinions and confident answers, and there's a huge divide on the solutions. Does that prove that there's no right/wrong solutions? Don't be ridiculous.

You misunderstood what I meant by "justice"... "correcting a wrong decision made by a government" was what I meant, and if you need an example of a wrong decision, how about the ban on abortion? Not everything has to involve the army. And I'm just a Canadian. How would I feel if other countries..."attack"(?)...attack?! As in, cyber attack? Nuclear attack? Why? I would feel...very puzzled. I mean, if my country's government started slaughtering everyone, and there's a humanitarian crysis in the country, then the international community would have an obligation to get involved militarily. But why "attack"?

 

[Deleted-185407]

Maybe I "have yet to state a reason why we can't let the states do as they please when it comes to issues with no clear right/wrong", because I don't actually disagree that states should have their autonomy when they aren't clearly wrong? The reason why the federal government should have control when the state is wrong and the federal government is right, is because...the state is wrong and the federal government is right. Ain't that pretty self-explanatory?

I don't know what you consider a human rights issue? Abortion is not a human rights issue? So, you're not sure how the American approach works for human rights, yet, you're pretty sure that "no state is ever going to implement a law that violates an individual's human rights"? Hm.

If you must get into the specifics of what other parties are potentially involved in an abortion, and count all of those who can potentially be impacted by an abortion, even if the potential impact of the abortion on those people is on the periphery of the effects of their usual activities -- currently, that list of people comprises of Irish individuals and non-Irish individuals, as Irish women who are forced to seek abortions in other countries would inevitably come into contact with medical facilities in other countries. If that list of individuals make up your "scope", then you'd need to set the "scope" higher than the state level, because the list of individuals involved protrudes from the borders of Ireland. If you wish to take that route, you can say the rest of the EU is impacted as well by the lack of abortion options in Ireland.

If you wish to take that route, the number of Irish people involved is still the minority. The doctors are individuals who can decide whether or not they're willing to perform the procedure, the medical staff can decide whether they're willing to take part. A general referendum on this issue is a majority rule that forces the majority's morality on the minority, so that the minority, e.g. the doctor who's willing to do the procedure, the staff who's willing to do the procedure, and the woman who needs one, can't express their own morality. If you actually support this, then you're contradicting yourself on moral minority not being forced by the moral majority into adopting the moral expressions of the majority.

If you're still confused about this minority-majority relationship, consider the simple case of self-induced abortion, which technically only involves the mother and the fetus. The Irish law bans even self-induced abortion.

And please don't put words in my mouth, I've never said "abortion is perfectly fine". It's not. Abortion is generally a difficult decision for the woman to make, but sometimes it's just the "best" option she has among all the other more terrible options. And I do accept that other people will have different opinions that are just as logical as mine, and oftentimes, others DO have different opinions that are more logical than mine. But I also know that, sometimes, the other person's opinion just isn't that good. From my experience, it's rare to see a valid argument from the anti-abortion camp, let alone a sound argument.

I totally respect whatever personal view someone might hold in private, they can think whatever thought they want to themselves, live in a parallel subjective reality in their head, and it'd be none of my business. But the moment the discussion enters the domain of public policy, everything need to be grounded by the objective reality, because public policy operates on it and the success of human society depends on it.

When someone gives a different answer, I call it a different answer; when someone gives a wrong answer, I call it a wrong answer. Just because they might feel very strongly about the validity of their answer doesn't mean a wrong answer isn't a wrong answer. And just because there exist huge divides on a topic doesn't mean there can be no right/wrong. "Can you trisect a 60-degree angle with only a compass and an unmarked straightedge?" People have different opinions on this, sometimes strong opinions and confident answers, and there's a huge divide on the solutions. Does that prove that there's no right/wrong solutions? Don't be ridiculous.

You misunderstood what I meant by "justice"... "correcting a wrong decision made by a government" was what I meant, and if you need an example of a wrong decision, how about the ban on abortion? Not everything has to involve the army. And I'm just a Canadian. How would I feel if other countries..."attack"(?)...attack?! As in, cyber attack? Nuclear attack? Why? I would feel...very puzzled. I mean, if my country's government started slaughtering everyone, and there's a humanitarian crysis in the country, then the international community would have an obligation to get involved militarily. But why "attack"?

You still seem to be of the opinion that the majority of issues are black and white, when they really aren't. Check the video out below. Stumbled across it this morning, and it basically explains how the Republican's feel about states and their rights. If a state does something which aligns to their moral positions, then states are in the right. Yet, if a state does something the Republican's are morally against, then states are in the wrong. Sounds pretty familiar doesn't it?



You need to have consistency and logic in your policy. You might think that determining laws via right/wrong might be a good idea, but it's a very simplistic and naive view of the world. At the moment, your policy seems to be "well it doesn't matter who controls what, and it doesn't matter if their's a chaotic and confusing politic system with no real boundaries defined, as long as people follow what I believe is right/wrong". Here's some food for thought: Would you be happy if America was a dictatorship who had the exact same opinions as you had about everything? After all, he'd be implementing everything you feel is right/wrong (except removing everyone's right to vote), sounds like utopia right?

I'm not getting into the abortion debate, as we could argue forever about scope. But the fact of the matter is, an abortion in America does not affect Ireland in the least. Gun laws in America don't affect Germany in the least. Mandatory healthcare in America doesn't affect Italy in the least. A state introducing a law that gives its citizens the right to use drugs for recreational purposes, does not affect any other state. I'm sure even you can admit that all of that is true. And if you do agree, then that's how scope works. Why does it matter if one country is doing the wrong thing when it doesn't affect you in the least? Why do you feel obliged to butt in and force those people to follow your way? While it is possible in theory for an abortion in America to partially affect Ireland, the amount is negligible and can be regarded as 0.

The fact that the US has tried to force its morals onto other countries, and to force countries to obey its rules, has lead the US to getting attacked and hated by those countries. People are entitled to their beliefs, and are entitled to live the way they want to live. I personally don't concern myself with other people's business, unless it personally affects me. I'll never force anyone to change their ways if they are perfectly happy with their lives. It's a good moral to live by, and it's a moral that politics should be governed by.

 

[Gahars]

Well, now that's a stinging bit of irony: It looks like Romney's final share of the popular vote will be 47%.