Can Society be too Liberal?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: Can Society be too Liberal?
(15-03-2015 05:43 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  You're misinterpreting Chas and others and trying to make something out of nothing.
He/She was addressing me not Chas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
15-03-2015, 06:24 PM
RE: Can Society be too Liberal?
Quote:Chas doesn't decide, it's been decided by society over a period of time.
Society agrees that murder is bad and so it is made illegal. Society also accepts that murder can be good in some cases and so we legislate for that too. ie: Self defense, capital punishment etc..
Bad argument, society also decided that the traditional family is more desirable, that abortion is immoral, that prostitution is degrading and bullfighting is ok. Does this means it's the way it's supposed to be?
Quote:That's not the same. Violence, coercion and rape and separate entities from 'prostitution'. Prostitution is selling yourself for sex. Rape is rape. Punching someone in the face is punching someone in the face.
Correction - Don't say "selling yourself" because that's the definition of slavery, but say "provide a service with your body" - Sorry for being picky
Quote:Society says that rape and abuse is bad and so we legislate against that.
That's a different issue to prostitution because being raped harms the victim against their will, aka violates them. Where as prostitution is about a person's right to choice what they do with their own body.
Ok, but if there is a connection between violence and prostitution I can reasonably say prostitution is a threat to sex workers and their well being - Sure, it's a whole different crime, but if one leads to the other, both are threats - It's like saying that selling guns to everyone is ok and not a threat, the threat is only people who use guns baly.

I don't like the "my own body" argument because the government doesn't allow you to do everything you want with your body and it never will (for example, you can't demand a surgery to remove your heart without replacing it, but it's your body) I have different reasons to support prostitution and abortion - Namely I don't consider either of those to be immoral + Both bring benefits to society (including economical ones in the long run)
Quote:And so would be legislated against. However abortion isn't bringing birthrates down (to a level where we're gonna die out) and so your point is invalid.
It's just an example, I know it's not probable, I was just trying to show how it's relative. Abortion isn't immoral or harmful to me, because it's immoral to a Christian. Bullfighting is stupid and bad to me, but it isn't to a bullfighter. How do we decide who's right? What if the majority (society) doesn't want abortion - Does that mean we should ban it?
Quote:Define 'you people'.
Individualists, modern liberals and some conservatives (all have vague conceptions of "harmful" or "threatening")
Quote:No, it's society saying that this is what it wants the government to do.
We, ie Chas or myself, can offer arguments as to why we believe the homo's should be allowed to marry. This is in an attempt to change public opinion which would eventually reflect in society at a government level and be legislated accordingly.
But it's the government that creates laws to allow gays to marry and have privileges related to marriage, it's the government that legislates to benefit people and, ultimately you're only doing it because the government allows it, regardless of your personal opinion
Quote:This is how society works. We're , ie: Chas or myself, are not saying we're God and this is how it should be done (well I am but I'm sure Chas isn't), we are saying "this is the way I believe it should be done". You're misinterpreting Chas and others and trying to make something out of nothing.
Alright, fair point

Quote:Then perhaps you are conflating Prostitution with abuse, rape etc?
I've already explained that if one leads to the other with certain frequency then I can consider it a threat to sex workers
Quote:Just like any workplace there is the threat of abuse, rape etc and these events can cause serious instability to society. So government needs to address these threats. In a legitimate vocation/business the government and police force can intervene, can inspect and investigate reports of abuse. If you make prostitution illegal then a woman can't report a crime unless she is willing to incriminate herself.
I wish to regulate it, I'm just talking about how it can be a threat or not (and pretty much everything else including our most fundamental rights) - even with regulation that's no guarantee of no abuse, Holland regulates prostitution and there's still sex trafficking and coercion into exercising the job.
Quote:It wouldn't be up to me to define what is a threat or not. It would be upto the government to justify their laws, to explain to us why they are necessary, to convince us of the real threat to society if the activities aren't outlawed.
Throughout history politicians and leaders have convinced people of unthinkable things. Hitler said the master race existed, and people believed in him (at least enough to elect him). How do you know the government is right?

Quote:This is a very unlikely scenario, you are suggesting that almost everyone decides to stop having children? Let's phrase this in another way. Let's say that almost everyone decides to have protected sex and hence decides to not get pregnant and then humanity gets close to extinction. Do you think that the government ought to force people to get pregnant?
Absolutely - But before using force I propose giving benefits to people who procreate, namely tax benefits, subsidies, higher salaries, etc. In fact, I think in every society there should be slight benefits for having kids due to the hardship raising children has and our need to survive - In my country we lack young people so it's relevant to promote birth.

Quote:Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "you people". I don't belong to a club. I'm not a card carrying liberal. I don't subscribe to the Liberal Monthly magazine.

I don't even care about "rights". All I am worried about is a government making frivilous laws. On many occasions I find myself in the minority, I don't want to be forced to conform to social norms or forced into a majority rules society. I value diversity and tolerance. I see a risk when government can oppose diversity.
Diversity and tolerance means, most of all, tolerating extremely diverse positions from yours, namely the ones that propose no diversity.

How do you define diversity and the government opposing it? I don't see diversity as always a good thing because it divides people. If I could create a single unifying culture I wouldn't hesitate.

Quote:I have never paid for sex and I have never been paid for sex. It's an industry which I have no interest in. I can easily avoid paying for sex and I can easily avoid being paid for sex. I don't see the prostitution industry as a threat to me or society. I don't see it as my business to stop others from participating.
This is a bad argument, just because you haven't participated in something it doesn't mean it's valid. Would you think the same if you were a prostitute, and, let's say, your pimp abused you on a daily basis?

Quote:We differ in opinion on this. I see government's purpose as a governing body to help a stable and fruitful society. I don't see it as the government's perpose to decide what we (as adults) are allowed to do.
The government should decide on that because ultimately what we call rights comes from the government and laws. For example, two consenting adults cannot become slaves even if they want to because it's illegal, or do you think we should be able to voluntarily become slaves?

Quote:A Will can be the driver regarding inheritance, it doesn't have to be marriage. In NZ a defacto relationship by law can ensure your partner has legal rights to half your property. A person can deny their marriage partner access to their property by signing prenuptuals.
True, it's the same in my country. I'm just saying there's some legal benefits and definitions that the government needs to regulate. For example, regarding abortion the government needs to decide on the cost, who performs it and who can object, who can get abortions and until how many weeks, what hospitals perform it, etc

Quote:f it is a funding issue then sure, but what if a person chooses to go to a private clinic?
Then pay it and follow the law

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 07:49 AM
RE: Can Society be too Liberal?
(15-03-2015 05:43 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:And why do you get to define what's a threat or not? And why is something either a threat or not? Can't something be both a threat or a benefit depending on the context?

Chas doesn't decide, it's been decided by society over a period of time.

Actually, I do decide. I am the go-to guy for the Illuminati. When they need decisions on issues, they come to me.

Don't tell anyone. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-03-2015, 07:54 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 06:17 PM by Chas.)
RE: Can Society be too Liberal?
(15-03-2015 06:24 PM)Blackout Wrote:  
Quote:Chas doesn't decide, it's been decided by society over a period of time.
Society agrees that murder is bad and so it is made illegal. Society also accepts that murder can be good in some cases and so we legislate for that too. ie: Self defense, capital punishment etc..
Bad argument, society also decided that the traditional family is more desirable, that abortion is immoral, that prostitution is degrading and bullfighting is ok. Does this means it's the way it's supposed to be?

There is no "way it's supposed to be". We decide it.

Quote:
Quote:That's not the same. Violence, coercion and rape and separate entities from 'prostitution'. Prostitution is selling yourself for sex. Rape is rape. Punching someone in the face is punching someone in the face.
Correction - Don't say "selling yourself" because that's the definition of slavery, but say "provide a service with your body" - Sorry for being picky

No, "selling yourself" is the definition of a job. "Being sold by" is the definition of slavery.

Prostitution is honorable, but a pimp makes a prostitute a slave.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-03-2015, 08:34 AM
RE: Can Society be too Liberal?
Quote:Bad argument, society also decided that the traditional family is more desirable, that abortion is immoral, that prostitution is degrading and bullfighting is ok. Does this means it's the way it's supposed to be?

It's not a bad argument. Society did decide those things and than over time society has changed its mind. It isn't a switch. You don't just be one way one day and another the next. ie: Slavery in the US had the Civil War. One day people thought slavery was a bit of ok and over time other people started thinking "yea.. this slavery thing... seems sorta unfair on the slaves...". There was disagreements and a war broke out. Obviously this is an extreme example and not all decisions happen like this but the point remains. You seem to think it's a switch, it's not, it's a process.

Quote:Sorry for being picky

Besides being wrong, as Chas pointed out, there's no need to be a cunt because you don't have a valid argument.

Quote:Ok, but if there is a connection between violence and prostitution I can reasonably say prostitution is a threat to sex workers and their well being

Correction: Violence towards prostitutes goes down when prostitution is made legal.

Quote:It's like saying that selling guns to everyone is ok and not a threat, the threat is only people who use guns baly.

No it's not. Selling yourself effects nobody but yourself. Unless you have a jagged vagina you're not hurting anyone. Guns on the other hand are used to infringe on others rights and so need to be regulated against.
Even with this thing about violence being prevalent in prostitution that violence is directed towards the hooker, not the other way around. As she stands as a hooker she is not violating anyone else's rights. Her/him being a hooker effects nobody else but that person. Just like gay marriage.

Quote:I don't like the "my own body" argument

I don't care if you like it or not, the argument stands.

Quote:It's just an example, I know it's not probable, I was just trying to show how it's relative. Abortion isn't immoral or harmful to me, because it's immoral to a Christian. Bullfighting is stupid and bad to me, but it isn't to a bullfighter. How do we decide who's right? What if the majority (society) doesn't want abortion - Does that mean we should ban it?

I know it's relative, I never said it wasn't. In fact I'm pretty sure I said it was relative. Ahhh yip, there it is, first bit in my previous post.

That means that society wants it banned. That the general opinion of the public is that it's immoral/wrong/whatever and so it should be banned.
That's all. It doesn't mean it's good or bad, just that that is what that particular society believes.

Quote:But it's the government that creates laws to allow gays to marry and have privileges related to marriage, it's the government that legislates to benefit people and, ultimately you're only doing it because the government allows it, regardless of your personal opinion

And the government creates the laws because of public opinion.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 08:59 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 09:39 AM by Blackout.)
RE: Can Society be too Liberal?
Quote:It's not a bad argument. Society did decide those things and than over time society has changed its mind. It isn't a switch. You don't just be one way one day and another the next. ie: Slavery in the US had the Civil War. One day people thought slavery was a bit of ok and over time other people started thinking "yea.. this slavery thing... seems sorta unfair on the slaves...". There was disagreements and a war broke out. Obviously this is an extreme example and not all decisions happen like this but the point remains. You seem to think it's a switch, it's not, it's a process.
Still, is society the criteria to decide if something is right or wrong? And how do we decide what society thinks - The majority's opinion? The expert? The elite minority? The affected group?
Quote:Besides being wrong, as Chas pointed out, there's no need to be a cunt because you don't have a valid argument.
You are both incorrect. Selling myself implies selling me as a person and it's a vague concept. Prostitution is trading sexual services for money - It consists in using your body and your skills provide a service - You're not selling yourself because selling legally and economically implies transmitting property but you are not owned by your clients. Go check the definition of selling and providing services. Do doctors sell themselves when they cure patients? No - Then why do prostitutes sell themselves? They do more or less the same as a masseur but with more intimacy - Still, there's no property or product being handled - You're buying a service (a sexual one) not the personhood of someone

In Germany prostitution is considered a contract that both parties must consent - Legally it is defined as a "prostitutional" contract and it falls in the category of "provision of services contract" - It is considered a service. The Netherlands do the same - It's a service, a contract like any other. It's not selling yourself, that's just a popularized expression without literal meaning

Small edit - Unless you want to use the economic definition of labour as "selling yourself/Your labour force" for money - But that applies to all jobs
Quote:Correction: Violence towards prostitutes goes down when prostitution is made legal.
It depends entirely on how good or bad the regulation and laws are, on society's mentality, on the rates of corruption, on how effective the government is at investigating violence, etc.
Quote:No it's not. Selling yourself effects nobody but yourself. Unless you have a jagged vagina you're not hurting anyone. Guns on the other hand are used to infringe on others rights and so need to be regulated against.
Even with this thing about violence being prevalent in prostitution that violence is directed towards the hooker, not the other way around. As she stands as a hooker she is not violating anyone else's rights. Her/him being a hooker effects nobody else but that person. Just like gay marriage.
Guns are supposed to serve self-defence purposes.

The fact that it doesn't hurt anyone else (a relative statement for starters) is irrelevant to determine if it's acceptable or not, there are many reasons why things are legalized or not, namely utility, economic benefits, pragmatism, etc. And prostitution affects (1) The person providing the service that sometimes is either coerced or doesn't want to do it but has no choice (2) Affects the client because it can lead to addiction (and it does from time to me, sex addiction).

Earmuffs, if it works like how you're saying why do governments keep raising prices of cigarettes even after it's been made illegal on all public spaces (to prevent secondhand smoke)? The only person being hurt is myself, but the government keeps raising the prices, despite the fact they cover healthcare (potential) expenses.

Quote:I don't care if you like it or not, the argument stands.
And? That doesn't make it good. There's many reasons to support abortion b sides bodily autonomy


Quote:And the government creates the laws because of public opinion.
No, sometimes the approved law goes against the public opinion or the majority's will. The government tries (or should try) to do what's right. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if most people in my country supported capital punishment, but the government still doesn't reinstate it because it's inhumane, etc.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 05:36 PM
RE: Can Society be too Liberal?
Quote:Still, is society the criteria to decide if something is right or wrong? And how do we decide what society thinks - The majority's opinion? The expert? The elite minority? The affected group?

I never said it was. Whether something is right or wrong is a philosophical one, not a political one. I'm saying that society is the criteria for creating our laws because we vote for people that represent our interests.

In a common law system we also bring issues to the attention of the court which results in a common law change.

Quote:It depends entirely on how good or bad the regulation and laws are, on society's mentality, on the rates of corruption, on how effective the government is at investigating violence, etc.

So you can make generalizations about prostitution but when I comment on it I have to be extremely specific? You can fuck off if you're just gonna be a cunt.

Quote:Earmuffs, if it works like how you're saying why do governments keep raising prices of cigarettes even after it's been made illegal on all public spaces (to prevent secondhand smoke)? The only person being hurt is myself, but the government keeps raising the prices, despite the fact they cover healthcare (potential) expenses.

1) Health costs related to smoking.
2) Deterrent.

Quote:And? That doesn't make it good.

And you not liking it doesn't make it bad.

Quote:No, sometimes the approved law goes against the public opinion or the majority's will. The government tries (or should try) to do what's right. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if most people in my country supported capital punishment, but the government still doesn't reinstate it because it's inhumane, etc.

In general the government does what the public wants.
The government where you are don't reinstate capital punishment because it's not an 'issue'. If there were marches, petitions and it was all over the news I'm sure they would reinstate it.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
16-03-2015, 06:16 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2015 06:19 PM by Blackout.)
RE: Can Society be too Liberal?
Quote:I never said it was. Whether something is right or wrong is a philosophical one, not a political one. I'm saying that society is the criteria for creating our laws because we vote for people that represent our interests.
True story, but we don't always vote right, and sometimes we don't even vote (ironically)
Quote:In a common law system we also bring issues to the attention of the court which results in a common law change.
I'm not familiar enough with the common law system to comment on this. I'm used to the legal system - Laws are created by the government/parliament and represent an imperative written text

Quote:So you can make generalizations about prostitution but when I comment on it I have to be extremely specific? You can fuck off if you're just gonna be a cunt.
So, because I made a generalization you are required to do it as well? Isn't that a logical fallacy? I was merely asserting that regulating can work or not depending on many variables. My only "generalization" was that something that we consider moral or acceptable can sometimes become unacceptable or harmful, we don't deal with absolutes, but people talk frequently about rights as absolutes (example - "I have freedom to use my body as I please" - Wrong, you have that freedom as long as the law allows it). Oh, and I didn't request specifications, I was just saying that it isn't that simple - We only have (correct me if I'm wrong) a country where prostitution is regulated as an activity, it's called the Netherlands, and until now it has worked averagely well despite the continuous existence of sex trafficking and coercion - The Netherlands may be a good model but they're a very specific society so they're not proof that regulation in the Netherlands should work for the rest of the world (that would be a fallacy of composition) - We need to adapt regulation. Legalizing without regulating, for example, doesn't improve conditions for anyone


You argued that prostitution doesn't hurt any outsiders b sides the person participating in the act, and I said that's irrelevant because it can hurt the prostitute and the client in case of addiction. I'm not arguing against prostitution here, there's a lot of reasons to legalize and regulate it, but the most important one is not freedom of choice - It's simply that prostitution constitutes an economic activity and should be treated as such, as long as it doesn't cause severe damages to public health (like heavy drugs do)
Quote:1) Health costs related to smoking.
We cost less to the state because we live less years on average. There's money from cigarette taxes being spent on completely unrelated economic structures (superavit)
Quote:2) Deterrent.
Isn't this an infringement of personal freedom? I have the right to smoke what I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone and can afford it.
Quote:And you not liking it doesn't make it bad.
My point isn't that body autonomy isn't important, it's just that there are more reasons to legalize something or not b sides personal freedoms.

Quote:In general the government does what the public wants.
The government where you are don't reinstate capital punishment because it's not an 'issue'. If there were marches, petitions and it was all over the news I'm sure they would reinstate it.
No, because the constitution says it shall never be allowed and the EU doesn't allow it. It's an example of public opinion being irrelevant. My government also approved gay marriage when most of the population was against it. I think it was a good decision. The majority is not always right, and frequently they're completely wrong (the majority believes in god bla bla bla...).

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 11:20 AM
RE: Can Society be too Liberal?
You hear alot in the UK about being too PC - implying that 'women only' quotas in business and politics or positive discrimination towards an alleged under-represented race, is going too far. It depends on how you are going to achieve equality and representation. What's the plan? If not by recruiting under-represented groups then how?
I do feel that the media sometimes talks about 'race' or 'politics' when it means 'religion'. It's not so much that the media is being liberal but that people are scared to call something religious in case it 'offends' someone's faith. Suicide bombers are not making a political or racial statement, they're carrying out their God's commandments and the media should say so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: Can Society be too Liberal?
(16-03-2015 08:59 AM)Blackout Wrote:  Still, is society the criteria to decide if something is right or wrong? And how do we decide what society thinks - The majority's opinion? The expert? The elite minority? The affected group?
Very good points.

There is no objective right or wrong, and no consensus on what is right or wrong. You can choose to believe that only you have stumbled onto the correct right and wrong or you can choose to give up on the idea of rightness and wrongness.

It's really an unnecessary concept (IMO)

(16-03-2015 08:59 AM)Blackout Wrote:  Guns are supposed to serve self-defence purposes.
Only in some people's minds.
Those people tend to get excited about guns, subscribe to gun magazines, own a dozen or more guns, have a view of themselves as being a hero of sorts.

Locks on your door also serve self-defence purposes and so do seat belts but no-one subscribes to locks or seatbelt magazines and have a view of themselves being a hero for owning and knowing how to use a seat belt.

(16-03-2015 08:59 AM)Blackout Wrote:  
Quote:And the government creates the laws because of public opinion.
No, sometimes the approved law goes against the public opinion or the majority's will. The government tries (or should try) to do what's right. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if most people in my country supported capital punishment, but the government still doesn't reinstate it because it's inhumane, etc.
Public opinion isn't the best reason to make something against the law. I think laws must be focused on the purpose of government. If the action falls outside that purpose then the government have no valid reason to make laws against it.
For example, stopping gay people from marrying has nothing to do with the purpose of government, stopping people from selling sexual services has nothing to do with the purpose of government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: