The NBA and fining players for social commentary

[NameLess Scrub 6]

That has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with when rights to freedom begin and end.

 

Your right to do what you want ends the instant it violates my right to my property. That's why stealing a tv is illegal, not because it's "wrong".

 

Stealing is wrong because it violates right to property. Right to property is right. Why? Why is it not right to have property all around and people fight and let the stronger have it?

 

Why isn't poligamy legal? Why isn't public nudity legal?

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I didn't say it has no place. I agreed about the general argument about imposing.

 

Public policy will always reflect some moral standard, coming from a religion or from somewhere else.

Some moral is being imposed everyday when they won't let you steal the TV you like from the store.

We can't pretend the whole intend of the church/state separation is to reduce religious influence to nothing.

 

The thing is how much should it reflect. In that we disagree.

 

I already said I can't show non-religious arguments to oppose gay marriage. If I did I would be saying stuff from the top of my head wich would be quickly invalidated by you. For that I've quit with my arguments.

 

It seems that somehow you want to continue arguing about this. I just don't think I have much else to add. If I did I would start giving arguments again.

 

We're on a message board. People discuss things on message boards. If you don't want to talk about this, stop posting in this thread.

 

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morals. You don't need a religion to tell you that it's wrong to steal someone's TV, or to kill someone, or any number of other immoral actions. You just need to be capable of empathy. And we certainly can expect the idea of church/state separation to reduce religious influence to nothing. That's precisely the point of separating them.

 

And really, if you can't defend your ideas rationally that should tell you there is a problem with your ideas. An idea or opinion that doesn't stand up to scrutiny is one that you probably shouldn't cling to, unless you're ok with believing in things for absolutely no reason.

[NameLess Scrub 6]

We're on a message board. People discuss things on message boards. If you don't want to talk about this, stop posting in this thread.

 

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morals. You don't need a religion to tell you that it's wrong to steal someone's TV, or to kill someone, or any number of other immoral actions. You just need to be capable of empathy. And we certainly can expect the idea of church/state separation to reduce religious influence to nothing. That's precisely the point of separating them.

 

And really, if you can't defend your ideas rationally that should tell you there is a problem with your ideas. An idea or opinion that doesn't stand up to scrutiny is one that you probably shouldn't cling to, unless you're ok with believing in things for absolutely no reason.

 

Dude... I know what a message board is for.

 

I didn't say religion has a monopoly on morals, and no, I don't agree that separation means dissapearing religious influence. I think the separation was thought in terms of governing power and religion exercise. It was even thought to protect religion from the state.

 

That didn't mean some religion wouldn't have an influence in the morals used to make laws in the nation.

 

I brought some arguments because I thought they could be used in this discussion. After what I brought was either not proof enough or arbitrarily invalidated by you, I quit on that. I've spend some posts explaining myself and not bringing arguments.

 

 

The only other arguments I'm bringing now is how I see separation between church and state and how I think morals influence everything, and so can a religion influence morals of a nation too.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Stealing is wrong because it violates right to property. Right to property is right. Why?

 

Because it's necessary for a functional society.

 

Why is it not right to have property all around and people fight and let the stronger have it?

 

Because societies governed by anarchy have failed throughout history because, among other things, they can't defend themselves or provide for themselves.

 

But the fact is that "Is this morally good or morally bad?" has no bearing on the "Is this necessary for society to function?" Taxes are morally "bad", since it's the government taking someone else's property. However, taxes are also a core part of a functioning society, and any serious mind can understand that.

 

Why isn't poligamy legal?

 

Because a marriage licence specifically involves a sharing/splitting of marital assets between two people, not 2 or more people.

 

Why isn't public nudity legal?

 

Because your right to be naked ends at my right to not have to see you naked in public.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

After what I brought was either not proof enough or arbitrarily invalidated by you, I quit on that.

 

What did I arbitrarily invalidate?

[Emory889 353]

I'm the one who mentioned pedophiles... C'mon man.

 

I'm just comparing. They're comparable to me since I think those are both sexual based problems that can become acceptable with lobbying, work from the right people, and years. If pedophilia does became at least partially acceptable and legal with years, probably many people will forget it was such a despicable behavior back in 2011. They will probably call us all retards.

 

You might not agree with that, but I'm being honest.

 

I can't believe you just compared two consenting adults in a relationship to a pervert raping a child.

[NameLess Scrub 6]

Because it's necessary for a functional society.

 

 

 

Because societies governed by anarchy have failed throughout history because, among other things, they can't defend themselves or provide for themselves.

 

But the fact is that "Is this morally good or morally bad?" has no bearing on the "Is this necessary for society to function?" Taxes are morally "bad", since it's the government taking someone else's property. However, taxes are also a core part of a functioning society, and any serious mind can understand that.

 

 

 

Because a marriage licence specifically involves a sharing/splitting of marital assets between two people, not 2 or more people.

 

 

 

Because your right to be naked ends at my right to not have to see you naked in public.

 

Fair enough.

 

Why don't we change marriage licenses? Do you consider poligamy wrong?

 

Why does my right to be naked ends at your right to see me naked in public? Why isn't it backwards?

[NameLess Scrub 6]

What did I arbitrarily invalidate?

 

I meant it plural, for example when somebody says a source has no credibility because it's conservative.

 

Don't put too much in that, the point is I quit for a reason. If I had more I'd continue with that.

[NameLess Scrub 6]

I can't believe you just compared two consenting adults in a relationship to a pervert raping a child.

 

I didn't mean rape... though it is always considered rape I think. I meant a consenting relationship. That's considered pedophilia too as far as I know.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Fair enough.

 

Why don't we change marriage licenses?

 

Because in the case of polygamy, it'd be jaw-droppingly impractical. If a man is married to two women, he shares marital assets with each, but they wouldn't share them with each other. This makes determing property ownership in the event of a divorce or death nearly impossible.

 

Do you consider poligamy wrong?

 

Yes, but then again, I consider a lot of things to be "wrong" that I don't believe should be illegal. If everything I considered wrong were made illegal, Chuck Lorre would get the chair.

 

Why does my right to be naked ends at your right to see me naked in public? Why isn't it backwards?

 

Short version: Because when a situation arises where there is no legal precedent and there is also no Constitutional precedent or concern, the majority will rule on the law, and in that instance there is no Constitutional conflict. As such, it's illegal because way more people wouldn't want you naked in public then would want you naked in public.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I didn't mean rape... though it is always considered rape I think. I meant a consenting relationship. That's considered pedophilia too as far as I know.

 

 

How exactly would a pre-pubescent child enter into a consenting sexual relationship/

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I meant it plural, for example when somebody says a source has no credibility because it's conservative.

 

Don't put too much in that, the point is I quit for a reason. If I had more I'd continue with that.

 

You're the only one who made that argument. Your examples from that site were dismissed because they happened in other countries, and therefore have no bearing on similar laws being put into practice under our constitution.

 

You're making strawmen again. Address what people are actually arguing, not what you think they probably think about what you're saying.