A moral too far ?

[vidcc]

However, you keep harping on "you have the right to object."

I am responding to accusations how am i harping?

On that note, no shit. You are in essence, lobbying. You are just on the other side of the issue.
No shit sherlock, take a brain cell out of petty cash



Regarding "moral values being forced upon you." Sorry but that's where most of our laws came to fruition.

Does that make them right ?

Hey I'd like to marry 3 women. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to fuck for money. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to smoke weed to get high at home. The law says I can't do it.
Some 30 year-old fella wants to fuck a 16 year-old girl. The law says he can't do it.
Some female wants to abort her baby 7-months into the pregancy. The law says she can't do it.
A family would like to eat a Poodle for dinner. The law says they can't do it.
I'd like to walk in my front yard naked. The law says I can't do it.
Men can run around outside with no shirt on. Some women would like to also. The law says she can't do it.

Tired of moral values being forced upon you? Fight for change or shut-up.....
lets close the forum down as opinion should not be stated BTW . you know nothing of my past or present so your line here is bull crap
..and force your moral values upon them 'cause that's all your doing.

there is a difference between fighting against a law that stops you doing something in your own home that doesn't affect anyone but yourself and fighting for a law to stop your actions affecting others. You can walk around naked in your own home as much as you like If your fence is high enough that your actions do not affect others that's fine, walk around naked in my home and i'll set the dogs on you.

there are many unjust laws already... we don't need more.

[manker]

Vid, you definitely said that you disagree with people trying to get their moral values made law.

If you disagree with that, then you disagree with people lobbying about values they hold true. If you disagree with people lobbying then you disagree with people expressing themselves politically about such values.

A moral value is not such a narrow definition to only encompass sexual or religious values, a moral value is a value one holds based on instinct regarding one's sense of right and wrong. Which is why my reference to Guantanamo Bay is valid. If I was a US citizen and lobbied for allowing inspections in Guantanamo in order to preserve the prisoners' rights, then I would be trying to make a small part of my moral values law.

Something you say you disagree with.


You say that you don't wish to stop people doing it but by merely expressing your disagreement you may well do that. If someone who respected you got wind of your stance then it may dissuade them.



If a person thought soccer corrupted children because of the violence and intended to lobby the govt (a bleeding heart liberal, for example).

I would say to him that if he truly believes that it would benefit society, he should lobby for a country-wide ban on soccer, wheras you would tell him that you disagree with him lobbying because you think that one shouldn't try to impose one's morals upon others by means of lobbying. Or would you lie and tell him that you agree.

You're saying that you disagree with people lobbying about moral values so by implication you disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.

[Rat Faced]

Aren't all laws based on someones or some peoples moral values?

It can eather be something widespread like "Thou Shalt not Kill", or something confined like mispronouncing Arkansas, whilst in Arkansas...

...whatever the Law is though, it's only there because of someones moral values.

The thing to do is lobby on the other side, so that its not mistakenly thought that the loud voices are speaking for the majority.

[manker]

Aren't all laws based on someones or some peoples moral values?

It can eather be something widespread like "Thou Shalt not Kill", or something confined like mispronouncing Arkansas, whilst in Arkansas...

...whatever the Law is though, it's only there because of someones moral values.

The thing to do is lobby on the other side, so that its not mistakenly thought that the loud voices are speaking for the majority.

Nice one, RF. In part it's what I'm trying to say ... I agree with you entirely.

[vidcc]

Vid, you definitely said that you disagree with people trying to get their moral values made law.

If you disagree with that, then you disagree with people lobbying about values they hold true. If you disagree with people lobbying then you disagree with people expressing themselves politically about such values.

A moral value is not such a narrow definition to only encompass sexual or religious values, a moral value is a value one holds based on instinct regarding one's sense of right and wrong. Which is why my reference to Guantanamo Bay is valid. If I was a US citizen and lobbied for allowing inspections in Guantanamo in order to preserve the prisoners' rights, then I would be trying to make a small part of my moral values law.

Something you say you disagree with.


You say that you don't wish to stop people doing it but by merely expressing your disagreement you may well do that. If someone who respected you got wind of your stance then it may dissuade them.



If a person thought soccer corrupted children because of the violence and intended to lobby the govt (a bleeding heart liberal, for example).

I would say to him that if he truly believes that it would benefit society, he should lobby for a country-wide ban on soccer, wheras you would tell him that you disagree with him lobbying because you think that one shouldn't try to impose one's morals upon others by means of lobbying. Or would you lie and tell him that you agree.

You're saying that you disagree with people lobbying about moral values so by implication you disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.

going in circles here.

you are half right on one thing

I you would tell him that you disagree with him lobbying because you think that one shouldn't try to impose one's morals upon others by means of lobbying. Or would you lie and tell him that you agree.

ii would indeed tell him I disagree, but I wouldn't tell him he cannot.

the rest is just the same circular argument.

[manker]

The 'circular' bit was just leading up to the important conclusion. Duno if you missed it.

You're saying that you disagree with people lobbying about moral values so by implication you disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.

Btw, spammer

[vidcc]

Aren't all laws based on someones or some peoples moral values?

.

Most laws I'd agree, but as I have said my objection is about personal moral values.
If I make "values" the wide scope manker suggests then for example you may think smoking should be banned in public places as it affects others. That is just.. it is unjust to ban smoking in private homes, that is infringing on personal freedoms.

the fact that laws were mostly based on someone's morals doesn't make them just and it's better to prevent an unjust law than have to repeal it.

[vidcc]

The 'circular' bit was just leading up to the important conclusion. Duno if you missed it.

You're saying that you disagree with people lobbying about moral values so by implication you disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.

Btw, spammer

i don't see it that way... i see action or in this case inaction being what counts, words mean little.

[Busyman]

Aren't all laws based on someones or some peoples moral values?

It can eather be something widespread like "Thou Shalt not Kill", or something confined like mispronouncing Arkansas, whilst in Arkansas...

...whatever the Law is though, it's only there because of someones moral values.

The thing to do is lobby on the other side, so that its not mistakenly thought that the loud voices are speaking for the majority.

Nice one, RF. In part it's what I'm trying to say ... I agree with you entirely.

Oh gawd. I basically said the same thing and now "you agree...entirely".

[manker]

The 'circular' bit was just leading up to the important conclusion. Duno if you missed it.

You're saying that you disagree with people lobbying about moral values so by implication you disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.

Btw, spammer

i don't see it that way... i see action or in this case inaction being what counts, words mean little.

Doesn't matter how little you think they mean, the fact that you've acknowledged that they mean something means that my assertion is correct.

You disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.