board77

I can definitely split the thread if need be, although I'm a little hesitant to put it in the Symp because there's so much good discussion going. Kidding, kidding.


I think the problem with the system Ro describes is what Jude pointed out, in that it doesn't take into account basic rights. If it was constitutional (according to whatever country's constitution) for someone to just argue for and make a law that said anything, as long as it had support, imagine what kind of things could happen! Tyranny of the majority, and all that. We can't allow the beliefs of the many to compromise the rights of the few.

Well, basic rights...but then again, that's only what we decide is basic rights, isn't it?

I just don't understand why people are so surprised when a person who deeply believes that something is right or wrong tries to make the world abide by laws that prevent them from doing the wrong and facilitate doing the right. On what grounds would you stop them?

Quote:

I believe rights trumps morals. If you believe that same-sex marriages are immoral, you have the right not to partake of them. You don't have the right to impose your morals, right or wrong, on anyone else.

Which brings us to your second example. The right of a child not to be exploited takes precedence over anyone that thinks that it is moral to exploit them.

I still disagree. The right of a child not to be exploited takes precendence- but only because the majority agrees that sex with children is exploitation. In another time or another culture, it wouldn't have been considered that at all. Do we think we've reached the apogeum of morality? And by we, do we mean you and me and the posters on this board, or do the neighbours count too? Who decides what is moral and what is not? Who decides what is and isn't a right and what is abuse?

Why is it that your belief that something is immoral has more rights than the belief of someone who thinks it is okay? And vice versa, for homosexuality. For some people, it is a behaviour as unacceptable and harmful to society as, for example, theft (something that is almost universally considered immoral- almost). Of course they will fight to suppress something they consider immoral. Wouldn't you? They're not doing it because they want to be assholes and control other people's lives, they're doing it because they honestly believe those people are harming themselves and society by pursuing their desire.

I'm not saying they are right or that they should win. I'm just saying they have every right to fight for it.

(I don't think I need to put in a disclaimer saying I'm completely against exploiting children, and completely for giving gays the same rights heteros have, but just in case someone is confused by my messy attempts to make a point...)

(don't get too used to me posting, it won't last.)

Rodia wrote:

I still disagree. The right of a child not to be exploited takes precendence- but only because the majority agrees that sex with children is exploitation. In another time or another culture, it wouldn't have been considered that at all.

It would be interesting to hear what the children of that time and culture had to say about it. The point being, of course, that when two parties are involved, it doesn't matter what one of them believes, it matters what both of them think.

Quote:

Of course they will fight to suppress something they consider immoral. Wouldn't you? They're not doing it because they want to be assholes and control other people's lives, they're doing it because they honestly believe those people are harming themselves and society by pursuing their desire.

No, I wouldn't. If I thought they were harming themselves I would try to alert them to the fact and point out the dangers. But in the end, I would of course respect their right to choose their own path. And I would also accept the fact that I could be completely wrong anyway.

Really? In every situation? Try to imagine something else than homosexuality, something clearly harmful.

If you still say that, then, well, good for you. Only I don't think there is a law system in the world that only allows and never forbids. And I will point out that most people whom I know to disapprove of homosexuality do not think of it as something that harms only the person involved, but all of society. So they can't just say, oh, well, none of my business, let them do what they want. It's like drugs- most people want them to be against the law not because they want to spoil someone's fun, but because they're afraid their friends, family and children will destroy themselves if it becomes legal to use them, if the usage stops being a social stigma.

Good point about the two parties being involved, though. Which just goes to show I'm bad at analogies.

No, you're not bad at analogies, any more than I am. I'm pretty sure that we'll never agree on this particular issue, but you have definitely made me think about some things.

Oh, please don't split the thread! I hate it when a discussion is split up that way. What's being talked about evolved naturally from what came before. It's fine staying here, as far as I'm concerned.

Tyranny of the majority: I don't like laws that say men can go shirtless in public but women can't. What possible justification can there be for that dichotomy?

On a completely different note...
I'm so self-censoring at work today.

Quote:

I don't like laws that say men can go shirtless in public but women can't.

*waits for Holby to appear*
and Liddy.

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:

Quote:

I don't like laws that say men can go shirtless in public but women can't.

*waits for Holby to appear*
and Liddy.

Me either.

I'm like you, Maria. I prefer to keep the conversation intact and not split it out, but some like it that way. That's why I always leave it up to the thread originator to decide.

I would only split the thread if you had wanted it done, Maria! I think it's fine to keep it the way it is.


Ro, I see what you're saying from a philosophical perspective, but I don't think that society should work that way or we could suffer from some terrible consequences. What you describe is how many countries operate, such as those under Sharia law! The majority of the country believes a certain religion to be fact, and the laws reflect that. Does that make it okay?

Are laws requiring women to cover their hair morally different from requiring them to cover their torsos?

MariaHobbit wrote:

Are laws requiring women to cover their hair morally different from requiring them to cover their torsos?

Depends on the reasoning behind them. One could (and some places do) restrict both on religious grounds. Or one could restrict one and not the other on pragmatic grounds, as exposed hair isn't as distracting as exposed breasts (in our culture).

An exposed female ankle is distracting in some cultures. That doesn't make laws against such exposure reasonable.

My topless osgilliation was to point out that there are plenty of laws and customs that are *not* intrinsically fair or morally correct out there, but that the laws of the nation involved have to reflect the will of the majority.

If I were in charge of the world, I'd make some policies that would probably leave the majority quite unhappy, despite my good intentions, just because most people don't see things the way I do. They'd make perfect sense to me, but grate on so many others. Just because there IS no clear cut standard of right and wrong that everyone can agree on.

Despite my snerk-ridden remark, I agree. What is inherently illegal about the sight of a human body? We all have one and a goodly proportion of the population has seen the other version.

My dissatisfaction with this custom isn't because of a streak of exhibitionism, by the way. In the summer when we are stacking bales of hay in the barn in weather close to 100 F (~38C) and my nose is full of hay dust and my t-shirt is sodden with sweat and I'm miserably overheated and covered with hay scratches and we take a break and my husband takes off his shirt and this expression of bliss comes over his face as the wind evaporates the sweat off him. And then he invites me to take off my shirt too. But I won't. Because if the neighbors saw, they could get me arrested for indecent exposure. So I lift my t shirt a little way and the cool wind blows on my belly and back a bit and I can feel just a tad what he is feeling... and it pisses me off that there should be that legal difference in what skin we can and cannot expose.

It truely is *not* fair, or right or justifiable. But I live in the "bible belt" and I'm not risking trouble with the neighbors. It's not worth it. Not quite.

MariaHobbit wrote:

An exposed female ankle is distracting in some cultures. That doesn't make laws against such exposure reasonable.

Nor does it make them unreasonable, if the majority of people in the culture want them, and they don't violate basic human rights. How do you know when that balance is reached? Well, as it happens, few cultures go to either extreme: full body covering is only common in a sparse handful of places, and full exposure is only acceptable in an equally small sample. This suggests to me that despite the extreme positions existing, left to themselves and without religious interference, cultures settle into fairly "reasonable" places most of the time.

I would get a sports bra in your position, BTW. Much less skin coverage than a t-shirt, better wicking of sweat, plus some support.

MariaHobbit wrote:

Are laws requiring women to cover their hair morally different from requiring them to cover their torsos?

Which hair?