1270
But, the children! We need to protect the children! (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

Its nice that you believe that you vote to protect OTHER people's rights, but when you are up against an issue that affects you directly, you definitely dont. If you were gay and the government wanted to bring in a bill to ban gay marriage you wouldn't vote to protect the rights of the people who have a religious objection to gay marriage, you would vote against it.

ALL morals are relative. With the argument you are giving you are LITERALLY telling me that YOUR morals are superior to mine. Guess what? They're just different and no better than mine.

We have a democratic system. Everyone votes the way they choose, majority wins. Welcome to the real world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    If you were gay and the government wanted to bring in a bill to ban gay marriage you wouldn't vote to protect the rights of the people who have a religious objection to gay marriage, you would vote against it.

    That's literally what legalizing it is. No one is forcing you to be gay married. You can object if you want. I'm against restricting others freedoms. That means I support legalizing gay marriage, even if I don't want to be gay married, because it allows for people to choose what thay want rather than forcing a certain belief on them. I don't know anywhere that forces gay marriage, but you're perfectly fine enforcing straight-only marriage I guess. A little hypocritical, no?

    ALL morals are relative. With the argument you are giving you are LITERALLY telling me that YOUR morals are superior to mine. Guess what? They're just different and no better than mine.

    Good. You aren't a moral absolutist at least. No, I'm telling you that your morals aren't absolute and shouldn't be forced on others. Follow them yourself. If others want to, they can choose to. Forcing them on people isn't about morality; it's about authority.

    We have a democratic system. Everyone votes the way they choose, majority wins. Welcome to the real world.

    We have a democratic system that explicitly says someone's beliefs shouldn't be forced in others (assuming you're in the US). We literally have in our constitution that no religion shall be enforced. Sure, we have people who want to destroy that an enact authoritarian rule, because they think their beliefs are better than others, so this might not always be true, but for now it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I’m telling you that your morals aren’t absolute and shouldn’t be forced on others. Follow them yourself. If others want to, they can choose to. Forcing them on people isn’t about morality; it’s about authority.

    We agree on morals by majority. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong so we make laws stating that and we punish those who dont follow. Do you call that 'forcing morals on others'? No, because almost everyone agrees murder is wrong. But what about physical assault? Still bad. We make laws against that. What if its just slapping someone? Likely still harmful, so there are laws against that. What if its just spitting on their shoes? Might be assault might not be. What if its just calling them a name? Highly depends on what was said and in what context but obviously not everyone who calls someone a name is charged. What if its just giving them the finger? Not likely a charge. What if its just a sneer? Highly unlikely its chargeable offence.

    My point is that we ALL decide at some point when harm is done and we make laws to support that and then we FORCE others to comply with it even if its not THEIR personal standard about whats considered harmful. Yes thats authority, thats how society works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    We agree on morals by majority.

    We sure as hell don't. I don't think something is moral or not because others agree with it or not. That'd be a pretty fucked up world if many people believed that.

    Everyone agrees that murder is wrong so we make laws stating that and we punish those who dont follow. Do you call that 'forcing morals on others'?

    No, because it's protecting other people's freedom. A murderer prevents others from having their own freedom. You can hurt yourself all you want, but not others without their consent. This isn't morality, it's (negative) freedom. It's measurable, where morality isn't.

    All the other stuff you listed proves it's not about morality. Most people would agree it's immoral to do most of those acts. However, it's (usually) only illegal when it effects other people's rights. Sometimes people argue things enfringe on their rights to push morality too, like requiring certain clothing for example. The argument they make is always about rights though, not morality (though they may try to sway the public with a morality argument). For example, abortion. It wasn't made illegal in a bunch of places for moral reasons. It was made illegal "to protect the rights of the zygote/fetus/baby."

    Sex work doesn't effect anyone else's freedom. You can choose to not engage with it if you want. Making it illegal does effect people's freedom, and also creates a hazardous environment for sex workers. If you actually want to solve the things you're complaining about, the only solution is to legalize it and install protections. If you're arguing for making it illegal then you're the one causing the issues for these sex workers. You are responsible for them not having protections, not having mental and physical healthcare, fearing going to the police when something happens, and all the rest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent