Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Men and responsibility to children

Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 2:27:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Should a man be able to "abort" his financial responsibility to a child before it is born? Obviously the choice as to whether or not the baby should be aborted lies with the woman, but the currently the man has no choice as to whether he wants to be responsible for the baby or not.
I would say that he should have the choice, though it would be a pretty low thing to do in most circumstances.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 2:48:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 2:27:38 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Should a man be able to "abort" his financial responsibility to a child before it is born? Obviously the choice as to whether or not the baby should be aborted lies with the woman, but the currently the man has no choice as to whether he wants to be responsible for the baby or not.
I would say that he should have the choice, though it would be a pretty low thing to do in most circumstances.:

It's kind of amusing to see some pro-choice advocates on this. Most say something to the effect of, "the man made his bed, now he has to lie in it," as if women are magically exempt from irresponsibility.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 2:56:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It depends on whether you're referring to government enforcement, or the morality of the matter. Financial abandonment should be legal prior to birth, but it is not necessarily moral. Likewise, abortion should be legal, but it is not really moral either (assuming there was no rape or life/death situation).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 2:57:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 2:27:38 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Should a man be able to "abort" his financial responsibility to a child before it is born? Obviously the choice as to whether or not the baby should be aborted lies with the woman, but the currently the man has no choice as to whether he wants to be responsible for the baby or not.
I would say that he should have the choice, though it would be a pretty low thing to do in most circumstances.

Hey, I'm for equality.

Give the guys till the third trimester to decide whether to abort his financial responsibility.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 3:11:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 2:56:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
It depends on whether you're referring to government enforcement, or the morality of the matter. Financial abandonment should be legal prior to birth, but it is not necessarily moral. Likewise, abortion should be legal, but it is not really moral either (assuming there was no rape or life/death situation).:

I'll buy that answer. I don't like anything about dead-beat dad's or abortion. I can't even donate sperm knowing that half of my DNA will be going to God knows where? What if she's a psycho mom and I can't be there to protect him/her?

As for what others should do, let their own conscience devour them. You really can't legislate a poor moral compass, unfortunately.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 3:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 2:57:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/4/2012 2:27:38 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Should a man be able to "abort" his financial responsibility to a child before it is born? Obviously the choice as to whether or not the baby should be aborted lies with the woman, but the currently the man has no choice as to whether he wants to be responsible for the baby or not.
I would say that he should have the choice, though it would be a pretty low thing to do in most circumstances.

Hey, I'm for equality.

Give the guys till the third trimester to decide whether to abort his financial responsibility.

+1
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 3:31:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 2:56:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
It depends on whether you're referring to government enforcement, or the morality of the matter. Financial abandonment should be legal prior to birth, but it is not necessarily moral. Likewise, abortion should be legal, but it is not really moral either (assuming there was no rape or life/death situation).

Why should there be distinctions made between morality and legality (particularly regarding life and social stability), and how should these distinctions be made?

In other words, what rationale do you have to make something immoral legal?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 3:32:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 2:27:38 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Should a man be able to "abort" his financial responsibility to a child before it is born? Obviously the choice as to whether or not the baby should be aborted lies with the woman, but the currently the man has no choice as to whether he wants to be responsible for the baby or not.
I would say that he should have the choice, though it would be a pretty low thing to do in most circumstances.

I think the current rationale is that the man literally doesn't have a choice, because he carries no physiological burden.

The pro-choice vantage is utilitarian.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 3:37:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 3:31:06 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/4/2012 2:56:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
It depends on whether you're referring to government enforcement, or the morality of the matter. Financial abandonment should be legal prior to birth, but it is not necessarily moral. Likewise, abortion should be legal, but it is not really moral either (assuming there was no rape or life/death situation).

Why should there be distinctions made between morality and legality (particularly regarding life and social stability), and how should these distinctions be made?

In other words, what rationale do you have to make something immoral legal?

because it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society. It is rather the government's duty to protect the people from harm, establish justice, and establish fair opportunities by the disparities created under capitalism.

I think it's immoral to lie. However, I'd never expect the government to prosecute liars (except in the matters of trial and interrogation).

If you think about it, there are a lot of things that are immoral but would be absurd if made illegal,..cheating, stealing a cookie, tricking people etc. So, morality and legality should not be interchangeable.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 3:49:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 3:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:


because it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society. It is rather the government's duty to protect the people from harm, establish justice, and establish fair opportunities by the disparities created under capitalism.

LOL. Where do you think the needs for "justice" and "fair opportunities" are drawn from if not morality?

I think it's immoral to lie. However, I'd never expect the government to prosecute liars (except in the matters of trial and interrogation).

If you think about it, there are a lot of things that are immoral but would be absurd if made illegal,..cheating, stealing a cookie, tricking people etc. So, morality and legality should not be interchangeable.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 3:54:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To answer the OP: The man knocked her up. Just because the woman has the choice to kill the child doesnt mean we need to allow the father to cowardly run away from his responsibilities simply because his lover made a different choice than he would.

Question to the pro-choicers: would you eat a Human fetus?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:01:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 3:49:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:


because it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society. It is rather the government's duty to protect the people from harm, establish justice, and establish fair opportunities by the disparities created under capitalism.

LOL. Where do you think the needs for "justice" and "fair opportunities" are drawn from if not morality?

The government is established to protect rights. If we have a right to live, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to property, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to a fair opportunity, the government will punish those that take it away.

I understand that the concept of rights exist under morality, but I'm also trying to say that there are actions within morality that do not exist under rights.

If there's anything you disagree with, I'd be happy to debate it. I'd really rather not argue in the forums.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:10:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:01:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:49:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:


because it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society. It is rather the government's duty to protect the people from harm, establish justice, and establish fair opportunities by the disparities created under capitalism.

LOL. Where do you think the needs for "justice" and "fair opportunities" are drawn from if not morality?

The government is established to protect rights. If we have a right to live, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to property, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to a fair opportunity, the government will punish those that take it away.

I understand that the concept of rights exist under morality, but I'm also trying to say that there are actions within morality that do not exist under rights.

If there's anything you disagree with, I'd be happy to debate it. I'd really rather not argue in the forums.

Isn't the obligation to protect rights a moral obligation? That's the only way that a government can have an obligation (it certainly has no contractual obligations considering not a soul alive today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it).

Your argument is basically Rights =/= Morality (no warrant), Government = Rights protecting agency (Warrantless again rofl), therefore Government legislation should not address morality. However you haven't explained why the government should do those actions if not for moral reasons.

I'll debate you on this:

Governmental obligations stem from moral obligations (or something similar)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:12:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:10:27 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:01:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:49:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:


because it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society. It is rather the government's duty to protect the people from harm, establish justice, and establish fair opportunities by the disparities created under capitalism.

LOL. Where do you think the needs for "justice" and "fair opportunities" are drawn from if not morality?

The government is established to protect rights. If we have a right to live, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to property, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to a fair opportunity, the government will punish those that take it away.

I understand that the concept of rights exist under morality, but I'm also trying to say that there are actions within morality that do not exist under rights.

If there's anything you disagree with, I'd be happy to debate it. I'd really rather not argue in the forums.

Isn't the obligation to protect rights a moral obligation? That's the only way that a government can have an obligation (it certainly has no contractual obligations considering not a soul alive today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it).

Your argument is basically Rights =/= Morality (no warrant), Government = Rights protecting agency (Warrantless again rofl), therefore Government legislation should not address morality. However you haven't explained why the government should do those actions if not for moral reasons.

I'll debate you on this:

Governmental obligations stem from moral obligations (or something similar)

You can't enforce morality on other people though. And if the actions aren't voluntary, it isn't morality.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:17:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:12:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:10:27 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:01:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:49:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:


because it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society. It is rather the government's duty to protect the people from harm, establish justice, and establish fair opportunities by the disparities created under capitalism.

LOL. Where do you think the needs for "justice" and "fair opportunities" are drawn from if not morality?

The government is established to protect rights. If we have a right to live, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to property, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to a fair opportunity, the government will punish those that take it away.

I understand that the concept of rights exist under morality, but I'm also trying to say that there are actions within morality that do not exist under rights.

If there's anything you disagree with, I'd be happy to debate it. I'd really rather not argue in the forums.

Isn't the obligation to protect rights a moral obligation? That's the only way that a government can have an obligation (it certainly has no contractual obligations considering not a soul alive today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it).

Your argument is basically Rights =/= Morality (no warrant), Government = Rights protecting agency (Warrantless again rofl), therefore Government legislation should not address morality. However you haven't explained why the government should do those actions if not for moral reasons.

I'll debate you on this:

Governmental obligations stem from moral obligations (or something similar)

You can't enforce morality on other people though. And if the actions aren't voluntary, it isn't morality.

You misunderstand. It's not that I want the government to enforce morality. I didn't even establish any advocacy--ike did. My point was that he's ridiculing the idea that the state should consider morality when passing legislation, while in the SAME post commenting on how a government has to fulfill its moral obligations like justice.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:20:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:10:27 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:01:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:49:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:


because it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society. It is rather the government's duty to protect the people from harm, establish justice, and establish fair opportunities by the disparities created under capitalism.

LOL. Where do you think the needs for "justice" and "fair opportunities" are drawn from if not morality?

The government is established to protect rights. If we have a right to live, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to property, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to a fair opportunity, the government will punish those that take it away.

I understand that the concept of rights exist under morality, but I'm also trying to say that there are actions within morality that do not exist under rights.

If there's anything you disagree with, I'd be happy to debate it. I'd really rather not argue in the forums.

Isn't the obligation to protect rights a moral obligation? That's the only way that a government can have an obligation (it certainly has no contractual obligations considering not a soul alive today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it).

Your argument is basically Rights =/= Morality (no warrant), Government = Rights protecting agency (Warrantless again rofl), therefore Government legislation should not address morality. However you haven't explained why the government should do those actions if not for moral reasons.

I'll debate you on this:

Governmental obligations stem from moral obligations (or something similar)

Read what I wrote carefully. " I understand that the concept of rights exist under morality, but I'm also trying to say that there are actions within morality that do not exist under rights. "

I said that rights = morality, however, there are things that exist under morality that are not rights. So saying the government is to protect morality is unspecific. The government will not prosecute liars or cheaters. It is, rather, the concept of rights that government was founded to create.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:26:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:

You misunderstand. It's not that I want the government to enforce morality. I didn't even establish any advocacy--ike did. My point was that he's ridiculing the idea that the state should consider morality when passing legislation, while in the SAME post commenting on how a government has to fulfill its moral obligations like justice.

I ridiculed nothing. You didn't understand what I was saying, and then you laughed at it and told me it was contradictory. It would be a lot easier to discuss this calmly if you didn't get so flustered over it.

All rights are indeed morality, this is my third time saying this. However, not all morality is a right. So government does not legislate morality in the broad sense, what it legislates is a faction of morality that the people created it to protect (see "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:27:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:20:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:10:27 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:01:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:49:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:


because it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society. It is rather the government's duty to protect the people from harm, establish justice, and establish fair opportunities by the disparities created under capitalism.

LOL. Where do you think the needs for "justice" and "fair opportunities" are drawn from if not morality?

The government is established to protect rights. If we have a right to live, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to property, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to a fair opportunity, the government will punish those that take it away.

I understand that the concept of rights exist under morality, but I'm also trying to say that there are actions within morality that do not exist under rights.

If there's anything you disagree with, I'd be happy to debate it. I'd really rather not argue in the forums.

Isn't the obligation to protect rights a moral obligation? That's the only way that a government can have an obligation (it certainly has no contractual obligations considering not a soul alive today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it).

Your argument is basically Rights =/= Morality (no warrant), Government = Rights protecting agency (Warrantless again rofl), therefore Government legislation should not address morality. However you haven't explained why the government should do those actions if not for moral reasons.

I'll debate you on this:

Governmental obligations stem from moral obligations (or something similar)

Read what I wrote carefully. " I understand that the concept of rights exist under morality, but I'm also trying to say that there are actions within morality that do not exist under rights. "

I said that rights = morality, however, there are things that exist under morality that are not rights. So saying the government is to protect morality is unspecific. The government will not prosecute liars or cheaters. It is, rather, the concept of rights that government was founded to create.

Lmfao, so you're saying that the government has a moral obligation to enforce some moral rules because a handful of wealthy, racist white men in the 18th century said so, but it's totally ridiculous to enforce other moral rules because they dont follow "the concept of rights that the government was founded to create"?

There are two problems: 1. You haven't established a threshold, that is where the government supposed to intervene, and where is it not? Consider that it's established we have a right to not be lied to, surely it would follow that the government needs to then intervene to stop liars right? See, your opinion is fallacious because it's based off of assertations.

2. Rights are not government "created" by the government. Thats DANGEROUS thinking.

Sorry for being a d*ck, I have a 103 fever and always become a massive jack@ss when I'm sick.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:30:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:26:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:

You misunderstand. It's not that I want the government to enforce morality. I didn't even establish any advocacy--ike did. My point was that he's ridiculing the idea that the state should consider morality when passing legislation, while in the SAME post commenting on how a government has to fulfill its moral obligations like justice.

I ridiculed nothing. You didn't understand what I was saying, and then you laughed at it and told me it was contradictory. It would be a lot easier to discuss this calmly if you didn't get so flustered over it.

All rights are indeed morality, this is my third time saying this. However, not all morality is a right. So government does not legislate morality in the broad sense, what it legislates is a faction of morality that the people created it to protect (see "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine)

Lol you don't understand what the word "warrant" means, do you?

You continually assert over and over and over again that the government has a moral obligation to protect rights, yet at the same time "it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society."

K.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:32:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:27:33 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:20:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:10:27 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:01:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:49:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 3:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:


because it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society. It is rather the government's duty to protect the people from harm, establish justice, and establish fair opportunities by the disparities created under capitalism.

LOL. Where do you think the needs for "justice" and "fair opportunities" are drawn from if not morality?

The government is established to protect rights. If we have a right to live, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to property, the government will punish those that take it away. If we have a right to a fair opportunity, the government will punish those that take it away.

I understand that the concept of rights exist under morality, but I'm also trying to say that there are actions within morality that do not exist under rights.

If there's anything you disagree with, I'd be happy to debate it. I'd really rather not argue in the forums.

Isn't the obligation to protect rights a moral obligation? That's the only way that a government can have an obligation (it certainly has no contractual obligations considering not a soul alive today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it).

Your argument is basically Rights =/= Morality (no warrant), Government = Rights protecting agency (Warrantless again rofl), therefore Government legislation should not address morality. However you haven't explained why the government should do those actions if not for moral reasons.

I'll debate you on this:

Governmental obligations stem from moral obligations (or something similar)

Read what I wrote carefully. " I understand that the concept of rights exist under morality, but I'm also trying to say that there are actions within morality that do not exist under rights. "

I said that rights = morality, however, there are things that exist under morality that are not rights. So saying the government is to protect morality is unspecific. The government will not prosecute liars or cheaters. It is, rather, the concept of rights that government was founded to create.

Lmfao, so you're saying that the government has a moral obligation to enforce some moral rules because a handful of wealthy, racist white men in the 18th century said so, but it's totally ridiculous to enforce other moral rules because they dont follow "the concept of rights that the government was founded to create"?

There are two problems: 1. You haven't established a threshold, that is where the government supposed to intervene, and where is it not? Consider that it's established we have a right to not be lied to, surely it would follow that the government needs to then intervene to stop liars right? See, your opinion is fallacious because it's based off of assertations.

2. Rights are not government "created" by the government. Thats DANGEROUS thinking.

Sorry for being a d*ck, I have a 103 fever and always become a massive jack@ss when I'm sick.

-sigh- create was a typo, it was supposed to say "protect".....

The other questions you're asking me to answer would require me to write a book.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:35:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yikes, I've really derailed this thread and made an @ss of myself. My apologies everyone.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:39:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:30:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:26:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:

You misunderstand. It's not that I want the government to enforce morality. I didn't even establish any advocacy--ike did. My point was that he's ridiculing the idea that the state should consider morality when passing legislation, while in the SAME post commenting on how a government has to fulfill its moral obligations like justice.

I ridiculed nothing. You didn't understand what I was saying, and then you laughed at it and told me it was contradictory. It would be a lot easier to discuss this calmly if you didn't get so flustered over it.

All rights are indeed morality, this is my third time saying this. However, not all morality is a right. So government does not legislate morality in the broad sense, what it legislates is a faction of morality that the people created it to protect (see "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine)

Lol you don't understand what the word "warrant" means, do you?

You continually assert over and over and over again that the government has a moral obligation to protect rights, yet at the same time "it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society."

K.

No, I said that government has a moral obligation to regulate business, is that what you remember? Actually, this statement is consistent what I'm saying now, since my argument follows from naturally occurring property rights believe it or not.

You're actually still not getting what I'm saying. Its kind of like the square-rectangle concept (not all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are squares). All rights qualify as morality, not all morality qualify as rights.

Government is to protect rights, things that are not rights, but are still moral, the government really has no business with. Does it make more sense now?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:43:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:39:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:30:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:26:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:

You misunderstand. It's not that I want the government to enforce morality. I didn't even establish any advocacy--ike did. My point was that he's ridiculing the idea that the state should consider morality when passing legislation, while in the SAME post commenting on how a government has to fulfill its moral obligations like justice.

I ridiculed nothing. You didn't understand what I was saying, and then you laughed at it and told me it was contradictory. It would be a lot easier to discuss this calmly if you didn't get so flustered over it.

All rights are indeed morality, this is my third time saying this. However, not all morality is a right. So government does not legislate morality in the broad sense, what it legislates is a faction of morality that the people created it to protect (see "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine)

Lol you don't understand what the word "warrant" means, do you?

You continually assert over and over and over again that the government has a moral obligation to protect rights, yet at the same time "it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society."

K.

No, I said that government has a moral obligation to regulate business, is that what you remember? Actually, this statement is consistent what I'm saying now, since my argument follows from naturally occurring property rights believe it or not.

You're actually still not getting what I'm saying. Its kind of like the square-rectangle concept (not all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are squares). All rights qualify as morality, not all morality qualify as rights.

Government is to protect rights, things that are not rights, but are still moral, the government really has no business with. Does it make more sense now?

Respect for rights is the fundamental pillar of morality in most if not all moral theories. If the government needs to protect rights it is enforcing moral behavior, the exact thing you dont want it to do.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:48:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:43:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:39:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:30:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:26:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:

You misunderstand. It's not that I want the government to enforce morality. I didn't even establish any advocacy--ike did. My point was that he's ridiculing the idea that the state should consider morality when passing legislation, while in the SAME post commenting on how a government has to fulfill its moral obligations like justice.

I ridiculed nothing. You didn't understand what I was saying, and then you laughed at it and told me it was contradictory. It would be a lot easier to discuss this calmly if you didn't get so flustered over it.

All rights are indeed morality, this is my third time saying this. However, not all morality is a right. So government does not legislate morality in the broad sense, what it legislates is a faction of morality that the people created it to protect (see "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine)

Lol you don't understand what the word "warrant" means, do you?

You continually assert over and over and over again that the government has a moral obligation to protect rights, yet at the same time "it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society."

K.

No, I said that government has a moral obligation to regulate business, is that what you remember? Actually, this statement is consistent what I'm saying now, since my argument follows from naturally occurring property rights believe it or not.

You're actually still not getting what I'm saying. Its kind of like the square-rectangle concept (not all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are squares). All rights qualify as morality, not all morality qualify as rights.

Government is to protect rights, things that are not rights, but are still moral, the government really has no business with. Does it make more sense now?

Respect for rights is the fundamental pillar of morality in most if not all moral theories. If the government needs to protect rights it is enforcing moral behavior, the exact thing you dont want it to do.

Many libertarians state that the non-aggression principle is a good policy. However, I don't believe they think that is the only moral principle to follow. I'd be surprised if they think giving to charity isn't moral. yet they would think that government-enforced charity is immoral since it violates the non-aggression principle.

That's an example of a distinction. There are plenty of law-abiding @ssholes in the world.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:51:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:43:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:39:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:30:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:26:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:

You misunderstand. It's not that I want the government to enforce morality. I didn't even establish any advocacy--ike did. My point was that he's ridiculing the idea that the state should consider morality when passing legislation, while in the SAME post commenting on how a government has to fulfill its moral obligations like justice.

I ridiculed nothing. You didn't understand what I was saying, and then you laughed at it and told me it was contradictory. It would be a lot easier to discuss this calmly if you didn't get so flustered over it.

All rights are indeed morality, this is my third time saying this. However, not all morality is a right. So government does not legislate morality in the broad sense, what it legislates is a faction of morality that the people created it to protect (see "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine)

Lol you don't understand what the word "warrant" means, do you?

You continually assert over and over and over again that the government has a moral obligation to protect rights, yet at the same time "it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society."

K.

No, I said that government has a moral obligation to regulate business, is that what you remember? Actually, this statement is consistent what I'm saying now, since my argument follows from naturally occurring property rights believe it or not.

You're actually still not getting what I'm saying. Its kind of like the square-rectangle concept (not all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are squares). All rights qualify as morality, not all morality qualify as rights.

Government is to protect rights, things that are not rights, but are still moral, the government really has no business with. Does it make more sense now?

Respect for rights is the fundamental pillar of morality in most if not all moral theories. If the government needs to protect rights it is enforcing moral behavior, the exact thing you dont want it to do.

That is not what I'm saying.

The sole purpose of the government is not to protect morality, but to protect rights. The purpose of the government is to protect rights, NOT because rights are moral, but because human society is unsustainable without them.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:55:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:51:14 PM, 000ike wrote:


That is not what I'm saying.

The sole purpose of the government is not to protect morality, but to protect rights. The purpose of the government is to protect rights, NOT because rights are moral, but because human society is unsustainable without them.

And a government has an obligation to sustain society because......?

Please answer this question:

1. What kind of obligations do governments have?

Besides
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:56:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:48:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:43:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:39:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:30:19 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:26:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:17:23 PM, thett3 wrote:

You misunderstand. It's not that I want the government to enforce morality. I didn't even establish any advocacy--ike did. My point was that he's ridiculing the idea that the state should consider morality when passing legislation, while in the SAME post commenting on how a government has to fulfill its moral obligations like justice.

I ridiculed nothing. You didn't understand what I was saying, and then you laughed at it and told me it was contradictory. It would be a lot easier to discuss this calmly if you didn't get so flustered over it.

All rights are indeed morality, this is my third time saying this. However, not all morality is a right. So government does not legislate morality in the broad sense, what it legislates is a faction of morality that the people created it to protect (see "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine)

Lol you don't understand what the word "warrant" means, do you?

You continually assert over and over and over again that the government has a moral obligation to protect rights, yet at the same time "it is not the government's duty to legislate the moral behavior of a society."

K.

No, I said that government has a moral obligation to regulate business, is that what you remember? Actually, this statement is consistent what I'm saying now, since my argument follows from naturally occurring property rights believe it or not.

You're actually still not getting what I'm saying. Its kind of like the square-rectangle concept (not all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are squares). All rights qualify as morality, not all morality qualify as rights.

Government is to protect rights, things that are not rights, but are still moral, the government really has no business with. Does it make more sense now?

Respect for rights is the fundamental pillar of morality in most if not all moral theories. If the government needs to protect rights it is enforcing moral behavior, the exact thing you dont want it to do.

Many libertarians state that the non-aggression principle is a good policy. However, I don't believe they think that is the only moral principle to follow. I'd be surprised if they think giving to charity isn't moral. yet they would think that government-enforced charity is immoral since it violates the non-aggression principle.

That's an example of a distinction. There are plenty of law-abiding @ssholes in the world.

Fundamental pillar =/= the only pillar of morality.

And yes, there are plenty of law-abiding @ssholes like me.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 5:02:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:55:47 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:51:14 PM, 000ike wrote:


That is not what I'm saying.

The sole purpose of the government is not to protect morality, but to protect rights. The purpose of the government is to protect rights, NOT because rights are moral, but because human society is unsustainable without them.

And a government has an obligation to sustain society because......?

Please answer this question:

1. What kind of obligations do governments have?


Besides

because that's what mankind created it to do. Governments are not naturally occurring entities with a purpose beyond what the people wanted it to do. The anarchistic state of nature necessitated an intermediary for the peaceful coexistence of all people.

The kind of obligations they have? Protection of rights & safety of the people. Essentially those that sustain a society. This also does not mean that the government does not have to be moral, it does, it just doesn't have to intervene on behalf of morality outside of issues concerning rights.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 5:13:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 5:02:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:55:47 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/4/2012 4:51:14 PM, 000ike wrote:


That is not what I'm saying.

The sole purpose of the government is not to protect morality, but to protect rights. The purpose of the government is to protect rights, NOT because rights are moral, but because human society is unsustainable without them.

And a government has an obligation to sustain society because......?

Please answer this question:

1. What kind of obligations do governments have?


Besides

because that's what mankind created it to do. Governments are not naturally occurring entities with a purpose beyond what the people wanted it to do. The anarchistic state of nature necessitated an intermediary for the peaceful coexistence of all people.

The people? What on Earth makes you think that "the people" have any say in what their government does or doesn't do? How many people alive signed the social contract (AKA constitution)...oyeh, no one....

The kind of obligations they have? Protection of rights & safety of the people. Essentially those that sustain a society. This also does not mean that the government does not have to be moral, it does, it just doesn't have to intervene on behalf of morality outside of issues concerning rights.

Lolololololololol. So it's been established that rights are moral. It's been established (by you) that governments have an obligation to defend rights. I ask what kind of obligation governments have, and you say: " Protection of rights & safety of the people." Roflcopter, you JUST said that. You're saying a government has an obligation to protect rights, because it has an obligation to protect rights. Circular reasoning 101. Let me be more clear:

Generally, there are two kinds of obligations, moral and contractual. Are governmental obligations moral, or contractual.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right