Loyalty to the State

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 23 of 27

PREV PAGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Friday, March 28, 2008 5:22 PM

BDN; Your point- or anyone's for that matter- IS "how they make it".

For example, if someone says they believe in the sanctity of human life but don't worry about collateral damage, then clearly something is missing from at least ONE of those statements because on their face they cannot both be true at the same time. So altho we know what the person has said, we're left not knowing what the person means

So instead of having us guess what you mean, you might want to clarify your statements, which are..... ???

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FLETCH2

Friday, March 28, 2008 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And on a more general note, I'm sure a lot of people would read this and think THEY wouldn't be so ignorant, so unrealistic, so foolish - because they know better, they have good reasons for doing what they do.

But I keep thinking - except for people who are truly batshit crazy and hearing voices - and sociopaths (who outright admit to anyone who asks that pain is the only thing they can connect with) - everybody has a socially-formulated 'reason' that makes what they do all right.
.....

And it's a truism. Everyone thinks that their reasons are good. People in general do really backwards and brutal things that way.

I once read of an interview the Allies did with a concentration camp officer after WW2. He said that the SS understood that what they were doing was a barbaric act, but that they had to force themselves to do it for the survival of the German people. There was some concern as to what other Germans would think when the scale of the final solution was known but the SS was sure that in time the necessity of the action would be accepted and their men hailed as heroes.

People do bad things for what they believe are good reasons. It wasn't the case that every Nazi was a born sociopath, many understood that what they were doing was wrong, they did it anyway for "the greater good."

If people can find a way to justify genocide as the "right" thing to do then they can find justification for doing any kind of evil.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 28, 2008 5:53 PM

Quote:
If people can find a way to justify genocide as the "right" thing to do then they can find justification for doing any kind of evil.

Which is why I come down to "How many people did you kill, maim, injure, or intimidate?"

Don't bother telling me WHY. I really don't want to know what you thought your reasons were. I don't want to hear about rights, democracy, god, capitalism, or some future possibility. There are only two justifications in my book that aren't rationalizations (1) It was an unavoidable accident, or (2) you helped far more than you harmed.

ETA: And in my book, that is the only way to judge a policy.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So instead of having us guess what you mean, you might want to clarify your statements, which are..... ???

I was looking for a discussion and all I got was a dancing lesson.

In my analogy there are drivers out there that cannot look out for the needs of other drivers.
It is your position that there are parents out there who cannot look after the needs of their children.
There are laws that dictate safe driving such as speed limits, use of signals, one-way roads etc.
There are presently laws concerning safe child rearing.
Even with the 'rules of the road', drivers still speed, make unsafe lane changes, and drive the wrong way down one way roads.
Even with state oversight, children will still be abused.
How would you go about making sure the children of 'bad' parents are taken care of without needlessly intruding on the lives of 'good' parents?

RUE

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:34 PM

There are laws that dictate safe driving such as speed limits, use of signals, one-way roads etc.
YES
There are presently laws concerning safe child rearing.
NO
Even with the 'rules of the road', drivers still speed, make unsafe lane changes, and drive the wrong way down one way roads.
YES
Even with state oversight, children will still be abused.
REMAINS AT QUESTION and is the point of this ongoing discussion.

But for the sake of moving this discussion forward, since you do NOT advocate rescinding all driving laws just b/c they aren't 100%, I presume you would be in favor of child-rearing laws that would prevent the vast majority of child abuse cases, though not 100%.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:42 PM

Quote:
How would you go about making sure the children of 'bad' parents are taken care of without needlessly intruding on the lives of 'good' parents?

What is "needless"?

"Needless" as in Infinging on the rights of parents?

"Needless" as Having no positive effect, or having a negative effect on child mortality?

"Needless" as in Costing too much money?

First tell me what your constraints are, and what purpose they serve. Otherwise I don't know how to answer the question.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There are presently laws concerning safe child rearing.
NO

Do you not have Social Services?
Are you saying that presently, with proof of abuse, the State can do nothing?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But for the sake of moving this discussion forward, since you do NOT advocate rescinding all driving laws just b/c they aren't 100%, I presume you would be in favor of child-rearing laws that would prevent the vast majority of child abuse cases, though not 100%.

I am all for protecting children. If parents cannot look after their kids, find someone who can. But I'm not sure what you mean by child-rearing laws. How specific are these proposed laws?
Did you happen to catch a little flick called Serenity? Do you remember what happened on Miranda? The 'State' decided that they knew what was best for the 'People' and it did not turn out too well.
Why is it okay to sacrifice liberty for children's security but not ours?

SIGNYM

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:01 PM

Quote:
The 'State' decided that they knew what was best for the 'People' and it did not turn out too well.

Well, comparing a real live (or in this case dead) child to a movie isn't rational. That's part of my "I don't want to hear about some future possibility".

Quote:
Why is it okay to sacrifice liberty for children's security but not ours?

Because they're helpless bystanders in our decisions?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

RUE

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:06 PM

"But I'm not sure what you mean by child-rearing laws. How specific are these proposed laws?"

Uuhhmm, you claim these regulations already exist, just like with driving, so you tell me. ('There are presently laws concerning safe child rearing.') How specific are these regulations ? How close the oversight ? How costly the license ?

***************************************************************
Now before you complain I don't understand, I want to say that I DO understand. What I'm trying to point out is that you can't have your arguments both ways - there are laws but they wouldn't help if we had them.

So, you tell me - WHICH argument are you making ?

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What is "needless"?

"Needless" as in Infinging on the rights of parents?

"Needless" as Having no positive effect, or having a negative effect on child mortality?

"Needless" as in Costing too much money?

First tell me what your constraints are, and what purpose they serve. Otherwise I don't know how to answer the question.

There are no constraints in real life so, all of the above.

PREV PAGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NEXT PAGE