I tried to quote Bricker directly, but in doing so realized he was very careful with the way he phrased each comment. So I will go with the overall impression he leaves in that thread.
Bricker’s point in that thread is that he believes that if something is immoral, it should also be illegal. He qualifies that with saying if something is found to be immoral by the majority of Americans, then it should be illegal.
When several people in that thread questioned his sincerity of that belief, he insisted he wasn’t playing games, he truly meant what he was saying. And here he says that he stands by everything in that thread.
Bricker, will you go on record here and state that you believe that if the majority of Americans feel “X” is immoral, then you would support making “X” illegal?
Because it has been deemed inappropiate to discuss this in the original thread, I will respond to it here:
But not for the reasons you’ve stated. In your responses to the mods you have dodged the issue by saying that you have always thought that prostitution is immoral and should be illegal. However, that’s now why you’re coming under fire and you know that. It is impossible to imagine you honestly thinking that an agreement of a majority over the morality of a specified issue decides wether it should be illegal or not. We all know what the thread really is about and the ways you’ve confronted this assertion are woven so that you don’t come off as totally dishonest.
I don’t believe you, not because of what I think of you, but of what I’ve actually seen of you on these boards. You are, indeed, sir, better than this.
Assuming he wants saving. He’s no fool and he’s loyal. Someone who fights tooth and nail over every little point like Bricker is going to end up pretty gummy defending the Bush administration over the next couple of years. Perhaps he’s looking for the “oppressed conservative” route out of here.
That’s a good point. However, contrary to what appears to be popular perception, Bricker is not an unchangeable dyed-in-the-wool My-Bush-right-or-wrong conservative. I don’t quickly have a link to the post where he completely reversed himself on the subject of gay marriage, but it’s in a monumental pit thread on the subject. Quite simply, he was convinced by argument to change his mind, and he did.
Which is one strong reason why I’m hoping John Mace’s wise counsel sinks in. People like Bricker are scarce around here, and we need him, if for nothing else than to show up the fallacies that we’ve preconceived. (And he’s a lot more valuable than that, as a quick look in GQ over the past few weeks would show you.)
You have to remember that Bricker is a lawyer by profession. It’s his job to argue for a particular side and come up with a viable argument for his side even if the odds look grim. To see Bricker go off the deep end like he seems to be going lately is a testament to just how terrible the Bush Administration has been revealed to be. I’d hate to see him melt down in court like he has on this board.
Bricker, I am reminded of the former Doper Manhattan. Revelling in dumping on Scott Plaid does seem out of character–particularly seeing the immense leaps he has accomplished in his posting style since his pitting.*
I would recommend taking a break for a bit, Bricker, and coming back. But, that’s just me.
I would still recommend Scott stay out of GD though.
Unless something happens in that thread to convince me I was wrong, in which case I will of course change my mind.
And, hey look! Something did in fact happen. The aggregate weight of the arguments presented did in fact persuade me that the position I was advancing was untenable. So I abandon it, and in that thread I’m now seeking to explore just what the criteria for making a criminal law should be, since it’s not simply and solely the majority feeling that ‘X’ is immoral.
Me too. Perhaps if we did a better job at making the members of the idiot left unwelcome (say, as good as we do with the idiot right), the more thoughtful conservative members wouldn’t keep having meltdowns.
Far be it for me to question your amazing change of heart in the other thread, but, as I said before, I still believe you are full of shit. The position you were advancing was not only untenable, it was one that you had previously rejected as improper, not only in the one example I have already cited, but throughout your posting history.
But that’s just my opinion, and no one can truly know another’s heart. You’re the one who has to live with yourself.
That thought was lurking behind my post #45 on the first page, where I mention “mere advocacy”.
My wife’s a barrister. It always weirds me out a bit, the night before an appearance when she’s rehearsing playing a bad hand. And sometimes she wins with a terrible case. That’s the gig.
But this is not the only way she argues. When she is asked advice on a course of action - or a cause of action - she argues what she reckons would be found, not what she would argue should be found. When she updates her loose-leaf service in her area or annotates the reports or advises the Minister – she does not argue as an advocate for a particular interest.
As an advocate, she’s perfectly happy to have the other side’s case destroyed by bad service or ill-proclaimed subordinate legislation or groundwater overlays drawn in the wrong colour pen. But when it comes down to discussing policy, drafting regulations or advising on ministerial conduct, “might one get away with this shabby shit if ably represented?” is not the job.
I understand and respect that Bricker has deeply-held beliefs that are different from mine. A big part of the reason I come here is to read the posts of people with whom I disagree. But mere advocacy is not a good debating technique.
[I see in preview, Bricker has posted here. That he seems to have been taken somewhat aback by Gaudere’s Hawaii post is something, I guess.]
I distinguished the post you mention. In that earlier post, I acknowledged that religiously-based morality should not form the basis of criminal law. In the instant case, I’m arguing (or was arguing) that morality formed by public opinion should form the basis of criminal law.
Very different. Clearly the US, governed by the First Amendment, cannot look to religion to guide the law. But as a representative democracy, I thought it was arguable that we could look to the populace’s views of morality as a guide. Now I see that that, too, is apparently untenable (I reserve final judgement until that thread plays out; my concession may have been premature. We’ll see.)
To answer the cheating spouse question in more detail:
I think there should be no constitutional bar to such laws.
I think they are unwise public policy. While they do represent the criminalization of a moral wrong, the moral wrong is one in which the damage is generally limited to a single marriage. Prostitution, in contrast, has a huge fallout of collateral damage, and does damage to society as a whole.
Morality formed by public opinion being separate from religion? In this case, there is no such animal.
Go to a reasonable man. Ask him to justify banning prostitution for reasons other then religious reason. Chances are, he will come up with some reason involving pimps, not private contractors. His argument will not apply to those who sell their body of their own free will, but he will revert to religious reasons while arguing it any way.
So you’re saying that for the majority of people, their view is so entwined with their religious feelings that it cannot be separated?
I don’t concede the point, but for argument’s sake, let’s pretend it’s so.
We still live in a country in which people elect, by popular vote, their political leaders, and vote by referendum for laws. If, as you suggest, the majority of people cannot separate their religious feelings from their moral views anyway… how can any system of laws created by the popularly-elected leaders be said to be legitimate?
That’s a rather surprising argument coming from a self-confessed Catholic and conservative.
Do you really believe that there is no collateral fallout from adultery, in the form of increased divorce rates, bitter custody disputes, children left with only one parent, etc.? Or things like depression, violence, and even suicide resulting from feelings of anger and betrayal?
Furthermore, i think a very strong argument can be made that much of the “damage to society as a whole” caused by prostitution is either a product of other problems and inequities that could be addressed separately (child abuse in some cases; economic and power imbalances between the sexes), or is a direct result of prostitution’s illegality (the involvement of pimps and other unsavory characters; concern among prostitutes about seeking help from police).
Certainly there is collateral fallout from adultery… but much of that fallout would still exist from simple separation. So the question is… what is the DELTA – that is, what damage exists from adultery that would not exist from simple separation?