Objective moralilty? There’s a term you don’t hear everyday. Probably because there ain’t no such thing. There can’t be.
If something can be said to be objective, it’s has actual existence, or reality—it’s part of the material world. Morality ain’t. All morality is subjective, meaning it exists only it he mind—it’s illusory and solely a matter of personal opinion.
Sometimes I swear you liberals are as bad as the chronically religious. Always attempting to hijack “morality” for your own purposes. It’s disgusting.
Sure, there may be objective reasons but morality isn’t one of them. Once you call an opposing position immoral and say that a big reason that one position is better than another is because it’s more moral pretty much ends your ability to scream bloody hell and criticize people for “legistlating morality.”
Like conservatives are any better. Half their arguments on any given topic are that it’s immoral. “It’s immoral for the government to tax you. It’s immoral for wealth to be redistributed.” Whatever.
Both sides make me cringe with their mad scrambling to convince the public that they have the high road and that the other side is “immoral.”
Albert Einstein, who arguable had a pretty well-developed cranium, worked in the patent office. He didn’t sit on his fat ass and say “Gee, I’m ever so smart - you owe me a job.” And probably thousands if not millions of extremely gifted atheletes wash out of professional sports. Guess what? They have to get a regular job like the rest of us schmoes.
Once again, people are attributing moral judgments to me that I did not make. I didn’t say it’s distateful; I said that people shouldn’t expect to do that kind of work as somehow being their birthright. I’ll give you 100 bucks right now if you can find where I said strippers are “lazy” anywhere in this thread.
Drive safely and watch out for strawmen on the road…
Welcome to reality - you don’t have a God-given right to do anything for a living. I happen to be a quite capable musician, and I would like more than anything to get paid a buttload of money for it, but in the real world, there are more classical musicians than there are premium jobs, so I have to suck it up and work in an office part-time.
Gosh, it’s sure entertaining to read all these things that I supposedly said.:rolleyes:
You can take the $100 challenge as well - find where I said (up to this point) “I am annoyed that women can make money for being beautiful.”
blowero, I’d genuinely like to know the definition of a ‘regular job’ and why it is apparently something “the rest of us schmoes” have that those other non-schmoes end up having to get after washing out of their irregular jobs.
Do they then become schmoes? Are we all really schmoes deep down inside? I take it from the context that one is never to assume that the “kind of work” involved in an irregular job is a birthright. What kind of work is that? Do schmoes have a birthright? How about a star on their bellies?
Don’t worry about explaining your Einstein non-sequitur, let’s cover your mania one outburst at a time, shall we? For the record, I have not, and will not, assign you any moral position. I honestly don’t think you have thought this through well enough to have one.
Actually, I agree with you. The problem is that that type of activity tends to cause a decline in property values, which is not good for the community. You may be for legalized prostitution in theory, but would you want prostitutes hanging out on the sidewalk in front of your house? Don’t communities have the right to say “We don’t want that activity going on here”?
I am for legalized prostitution and would want the prostitutes available for people to visit at licensed, health-inspected brothels.
Well, no, governments have the power (the State has powers; the people have rights) to dictate what is or is not lawful activity within the bounds of the COnstitution. No one I think is disputing that. This ordinance is a stupid use of government power which will not accomplish the stated goal of reducing prostitution, and it seems like a reasonable exercise of our individual rights to decry the dumbass city council for passing it.
And what if they decided to build a brothel next door to your house? It’s one thing to be for prostitution in theory, but the activity has to take place somewhere.
That wasn’t my point at all. I’m saying a community may not want to have a brothel or a strip club. To that extent, they have the power to prohibit such activity, of course, but do they not also have the right to do so? [hint - I’m not using your narrow definition of “right”.] As far as I’m aware, Beverly Hills has no lap dancing; should they be required to? The city in which I live also has no lap dancing; should they be required to?
Well, I agree that the reasoning is absurd, and I don’t doubt that the L.A. City Council is dumbasses, but I don’t know that it’s per se a “stupid” use of power.
Hmmm…now that I think about it, I may have misspoke. I shouldn’t say that their reasoning is necessarily absurd. A lot of what goes on in those strip clubs is actually prostitution by definition. I’ve heard plenty of first-hand accounts of oral sex being exchanged in those clubs, and without the benefit of the afore-mentioned health controls that would occur if prostitution were legalized. It’s something that’s done on the sly in dark corners of the clubs, and so would be very difficult to regulate.
Will they have the anal sex? I’m all about the anal sex.
Seriously, though, I probably wouldn’t have a big problem with a brothel in my neighborhood, as long as it was part of a general societal shift in which the facilities were generally and commonly available, and accepted. If somebody waved a magic wand right now and made prostitution irrevocably legal, the social climate in the U.S. is such that it would mean “instant ghetto.” That doesn’t have to be the case. Many countries have a more enlightened view, and with time we could make a similar change. I’m not saying brothels will ever be as common as McDonald’s or Blockbuster, but getting away from our idiotically Puritan roots would be a good thing in general. And under those circumstances, I wouldn’t have a serious issue with a brothel down the block.
So then, writing legislation forcing people to give their money to help feed the poor and couching it in terms of morality is, in effect, legislating morality, is it not? It’s just morality that you agree with.
Legislating PERSONAL morality in matters between consenting adults. Certainly most of us agree with the government legislating against murder, which is certainly immoral. We agree because when someone else chooses to murder, it is, by definition, a direct violation of another’s right to live, most certainly against their will.
And the government looking out for the health and well being of it’s citizens is something we pretty much all agree upon to some degree or another, some of us to a greater degree than others. (Social security, education, welfare, Medicare, laws regulating and controlling business, etc. )
Government legislating the morality of two people engaging in harmless acts willingly should be none of the government’s damned business.
These are three distinct matters, and you all know it. Your protestations to the contrary are either lies conveniently told to stir polictical shit or declarations of your own limited ability to comprehend anything but the most gross distinctions, I’ll let you identify which.
Indeed. But that is hardly a direct comparison to what you said about strippers. Would you consider it legitmate for the City Council to declare that you can no longer play for people who want to pay you to do so?
And, as often occurs, the more Stoid hears the air hissing out of her argument, the shriller she becomes, and the more she impugns the motives of those who disagree.
You have stated your case several times, and it always boils down to “whatever I like is good, and whatever I don’t like is a dreadful violation of my rights”.
Or perhaps your case is not nearly as self-evident as you apparently believe, and your failure to comprehend how anyone might have a different point of view shows you to be a tiny bit narrow-minded.
Congratulations on developing powers of telepathy. Let’s conduct a little test - how many fingers am I holding up?
