So when the “vast majority” believed women should be subjugated to men, or blacks to whites that was moral ? You have a rather sick definition of moral, apparently.
Didn’t I do that here?
Sure I have.
But as far as I’m concerned, if I think something’s immoral, and a majority of people agree with me, that’s all that should matter.
treis said, “Your morals come straight from your religion.” I think your post #33 backs that up, to name only one.
Perhaps you could tell something you consider a legitimate source or foundation of moral rules or judgments, which is independent of any church’s teachings.
If it’s only a question of public opinion, then to what higher standard can you appeal, to determine whether New Zealand’s democratically-mandated tolerance of prostitution is more or less moral than America’s prohibition of it?
Completely irrelevant, unless you’re contending that prostitution is a constituionally protected activity.
Sure, but I just didn’t feel like wading through three pages of people acting as through Bricker was interested in genuine debate and him egging them on.
Does the phrase “tyranny of the majority” mean anything to you ?
I’m as skeptical of the Washington Post report’s ability to speak for all liberal feminists as i am of yours. Just because you got the quote from an allegedly liberal newspaper doesn’t mean the author speak for all liberal feminists.
And it’s not a matter of whether the author had an “agenda” or not. It could simply be a matter of ignorance, or insufficient research. But if s/he or you really believe that liberal feminists “abhor prostitution, and also seek to make it illegal,” then the burden of demonstrating this falls on the people making the assertion. And if s/he or you does not believe that all liberal feminists hold this view, then it is also incumbent on the person making the claim to give some sense of what proportion of liberal feminists do believe this.
My own reading of liberal feminist authors, and my own intereaction with people who describe themselves as liberal feminists, suggests that any attempt to say that liberal feminists abhor prostitution and seek to make it illegal is, at best, a dramatic oversimplification.
While i don’t believe that Wikipedia is a final authority in any sense of the word, i’d be willing to bet that plenty of the people who have contributed to its liberal feminism page are people who consider themselves liberal feminists. Here’s what it has to say:
Yup. The “majority rules” is fine, in his head, so long as you are shielded from the consequence of such an opinion.
Why post in “Great Debates” then?
[Moderator Hat ON]
Argue what you actually believe. If you wish to argue a point you do not actually believe for that sake of Devil’s Advocate or of a desire to point out hypocrisy, it must be crystal clear what you acually are arguing.
Posters in GD should be able to have a basic assumption that other posters are arguing in good faith. It is extrordinarily annoying to be arguing slavery in the Congo and suddenly find the debate is actually about public housing in Detroit. Or find out a quote a poster used was actually done by a different person at a different time about a different subject. Then the whole debate becomes about the analogy used, how accurate it was, and how PO’d you are about the poster who was yanking you around.
If your argument of hypocrisy is valid, it will be valid even if people know what you’re really trying to argue. Look at what has happened here: Some people don’t agree your analogy is valid, some’re angry at you for trying to trick them, some’re comparing your previous statements and are confused by your apparent flipflop, some are trying to argue what your original argument appeared to be, some are trying to argue what they think your argument is. It’s a mess.
Posters may argue Devil’s advocate positions, or compare two different debates by analogy, but they should make it immediately clear that’s what they’re doing. It’s the same reason why we demand links for parody posts, because it confuses and annoys people otherwise. If you had posted in your OP that you were using this as an analogy to the Pit thread argument, it would have been fine.
I suggest you either reframe the debate as a direct analogy; argue your actual, honest position on what you really meant to argue about; or ask me to shut this thread down. The next thread you post that appears to be arguing things you don’t believe and does not have a link to what you’re really arguing about or explain that you’re arguing devil’s advocate is going to get locked.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I take it you haven’t read the rest of the thread. If you did, you would discover that I have at least twice explained that the phrase was not intended to actually forestall debate, but simply indicate that the proposition is extraordinarily well founded.
No problems there. I do believe, and have always believed, that prostitution is immoral and should be illegal.
No chance of that happening here. I stand by my position, unless, of course, someone convinces me that my stance is in error.
I’m puzzled: I’ve been on this board five years. I’ve always said I was a conservative Catholic. Why would anyone even for a moment suspect that I was in favor oif legalized prostitution?
The wicked flee where no man pursueth.
But it’s not. The article in the Popst came out on Thursday. It struck me because it showed that their was broad support from both the left and the right for keeping prostitution illegal. This thread is not an analogy to anything.
I object to this characterization of this thread.
It’s your playground; of course you may do as you please. But if the merits of the situation are any defense, then I’d like you to explain to me how a post arguing that prostitution should be illegal, from me, can possibly be believed to be “arguing things * don’t believe.” I do believe it.
Oh, but I am. I believe the prohibition of prostitution violates the Due Process clause – it fails the rational basis test because it doesn’t serve any “legitimate government purpose,” emphasis on legitimate. That I would lose if I made this argument in any court in the country does not convince me that I’m wrong, any more than my position that prostitution is not immoral should convince you that you’re wrong.
Well, I don’t need to convince you you’re wrong. As long as we both understand that this view of the Due Process Clause would not be upheld by the courts, and thus has no practical significance, I’m good – believe what you please.
I don’t think the article claimed to speak for ALL liberal feminists. Indeed, who could make such a claim? Liberal feminists don’t have a College of Cardinals to elect a Liberal Feminist Pontiff who then has universal authority over the movement.
But I do credit the article’s assertion that SOME liberal feminists are on board with the plan, and that they represent a not-insubstantial portion of people who self-identify as liberal feminists.
And I credit the Washington Post over Wikipedia.
In an earlier thread, I acknowledged that the Post’s reputation for solid reporting meant I should concede a position I was holding. No one suggested in that thread I was wrong to do so.
Folks: You’re not going to get anywhere by arguing that prostitution isn’t immoral. I sincere believe that Bricker, like most Americans, does believe it is immoral. That’s a side issue. The key is: what is **necessary **for something to become law. In terms of criminal law, something being immoral is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for an action to be illegal. **Bricker **has framed the debate that it is sufficient. IWO, Something need **only **be immoral in order to warrent that thing to be illegal. That is the flaw in his argument, as presented in the OP.
I don’t think that prositution is immoral. But, it should be illegal in our society because making it illegal is not unconstitutional for states to ciminilize it, and most people want it to be illegal. And where people do want it to be legal, it is (a few counties in NV).
In this thread, you wrote, in reply to this:
So, has what you believe in changed?
Bricker, I’m still waiting for an answer to the argument I put forth, lo these many pages ago, on the topic of victimless crimes and their morality.
How is prostitution any different from gambling?
Yeah, but you started this thread by arguing that it **should **be criminalized everywhere. So isn’t my belief that it shouldn’t because that’s not a legit thing for the state to do relevant?