Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Should this be a Law?
Do you think it should be a law?
It shall be illegal to engage in activities (such as the dissemination of media or terrorism) that defend causes that would disrupt with the efficiency or demand of goods and services based on moral sensitivities.
This means bye bye Peta. Bye bye animal rights. Bye bye anti-pharmacy campaigns.
I think the punishment should be a minor felony, with like 2 years in prison.
nope. it doesnt make sense. the law would be a violation of the law.
Assuming we can change and make exceptions to the laws ofc.
Terrible for the same reason that hate crimes legislation is questionable: You cant figure out the justification groups hold.
PETA could easily say "well, we want to protect animals because (insert animal name) is a keystone species, and its extinction would devastate the biosphere, threatening human life because our ecological stability is lost. Here's a study we conducted about (insert animal name)."
Then again, desiring to protect humanity is a moral. I believe that the Earth going extinct is bad because... well... life is good!
Quite frankly, everything is rooted in some moral belief, whether that moral is equality, Christianity, utilitarianism, or just wanting whatever is best for you.
we already had the morality thread....that was fun? shouldnt be a law. a "minor felony" is not "like 2 years in prison," thats pretty harsh and the already overcrowded jails would have even more of a problem, not to mention the courts and their judges would hate the crap out of all the clogging this would cause.
and imagine putting a PETA activist next to a serial rapist or gangbanger
The law could be considered unconstitutional because it possibly violates the 1st amendment. Not to mention it could be abused by certain entities that wish to crush free speech by silencing their critics.
@OP
No. Your a fascist dick.
It should be a law that none of you can procreate.
Don't worry about that. We're a bunch of guys who spend all our time on a politics forum. 
Exactly 
.
Wait...You mean politics sub-forum right?
This isn't it? There's more than this "sub-forum"?
No. I just checked. This is it.
His first post is ambiguous. I'll wait until he learns to talk/write before I worry about a philosophical response.
My motivation behind supporting this law is to teach liberal idealists to stfu about their moral sensitivities with respect to equality and justice. I get so irritated by them, that the thought of seeing them sit in prison with a serial rapist seems like justice being served.
As for the law itself, yeah it's unconstitutional. Be happy we don't have an authoritarian government, because if we did it would be so much fun observing the government teach a lesson to that slothful and co-dependent hip hop generation that plagues our society today.
And Avo, the law can be given stipulations that prevent any negative side effects while satisfying the intended outcome.
Kemp,
You're welcome to offer insight on a better idea of what to do with them. The philosophical idea here is
1. Is the subculture/generation of nutty liberal idealists decadent?
2. What do we do about them?
My view is that 1 yes they are, and 2 see how they like it in prison. Specifically, I am thinking about a huge prison in the Arizona desert. They'll be housed in tents, and if we need more space we'll just add more tents. Moreover, they'll be put in chain gangs. Every man, woman and child will be subjected to meaningless labor for a few years to teach them good values. If they don't change, they can keep working at the desert prison for all I care.
"And Avo, the law can be given stipulations that prevent any negative side effects while satisfying the intended outcome."
well, what are "negative side effects" and what isnt, is completely dependent on the person interpreting it.... everything that could be interpreted to break this law could also be interpreted as just a negative side effect.
you need to learn to type. and not use insanely broad terms. what specific moral sensitivities regarding equality and justice are you against?
"1. Is the subculture/generation of nutty liberal idealists decadent?"
what are you claiming they're declining from?
Avo,
Every law has an intended outcome, and the side effects are those things that contradict that intended outcome. It's like the old saying, "the law or the intent of the law?" The intended outcome may raise other questions about other intended outcomes. For example, with taxes we want to raise money. But this can lead to milking some families that are barely able to make it, so since we value their ability to survive we add stipulations that relax their taxing requirements. However, for the sake of argument, lets assume that the intended outcome is to punish this generation and teach them good values. As for any conceivable side effects one of us may find objectionable, lets assume all of us can be satisfied that there are adequate stipulations to prevent them. Though you may consider the intended outcome here objectionable, and that's fine, assume that you are satisfied that it and its unavoidable consequences are the only objectionable outcomes present because there are adequate stipulations to limit the others.
I'm using broad terms because I am trying to describe something that is very broad. From crazies who are in arms that animals are used in research to other crazies railing about the injustice that democracy is a facade to plutocracy. I'm covering a lot.
They're decadent because their values are the antithesis of a productive and powerful society. A society that is productive and inventive, for example, can produce a powerful nation. A society that whines about equality all day, wants regulations all day, and is dependent on government can not create a powerful society. They'll stay at the bottom or sink to the bottom.
yeah, and the way you stated it made what the law was intended to do not clear. you mind as well make a law that its illegal to do "bad things".
"My view is that 1 yes they are, and 2 see how they like it in prison. Specifically, I am thinking about a huge prison in the Arizona desert. They'll be housed in tents, and if we need more space we'll just add more tents. Moreover, they'll be put in chain gangs. Every man, woman and child will be subjected to meaningless labor for a few years to teach them good values. If they don't change, they can keep working at the desert prison for all I care."
By putting them in jail you are not 'teaching them a lesson'. It is ridiculous to say that. We imprison people for crimes that the criminals themselves know is wrong. Supporting animal rights isnt wrong and by putting these people in prison, they only grow hatred for the government. This is a nice setup for a authoritarian government or a revolt.
Nice try but you, sir, fail.
Rooster,
Of course supporting animal rights is wrong, well it is for rats, monkeys, cattle, and other animals we use as instruments that drive our economy. By appealing to the moral sensitivities of others, it causes people to campaign for concessions that only cause further inefficiencies in the pharmaceutical and food markets, driving up prices. It's also a sin to give a crap, but even worse to exploit people's sensitivities for political influence like that. The same goes for advocating for factory workers to keep their jobs or enjoy pension plans when it is costly for the company to do so. It's a terrible evil, one that deserves hard time.
As for authoritarian government, I guess we need one in a world of immature children incapable of managing their own rights responsibly. Civic virtue and responsibility is bankrupt in American society, which is essential to a functional Republic. As for a revolt, good. We know who is not taking their reformation seriously and is a member of the surplus population we can dump on Europe.
No answer to my argument
Justinian,
Maybe you didn't understand the reason I gave you on why we should not imprison animal rights groups and such. By imprisoning them all the people see is injustice being served. You can't tell someone that supporting animal rights is wrong and that is why they are going to jail for it. They will never believe they are wrong in a million years. Even criminals come to admit that they are wrong about murder, rape, burglary but an animal rights activist will never. You are definately not teaching them a lesson. You are setting yourself up for a revolt or worse, an authoritarian government.
As for authoritarian being good, thats a debate for another thread. I have clearly outlined why outlawing the so called 'inefficiencies' in our society is a good way to destroy society. Does anyone really want to live in an authoritarian government where you will have soldiers in your city and have the fear of constantly being watched?
That's what the idiots in democracies eventually let happen anyway. Politicans want power, and retards don't see through any of it. No major activist organization exists because of its stated goals. Those wouldn't bring in enough money to make them "major." Feeding the hungry? Yeah. Not top of the list. CO2 emissions? Oh yeah. It's about power and money. Often the trade is our economy for power. That's what scares me about the future. The problems with authoritarian governments stem from there being no check or balance. There's no one watching them. The same goes for a stupid and manipulated people.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Should this be a Law?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.