It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Well there's your contradiction. The benefit of America IS that the law of the land is overly simplified. Why is that bad?
Objective wrongs include murder. But under the right subjectivity, murder becomes not wrong. Objectively it is still wrong. But murdering, say, a rapist, is most certainly not wrong from a subjective point.
Actually it's quite universal. Animals breed by their will, no other animal comes in and says "sorry, no you can't. I think you're baby lamb might be chased by wolves. You're not responsible enough to have that kid."
And like I said, benefit of not believing in morals is that immorality doesn't exist either.
But then again, Driving isn't a right, its a privilege.
And that's why I don't believe in such laws. Also you are mixing right with mandatory there.
Sucks to be the kid in a bad home. But that doesn't give someone the right to take them away.
Sucks to be raped. But that doesn't give someone the right to save them.
Not really. We have our own evolution, as unnatural as it is.
it's not based off morality. That's why it makes quite good sense to those not bound to morals.
I'm not an anarchist. I just believe government is a necessary evil and it's only purpose of existence is shooting the person who tries to extend his rights over beyond himself. That includes the government itself. It's not so black and white like you put it. There is another way to look at it.
It is not. There are countless laws, restrictions and regulations, and people study the law in universities for years. It is a complicated and huge system.
There is no objective wrong, even laws against murder are a product of society we live in.
Animals also have no laws against murder. We are homo sapiens, and what happens in nature among other animals is largely irrelevant to our human morality, IMHO. Animals also eat their offspring. Again, naturalistic fallacy - implication that natural=good, artificial=bad.
But you and I do believe in our subjective morals. Therefore we do have our subjective immorality, which does exist. Laws and rights are derived from morality.
So is procreation, according to my morality.
Then I believe you are a very immoral person.
Yes, it does. Sucks to be raped. But that doesn't give someone the right to save them. Where is the distinction? Harm is harm. Why do you think one kind of harm is acceptable but the other is not? You are not consistent.
And if we choose that population control will be part of our unnatural evolution, it will be. Again, there is absolutely no correlation between natural/unnatural and good/bad.
It is indeed based on your subjective morality, and there are millions of people that would disagree with it.
One of these basic rights that government needs to protect is right of a person to be brought into this world under good material and social conditions
and controlling the population in accordance with available usable resources.
There are many ways to look at it, and there is no objective or logical reason why your way should be the right way.
So now you see the problem.
I'd like to think that, but the cold hard fact is I'd do whatever I want to, irrelevant of the law, when it came down to it. Most people would probably.
A morality which has been shown to be primitive because it assumes. It is premeditated, and assumes too much. It is flawed because it is not objective. Assumption is, by definition, subjective.
Immorality, as in lack of morals? Thanks, I know.
Simple. Due to my lack of morality I'd break my own law and shoot the rapist. Not being consistent is a benefit of not being bound to any morals. It's really useful at times.
But we're talking about government and law here. Even simpler. We're not assuming a rapist before he acts. We are punishing a rapist for his actions. In context to your own so-called morality, you would have us punish the parent and assume their child would grow up to be a rapist, even though we really don't know. But hey, you're morality has to be right, right?
Oh but that probably means saying we should be better than animals seems like a contradiction right? What's wrong with a little contradiction here and there if you're free?
That's nice for them. Again, benefit of not living under, nor being forced to live under, any moral code. They cna believe what they want, and live under it by their will. but they have no right to enforce their morality onto me. I will, like most Americans, defend my free way of life. Again, take your morality and leave it at the door. We are free men here.
This is subjective. Governments cannot define what is good condition, as the human race has no definition for it that is universal.
Thanks fuhrer, I'm sure the people would love to shut up and follow orders.
Yes there is. Lacking a government action is the only objective way, because inaction in a subject is, by definition, a lack of objection and subjection. Naturally, it's objective in this case.
This is the difference. You would act preemptively, this being subjective. I would act after the event, this being objective because it assumes nothing. The corpse is right there for cold hard facts of the parents failure. For you, who knows. Maybe that kid that had a father that beat him every day grew up to cure cancer. Too bad, you're subjective preemptive strike against his father extinguished that possibility. Premeditated action is always subjective. Not assuming is objective. You are assuming.
Reality is complicated. I am no fan of too much bureaucracy, tough, but also not too little, as is the situation currently with reproduction anarchy.
You are underestimating the power of the state to enforce the laws, and overestimating the stubborness of an average citizen, particularly when it comes to relatively unintrusive reproduction control. The state does not take significant portion of GDP just for the heck of it. Most people would conform to population control policy, and those that would not could be easily dealt with. The policy is widely supported by people in China.
There is less assumption than there is with driving licence laws. Those who cannot take care even of themselves should not have children at the expense of the child or the society. I dont see any primitivism or assumptions in this.
Thats nothing to be proud of.
Indeed it is. Like when Hitler gassed those jews.
Prevention of crime, endangerment, material expenses or other bad things is a basic role of laws and government, not just punishing after some crime happens. There are countless laws like that. And no, population control is not punishment, in the same sense that not allowing someone without licence to drive is not punishment. It is a preventive regulation.
You are free to contradict yourself as much as you want, but dont be surprised when your arguments wont make much sense, then..
You already live under an enforced moral code, you are not free. The only thing that is keeping you from being forced to live under moral code with population control is that politics took some other way in the past.
I fail to see why this is an issue. Laws are full of such things. Also, it is not very subjective when we make a few assumptions about what conditions a child should grow up under. For example, earning an income sufficient to raise child on or at least not being unemployed would be a good start.
They indeed do, even more if the orders make some sense, such as population control.
I dont see why inaction should be somehow objective. Also, I fail to see why total objectivity is required.
We can assume many things with very good accuracy. Not assuming is also often too late. You would have lots of unnecessary corpses if the laws were based on this strange logic. Luckily, they are not.
1) You don't need to have 5 kids
2) People who have a lot of kids, are often poorer (don't have any evidence for this, just basing this on what i've seen)
3) More kids, more responsibility, more chances that one of the kids will be jealous of not receiving enough attention, and later in life suffer from this, or continue a life of aggressiveness to get attention.
4) Do you really need 5 kids? 1 is enough.
Originally posted by Aeons
All males are given a vasectomy at birth - replace circumcision with the mandatory vas.
Then, all these problems will be solved. The male testicles become public property, and only when a man is given his breeding license is he allowed to go to a doctor and have it undone.
All these problems are solved. Only YOUR reproductive organs get to be public property instead. But it solves WAY more social problems overall, so it is the much better solution.
Originally posted by IKTOMI
But it should be a choice not, something that is forced on us.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Aeons
All males are given a vasectomy at birth - replace circumcision with the mandatory vas.
Then, all these problems will be solved. The male testicles become public property, and only when a man is given his breeding license is he allowed to go to a doctor and have it undone.
All these problems are solved. Only YOUR reproductive organs get to be public property instead. But it solves WAY more social problems overall, so it is the much better solution.
Absolutely Brilliant!
But - Men give up something?
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by IKTOMI
But it should be a choice not, something that is forced on us.
There is a time when force becomes necessary.
Idealism - - is a nice word - - not much else.
Personally - I kind of like Gore.