OK Let me clarify myself a bit. I believe that the government does not have the right to tell a person what to do, unless it has an adverse effect on someone else. So I would support a ban on smoking in public places. Why? Aren't I telling a person what to do? Yes, but in this case, her behavior has an adverse effect upon others.
For example, let's take the ban on recreational drugs. I believe that they don't belong on the books, for many reasons, most of which don't apply in this discussion. If a person wants to smoke pot, or shoot dope, that is his business. So where is society involved? If the person robs a store to buy his dope, (his actions having an adverse effect on someone else, the
shopkeeper)THEN I think that it is perfectly appropriate for the law to step in.
As citizens, we need to be very careful as to how much latitude that the government should have in controlling an individual's personal life. They tried that great experiment, Prohibition, in the 1920's, and you know the result of that.
Let us take the concept out ad absurdum. Should it be illegal for people with a body mass index over a certain level be prohibited from buying fattening foods? Should tobacco be completely outlawed? One might infer that these substances cause just as much of a cost in society in terms of lost man hours at work, and rising health costs, as dope. So why not ban tobacco and Twinkies?
My credo is, "The right to swing your arm ends at the other fellow's nose". My decisions are based on that one, simple concept.
Phoenix, I do understand where you are coming from. But I am firm on how I believe in this situation.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Intrepid wrote:What else should people be allowed to do in their own home? Kiddy porn? Any number of other things that are abhorent and illegal based on public morals? Where does this "freedom" start and end?
Intrepid- That herring is so red that it can glow in the dark. Children have to be protected. It is wrong to show kiddie porn to kids because at a young age, it can be traumatic to them. It has nothing to do with public morals.
If you want to make the herring even redder, I could go on a whole rap about how far the government should be permitted to go as far as investigating child abuse, but I won't because I want to stay on the main issue, which is personal freedom.
And this doesn't includej personal freedom? The poster was referring to that people should be able to do whatever they want in their own home. Why is there a distinction between what they choose to do? I am not referring to the degree of intolerance. I am referring to how far their rights should go.
You say that you are totally for peoples freedoms. Given that train of thought it would have to follow that you would not be against anything that anybody did in their own home.
I think this is wrong.
Intrepid- I don't think that you quite understand my "take" on things. Minor children need to be protected. If their parents are doing things that are detrimental to their children, society needs to step in.
The obvious problem here, is what is to be considered, "detrimental", and how much power the government should have to control the rights of children. It is a very tricky subject, and there are no easy answers.
Obviously, if a child is beaten, starved, and locked in a closet for punishment, most of us would agree that that sort of behavior constitutes child abuse, and the parents need to answer for that. But there are other family behaviors that are in the "grey" area, and need to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
I observed a very interesting incident some time ago.I had a collegue who was the director of a mental health clinic. She had a six year old daughter, whom she absolutely adored. That girl was the light of her life.
One day the kid was playing, tripped, and ended up with a number of bruises. When her teacher saw them, she reported it to the authorities, and there was an investigation. My collegue took the whole thing in stride, although when she told me about it, I was a bit ticked off, knowing what a loving family that the girl had. I don't know the answer to that particular issue. Did the government invade the family's privacy? Was it any of their business? I don't really know.
Thanks, Phoenix.
Unfortunately, I don't think you understand what I am trying to say either.
I am not making this a discussion on child protection per se. I am also not just referring to children in the home of their parents.
The thing that Mesquite brought up was that people can do whatever they want in their own homes. I used the kiddy porn example to stress that freedoms can go beyond what is reasonable. What if someone took the child into their home (not family) for immoral purposes? Does the persons right to do what they want in the privacy of their own home surpass the rights of the child? Or any other scenario that could be used.
I don't see this as a red herring at all.
Intrepid- OK, I think that I have a better understanding of what you are saying. IMO, people should be free to do what they want in their own home, by themselves. Once other people are mixed into the equation, everything changes.
For instance, let's say that a couple is into S&M. Although I don't personally approve of that behavior, my attitude is, "whatever floats your boat". Now if they bring a child into the home, and make him part of the S&M, the government needs to step in. Also, if they bring in an unwilling adult, the law needs to intervene.
The issue is that two people, who are consenting adults should be free to do what they want in the privacy of their own home. Someone might bring us an issue, say, what if the people decide to burn down their house? Now it becomes more complicated. If they burn down their house, their neighbors might be put at risk, and they may be committing fraud, in terms of their insurance company. Each issue, IMO needs to be separated out into its primary components.
Are these people in their own home? Does each adult person consent to what they are doing, without coercion? Does what they are doing have an adverse effect on any other people? Are minors involved?
There are no easy answers. Life is just too complicated.
The anti-internet gambling law as not voted in a general election or for a specific state/county. It was a law passed in house of representatives for the entire country. The House voted 317-93 in favor of the bill being passed. Majorities of Republican and Democrats voted for this measure.
As far as all of them being Christian or religous I would venture to say that most of them are and by a very large majority.
If you'd like I can find several statements from key supporters of this bill talking about it's religious and family value's implications. Religion is a key reason that this bill was passed. I've read several religous news websites and they are raving about the passage of this bill.
The problem for me is that I could drive 30 miles to the nearest Indian casino and play my poker and be perfectally legal, but it was much more convient to play at home. Now that's gone and for no good reason.
More religious and government intrusion into my life and people wonder why more and more people are dissatisfied with our country and religion in general.
This bill, more than any other, and on several different levels has pissed more people off lately.
Arella Mae wrote:maporsche wrote:timberlandko wrote:Definitely sucks about the online gambling thing - helluva tax revenue stream just tossed away. However, from a purely pragmatic POV, a Federal ban is about the only way it coulda gone, given the nature of the 'net, unambiguous Federal wagering laws and the tangle of state laws pertaining to wagering.
Yeah, if you're going to ban it, a federal law is the only way to go. But c'mon, so much for the party of 'less government interference'.
And so much for the Christian POV of personal choice/freedom/free will/etc.
I sincerely doubt you would have been upset if they had voted your way right? You think they might not have liked it if your desires were met here? Stop trying to blame religion! People vote their conscience whatever that may derive from. You vote yours and they vote theirs. There is no difference. WE ALL HAVE THE SAME EXACT RIGHT. (Cap for emphasis only.)
What reason or right does anyone have to not like what I do in the privacy of my own home if it does not affect them?
maporsche wrote:Arella Mae wrote:maporsche wrote:timberlandko wrote:Definitely sucks about the online gambling thing - helluva tax revenue stream just tossed away. However, from a purely pragmatic POV, a Federal ban is about the only way it coulda gone, given the nature of the 'net, unambiguous Federal wagering laws and the tangle of state laws pertaining to wagering.
Yeah, if you're going to ban it, a federal law is the only way to go. But c'mon, so much for the party of 'less government interference'.
And so much for the Christian POV of personal choice/freedom/free will/etc.
I sincerely doubt you would have been upset if they had voted your way right? You think they might not have liked it if your desires were met here? Stop trying to blame religion! People vote their conscience whatever that may derive from. You vote yours and they vote theirs. There is no difference. WE ALL HAVE THE SAME EXACT RIGHT. (Cap for emphasis only.)
What reason or right does anyone have to not like what I do in the privacy of my own home if it does not affect them?
They--in a fit of
superiority--think they need to protect a corrupt society from too much freedom.
Arella Mae wrote:Phoenix, I do understand where you are coming from. But I am firm on how I believe in this situation.
I think this summarizes the situation perfectly. I've been reading along thinking Phoenix might actually be drilling through the concrete walls that surround Arella's thought process. I've tried, others have tried, dys calls it pissing in the wind, but it's obvious to me that Arella continues to believe that she has the right to impose her views on others, be they religious views, moral views, or social views.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Intrepid- OK, I think that I have a better understanding of what you are saying. IMO, people should be free to do what they want in their own home, by themselves. Once other people are mixed into the equation, everything changes.
For instance, let's say that a couple is into S&M. Although I don't personally approve of that behavior, my attitude is, "whatever floats your boat". Now if they bring a child into the home, and make him part of the S&M, the government needs to step in. Also, if they bring in an unwilling adult, the law needs to intervene.
The issue is that two people, who are consenting adults should be free to do what they want in the privacy of their own home. Someone might bring us an issue, say, what if the people decide to burn down their house? Now it becomes more complicated. If they burn down their house, their neighbors might be put at risk, and they may be committing fraud, in terms of their insurance company. Each issue, IMO needs to be separated out into its primary components.
Are these people in their own home? Does each adult person consent to what they are doing, without coercion? Does what they are doing have an adverse effect on any other people? Are minors involved?
There are no easy answers. Life is just too complicated.
Now we are on the same page.
We now both understand what I meant. Sometimes words have a way of cluttering up what we want to say. :wink:
maporsche wrote:The anti-internet gambling law as not voted in a general election or for a specific state/county. It was a law passed in house of representatives for the entire country. The House voted 317-93 in favor of the bill being passed. Majorities of Republican and Democrats voted for this measure.
As far as all of them being Christian or religous I would venture to say that most of them are and by a very large majority.
If you'd like I can find several statements from key supporters of this bill talking about it's religious and family value's implications. Religion is a key reason that this bill was passed. I've read several religous news websites and they are raving about the passage of this bill.
The problem for me is that I could drive 30 miles to the nearest Indian casino and play my poker and be perfectally legal, but it was much more convient to play at home. Now that's gone and for no good reason.
More religious and government intrusion into my life and people wonder why more and more people are dissatisfied with our country and religion in general.
This bill, more than any other, and on several different levels has pissed more people off lately.
You are, if I understand you correctly, saying that elected representatives voted on this bill. Representatives that were elected by the people to run things for them.
If you are unhappy with the decisions they make....vote them out. You can't blame everything on religion. Well, you can....but that doesn't make it right.
Lash wrote:maporsche wrote:Arella Mae wrote:maporsche wrote:timberlandko wrote:Definitely sucks about the online gambling thing - helluva tax revenue stream just tossed away. However, from a purely pragmatic POV, a Federal ban is about the only way it coulda gone, given the nature of the 'net, unambiguous Federal wagering laws and the tangle of state laws pertaining to wagering.
Yeah, if you're going to ban it, a federal law is the only way to go. But c'mon, so much for the party of 'less government interference'.
And so much for the Christian POV of personal choice/freedom/free will/etc.
I sincerely doubt you would have been upset if they had voted your way right? You think they might not have liked it if your desires were met here? Stop trying to blame religion! People vote their conscience whatever that may derive from. You vote yours and they vote theirs. There is no difference. WE ALL HAVE THE SAME EXACT RIGHT. (Cap for emphasis only.)
What reason or right does anyone have to not like what I do in the privacy of my own home if it does not affect them?
They--in a fit of
superiority--think they need to protect a corrupt society from too much freedom.
You are, of course, referring to the superiority of your elected representatives.
Intrepid wrote:Lash wrote:maporsche wrote:Arella Mae wrote:maporsche wrote:timberlandko wrote:Definitely sucks about the online gambling thing - helluva tax revenue stream just tossed away. However, from a purely pragmatic POV, a Federal ban is about the only way it coulda gone, given the nature of the 'net, unambiguous Federal wagering laws and the tangle of state laws pertaining to wagering.
Yeah, if you're going to ban it, a federal law is the only way to go. But c'mon, so much for the party of 'less government interference'.
And so much for the Christian POV of personal choice/freedom/free will/etc.
I sincerely doubt you would have been upset if they had voted your way right? You think they might not have liked it if your desires were met here? Stop trying to blame religion! People vote their conscience whatever that may derive from. You vote yours and they vote theirs. There is no difference. WE ALL HAVE THE SAME EXACT RIGHT. (Cap for emphasis only.)
What reason or right does anyone have to not like what I do in the privacy of my own home if it does not affect them?
They--in a fit of
superiority--think they need to protect a corrupt society from too much freedom.
You are, of course, referring to the superiority of your elected representatives.
I can see why you have trouble with the logical progression of posts. You don't know how to read.
Lash wrote:Intrepid wrote:Lash wrote:maporsche wrote:Arella Mae wrote:maporsche wrote:timberlandko wrote:Definitely sucks about the online gambling thing - helluva tax revenue stream just tossed away. However, from a purely pragmatic POV, a Federal ban is about the only way it coulda gone, given the nature of the 'net, unambiguous Federal wagering laws and the tangle of state laws pertaining to wagering.
Yeah, if you're going to ban it, a federal law is the only way to go. But c'mon, so much for the party of 'less government interference'.
And so much for the Christian POV of personal choice/freedom/free will/etc.
I sincerely doubt you would have been upset if they had voted your way right? You think they might not have liked it if your desires were met here? Stop trying to blame religion! People vote their conscience whatever that may derive from. You vote yours and they vote theirs. There is no difference. WE ALL HAVE THE SAME EXACT RIGHT. (Cap for emphasis only.)
What reason or right does anyone have to not like what I do in the privacy of my own home if it does not affect them?
They--in a fit of
superiority--think they need to protect a corrupt society from too much freedom.
You are, of course, referring to the superiority of your elected representatives.
I can see why you have trouble with the logical progression of posts. You don't know how to read.
Oh, testy are we?
I can read just fine. Your powers of interpretation seem to need some refinement.
It was the elected officials who passed the law.... NOT Christians. Unless, of course, the elected officials were Christians that were elected by the majority.
People vote their conscience whatever that may derive from. You vote yours and they vote theirs. There is no difference. WE ALL HAVE THE SAME EXACT RIGHT.
What reason or right does anyone have to not like what I do in the privacy of my own home if it does not affect them?
They--in a fit of superiority--think they need to protect a corrupt society from too much freedom.
___________________________
For clarification, people who vote to curtail other people's rights when it doesn't affect them, do so because they think they are superior. They aren't content living as they think they should--they take measures to inflict their views on other people.
Did you get it that time?
Lash wrote:People vote their conscience whatever that may derive from. You vote yours and they vote theirs. There is no difference. WE ALL HAVE THE SAME EXACT RIGHT.
What reason or right does anyone have to not like what I do in the privacy of my own home if it does not affect them?
They--in a fit of superiority--think they need to protect a corrupt society from too much freedom.
___________________________
For clarification, people who vote to curtail other people's rights when it doesn't affect them, do so because they think they are superior. They aren't content living as they think they should--they take measures to inflict their views on other people.
Did you get it that time?
about time someone "got it"
JPB wrote:Arella Mae wrote:Phoenix, I do understand where you are coming from. But I am firm on how I believe in this situation.
I think this summarizes the situation perfectly. I've been reading along thinking Phoenix might actually be drilling through the concrete walls that surround Arella's thought process. I've tried, others have tried, dys calls it pissing in the wind, but it's obvious to me that Arella continues to believe that she has the right to impose her views on others, be they religious views, moral views, or social views.
That's what you get when one considers themself to be one of God's police. That is also why it is so important to maintain a secular government where laws are adaptable and based upon what works and is most beneficial to society, and not on what was the standard set by a relatively primitive superstitious society two thousand years ago.
Funny thing is, that if you look at the world, you can see the results of a government being run along religious lines, with people having to live according to the beliefs of some people, whether they agree with it or not.
Anyone remember the Taliban, in Afghanistan? That is the sort of government that we would have, if the religious right had their druthers, only American style.
Does that sound way out? It really isn't if you would care to think it through. But then again the folks who want the country to be that way, don't care much for individual thought, simply reliance on faith.
