Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    But as you said, you are free to make your choices, as long as you do not interfere with the choices of others.
    I pulled this from the "Afghan faces..." thread.

    This is an example of a philosophy that I think leads to deterioration. On the one hand, it establishes that each peson has the right to do as they please. Then it sets a boundary on that right in terms of the effect the application of that right has on others.

    But, who is to say what constitutes interference with another's choices? A great example I pondered is adult/child sexual relations. Here are the types of questions that were raised in my mind:
    1. Is the adult interfering with the child's choices?
    2. What if the child consents to the interaction?
    3. What is the age of consent?
    4. What if the child for whom I am financially and legally liable consents against my wishes?
    5. What if an adult who is financially and legally liable for a child consents to have the child involved with another adult against the child's wishes?

    Enter the rule of law (a point upon which we have already agreed).

    On what basis is the practice legalized or outlawed?



    I submit that there must be an underlying framework to which the population agrees. In the Afghan thread, Redbelt demonstrated how Sharia (sp?) provides corner stones upon which other laws are established. If ever the people lose confidence in the validity of Sharia, the whole structure deteriorates--fast.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    But, who is to say what constitutes interference with another's choices? A great example I pondered is adult/child sexual relations. Here are the types of questions that were raised in my mind:
    1. Is the adult interfering with the child's choices?
    It depends on what you call adult and what child. Generally speaking: yes, the adult is interfering because the child has limited posibilities of resitance and cannot decide independently.
    2. What if the child consents to the interaction?
    Again, it depends. In Switzerland, it depends (among other things) on the age difference. E.g. consensual sex between a 18 year old (adult) and a 15 year old may not be illegal, whereas e.g. sex between a (say) 30 old and a 15 year old will be considered illegal. Other circumstances matter, too.
    3. What is the age of consent?
    16, I think. However, e.g. sex between two 14 year olds is not illegal, but may warrant official attention in some cases nevertheless.
    4. What if the child for whom I am financially and legally liable consents against my wishes?
    Bad luck for you you. Legal aspects depend on exact circumstances, as described above.
    5. What if an adult who is financially and legally liable for a child consents to have the child involved with another adult against the child's wishes?
    That's not really an open question, is it?
    On what basis is the practice legalized or outlawed?
    By a practice called legislation, described in the constitution.
    I submit that there must be an underlying framework to which the population agrees.
    Yes, it is called constitution.
    In the Afghan thread, Redbelt demonstrated how Sharia (sp?) provides corner stones upon which other laws are established. If ever the people lose confidence in the validity of Sharia, the whole structure deteriorates--fast.
    Thats wrong. E.g. Turkey changed from a Sharia based system to a more moder, secular one. Turkey is the only democratic Muslim country and is quite successful economically. I would not call this deterioration.

    On the other hand, there are lots of Sharia-based countries which have deteriorated fast under Sharia law, namely upon adopting the stict forms of Sharia, e.g. Afghanistan and Iran.
    Last edited by clulup; 03/30/2006 at 08:53 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3.    #23  
    clulup, you mention on a few occasions, "it depends." At the root of this discussion is the question, "on what does it depend."

    I know the simple answer is it depends on what legislation has been enacted. Secondarily, that legislation is subject to the constitution.

    But, what is the philosophical basis for the constitution?

    Consider this conflict:

    In response to my question about about having a child for whom I am liable consenting to behavior of which I do not approve, your response was "bad luck for you."

    If I am financially and legally responsible for the child, I have the right to, and in fact am expected to make decisions regarding that child. Yet, in the scenario, you defend (i.e. "bad luck for you") the right of the child and the other adult to interfere with my choice in how I carry out my legal and financial responsiblities.

    Now, if the underlying philosophy is that people exist for the purpose of maintaining and sustaining the state, then the conflict is gone. But, then, so is the right of the individual to make choices.
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    ...
    Thats wrong. E.g. Turkey changed from a Sharia based system to a more moder, secular one. Turkey is the only democratic Muslim country and is quite successful economically. I would not call this deterioration.
    Deterioration of one structure does not preclude the emergence, even simultaneously, of an improved structure.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    But, what is the philosophical basis for the constitution?
    It is the result of a democratic process. The constitution reflect the basic values of the people. Some people copy/paste those values from old books, others think about which values lead to which results and select their values accordingly, others may have different ways of finding values, e.g. they come to the conclusion that the values in an old book are good ones. Whatever the source of the values, in a democracy, a consensus is reached via democratic processes.
    If I am financially and legally responsible for the child, I have the right to, and in fact am expected to make decisions regarding that child. Yet, in the scenario, you defend (i.e. "bad luck for you") the right of the child and the other adult to interfere with my choice in how I carry out my legal and financial responsiblities.
    A child is a person with an own will. As long as no laws are broken, it is up to you to deal with the acts of the child (as long as you don't break any laws in the process).
    Now, if the underlying philosophy is that people exist for the purpose of maintaining and sustaining the state, then the conflict is gone. But, then, so is the right of the individual to make choices.
    It is the state which exists for the purpose of maintaining and sustaining the people, not vice versa. There are plenty of choices to make also within the frame of legal behaviour, and you can even decide to break the law and risk facing the consequences.

    I still have the feeling that you somehow intend to say we would have a better society if we all follow the Bible, or even that we all need to believe in the Bible because else society will fall apart....
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It is the result of a democratic process. The constitution reflect the basic values of the people. Some people copy/paste those values from old books, others think about which values lead to which results and select their values accordingly, others may have different ways of finding values, e.g. they come to the conclusion that the values in an old book are good ones. Whatever the source of the values, in a democracy, a consensus is reached via democratic processes.
    I considered that the Constitution may in fact be the framework. As such, I think i see eveidence of my supposition in the US. namely, there are two general thoughts about the document: 1) it is a "living" document; 2) it is a static document.

    In the former, the interpretation changes over time. In the latter, the interpretation is fairly consistent over time, and effort is made to make application of the interpretation in light of the specific circumstances.

    I find that the "living document" paradigm is analogous to my concept of deterioriation, only in that its meaning is recast without initiating the legislative process (consitutional congress, I think it is called).
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    A child is a person with an own will. As long as no laws are broken, it is up to you to deal with the acts of the child (as long as you don't break any laws in the process).
    What then is the basis for assigning financial and legal liability to the parent/guardian?
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It is the state which exists for the purpose of maintaining and sustaining the people, not vice versa. There are plenty of choices to make also within the frame of legal behaviour, and you can even decide to break the law and risk facing the consequences.
    Indeed.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup

    I still have the feeling that you somehow intend to say we would have a better society if we all follow the Bible, or even that we all need to believe in the Bible because else society will fall apart....
    That feeling is evident in your replies.
  7. #27  
    Hey shopharim, remember that time you referenced the Bible in this thread?
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Hey shopharim, remember that time you referenced the Bible in this thread?
    You were supposed to include one of these
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    You were supposed to include one of these
    Oops, my bad.
  10. #30  
    Quote
    By: hoovs at Today 10:11 AM

    Hey shopharim, remember that time you referenced the Bible in this thread?



    The assumption was probably based on previous posts (Sopharim loves the Trojan horse approach). I get a chuckle out of the supposition that all things would be perfect if all of us heathens would subscribe to the good book. If only we would capitulate. The 10 C's are so rock solid and there is no dissention or conflict between the various sects of christianity.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    Quote
    By: hoovs at Today 10:11 AM

    Hey shopharim, remember that time you referenced the Bible in this thread?



    The assumption was probably based on previous posts (Sopharim loves the Trojan horse approach). I get a chuckle out of the supposition that all things would be perfect if all of us heathens would subscribe to the good book. If only we would capitulate. The 10 C's are so rock solid and there is no dissention or conflict between the various sects of christianity.
    Is that what he's saying? I must have missed that part.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I considered that the Constitution may in fact be the framework. As such, I think i see eveidence of my supposition in the US. namely, there are two general thoughts about the document: 1) it is a "living" document; 2) it is a static document. ...

    I find that the "living document" paradigm is analogous to my concept of deterioriation...
    See, that's the problem: "living" means change which is analogous to deterioration for you... You seem to believe that the original constituion written 200+ years ago was perfect and can only be made worse. That's a very negative view, and also not very realistic, because there is no reason to believe that the original constitution was perfect for all eternity, or that present people can only make it worse.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    See, that's the problem: "living" means change which is analogous to deterioration for you... You seem to believe that the original constituion written 200+ years ago was perfect and can only be made worse. That's a very negative view, and also not very realistic, because there is no reason to believe that the original constitution was perfect for all eternity, or that present people can only make it worse.
    That is not my view.

    My view is that changes to the Constitution are to be made "de jure" in accordance with the prescribed process, not "de facto" by virtue of some judicial activity.

    While I do not subscribe to the notion that the Constitution was perfect 200+ years ago (especially since it was drafted by imperfect people), you must admit that relatively few changes have been made, given the time period. So, it was not perfect, but very effective. In fact, several of the amendments are not really changes as much as clarifications of the original, or, better yet, affirmations that the original applies to segments of the population that were historically disenfranchised.
  14.    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    Quote
    By: hoovs at Today 10:11 AM

    Hey shopharim, remember that time you referenced the Bible in this thread?



    The assumption was probably based on previous posts (Sopharim loves the Trojan horse approach).
    I like to get the discussion started on the topic rather than having the subject summarily dismissed because the Bible is referenced.
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    I get a chuckle out of the supposition that all things would be perfect if all of us heathens would subscribe to the good book.
    Me, too, especially since I see how my subscription yields far from perfect results. But, then perfection is not what is offered in the good book. It offers to bridge the gap between the perfect and the imperfect.
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    If only we would capitulate.
    Try it. You might like it.
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    The 10 C's are so rock solid
    Which ones seem frail?
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    and there is no dissention or conflict between the various sects of christianity.
    Your characterizations of the disagreements are much too mild.

    Feel free to treat my responses rhetorically, and stay directly on topic. Or to the extent that you feel they are relevant, we can take the tanget(s).
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Feel free to treat my responses rhetorically, and stay directly on topic. Or to the extent that you feel they are relevant, we can take the tanget(s).
    So jump out of your wooden horse and get to your main point already so that I may be less rhetorical!
  16. #36  
    The anti-Socratic Method: party A begins the discussion with an assertion; party B accepts or rejects said assertion based on nothing more than preconceived opinions about party A. Stalemate occurs, discussion ends, parties part ways, nothing changes.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Which ones [of the 10 Commandments] seem frail?
    Exodus 20:4: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."
    "Idols in the form of anything in heaven" are very common in the form of pictures and the like in churches, books etc. all over the world, that's a clear violation of this commandment. Apart from this, most people nowadays agree that children should not be punished for the wrongdoing of their parents or grandparents, I would even say it is considered cruel and unjust.
    Exodus 20:8: "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates."
    Another of the 10 Commandments which has become "frail", to say the least. Also, death penalty for not obeying this rule has been abandoned quite a while ago, even though it is mandatory according to other parts of the Bible.

    I could go on, but I have to go to sleep.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    The anti-Socratic Method: party A begins the discussion with an assertion; party B accepts or rejects said assertion based on nothing more than preconceived opinions about party A. Stalemate occurs, discussion ends, parties part ways, nothing changes.
    Which point Shopharim brought up didn't I address to your satisfaction?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19.    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    "Idols in the form of anything in heaven" are very common in the form of pictures and the like in churches, books etc. all over the world, that's a clear violation of this commandment. Apart from this, most people nowadays agree that children should not be punished for the wrongdoing of their parents or grandparents, I would even say it is considered cruel and unjust.Another of the 10 Commandments which has become "frail", to say the least. Also, death penalty for not obeying this rule has been abandoned quite a while ago, even though it is mandatory according to other parts of the Bible.

    I could go on, but I have to go to sleep.
    There is a clear distinction between "creating an image" and "creating an image to be an idol," or even making an image an idol though it was created for another purpose. It is obvious in the quoted text that issues at hand is that no other entity be aforded greater reverence than the Sovreign of the universe.

    Certainly, IF there is a God as described in the Bible, it is justifiable for that God to demand to be treated as such, and that no created entity be given greater homage than its creator.

    And, as to visiting the sins of the parents upon their children, it may be that you are caught on the apparent active tense of the text, rather than realizing that the parents' actions always impact the off-spring.

    Children of parents who abuse alcohol are at greater propensity to do likewise. Children of parents who smoke are at greater propensity to do likewise. Children born to parents who procreated out of wedlock at are greater propensity to do likewise.

    Yet in all these scenarios, and so many more, the children are able to break the cycle. So, even though the sins of the parents "visit," they do not have to stay.

    Failure on the part of Man to adhere to the command does not make it frail. As is often the case, many who experience mercy opt to further their infractions rather than amend their behavior. But, the admonition of the first century writer is clear, don't be fooled. God will not be made a fool of. Whatever you sow you will reap (Galatians 6:7). Another writer said, don't think of God as being slack. It is that He is extremely patient toward us, because He would much prefer we experience a change of heart rather than experience appropriate justice (2 Peter 3:9).
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    So jump out of your wooden horse and get to your main point already so that I may be less rhetorical!
    Your wish is my command! Here is the main point.
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Democracies and Democratic Republics in particular, and all societies in general, rely on a standard of right and wrong as agreed upon by the participants. It is only upon such a foundation that one confidently can entrust the preservation of his or her well-being to the collective society. That is to say, when we have an agreed upon standard I know what to expect from you, and likewise I know what to expect from the general population should you operate outside those expectations. And, perhaps most importatnly, I know what to expect from the population should I operate outside the expectatoins.

    To have an agreed upon standard of right and wrong, the population needs a general frame of reference. To be effective, at a minimum, that mutual frame of reference must provide for the notion that right and wrong are legitimate measures. Any frame of reference that relies on relative measures of appropriateness will ultimately fail, because the standards will inevitably deteriorate to the lowest common denominator, which is "do what ever seems right in your eyes." Failure of the society ultimately ensues because:
    1. The mutual trust erodes
    2. I no longer know what to expect from others
    3. I am no longer compelled to have concern for others
    4. I no longer know how the general population will respond when I or another operates outside of the norm
    5. No authority could intervene legitimately anyway, accept with might.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions