internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: "Sil Greene" <quack AT ibiblio.org>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law)
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:15:22 -0500 (EST)
Michael Best said:
>> Tanner Lovelace wrote:
>>
>> "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? Instead we have the inquisition
>> (lite, so far) where if you don't believe what I do you must be
>> evil incarnate and laws must be passed to guarantee morality.
>> That's what scares me the most about this election.
>
> I wanted to comment on "laws enforcing morality." It seems to
> me that most laws, both from the right and left, are about
> morality -- an idea of right and proper behavior.
>
What we have here is a case of "precise, but not accurate". You're right,
that laws are a codification of morality (by definition) -- and that's
where you're precise. However, your accuracy is lacking -- by the
ambiguity in the multiple uses of the term 'morality'. The recent
proliferation of this term seems to be in uses where freedoms are
restricted -- and that's where you miss your aim.
> So you're scared of the "right" trying to force their morality on
> you. But they're also scared of the "left" doing the same.
> Personally I'm scared of both.
>
There's a difference between a law that RESTRICTS my freedom to make a
lifestyle choice, and a law that ALLOWS me the freedom to make a lifestyle
choice. It seems that the "right"'s morality is much heavier on the
restricting than the allowing. If you have examples of the "left"'s
morality being restrictive, please share; I'm likely against those as
well.
--s
-
Re: [internetworkers] RE: Erection
, (continued)
-
Re: [internetworkers] RE: Erection,
Thomas Beckett, 11/04/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] RE: Erection,
Tanner Lovelace, 11/04/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] RE: Erection, zman, 11/04/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law),
Michael Best, 11/05/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law),
Michael Czeiszperger, 11/05/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law),
Tony Spencer, 11/05/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), Tanner Lovelace, 11/05/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), David Minton, 11/05/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), Ian Meyer, 11/05/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), Michael Czeiszperger, 11/08/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law),
Tony Spencer, 11/05/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law),
Sil Greene, 11/05/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law),
Michael Best, 11/06/2004
- RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), Alan MacHett, 11/07/2004
- RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), Sil Greene, 11/07/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), Lee Haslup, 11/07/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), Sil Greene, 11/08/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), Lee Haslup, 11/09/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), Sil Greene, 11/09/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), James Dasher, 11/09/2004
-
RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law),
Michael Best, 11/06/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), David Minton, 11/09/2004
- RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law), Tony Spencer, 11/09/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law),
Michael Czeiszperger, 11/05/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] RE: Erection,
Tanner Lovelace, 11/04/2004
-
Re: [internetworkers] RE: Erection,
Thomas Beckett, 11/04/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.