Law is not the same as morality. Are you making a rhetorical argument? Your post doesn't seem to relate to what you're replying to.
I can't understand why a non-sequitur post like this would get upvotes unless people were just unironically in favor of moral relativism when it goes their way.
I can't understand why a non-sequitur post like this would get upvotes unless people were just unironically in favor of moral relativism when it goes their way.
It's specifically because it's anti-LGBT. Hatred is starting to outpace pragmatism, and thus resistance is going to turn into vengeance. It was inevitable; the pendulum was always going to swing back in a big way. I can't blame people for feeling that way but I still don't like to see it.
Correct. Law is not the same as morality. YOUR moral worldview, disagreeing with THEIR LAW, isn’t relevant here.
If you want to get on your soapbox, you’d do well to get well acquainted with Malaysian morality, to get the general populations’ consensus on homosexuality.
YOUR moral worldview, disagreeing with THEIR LAW, isn’t relevant here.
It seems like this logic would exclude any conversation about unjust laws, or the state of the world in general. If you can't apply your own moral world view to the situations of others, why have a discussion forum at all?
Unfortunately for your worldview, THAT IS THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY. Their culture of morality is as valid as yours.
Your argument assumes I consider all the laws and 'morals' of my own country valid. Sometimes laws are wrong. Sometimes social norms are wrong.
Authoritarianism is bad, even if it's on our side. It is NOT any government's business to tell people they can't perform mutually consensual acts. Libertarianism is flawed in that it lacks many of the defenses that a healthy society requires, but it is fundamentally true that the state has no greater right to dictate my actions than I myself do.
Restrictive laws like this are only ever, at best, a necessary evil. They are not to be celebrated.
My argument certainly does not assume you consider your country’s law & morals to be superior; it assumes you think YOUR moral attitude superior. It’s also very telling you say that you consider some of your place’s “social norms to be wrong.”
As for Malaysia. Tough. Luck. It’s their country, they can do whatever they like. Their morality is as valid as yours.
I think my moral position is correct, as does anyone advocating for a moral position, including you.
It’s their country, they can do whatever they like. Their morality is as valid as yours.
The will of the government is quite often not the will of the people.
Even if it is the will of the people, the tyranny of the majority is a very real phenomenon. Does having a majority consensus mean any action is fair game and morally valid?
Malaysia is also the country of the people who are being arrested for owning these watches. I very much doubt they want to be arrested. Why can't they do whatever they like?
I think my moral position is correct, as does anyone advocating for a moral position, including you
Correct, obvious, and irrelevant. The reason I said what I did was because of your erroneous initial claim!
The will of the government is quite often not the will of the people.
Even if it is the will of the people, the tyranny of the majority is a very real phenomenon
This is you trying to have your cake and eat it. No need to fence-sit; your position is obvious. YOU think this law is immoral, and YOU think it should be different, you clearly care neither what the minority or majority think.
Unfortunately for you, it’s not your country, so, tough luck.
I would be interested in debating the “majority opinion” aspect of your post, but you are arguing there in bad faith, so it would be a distraction.
Unfortunately for your worldview, THAT IS THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY. Their culture of morality is as valid as yours.
Wearing symbols that openly defy that law? You’ll get what you get.
Law is not the same as morality. Are you making a rhetorical argument? Your post doesn't seem to relate to what you're replying to.
I can't understand why a non-sequitur post like this would get upvotes unless people were just unironically in favor of moral relativism when it goes their way.
It's specifically because it's anti-LGBT. Hatred is starting to outpace pragmatism, and thus resistance is going to turn into vengeance. It was inevitable; the pendulum was always going to swing back in a big way. I can't blame people for feeling that way but I still don't like to see it.
Correct. Law is not the same as morality. YOUR moral worldview, disagreeing with THEIR LAW, isn’t relevant here.
If you want to get on your soapbox, you’d do well to get well acquainted with Malaysian morality, to get the general populations’ consensus on homosexuality.
It seems like this logic would exclude any conversation about unjust laws, or the state of the world in general. If you can't apply your own moral world view to the situations of others, why have a discussion forum at all?
Unjust in YOUR opinion. The country involved? Maybe not so much. Again: it’s their country, not yours. Tough.
Conversely: put your adult pants on and RESPECT DIVERSITY; that other cultures do NOT have the same values as you do.
Your argument assumes I consider all the laws and 'morals' of my own country valid. Sometimes laws are wrong. Sometimes social norms are wrong.
Authoritarianism is bad, even if it's on our side. It is NOT any government's business to tell people they can't perform mutually consensual acts. Libertarianism is flawed in that it lacks many of the defenses that a healthy society requires, but it is fundamentally true that the state has no greater right to dictate my actions than I myself do.
Restrictive laws like this are only ever, at best, a necessary evil. They are not to be celebrated.
My argument certainly does not assume you consider your country’s law & morals to be superior; it assumes you think YOUR moral attitude superior. It’s also very telling you say that you consider some of your place’s “social norms to be wrong.”
As for Malaysia. Tough. Luck. It’s their country, they can do whatever they like. Their morality is as valid as yours.
I think my moral position is correct, as does anyone advocating for a moral position, including you.
The will of the government is quite often not the will of the people.
Even if it is the will of the people, the tyranny of the majority is a very real phenomenon. Does having a majority consensus mean any action is fair game and morally valid?
Malaysia is also the country of the people who are being arrested for owning these watches. I very much doubt they want to be arrested. Why can't they do whatever they like?
Correct, obvious, and irrelevant. The reason I said what I did was because of your erroneous initial claim!
This is you trying to have your cake and eat it. No need to fence-sit; your position is obvious. YOU think this law is immoral, and YOU think it should be different, you clearly care neither what the minority or majority think.
Unfortunately for you, it’s not your country, so, tough luck.
I would be interested in debating the “majority opinion” aspect of your post, but you are arguing there in bad faith, so it would be a distraction.