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.
Well gee, I hope you don't hold opinions about anything at all happening in countries other than your own because, according to you, that would just be you trying to impose your morality on others.
You've been trying to define my position for me from the beginning, which is actually quite dishonest in itself, and now you are now accusing me of arguing in bad faith. I get that there are a lot of dishonest people on the internet but people like you, who decide that everything you don't agree with is bad faith by default, are just as bad. Please learn to actually hold a rational discussion instead of leading with smug, bad faith assumptions about your intellectual and ethical superiority.
Oh stop being silly. Your rebuttal opened with “trying to define my position,” and when I told you how you were wrong, you waffled. Unlike myself, who accurately summarised your stance and you agreed.
Your infantile “well, gee I hope” could easily be redirected at YOU for finding out other posters have views different than yours.
Freespeech: You are clearly arguing in good faith. The problem here is that you don't seem to have learned the lessons of the last 8+ years.
Certain (((talmudic))) people are effectively the only major force in the world who think that 'morality' is something that the commons can decide rationally. In fact, (((they))) don't actually believe that, but they've convinced Western society to believe it.
That's why you say that it's not 'based' to disallow sexual encounters between consenting people. This is insane, and can only lead to the destruction of society, as we're seeing in real-time, right before our eyes.
Morality is always associated with religion, but it's not actually religious in origin -- it's simply an exposition of what must be done in order to have a functioning society. This is why disparate religions like Islam, Christianity and Hinduism are all roughly the same as far as day-to-day life goes. They all abhor the exact same things.
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.
Well gee, I hope you don't hold opinions about anything at all happening in countries other than your own because, according to you, that would just be you trying to impose your morality on others.
You've been trying to define my position for me from the beginning, which is actually quite dishonest in itself, and now you are now accusing me of arguing in bad faith. I get that there are a lot of dishonest people on the internet but people like you, who decide that everything you don't agree with is bad faith by default, are just as bad. Please learn to actually hold a rational discussion instead of leading with smug, bad faith assumptions about your intellectual and ethical superiority.
Oh stop being silly. Your rebuttal opened with “trying to define my position,” and when I told you how you were wrong, you waffled. Unlike myself, who accurately summarised your stance and you agreed.
Your infantile “well, gee I hope” could easily be redirected at YOU for finding out other posters have views different than yours.
“Please learn,” indeed!
Freespeech: You are clearly arguing in good faith. The problem here is that you don't seem to have learned the lessons of the last 8+ years.
Certain (((talmudic))) people are effectively the only major force in the world who think that 'morality' is something that the commons can decide rationally. In fact, (((they))) don't actually believe that, but they've convinced Western society to believe it.
That's why you say that it's not 'based' to disallow sexual encounters between consenting people. This is insane, and can only lead to the destruction of society, as we're seeing in real-time, right before our eyes.
Morality is always associated with religion, but it's not actually religious in origin -- it's simply an exposition of what must be done in order to have a functioning society. This is why disparate religions like Islam, Christianity and Hinduism are all roughly the same as far as day-to-day life goes. They all abhor the exact same things.
Aerotrain