I've already explained how morality is logically defined, and you've already conceded that emotions are also tied to logic.
Even if I were wrong that "morals" and "ethics" are synonymous, which they are, it wouldn't "crush my entire credibility about morals." Nice try though.
"Morals" don't just pertain to the personal, and "ethics" don't just pertain just to specific company or societal rules. You can use them that way, but that's not what they necessarily always mean.
You're only distinguishing between the two in your example by talking about "ethics" as "company ethics," using the word synonymously with "rules;" I am not arguing that morals are necessarily the same thing as an established set of rules by a group of people (in fact, that has been my whole point). In the general sense, saying something is or is not "moral" is the same thing as saying something is or is not "ethical." Again, nice try.
I'm not arguing that people don't have varying views on morality; for example, I think piracy is immoral and some people think piracy is moral. However, I've already shown that morality can be quantified if we establish a definition of "morality," and unless you're arguing that objective logic doesn't exist, then your argument falls apart and piracy is or is not objectively moral.
Depending on how you answer the questions, they actually do show that the federal government, courts, etc. should be allowed to intervene when a state gets it wrong. Answer my questions or concede my points. Otherwise, it's apparent that you're not interested in having a conversation.
Because then you would have had states where slavery was legal with there being no course of action other than to wait and hope the states criminalize slavery. You realize you're arguing against the abolition of slavery, yes?
That's not at all what I'm arguing.
Allowing slavery to be legal in some states is illogical because slavery is immoral, just like it would be illogical to allow murder to be legal in some states.
As a matter of national security, it's an important consideration that Iran has ties with terrorist groups that would use nuclear weapons against us if they had the chance.
What's proven?
People are stating that third-party candidates are a waste of a vote because not enough people are voting for those candidates in order for them to be politically viable; it's not the other way around. If it is the other way around, I'd like to see some evidence of that.
Yes, but it has got to be true for it to mean anything. If it's not true, then you're just tricking someone into throwing his or her vote away.
No, a write-in vote for me, despite the fact that it's worth 1 vote, does not have as much of an influence on the results of the election as a vote for Romney or Obama.
No one claims this is as good as it gets. The economy has improved under President Obama, but we were in a pretty deep hole.
Hi.
Morals and ethics are still not going to change in definition just because you disagree with those definitions. Morals are personal, ethics involve a society. A company society is just one example of where ethics apply, but it's not the only example. Ethics apply to any form of community. The fact you don't know such basic definitions show that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to morals or ethics. That is what they always mean, research into them further if you must. Most of the time, yes, they are very similar, but that's because people's morals just happen to match the society's ethics, but it's not necessarily always the case. That's pretty much summarising what I've been taught in college during my Law and Ethics module in college.
Besides, getting back to the main point on morals, let's take more examples. Loli manga as I mentioned earlier, is logically fine, but yet is deemed immoral, while other societies deem it as morally acceptable. Why do people logically care about others, when it's sometimes far more logically not to? If someone breaks your heart, why is it logical to feel heartbroken, when it's more logically to feel happier? Like I said earlier, if you're going to keep up that attitude, you're not going to get on well with people at all. Consider that as a warning from someone who made the same mistake. Nobody is arguing that some morals can't be derived logically, but not all of them can be.
Feel free to answer your own questions that prove that the federal government is allowed to have full control over the country. However, when answering that question, prove that the European Union should also not be allowed to take control over all of the countries in Europe, because you're implying that the situations are different. Though I still have no idea why you keep referencing to slavery, because it makes perfect sense for a state to re-introduce dark age concepts? Why would slavery be legal again if states were allowed to make their own decisions? You haven't answered that question at all, and you can use the slavery argument as a reason to not have a federal government. You say you're not arguing that the states are going to re-introduce slavery should they get their way, yet that's your argument for not allowing states to have control over their own land.
Besides, just because one state might do something that you deem wrong, why should all of the other states be guilty? America seems to like using the concept of "guilty before proven innocent". If one state does something stupid, every state should pay the price. If a few citizens of a random country decide to rebel against the invaders, then every citizen should pay the price. If a few citizens are pirating, then every citizen should pay the price and be spied on. It's a sickening concept, and in my views, very immoral.
You're being absolutely ignorant about Iran, and you're refusing to understand that if you leave them alone,
they'll have no reason to use these imaginative nuclear weapons against you. None at all. Why would they bomb you for no reason whatsoever? Feel free to try answer that one. By claiming that they'll bomb you if you leave them alone, clearly shows that you have no clue why terrorism occurs, and shows that you refuse to try understand other people. The majority of other countries don't invade other countries, and don't get attacked. Besides, you're talking about war here, where innocent people are going to die on both sides. I don't think either side wants that, but if you continue to push, and claim that other countries are going to attack you for no reason, well that's exactly what's going to happen.
Time and time again, you always hear people how they want to vote for third-party candidates, yet won't because they don't think other people will. Yet, what happens if those people didn't think that, and voted for the third-party candidate anyways? People sometimes don't vote, because they're not happy with either the Republicans or Democrats, so what happens if they become aware that there's more than two choices, and use their vote on a third-party candidate? Did you know people are often completely unaware of the third choice? Your vote for you strongly influences the results of the election. A vote for you isn't a vote for Romney or Obama. They've both lost one vote. It annoys me when people say a vote for a third-party is a vote for Romney, when it's not, it's a vote that a third-party gains, and it's a vote that Romney and Obama both don't gain.
I'm just going to bring in some food for thought here. Fianna Fáil, for a long time, they've been the biggest party in Ireland, often winning the general election. People always thought that everyone else was going to vote Fianna Fáil. However, when Fianna Fáil betrayed the country and brought the country into debt, everyone felt the same way about them, and then started voting other parties. Fianna Fáil did absolutely terrible in the previous general election as a result, and Fine Gael won instead by a huge portion of the vote. Bare in mind, support for more left-wing parties like Sinn Féin has also been drastically increasing. Unfortunately, come budget in December last year, Fine Gael betrayed everyone, especially the students who they largely depended on to get them into office. What do you think is going to happen next general election?
Just because there isn't out spoken support of it now, doesn't mean that they wouldn't want it.
"Quite a lot"? Examples?
So, it possibly, give up you rights or move? I shouldn't have to give up my rights or move.
That no better then telling someone to leave the USA.
So, you can't accept that possibly, so let's just throw that out of the window?
Also, states do work together when things like SOPA, try to pass. So, isn't like the federal government
doesn't get check too.
I have been reading.
I rather vote for the best of what we got for the Country than waste my vote for
someone isn't going to decide the election. Thought Obama was mine #1 choice anyway,so...
yeah.
Drug legalisation is an example. Health care reforms are another example. As said earlier, you have "50 laboratories" who are experimenting, trying to come up with the best way of going about doing things. When people are left to their own devices, competition rises, which encourages innovation. Legalising drugs for example is highly innovative, because it'll save a hell of a lot of money, while also introducing a new source of income, via taxation and tourism. The federal government doesn't seem too keen on the idea, and are stifling innovation.
Moving a few hundred kilometres is far better and more realistic than moving a few thousand kilometres. You're not giving up any rights by allowing the states to do what they please, you're in fact enhancing your rights and options. By letting the federal government take control, you're limiting your options, thus limiting your rights. But like I said, if you're not happy with the decisions your state government makes, vote them out. That's what we've done with Fianna Fáil here. We weren't happy with them, so we voted for other parties instead. Pretty simple stuff.
So why do you think you have to give up your rights if a state gets control? Why do you think states will try to get rid of your rights? Do you not trust the people you've voted to be governor (is that the term?) of your state?
If Obama is your main choice that's fine. But if I was a citizen of the US, and voted for a third-party, that's not a vote for either Romney or Obama, so that reduces their chances of winning by 1 vote. Again, simple stuff.
This statement is inaccurate. Oftentimes social beliefs are factual claims, such as, "_______ is bad for society." That's a factual claim that can be tested and evaluated much like a scientific hypothesis can. There's a whole faculty dedicated to the study of such "social beliefs", and it's called "social science". If you disagree that social beliefs can be factual claims, provide an actual counter-argument, please.
Localise local issues as much as possible... I can definitely agree with that. In case you missed it, I was specifically referring to the Irish law re: abortion. In order to "localise" this issue, the issue should be dealt with at the individual level, for it's a private matter concerning only the individual person. It's absolutely not a national issue, and a pregnant Irish woman's pregnancy concerns a random Irish man just as much as it concerns a random German man. If you're for "localisation" then I presume you'd support shifting the responsibilities of making abortion laws and decisions from the national government to the municipalities, for instance?
I think you've mistaken what others have said about the relationship between federal and state governments on morality. The larger government is not inherently more moral, neither is the smaller government inherently more moral; and by "moral" I mean "right" in their decisions. Both levels of government have the capacity to make wrong decisions. But it appears to me, you've been arguing, that it's always better to leave the responsibilities of decision making to the smaller government, as a rule with no exceptions, even when those decisions are clearly wrong.
When a government made a clearly wrong decision, that decision should be overturned, regardless of the level of government it is. What if the federal government legalised slavery? Either the states and the people overturn it, or the international community would have an obligation to get involved to reverse that decision. What if the state government legalised slavery? Same thing. Either the people overturned it, or the federal government would be obliged to step in.
Should states (or the federal government, for that matter) always have unchallenged control over issues of human rights? Because 9 out of 10 times when I hear the "state rights Vs. federal rights" debate, it's over some issue concerning human rights, eg. same-sex marriage, abortion, health care, slavery, etc. How much "tailoring" can you really do to those human right issues, I wonder, without flat out breaking the human right? It seems to me you can either honour the human right, or...well, not honour it?
Beliefs and facts are never the same. A fact is a fact, a belief is something that hasn't been proven, yet you believe is true. Beliefs can turn into facts, but beliefs and facts are never the same. Believing there's a God is a belief, but the big bang is a fact. As much as I hate religion, it's the fault to your argument. You people really need to look up the dictionary and study the differences between morals, ethics, beliefs, and facts.
I know exactly what you were referring to. I personally believe that people should be given as much freedom as possible, but of course while it's unrealistic to make the situation perfect, we can at least get as close as we can to that ideal scenario. Should abortion laws be reduce to an even more local level? Quite possibly. Even though we're a small country, cultures do vary quite a bit between Connaught, Leinster, Munster and Ulster. A lot of western citizens despise the fact that political power is in the east, because the east hardly cares about the problems in the west. However, why does that mean we should let the EU decide on how to solve these issues? It doesn't, we may as well localise these issues as much as we can. The next level after federal is state. So why not start there? The EU is already one step ahead of the matter. Germany have proven itself to be quite knowledgable when it comes to creating a strong economy, but if they were restricted by the decisions of every other country, innovation would have been stifled.
You keep thinking states are going to make wrong decisions. They're not going to, you have no evidence that they're going to, and if anything, the fact that they want to do stuff like legalising drugs, or improve health care, shows that they want to be innovative, yet are being restricted by federal law. The federal government is lazy, and don't read what they're voting on. But of course, nobody is perfect, and the option to overturn decisions can still be there quite easily by pressure from the other states, but why should the other states give up their rights to the federal government, just because someone might make a mistake?
Nobody said anything about being unable to challenge. Federal government can advise, federal government can pressure, just as easily as any company can lobby the federal government to pass any stuff they want passed. Social pressure is more powerful than people think it is. But again, remember that the state governments represent what the citizens of that state want. If the majority of that state want a law passed, then they should get it. By suggesting that the federal government should have full control over states, you're suggesting that democracy should not be allowed.
The only way the state can remove human rights, is if the citizens of that state want their human rights removed.
--------------------------------
So to summarise (this goes to everyone):
- You think that states and citizens are guilty before proven innocent
- You think that the citizens of states want to remove their human rights
- You think that restricting your rights and options is far superior to having more options and more rights
- You think that people will bomb you for no good reason whatsoever
- You think that a vote for a third-party, regardless of their popularity, is a vote for Romney
