Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like one direction
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    God damn it.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The point is some things you like don't have a particular rational explanation behind it, you just like them because they're good to you.
    Liking food because it taste good, is rational. Boobs, idk. That's why I ask.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) a business is owned by an individual, or individuals, though. what's the objective or special difference? property is an extension of an individual's personality
    2) lying and offending people is also immoral - should those things be criminal? yeah exactly.
    3) who cares if it's illegal now? that's a terrible excuse. weed is illegal now - do you think that's a sensible reason to *keep* it illegal? via an argument from authority? or an argument from tradition? these arguments aren't in line with classical liberalism.
    1) Well in many cases they are a separate legal entity and bound by different laws and regulations, and besides that like you said, they are still separate from the person. They might be an "extension of an individual's personality" but they are not that person.

    2) Maybe. Laws are down to popular vote, so if enough people thought they were immoral and deserving of a law against them it wouldn't happen. You're mixing up the argument and suggesting I think they're right because they're laws, which is wrong. In this case most people would have the sense to think that lying and offending people is such a minor transgression with no real harm that it doesn't warrant being a law. But also, we do have laws against lying, it's called slander and libel. And against offensive speech, hate speech laws.

    3) Again, mixing up the argument here. This is not an argument from authority because I am not claiming the fact it is a law makes it moral. I'm claiming the opposite, it being moral was the reason it was made a law. I've heard this stupid argument before today and it really irritates me, you can't just throw around fallacies incorrectly to win a debate.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The far left and far right are surprisingly similar.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simbasdragon)
    The far left and far right are surprisingly similar.
    Horseshoe theory brah.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I have too many, sorry.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    1) Well in many cases they are a separate legal entity and bound by different laws and regulations, and besides that like you said, they are still separate from the person. They might be an "extension of an individual's personality" but they are not that person.
    why is this a meaningful distinction? it's like saying "we can take all of your money away with a 90% tax, but it's not slavery because we're not forcing you to work". and again, why are you bringing in law? the law today is not something perfect and is not something noble or philosophically sophisticated. it's a mish-mash of different principles (some good, some not) that conflict and contradict a lot. it's not an authority here if we're talking about freedom as an ethical ideal (an ethical ideal that can be implemented without a practical issue)

    2) Maybe. Laws are down to popular vote, so if enough people thought they were immoral and deserving of a law against them it wouldn't happen. You're mixing up the argument and suggesting I think they're right because they're laws, which is wrong.
    you definitely seemed to think that, at least

    In this case most people would have the sense to think that lying and offending people is such a minor transgression with no real harm that it doesn't warrant being a law. But also, we do have laws against lying, it's called slander and libel. And against offensive speech, hate speech laws.
    it's not that they're a "minor transgression" - if something is to be made illegal it should be seen to coerce or harm an individual or their property. lying doesn't harm an individual, and neither does denying them a gay wedding cake. with libel, that can be argued as harming the property of an individual but that's a very complicated and long winded argument.

    3) Again, mixing up the argument here. This is not an argument from authority because I am not claiming the fact it is a law makes it moral. I'm claiming the opposite, it being moral was the reason it was made a law. I've heard this stupid argument before today and it really irritates me, you can't just throw around fallacies incorrectly to win a debate.
    ?
    you said:
    but it's also illegal at this point anyway. So regardless of whether you think the law is right or not, they broke it.
    what else were you trying to imply if not "well it's the law so let's uphold it now, why not"? :| it sounded exactly like that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Spot the anarchist just ended.

    "well it's the law so let's uphold it now" - Dude, you can't disobey laws just because you don't like them. You break a law, you face the consequences. Sheesh. If you don't agree with the law, then convince a bunch of other people and vote to change it!

    "lying doesn't harm an individual, and neither does denying them a gay wedding cake" - Follow this logic through its natural course and you get people being denied access to basic services and amenities they actually need, because someone doesn't like where their penis goes. Call it a slippery slope fallacy, but that is the kind of scenario abolishing the law allows.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    Spot the anarchist just ended.
    what
    you mean classical liberalism?
    you yourself were trying to come off as such
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think posting nudes is "empowering" for women, I think it just reduces us down to just sexual objects and makes us look like we have nothing else to offer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what
    you mean classical liberalism?
    you yourself were trying to come off as such
    You seem to hate how laws work so I'm just assuming you're an anarchist. From what you said it's like you think you should just be able to break laws you don't like.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Also, I think fat people should eat less and move more - obesity isn't purely genetic and everyone can do something to at least be a healthy weight. Obesity is one of the biggest health problems in the UK and it's costing the NHS millions. People who are obese due to overeating and laziness, not medication or disability, absolutely disgust me.

    I also believe that advertising "plus size models" is as bad as advertising anorexic models, both promote very unhealthy body types to impressionable young people, and people like Tess Holliday should not be making people think it's okay to be morbidly obese.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think DC can beat Jones in the rematch :boxing:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    You seem to hate how laws work so I'm just assuming you're an anarchist. From what you said it's like you think you should just be able to break laws you don't like.
    nope, put on your reading glasses this time and read my phrasing more clearly:

    if something is to be made illegal it should be seen to coerce or harm an individual or their property.
    note the word "should", as if I'm saying this "should" be how the law works.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bullseye1)
    Also, I think fat people should eat less and move more - obesity isn't purely genetic and everyone can do something to at least be a healthy weight. Obesity is one of the biggest health problems in the UK and it's costing the NHS millions. People who are obese due to overeating and laziness, not medication or disability, absolutely disgust me.

    I also believe that advertising "plus size models" is as bad as advertising anorexic models, both promote very unhealthy body types to impressionable young people, and people like Tess Holliday should not be making people think it's okay to be morbidly obese.
    Yes I agree, It doesn't help with all the PC ******** that's going around now. The whole be comfortable in your body sentiment is really the wrong way to approach people who are obese, we shouldn't accept it nor shame people who are. It's hard because there's a good argument for if you say you need to loose weight or just some general advice about you being too, essentially fat, is it fat shaming?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 34908seikj)
    Yes I agree, It doesn't help with all the PC ******** that's going around now. The whole be comfortable in your body sentiment is really the wrong way to approach people who are obese, we shouldn't accept it nor shame people who are. It's hard because there's a good argument for if you say you need to loose weight or just some general advice about you being too, essentially fat, is it fat shaming?
    100% agree - it's such a shame and really a huge problem that more people don't think this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    nope, put on your reading glasses this time and read my phrasing more clearly:



    note the word "should", as if I'm saying this "should" be how the law works.
    Irrelevant. I was responding to "well it's the law so let's uphold it now" where you seem to be of the mindset that the law shouldn't have been upheld, because you disagree with it. Correct me if I'm wrong but please explain what you mean by this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    Irrelevant. I was responding to "well it's the law so let's uphold it now" where you seem to be of the mindset that the law shouldn't have been upheld, because you disagree with it. Correct me if I'm wrong but please explain what you mean by this.
    no, I said that *you* seemed to be arguing from just that! I was saying "you can't just argue that it is right to uphold the law simply because it's the law" or else the word "right" loses its meaning - I'm *advocating* here, not being some kind of lawyer. I am arguing from what is right, not what is legal. if you were to tell me "hate speech on twitter is illegal" I'd simply, in this sense, tell you "what a stupid law".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRealLifeBane)
    I think DC can beat Jones in the rematch :boxing:
    That fight was more competitive than people like to remember.



    Artists that don't write their own songs are given too much credit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    no, I said that *you* seemed to be arguing from just that! I was saying "you can't just argue that it is right to uphold the law simply because it's the law" or else the word "right" loses its meaning - I'm *advocating* here, not being some kind of lawyer. I am arguing from what is right, not what is legal. if you were to tell me "hate speech on twitter is illegal" I'd simply, in this sense, tell you "what a stupid law".
    Except that I quite clearly laid it out that I wasn't using that argument. I couldn't have made it any clearer. Saying "it's the law anyways, so they should face consequences" is not "it's the law, so it's therefore the right thing". Simple stuff.

    It is "right" to uphold the law because it's the law, otherwise we would have anarchy where everybody does what they want and ignores laws they don't want. For better or worse, current laws must be upheld in most cases. There are cases where this rule can be broken, but they are rare exceptions for extreme injustices. Losing money because you flagrantly broke a law you knew existed, because you didn't want to follow it, is not an injustice at all.

    In the case of "hate speech on twitter is illegal" and someone used hate speech, we would again have to see them prosecuted for breaking the law, and then use our ability of being voters in a democracy to have the law changed if enough people think it isn't right. We don't get to go "well he shouldn't suffer any consequences because it's a stupid law", even if we think that is the morally right thing in that case.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.