- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
"The idea that black people go to jail for more time than white people for the same crime, usually the one people like to use on this is the idea that crack cocaine and powder cocaine have different sentences. The reason they have different sentences is because powder cocaine is harder to distribute, it's not as addictive; crack cocaine is much easier to distribute and much more addictive. The fact is that people that designed the disparity in sentencing between powder and crack cocaine were black legislators in the inner city who were sick of watching crack cocaine ravage their communities. Not only that if you actually want something comparable then take crystal meth which is essentially as addictive and is easy to distribute as crack cocaine. The federal sentence for an ounce of crystal meth possession is exactly the same as for an ounce possession of crack cocaine. And the vast majority of people who are arrested for crystal meth possession are of course white."
He goes on to state that most people in jail for drug offenses are there for distribution and not use. I'd also like to note that both crystal meth and crack are full of adulterants which makes their sale more profitable and their use more dangerous.
I'd once again state my problem with Wikipedia's definition but I don't want to flog a dead horse. Where do you think things are going? I'm personally most concerned by the rise of social justice, anti-white racism and anti-male sexism. Take the recent events at Evergreen State College, for example. If that in itself doesn't worry you then the fact that social justice is what's fueling the rise of the alt-right will.
"you said that laws shouldn't enforce morality"
As far as I can see I said laws shouldn't enforce morality between consenting adults, but if there was a time I didn't include this qualifier know that I intended it to be there.
"Why is the morality of harming others appropriately enforceable, but other moral foundations are not?"
I see, so you're asking why enforce laws to prevent harm of others but not harm of self. First of all, if we look at self-harming behavior there are so many that enforcing a lack of self-harm would necessitate total control of an individual's life. One's diet would need to be controlled by the state, all drugs (including caffeine, nicotine, alcohol) would need to be illegal. Moreover 8 hours of sleep, daily exercise, oral and general hygiene and so on would need to be mandatory and enforced by law. One could go on endlessly with examples of self-harmful behavior which are harmless to others. It isn't possible or even desirable to stop people from harming themselves if they wish to do so. Also, as mentioned previously, the government could be wrong about the harm caused by a behavior.
A government which controls every facet of life is harming it's citizens by taking away their right of self ownership. It denies them the agency to try things for themselves, make mistakes and learn from them. One must also have the freedom to decide that the self-harmful behavior is worth the consequences if they alone pay them. Behavioral innovation, too, would be stifled by the inability to try new ways of doing things. It is therefore clear that governments should respect people's right to self-ownership and only enforce laws which prevent involuntary harm.
"The notion that you should not lie, cheat, or steal translates into fraud, breach of contract, and theft."
Lying is legal except under circumstances where it causes another person harm or loss. Breach of contract, once again, causes loss for another person, as does theft. As such it is clear to me that these laws are not concerned with enforcing moral standards but rather on protecting the rights of its citizenry.
"Rights are moral notions, as are principles guiding when to abridge or suspend them."
I'm unsure why this is relevant. My point isn't that laws should have no moral basis but that laws shouldn't enforce morality when all those involved are consenting adults.
"If it is wrong to stop consenting adults from engaging in whatever they want to do, does that mean that whatever they do is right?"
No but it does mean that they should be free to do so, as long as they don't infringe the rights of others.
Society shouldn't restrict the rights of it's citizens for moral reasons. Apart from the fact that it's wrong to stop consenting adults doing whatever they want together there is a greater problem. If the state enforces morality (aside from the fact it's view of morality may be wrong) then the people will not need to figure out morality for themselves.
According to Kohlberg's stages of moral development the majority of people don't progress beyond the stage whereby their perspective of morality is driven by law, authority and social order. I feel that this is a real problem for society as, for example, one must rise 2 stages above this to know it is morally correct to disobey unjust laws. If all moral behavior was legislated then even fewer would reach levels of moral understanding beyond the authority and social order level. Aside from this in itself being a problem, it makes future tyrannical regimes easier to establish due to it's citizens' lack of moral understanding.
There are three definitions on that link. As aforementioned multiple times you were operating using the first definition (1 "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"). I was using the third definition (1.2 "Signs or indications of something").
I think you missed the parts where I said I'm not a Christian and that I don't believe the bible is 100% true. I was stating that the biblical texts are evidence, no matter how weak, for the existence of the biblical God. We then proceeded to debate the definition of evidence ad nauseam.