CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The law should take ethnicity into account.
Example case:
A gypsy is charged with not providing adequate education for her children.
Rigid Law.
The gypsy is subject to the same laws as everybody else, she must enrol her children in a school, and allow them to finish their primary education, as well as [whatever the nation's policy is on the minimum amount of time a person must spend in secondary school].
Flexible Law.
The nomadic nature of gypsy culture makes it impossible to enrol children in schools. Therefore the gypsy cannot be convicted as any other person would be.
There should always be some flexibility - depending on the circumstances.
Using the gypsies as an example. They live within their own communities barely open to change. They grow up following the footsteps of their parents. Without sounding racist using Irish 'travellers' as an example - most tend to work in the trades. Knowing that their children are most likely to grow up doing the same thing, is there a point in teaching them all this shit during their first 16 years they're 99% not likely to use or even appreciate? Actually I'd prefer they didn't spend anymore tax money on these cunts that never pay taxes themselves.
However in some communities where revenge killings occur, the law should apply to them regardless of their personal beliefs.
Flexibility is best. For instance, the Amish need not purchase health insurance despite Obamacare.
I read that link, it was condemning of flexibility. As am I, for that matter. seeking equality by making one rule for some and another for others is just stupid. Equality is impossible until all people are treated as equals.
I taught myself nearly everything I needed to know by reading books. Surely Gypsies can do the same.
On second thought, why do they need to be "educated" by modern standards? Why can't they just live as they always have - they're well enough off. Why should they be forced to change?
I read that link, it was condemning of flexibility.
The views of the writer of said link are irrelevant.
seeking equality by making one rule for some and another for others is just stupid.
So you expect all people to conform to the same "mould"?
Let's say, for instance, that I am a Gypsy. My life and the life of my 'people' have been traveling to and fro for many generations - first in Eastern Europe and now in America - and now, because the government decides that children should go to school, I am expected to change? After hundreds of years, my people would have adapted over the generations to replace such a need. Why should I change for you?
Another example:
Let's say that I am Amish. I and my 'people' have lived this way for many hundreds of years. Rather than adapting to modern 'conveniences' we have remained as were our ancestors. Now, the fundamentals of my society are being threatened by many different obstacles: laws regarding schooling, insurance, corporal punishment - everything is becoming a threat to us. Why should I have to change? Why can I not continue living as I and my peoples have for generations? We've never done you any wrong.
Equality is impossible until all people are treated as equals.
Yet all people shall never be treated as equals.
People do not get along. there are differences between one and another and few are willing to forget them.
I taught myself nearly everything I needed to know by reading books. Surely Gypsies can do the same.
These are gypsies, TERMINATOR.
The views of the writer of said link are irrelevant.
True.
So you expect all people to conform to the same "mould"?
Equality is an ideal and as such is not rooted in reality.
Let's say, for instance, that I am a Gypsy. My life and the life of my 'people' have been traveling to and fro for many generations - first in Eastern Europe and now in America - and now, because the government decides that children should go to school, I am expected to change?
Yes, everybody else has to. As a citizen, it is your responsibility to obey the common law.
After hundreds of years, my people would have adapted over the generations to replace such a need. Why should I change for you?
Why should slaves have been freed? It's been part of European culture for two thousand years. Equality, that's why. People are always willing to take the shiny new rights, but not the responsibility. If a person is unwilling to conform to the same laws as everybody else, then they should not be treated as equals, because they refuse to act as equals.
Let's say that I am Amish. I and my 'people' have lived this way for many hundreds of years. Rather than adapting to modern 'conveniences' we have remained as were our ancestors. Now, the fundamentals of my society are being threatened by many different obstacles: laws regarding schooling, insurance, corporal punishment - everything is becoming a threat to us. Why should I have to change?
The Amish live in mitigating circumstances. Besides, they are not an ethnic group.I do not think they should be regarded as citizens of the U.S.A.
Yet all people shall never be treated as equals.
Unless ethnic laws are abolished.
People do not get along. there are differences between one and another and few are willing to forget them.
Equality is an ideal and as such is not rooted in reality.
Precisely. Thus, the desire for such is irrational.
Yes, everybody else has to. As a citizen, it is your responsibility to obey the common law.
Why should the common law be set up in such a way? Why must they be so strict? Why do they even have to dictate such matters?
Why should slaves have been freed?
I'm not against slavery.
It's been part of European culture for two thousand years. Equality, that's why. People are always willing to take the shiny new rights, but not the responsibility. If a person is unwilling to conform to the same laws as everybody else, then they should not be treated as equals, because they refuse to act as equals.
You're missing something here: They (i.e. The Amish, Gypsies, etc.) chose to live that way. They chose not to be equal [in those senses].
Slaves had no choice. The Amish do. The Gypsies do. If they chose to live that way, why shouldn't we let them? Why do we feel the need to control them - to make them part of a society they do not wish to be associated with?
I do not think they should be regarded as citizens of the U.S.A.
Then what are they? Most were born in the U.S.A. and as such are citizens of the U.S.A. They are Americans. If they are not Americans, to whom does the land on which they were born belong?
Unless ethnic laws are abolished.
Under the law, they may be equal. In the eyes of society - or various aspects thereof- they shall remain different. One person shall look upon another person differently for one reason or another. Blind people shall be viewed differently by the sighted; redheads shall be viewed differently by blonds or brunettes. There shall always be something - however trivial it may be - which sets one person apart from others, and as such there shall always be some form - be it mild or not - of prejudice.
They probably didn't go to school, where would they learn to read? Considering that their parents didn't go either, or theirs...
Precisely. Thus, the desire for such is irrational.
Difficult is worth doing.
Why should the common law be set up in such a way? Why must they be so strict? Why do they even have to dictate such matters?
When you become a citizen, you have to accept responsibilities as well as rights.
I'm not against slavery.
Foolish, regardless of morality (I don't care much for the plight of other races either, unless they are citizens). Caesar knew and I know so too that slavery devalues the labour of the people whose lives it is designed to make easier. Why pay a white man when you can just whip a black man into doing it for you?
You're missing something here: They (i.e. The Amish, Gypsies, etc.) chose to live that way. They chose not to be equal [in those senses].
The law is not a pick 'n' mix. I care nothing for what they do, so long as it is within the confines of the law. I do not agree with all laws, and do my best to oppose those I do not agree with, but I follow them to the letter.
Then what are they?
Citizens of an Amish community. They are not part of modern American society, they are exempt from laws other citizens are not exempt from, they pay no taxes on labour within their community (and they only leave the community for Rumspringer, the majority of them do not vote, their society's laws are taken directly from the Bible, which violates the U.S constitution - they simply should not qualify as citizens. I see no reason why they should be assimilated, but they are for all intents and purposes a separate nation(s).
Slaves had no choice. The Amish do. The Gypsies do. If they chose to live that way, why shouldn't we let them? Why do we feel the need to control them - to make them part of a society they do not wish to be associated with?
Hence they should not be citizens - they don't want to be part of American society.
Under the law, they may be equal. In the eyes of society - or various aspects thereof- they shall remain different.
That is how the situation should be. The law objective, the people subjective.
as such there shall always be some form - be it mild or not - of prejudice.
I argue that prejudice-free society is impossible.
When you become a citizen, you have to accept responsibilities as well as rights.
And if I desire statelessness? I certainly would not be granted it. I was born here and as such must follow all of Canada's laws. If I, along with a large group of people, attempted to form my own society comparable to the Gypsies or Amish, I would not be allowed. I would still be under Canada's laws. I would be forced to conform to Canada's way of thinking.
I care nothing for what they do, so long as it is within the confines of the law.
The government ought not even have the power to make such laws. It is an intrusion into personal privacy.
Hence they should not be citizens - they don't want to be part of American society.
Then why force them to be?
That is how the situation should be. The law objective, the people subjective.
Should not the law - at least the law in a true Democracy - reflect the feelings of the majority of citizens?
I argue that prejudice-free society is impossible.
I agree. The best we can do is to have prejudice free laws.
And if I desire statelessness?
Then do not become a citizen, or renounce your citizenship. I did not call for people to be forced into citizenship, only for people to adhere to the rules they swear to follow.
I certainly would not be granted it.
Being granted statelessness is an oxymoron. Just take it. But do not expect the Canadian government to like it when you just claim their land for your anarchist demesne.
I was born here and as such must follow all of Canada's laws.
If you don't like Canada's laws, leave Canada.
If I, along with a large group of people, attempted to form my own society comparable to the Gypsies or Amish, I would not be allowed.
Taking land from a country is an act of war.
I would still be under Canada's laws. I would be forced to conform to Canada's way of thinking.
If you want to live in Canada then you have to follow the laws that the majority of Canadians (in theory) believe to be just.
The government ought not even have the power to make such laws.
Humans always gravitate towards government.
It is an intrusion into personal privacy.
Without law you have no right to privacy.
Then why force them to be?
I do not represent the U.S government. I am merely saying what I believe should be the case, not what is.
Should not the law - at least the law in a true Democracy - reflect the feelings of the majority of citizens?
That is (one of) the failing(s) of democracy - it is an illusion.
I agree. The best we can do is to have prejudice free laws.
But what do the laws matter? The law can tell me not to be prejudiced, but they have no true control over my feelings - my beliefs.
If you don't like Canada's laws, leave Canada.
But with globalism, the world is becoming more and more compact - more unified. There is no longer any individuality. You've no choice but to conform.
Take Nova Roma - they are a rather large group of people who wish to 'go back to Rome', so to speak. To return to the Roman ways. That cannot be in this society. Too many rules, too many laws. Ways have changed. That is why I prefer, if government is required, libertarianism. The government should not interfere in every aspect of life. Libertarians believe that there should be a very few laws: murder, thievery, rape - as far as I know. They shouldn't have the power to dictate night everything: what you eat, drink; how you raise your children; what you can and cannot purchase, etc., etc.
Taking land from a country is an act of war.
I'm lost on this matter: where do the Amish live? America. They were born in America, do they not have citizenship? Are there exemptions to rules made specifically for the Amish? This is a completely new topic for me. . .
If you want to live in Canada then you have to follow the laws that the majority of Canadians (in theory) believe to be just.
But that's not how it is. In America each state elects representatives. Those representatives are supposed to act for the majority. But do they? Once they are in power, there is nothing to keep them from following their own agenda. This is the primary fault of democracy. A few years ago, Obama made a promise (broken, of course) that each and every law, before it was enacted, would be made available for everybody to read freely off the internet. If people were to have power over the making of each law, then America would truly be a democracy, in my mind.
Without law you have no right to privacy.
Without law I can have all the privacy I want.
Without law, I can take my privacy by force, if need be.
Without law, there wouldn't be - what's-the-number? 1,000,000 - security cameras all over London watching peoples' every moves.
That is (one of) the failing(s) of democracy - it is an illusion.
So what America has is more of a dictatorship. vote fraud gives the president power, he keeps that power via the military, or, with Obama, a civilian army.
All that I want is freedom. Freedom to live a life without looking behind my back every minute, being hounded by government cameras and extremely powerful government agencies.
All that I want is to live in peace - my peace, not some false sense of security given me by the government.
But what do the laws matter? The law can tell me not to be prejudiced, but they have no true control over my feelings - my beliefs.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether the laws and the justice system should be prejudiced. I care nothing for what people think of each other, but the law should be impartial to discrimination.
But with globalism, the world is becoming more and more compact - more unified. There is no longer any individuality. You've no choice but to conform.
Then rebel.
Take Nova Roma - they are a rather large group of people who wish to 'go back to Rome', so to speak. To return to the Roman ways. That cannot be in this society. Too many rules, too many laws. Ways have changed. That is why I prefer, if government is required, libertarianism. The government should not interfere in every aspect of life.
The tyranny of the multitudes. Regardless, this is not the issue. I sympathise with you, but this is about ethnicity and the exceptions laws make for it.
They shouldn't have the power to dictate night everything: what you eat, drink; how you raise your children; what you can and cannot purchase, etc., etc.
No, they should not. This is not about authoritarianism.
I'm lost on this matter: where do the Amish live? America.
They were offered religious refuge.
Are there exemptions to rules made specifically for the Amish? This is a completely new topic for me.
I never mentioned the Amish, you did. They did not even occur to me. I'm not sure if they even qualify as an ethnic group.
But that's not how it is.
Of course it isn't.
In America each state elects representatives. Those representatives are supposed to act for the majority. But do they?
No. They represent their own interests.
If people were to have power over the making of each law, then America would truly be a democracy, in my mind.
That has always been my position.
Without law I can have all the privacy I want.
Without law, I can take my privacy by force, if need be.
True.
Without law, there wouldn't be - what's-the-number? 1,000,000 - security cameras all over London watching peoples' every moves.
New Labour have never done anything good. Never. Don't get me started on them (unless you like rants of volcanic proportions).
So what America has is more of a dictatorship. vote fraud gives the president power, he keeps that power via the military, or, with Obama, a civilian army.
Correct. Democracy is a veil for despotism.
All that I want is freedom. Freedom to live a life without looking behind my back every minute, being hounded by government cameras and extremely powerful government agencies.
All that I want is to live in peace - my peace, not some false sense of security given me by the government.
Government and law are not mutually dependent. There could be a justice system which can punish criminals, but be unable to make laws or do anything beyond administering justice. All other services would be private, as would the right to make laws. The democratic dream. The capitalist dream. My dream.
Oh, believe me, if it ever gets to so great a level of control, I most certainly shall.
Good. I shall join you. Bring firebombs.
Just what does this mean?
I know nothing about the Amish.
The Amish moved to America to flee religious persecution in Switzerland, France and Germany. As America had no state religion, their beliefs were safe.
They are not a separate ethnic group, but they are a distinct and separate society.
Please look at the debate title. The fifth word.
It would seem that we agree on many issues.
Great minds...do not use clichés. It is true, our thoughts are often mirrored.
Yes, I do. But not of volcanic proportions, I'd prefer one of super-calderic proportions (behemoth, if you will).
It began, as always, with the desire to do good, or at least, to appear as though they were trying to do good. Inevitably, this led to yet another period of contraction; of economy, liberty and of general happiness. Tony Blair, the devil-worshipping, lying perfidious, insidious, deplorable bastard that he is, used every means of corruption and disinformation in his arsenal to maintain labour power. That Labour were allowed in at all is a travesty. After Margaret Thatcher saved the United Kingdom's economy from the seemingly interminable decline with which it had been plagued for decades, Labour began to spout lies at a rate not even Obama could match. Once elected, they presently engaged themselves in gathering Asylum Seekers from the four corners of the world. Mosques began to spring up like weeds, middle class England was forced to retreat, faced as it was with a tidal wave of Muslims and all manner of depraved and vulgar peoples. Worse is what they did to the economy, so recently mended. Should a man have employment, he will enter his auto-mobile or board whichever public transport as will carry him most swiftly to his destination. If not, then neither. Instead he will amble gaily to some public house, there to drown all sorrows, murder all doubts, with strong spirits and similar company; these two mix'd are a potent poison, for in such treatment of problems one merely compounds them. So it is that sacred England is blighted. This is the handiwork of the suited labourers, purveyors of doom and misfortune. ever have they imported eastern poisons, the veiled mysteries, their fanatical masters and the usurers. All of these pale into insignificance when match'd with the enforcers of Health and Safety. Destroyers and usurpers curse them. They leave their mark everywhere, like dogs pissing on pylons. You must have seen it too, "Keep off the Grass", "Danger, uneven surface", "No Smoking", "No breathing", "NO LIVING!". Only now has sanity returned, for it was not lost, but retained; if only in the darkest corner of the hive mind. For England is fine, England is beautiful, as a proud and regal stag. Now fiercely embattled on all sides it is endangered. Truth has at last struck us. It must be conserved (I assure you, this is the brief version, for in Britannia it is 12:55 am, and even I must sleep at some point, though not until I have ensured my score is at least 150 and at number one - I'll die before I let Qymosabi gain first place again!).
Who, in your mind, should make the laws?
That's the beauty of it! Nobody will know! Confusion is more powerful than ignorance.
I believe, as I stated, that all the necessary laws were made long ago.
I concur.
T
I presume you mean a law forbidding sexual depravities, as opposed to forbidding lust, sexual activity before marriage, and all that crap.
I suppose that I am quite the individualist.
Good. I have become an eccentric and have nothing but contempt for people who live in their little fantasy worlds of careers and family planning. My view is "Make as much money as you feasibly can, and make as many children as you physically can".
So to whom would that right belong?
See above.
Addendum (good word)
In hindsight I should have supported you, but I am too tired to change it now. Good Night!
I say equality through flexibility because no one should be subject to having to attend a regular classroom in a public school, especially if their culture/religion believes otherwise. It could cause cultural shock and it could severely damage the child's sense of cultural.
i believe that if someone wants to live the laws of their own kind, they should live IN THEIR OWN COUNTRYS or be subject to our legal system, as we all are and would be in THEIR countrys. european countrys always have been to soft on people stating that they are exempt from the laws of the country, as they are not FROM that country, so the clear answer is: leave
A gypsy is charged with not providing adequate education for her children.
Define "adequate education".
Flexible Law.
The nomadic nature of gypsy culture makes it impossible to enrol children in schools. Therefore the gypsy cannot be convicted as any other person would be.
So they must change their ways and conform to drone-like society?
Their ways are their ways* because they work. They have worked for generations. Why is today any different?
As long as they can continue to fare as well as they have been in the past, then they should be permitted to continue doing so.
Equal usually entails being... equal. If laws are strangling one group of people, then either the law needs to be looked at or the people need to make a change. It's... honestly that simple.
All laws should be created with the notion that the law can be enforced justly. This is to say that said law accounts for conditions, uncontrollable circumstantial conditions. This does not imply immediate ethnic suiting, such would be an absolutist approach to a relative law.
Justice is and always should be blind. I have a dream that one day mongrel people and all other people will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I say one law for everyone, fuck Gypsies, They contribute nothing but leach from society. And fuck anyone else that thinks that they should be exempt from laws on the grounds of ethnicity.
