Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BFEL]

-snip-

nature's a dumbass who thought men should have nipples

i am leery of arguments that rest on the idea that if there's no natural precedent for something, that's the final word on the matter

we can do better

wierd's point is less "MOTHER GAIA KNOWS ALL" and more "morality isn't a universal constant"

He's pointing out that while we could do "better" there is no real way to define "better" other then filtered through our cultural viewpoints, personal objections, and other constructs that the chemicals in our brains have a stranglehold over.

So "we can do better" could just as easily mean "we can go rape babies" as it could mean "we can outlaw all forms of discrimination" depending on which of those you and the people around you see as "better"

I mean 99% chance you'll define it as the latter, but all of our experiences, thoughts, preferences and general consciousness comes down to electricity shooting through meat so...what the fuck do we know?

DISCLAIMER: BFEL DOES NOT SUPPORT BABY RAPE. JUST TO MAKE THIS CLEAR BECAUSE SOMEONE WILL BE ENOUGH OF AN ASS TO SWING THINGS THAT WAY.

[LoSboccacc]

you are all right on morality accounts, but this is one change to the costitution: all other constitutional human rights would still apply and the bar to change those is quite higher. see: all the times they tried to teach intelligent design in schools and where shot down

[sluissa]

you are all right on morality accounts, but this is one change to the costitution: all other constitutional human rights would still apply and the bar to change those is quite higher. see: all the times they tried to teach intelligent design in schools and where shot down

Except the constitution can overwrite itself. Could theoretically have another amendment which outlaws alcohol again. And just to pile it on also says slavery is a-ok and voting is limited to male landowners. Could also force people to worship a particular deity and only support one party and a state run press if you wrote the appropriate "ignore the previous amendnents" clauses in.

[wierd]

Bingo.

What is socially acceptable, is by definition, what is accepted by the majority of the society.  This is so true, it is literally a tautology.

If the mores of the society change, then what is codified into its laws will likewise change. (See for instance, the issue with immigrants in Europe right now.)

[Grim Portent]

To give a ludicrous example, if 68% of the populace of Texas wanted to become a theocratic monarchy ruled by a man in a cheeseburger costume and use a currency based on leather discs with hieroglyphics carved into them I can't really see a valid way to say they aren't justified in doing so without denying them their right to determine their own lives and how they should be led.

Let me give you a more realistic example: If 68% of the populace of Texas wanted to keep black people from voting and declare open hunting season on anyone without proper identification, should they be allowed to? Even if they seceded, there are certain things that state-level majorities of citizens might want that the remainder would be strongly opposed to. Those state-level majorities can very well be national-level minorities.

Technically yes they should be allowed to. If the system does not disqualify someone from being a member of the electorate for being a racist (or for possessing any other objectionable quality) then you can't say they can't secede just because they'll apply their principles to their new nation, no matter how horrible that would be.

What I would probably do is legally oblige all splinter states to abide by a convention on Human Rights or face a combination of war and/or sanctions and offer all individuals from the splinter state the chance to move out of it during the process of secession, which could take years, and after that process has completed, with compensation and assistance in finding a place to live in non-secessionist territory.

[Rolepgeek]

I say drop the electoral college. Sure, keep things organized by state, but aggregate the votes directly. If you really feel the need, apply weighting to them based on the population-electoral colleges votes ratio currently in the state. Maybe make it proportional representation too.

Current system works surprisingly well given the winner takes all function, but I think changing the way elections work would be the single biggest and best change you could make.

I mean, ideally we'd also stop voter suppression, in any direction, but still.

I will say I would disagree about slowing people make laws that infringe on human rights. *shrug* I will wholeheartedly admit that I will be unfair, biased, and preferential in my treatment of such matters(relating to secession), and still feel it's the right thing to do.

[LoSboccacc]

you are all right on morality accounts, but this is one change to the costitution: all other constitutional human rights would still apply and the bar to change those is quite higher. see: all the times they tried to teach intelligent design in schools and where shot down

Except the constitution can overwrite itself. Could theoretically have another amendment which outlaws alcohol again. And just to pile it on also says slavery is a-ok and voting is limited to male landowners. Could also force people to worship a particular deity and only support one party and a state run press if you wrote the appropriate "ignore the previous amendnents" clauses in.

true but the bar for changing the constitution is the larger majority, not just 50%+1 or what have you.

[Bauglir]

Okay, so where I'm gonna have to stop y'all on the moral relativity kick is

The answer "No" implies some kind of natural morality that would prohibit this.

That implies that wierd does think that nature is the final word on the matter of morality, or else the answer "No" could imply all sorts of other things, like "My cultural viewpoints, personal objections, and other constructs lead me to conclude that such behavior is unacceptable." So my objection stands. Men have nipples, therefore nature is not to be trusted.

Yes, "We could do better" could, for an appropriate definition of "better" mean "We could do more child rape.", but I do not have such a definition, and for an appropriate definition of "2", "2 + 2 = 6" is true.

[Grim Portent]

Men have nipples, therefore nature is not to be trusted.

Men have nipples because they can lactate if given sufficient stimulation over a long enough period of time.

[Bauglir]

i'm going to break with tradition and not pretend that the specific evolutionary history of male lactation is somehow related to my point about the nature of morality

we're already far enough off the rails

the point is that there's no particular reason for men to be able to lactate at all, but there's also no reason against it, and that's all nature needs - which makes it an even poorer moral guide than personal opinion

EDIT: perhaps if a majority of texans wished to secede and start up the lynchings, and a majority of americans wished to permit texas to do so, and a majority of human beings wished to allow americans to permit texas to do so, the argument about majorities would hold some water, but as it is the argument is just selection bias in action

[Frumple]

Hey, be careful about giving nature that much credit. It doesn't need no reason against it, it just needs not enough reason against it, where "enough" is highly variable and may be attached to other things that further complicate the process. If we were going by natural morality, we would have kept spousal rape because it was an issue with cohabitation that didn't substantially effect the latter's viability and procreative benefits, or some madness along those lines.

... as to the actual topic, the only thing I'd add by power of a one-time dictatorial fiat would be Amendment Q: "This message will self destruct in 5, 4, 3, 2..." It would go at the bottom of the document, naturally.

[sluissa]

you are all right on morality accounts, but this is one change to the costitution: all other constitutional human rights would still apply and the bar to change those is quite higher. see: all the times they tried to teach intelligent design in schools and where shot down

Except the constitution can overwrite itself. Could theoretically have another amendment which outlaws alcohol again. And just to pile it on also says slavery is a-ok and voting is limited to male landowners. Could also force people to worship a particular deity and only support one party and a state run press if you wrote the appropriate "ignore the previous amendnents" clauses in.

true but the bar for changing the constitution is the larger majority, not just 50%+1 or what have you.

The original idea of this discussion was any change to the constitution, with unlimited political capital to make it pass. With the caveat that we could criticise each others ideas. The argument isnt that it wont pass, but why it would be bad if it did.

[strawberry-wine]

1. Men can and do lactate when it's required. Women's mortality during childbirth has historically been rather high, so it makes sense that men would retain nipples and lactation as a backup.

2. Slightly related, if I were to make one change to the Constitution it would be getting the ERA added. It's fucked that this hasn't happened yet.

[Starver]

Men have nipples, therefore nature is not to be trusted.

Men have nipples because they can lactate if given sufficient stimulation over a long enough period of time.

That's not the because.  That's the side-effect.

The because is because we all started with proto-nipples, and as yet there's been no sufficiently good reason for them not to become full-nipples in men...

(The selective pressures of single-dads being able to make use of their own lactation to keep their mother-orphaned (or otherwise mother-unsupported, for whatever reason) child alive are probably minuscule, next to the already inherent ability to father another child by another mother so long as they get the opportunity... including starting the process before the prior mother gets anywhere near giving birth.  I still think that's just side-effect of residual and normally vestigial biological artefact that can end up as useful, but only by sheer chance.)

(This is by way of being my PTW post.  I hope to see the thread re-enrailed shortly.  Earlier on I was going to suggest that the Spacefaring amendment should require the legislature to be the first to be sent to Mars, in order to ensure they get all the stated problems sorted beforehand.  With the side-benefit of a few less politicians on Earth.)

[misko27]

I still see no proper criticism of my earlier idea, so I will follow up by expanding it. America now claims unilateral ownership of a celestial body (I haven't decided which yet), and NASA is merged with the military to focus on developing and defending America's interests in space.

More Space! All the space! It's all ours! MANIFEST DESTINY.