Multiculturalism

Learn to read.What I said is that if a prohibited act happens then the law that prohibited the act was ineffective.Sorry but that is self-evident.

I speak for myself. If I am an exception then that is simply an indication of the lack of morality in others.

Both.

Why do you think driving at 35MPH in a 30MPH zone is indicative of lacking morals?Why do you think practising female genital mutilation is indicative of lacking morals?What is it about these acts that causes you to question the morality of those who practise them?

Ah, the old childhood definitions game.I think that it is moral to obey laws.But that is simply my personal position.To say that those who do not obey laws are immoral is just an extension of my personal position.Those who drive above the speed limit or practice FGM have a different personal position.But I also think trying to legislate morality is stupid. If either law was based on a moral position I would consider the law stupid.

jar writes: Pure poppycock. Only one transgressor would be a huge success. It's the % that slow down that counts.I will give you this: "...the law was NOT PERFECT as a deterrent".If only one person slows down, then there was an effect, as negligible as it may be. If 2 slow down, still probably negligible. 50? How about 80% slowing down? I'd call that pretty effective.

You reap what you sow.Please, learn to write.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

jar persists: Ah - it is a question of semantics after all. What makes you think that laws could be PERFECT?
Using your definition, every single law ever made is ineffective - a useless definition.

That depends on the purpose of laws. I contend that the purpose of laws is to provide a framework to punish transgressors. They are effective (some what, western democracy justice systems seem to me to be inherently flawed when it comes to punishment but that is another subject) at that.I contend that any deterrent effects are purely incidental and not the intended purpose.

I don't think making things illegal is the be-all and end-all solution to every problem. That's what I keep saying. I didn't start this discussion. I don't know why you persist in criticizing everything I say when we don't really disagree.

No. That's the opposite of what I'm suggesting. One of the benefits of multiculturalism is that it encourages us to test our own cultural biases. For example, we can look at somebody else's attitude toward FGM to see if it has any validity - and they can look at our attitude to see if it has any validity. The quickest way to find your own biases is to have somebody with different biases point them out to you. In this case the peer group would be "humans".

Or you're wrong. Is that the best argument you have?

Everybody's a moral relativist. We just have different relatives.

How democratic of you.

That's not what I asked. Is there anything you personally would object to being made legal for the purposes of cultural diversity? I'm just responding to things you say that I feel worth responding to. If you don't want to continue defending your random and rather weak notions, you aren't compelled to, but don't criticize me for responding to you when you responded to me without really understanding why you were doing it.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.