Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,919 Year: 4,176/9,624 Month: 1,047/974 Week: 6/368 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could the US become a theocracy ?
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 120 (166960)
12-10-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Phat
12-10-2004 10:00 AM


Morality by Removal?
Phatboy writes:
I would be in favor of legislating morality with a block of like minded families. What would you do? BTW, your teenagers are getting more unruly because of the forbidden thrills available in town. They always listened to you, however, until this new temptation.
Ah, but is one moral when one has no other choice but to act in a certain way? And why stop with just moral choices lets expand it to nutritional choices as well.
We would need to legislate nutrition in the same way we legislated morality because both sets of laws achieve the same end. With morality you'd want to avoid a social decay, right? Health is a big part of society as well. Physical unhealthiness would be part of social decay also. Both nutrition and moral laws help prevent social decay.
Since you argue that lack of morals leads to decay in your small town, I argue that bad eating habits lead to decay as well. Health care cost rise and even those folks that are nutritional sound have to pay more. Some people won't even be able to afford health care at all because of the bad habits of others. Those that are unhealthy are infringing on health of others just like your small town immoral folks cause immorality in our teenagers!
Phatboy writes:
They vote to allow bars, liquor stores, ghambling, porn shops, and as an addition, drugs become rampant. You cannot afford to move.
Thankful when both sets of laws get put into effect all your above mentioned get shut down along with any fast food restaurants, soft drink and snack food vending machines and any food that doesn't have acceptable nutritional value will be illegal. People will have to be more moral and healthy and as a result will be better for it.
thanx
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 12-10-2004 10:00 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Phat, posted 12-10-2004 1:55 PM portmaster1000 has replied

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 120 (167008)
12-10-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Phat
12-10-2004 1:55 PM


Re: Morality by Removal?
Phatboy writes:
OK, I see your point. All or nothing, and nothing is preferred when legislation of morality is concerned, right?
It's not really all or nada. It's just really hard to know how far to go when you're trying to control human "vices". Should we just regulate a certain vice or make it totally against the law? If you look at the historical example of Prohibition you know unforeseen effects pop up. After all just because supply becomes limited or vanishes, demand doesn't magically go away.
The black market will grow and now you have to dedicate resources to stop it. The black market may respond as it did during Prohibition and violent organized crime starts to grow as well. What point in this snowball effect do you have to reach before the original moral problem wasn't as bad as the current solution?
Sometimes small changes cause big effects.
thanx
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Phat, posted 12-10-2004 1:55 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by nator, posted 12-10-2004 4:40 PM portmaster1000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024