(August 11, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 3:56 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: ..I'm completely capable of thinking other people should do something without wanting it to become law.

I think it's moral to remain faithful to your partner(s).  I think people should remain faithful to their partner(s).  I don't think that this should be a law.

I think it's moral to take care of your body and not spend all day drinking booze.  I think people should take care of their bodies and not spend all day drinking booze.  I don't think that this should be a law.


Just because you think other folks should act a certain way because you might find it moral, doesn't mean you want it to have anything to do with what is legal and what isn't.

That's about as simply as I can put it, but I think it's been pretty clearly delineated by several other folks earlier in this thread.

For a specific example, take Joe Biden on abortion.  He opposes it personally on moral grounds, but doesn't want to force his morals onto people via law.

That's mistaking my argument for something it's not.

I'm saying all laws are moral, not that all morals are laws.

There's a silly argument if I've ever seen one. Apartheid was the law in South Africa ... Jim Crow was the law in America. By your "reasoning", those are both moral.

(August 11, 2016 at 4:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: That's mistaking my argument for something it's not.

I'm saying all laws are moral, not that all morals are laws.

There's a silly argument I I've ever seen one. Apartheid was the law in South Africa ... Jim Crow was the law in America. By your "reasoning", those are both moral.

They're not moral by my standards, they're moral by that society's however. 

I trust you understand now the sense in which I use that adjective at the moment.

(August 11, 2016 at 4:17 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Yes, you do. You literally just demonstrated that fact by telling us what you think laws should be about.

No, she spoke about what she thinks laws should not address, i.e., personal morals.

There's a slight difference.

No, there isn't, at least none that was pointed out. As it is, personal morals = thoughts about what laws should(or shouldn't) be about.

(August 11, 2016 at 4:36 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 4:17 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: No, she spoke about what she thinks laws should not address, i.e., personal morals.

There's a slight difference.

No, there isn't, at least none that was pointed out. As it is, personal morals = thoughts about what laws should(or shouldn't) be about.

Get a dictionary EP. That's not what personal morals means at all.

(August 11, 2016 at 4:38 pm)Losty Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 4:36 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: No, there isn't, at least none that was pointed out. As it is, personal morals = thoughts about what laws should(or shouldn't) be about.

Get a dictionary EP. That's not what personal morals means at all.

No dictionary on earth will define personal morals for you. It's a phrase, not a word. Your thoughts regarding what laws should be about are morals and are personal. Therefore, they are personal morals.

(August 11, 2016 at 4:45 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 4:38 pm)Losty Wrote: Get a dictionary EP. That's not what personal morals means at all.

No dictionary on earth will define personal morals for you. It's a phrase, not a word. Your thoughts regarding what laws should be about are morals and are personal. Therefore, they are personal morals.

My thoughts regarding what laws should be about are opinions and have nothing to do with morality.

Morals are concerns with the principles of right vs wrong. Laws are legal mandates which in my opinion should protect people from harm and enforce socially constructive responsibilities regardless of what I might consider right or wrong. Laws should be neutral. It's not about any one person's moral compass nor should it be about the majority moral compass.

I find many many things to be morally wrong that do not actually harm anyone and therefore should not be illegal. In many cases I do not believe that stealing is morally wrong but I still agree with it being illegal. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

There's thing about debating with you that's infuriating. It's that instead of disagreeing with me, you instead tell me that I am wrong about my own thoughts or opinions. It's insulting and childish. Don't tell me what I think, as if you would know.

(August 11, 2016 at 5:01 pm)Losty Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 4:45 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: No dictionary on earth will define personal morals for you. It's a phrase, not a word. Your thoughts regarding what laws should be about are morals and are personal. Therefore, they are personal morals.

My thoughts regarding what laws should be about are opinions and have nothing to do with morality.

Morals are concerns with the principles of right vs wrong. Laws are legal mandates which in my opinion should protect people from harm and enforce socially constructive responsibilities regardless of what I might consider right or wrong. Laws should be neutral. It's not about any one person's moral compass nor should it be about the majority moral compass.

I find many many things to be morally wrong that do not actually harm anyone and therefore should not be illegal. In many cases I do not believe that stealing is morally wrong but I still agree with it being illegal. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

There's thing about debating with you that's infuriating. It's that instead of disagreeing with me, you instead tell me that I am wrong about my own thoughts or opinions. It's insulting and childish. Don't tell me what I think, as if you would know.

Your opinions regarding laws are of a moral nature and are concerned with morality at an essential level. So yes, they have everything to do with morality. Maybe you should read up on what morality means.

It certainly requires some nuance on one's part to make the connection between morality and laws, so I can argue 'till I'm blue in the face here, I'm not going to make you see it if you're intent on not making that connection.

Laws are never neutral. They reflect the morality of the society in which they are dictated in the case of a perfect democracy, or/and the one of the ruling class in case of an imperfect democracy or other type of governing. It has to be about some moral compass, or we wouldn't have any laws at all. There is no other entity to make up rules for humanity, humans have to make them up on their own, and they do that by consulting their own moral compasses and reaching a mutually beneficial agreement(for the most part).

You can't possibly think anything morally wrong if it doesn't harm anyone in any way. You don't think stealing is morally wrong in some cases, but you still think there should be a law to prevent stealing. That just means you wouldn't choose to enforce those laws in some particular cases, but otherwise would. That's why we have judges.

I'm not telling you what you think, I'm criticizing the way you think and some of your thoughts.

I don't think there should be jail time involved but I think counselling would be a good idea.

(August 11, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: You can't possibly think anything morally wrong if it doesn't harm anyone in any way. You don't think stealing is morally wrong in some cases, but you still think there should be a law to prevent stealing. That just means you wouldn't choose to enforce those laws in some particular cases, but otherwise would. That's why we have judges.

Wrong and wrong. People think things are wrong that harm no one all the time based on my usage of the word harm.

I think stealing should be illegal and I think the law should always be enforced even when it's not morally wrong.

(August 11, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Losty Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: You can't possibly think anything morally wrong if it doesn't harm anyone in any way. You don't think stealing is morally wrong in some cases, but you still think there should be a law to prevent stealing. That just means you wouldn't choose to enforce those laws in some particular cases, but otherwise would. That's why we have judges.

Wrong and wrong. People think things are wrong that harm no one all the time based on my usage of the word harm.

I think stealing should be illegal and I think the law should always be enforced even when it's not morally wrong.

Give me an example of such a thing that you think is wrong, yet doesn't harm anyone at all.

Why would you want the law to be enforced even when it's not morally wrong, then?