|
Author
|
Topic: Let's ban the really dangerous stuff
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
Where's the distortion? Are you saying government is not violence? Like the song says, "show me the system and I'll show you the violence"
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
BrianGrass1234,
You obviously have a very distorted view of government and some of the laws that elected legislators make for our protection. I don't believe that any brief answers that I could give in response to your questions will change your opinions or even get you to consider any new ideas regarding this matter.
I think that my points and position regarding this matter are fairly clear. I would like to see what some of the other participants in this forum think about this matter. I may get back to you later after we hear from some others regarding these questions.
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
BrainGrass1234,
I hope that you are not indicating that an abortion is not an "act of violence" against another person. Perhaps you do believe that it isn't.
Abortion is an initiation of violence against the baby and that baby needs to be protected, therefore laws against abortion would be a moral use of government.
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
Laws, in most cases, are enacted to prevent violence, to create safe enviornments for children, youth, and adults. The use of force by government officials, including city police and other duly authorized law-enforcement agents, may be necessary in some cases, but even when it is necessary, it is still to be used in accord with lawful procedures.
I wonder what percentage of the laws on the books in this nation are in response to aggression? Probably not even half, maybe not even 20%.
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
Are you suggesting that "tainted" meat is not dangerous enough to be "banned" by a governmental agency, that people should be sensative enough to know when some piece of meat doesn't taste "good" so that they can avoid eating it?
Maybe the consumer should not buy meat that hasn't had a third party(not the government) check it. Maybe if I'm a reputable market or butcher, I would only buy meat to sell that has been checked by a third party to ensure quality. It is not right to force a meat suppliers to conform to government standards and regulations with threats of violence, it is not right to coerce everyone else to pay for this government program so you and feel safe about the meat you eat. Let me ask you this, does the government do anything well? Then why would you trust them with your health?
quote:
Originally posted by TB125:
Immoral behavior is dangerous, and I'm raising the question that perhaps some of it should be banned. To do so is not to impose the Christian faith upon anyone by governmental force of law. There are just some types of behavior and opinions that are "dangerous" in any culture.
Why shouldn't our legislators and business leaders be encouraged to protect us from these "dangers" as well as from paint that includes lead?
Immoral behavior may be dangerous, but most of the time it will only harm those that consent. If others are harmed, then actions can be taken to rectify the harm done, but if the harm was accidental, like speeding then crashing, it is a civil issue and not criminal and should not be legislated. If you preempt an accident by legislating against irresponsible behavior, then you are initiating violence.
This is what you need to ask yourself. For what reasons should a christian use violence against others? I believe violence should be only used to protect others and no other reason. However, I do accept others views that self defense is acceptable, just not for me. But do you think violence is OK to protect a particular society or culture? To protect the society and culture you enjoy? Do you think it is OK to use violence to force other people to behave a certain way, even though they are not actively harming anyone? What about using violence to make sure you have safe meat or lead free paint?
After you have answered these questions you need to come to the understanding that government is violence. Government is a violent tool, like a gun or sword or big stick, that people use to threaten other people to get what they want. Then examine whether or not the actions you are asking the government to do, fall in line with the moral standard on violence you hold for yourself.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
BrainGrass1234,
I hope that you are not indicating that an abortion is not an "act of violence" against another person. Perhaps you do believe that it isn't.
Laws, in most cases, are enacted to prevent violence, to create safe enviornments for children, youth, and adults. The use of force by government officials, including city police and other duly authorized law-enforcement agents, may be necessary in some cases, but even when it is necessary, it is still to be used in accord with lawful procedures.
Are you suggesting that "tainted" meat is not dangerous enough to be "banned" by a governmental agency, that people should be sensative enough to know when some piece of meat doesn't taste "good" so that they can avoid eating it?
Immoral behavior is dangerous, and I'm raising the question that perhaps some of it should be banned. To do so is not to impose the Christian faith upon anyone by governmental force of law. There are just some types of behavior and opinions that are "dangerous" in any culture.
Why shouldn't our legislators and business leaders be encouraged to protect us from these "dangers" as well as from paint that includes lead?
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
I want to caution you against this type of thinking, because its this willingness to use government violence against others to protect morals/culture that gives christians a bad name.
Parents are responsible for protecting their children, not the government. Government should not ban any property or activity as long as it is not an act of aggression against others. To do so is an initiation of force and is wrong.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
It is interesting that our legislative and business leaders can ban and remove from distribution toys that are dangerous to our children because they are covered with paint that has some lead in it or contains some chemicals that are dangerous, but they can't ban or remove from distribution some other more serious threats not only to young children but to our youth and adults.
Some of these more dangerous things are the following: the teaching of evolution, the right of a woman or sexually mature girl to have an abortion, fornication is OK as long as one uses a condum, and there is no absolute truth. Of course there are other serious threats to life and morality that should be banned or removed from public distribution, but I'm sure that you get my point.
Or maybe we should just remind young children that they shouldn't eat the paint from these toys while they are playing with them. We seem to be willing to accept that principle when it comes to evolution and the practice of sexual relations. I'm sure that you understand this point! Uncommitted sexual relations seems to be OK as long as it doesn't produce an "unwanted" child or an unhealthy disease. If it does, there are some "acceptable" treatments.
Why can't we ban and remove some of these really dangerous things from our children, youth, and adults rather than just approving treatments for them?
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
