rights or boundaries: Just an observation by uncle joe
There are a lot of debates about religion and what's right and wrong out there. It's almost as if in the past we had a set of rules (religious or moral) to follow. We knew what was right, what was wrong, what was apropriate behavior, what was not apropriate behavior. We knew what was expected of us and how to act. Now..., it seems like we may have lost all of that and people are trying desperately to get it back. A lot of people out there want guide lines. They do not want to be allowed to do whatever they want to without any responsibility for their actions. But there are also a lot of people that don't want to take responsibility for anything either. They do not want to be told what to do, nor how to do it. They just want people to accept them for who they are and have someone else help them out when they screw up. Those two groups seem to be battling it out. Do we allow more rights or put some boundaries?
more rights
Side Score: 12
|
 |
more boundaries
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
For those of you who expected a traditional joe_cavalry debate (not this serious debate crap) go here: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Supporting Evidence:
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Side: more rights
1
point
Fuck the man, man. People who don't subscribe to pre-packaged objective morality actually have to think about our actions and how they affect others, making us more moral. I want all my rights back. That includes my right to take drugs, my right to skateboard, and my right to education. Side: more rights
Who's giving these boundaries? If we're talking about Government there seems to be a conflict because conservatives are generally religious yet they say they wan't smaller government. Which is fine but you can't ask for small Government and demand a bunch of morality laws. The Government should help to an extent but people have to choose to have morals. It's funny I keep hearing everyone talking about rights and freedom but nobody seems to be talking about responsibility. People can't be forced to be good people. It's like my friends who had stricked parents were always the ones to rebel and vise verse. But I have to say just because somebody is an atheist doesn't mean that they don't have morals. (I'm a conservative Christian by the way) Side: more rights
1
point
What do you mean "honor killing" like war? The way I see it is that religions don't tell me to do things God does. But that opens up a whole other can of worms. So If God tells me to do something I will trust in God and do it. Look at this we're having a real debate without jokes! This is rare people. (; Side: more rights
1
point
1
point
It's no secret that you biased this in favor of more boundaries. Why not try to fairly explain different positions? We need more rights, especially since the 9/11 attacks we have just been giving away personal freedoms left and right. The Patriot Act is one of the most disgusting pieces of legislation I have researched, but don't call me an expert on it. There is nothing patriotic about the act. Side: more rights
1
point
Yes, we have been giving away rights since 9/11. Yes, the Patriot Act is one of the most disgusting pieces of legislation reached. No, that (above) is NOT what I'm talking about. What I am talking about is how people on this site "seem" to be looking for guidance as to what's right and wrong. Should gay marriage be allowed? Should abortion be allowed? Does God exist? etc. The question is, do we allow everything and be done with it or do we put in some boundaries? It seems like people want to know what the boundaries are. Side: more rights
1
point
Perhaps people are in fact looking for guidance. I know when I post debates, I'm not looking for guidance, but merely perspective on the issue. I want to know the best arguments from both sides, sort out which makes the most sense, do more research, and then come to a conclusion. What do you mean do we allow everything? Like do we allow gay marriage, or do we allow abortion? That kind of thing? I think those things can be objectively defined in terms of their impact, and that reasonable logical boundaries can be drawn from those conclusions. All of this can be done without religion, subjective morality, god, etc. Side: more rights
|
1
point
In a perfect world, where people acted out of love, more rights would be in order. But in the "real" world, where people can rationalize anything, more boundaries are in order. There are a lot of people out there who have a sense of entitlement ("It's my right to...") and they blur the line between right and wrong. In the "real" world, people commit atrocities in the name of love. For example, a pedophile may claim to have a loving relationship with the child. Or a scorned lover may claim that she killed the competition out of love for the lover who scorned her. It is for this reason that we may have to put some boundaries. So that people may differentiate which actions are motivated by love and which actions are motivated by greed, jealousy, and selfishness. However, since the world is NOT perfect, whatever boundaries we put in place WILL impact some actions that ARE motivated by love. The question then becomes: Do we allow the atrocities in order to prevent impacting those actions motivated by love? ...OR... Do we allow impacting actions motivated by love in order to prevent the atrocities? Side: more boundaries
1
point
Love is a 2 way thing, if the child does not want the pedophile to do what he does, then it is not love, and therefore it is not a right. Boundaries limit things. We have the right to live how we want to live and not be intruded upon. We should not have boundaries to our lives. Side: more rights
1
point
|
