
Originally Posted by
Buffalobiian
You mention two things:
1) Majority rules should prevail
2) Learn from lessons from the past.
Remember Hitler and his ideas? Remember that Jews and the intellectually disabled were singled out and treated as dirt in Germany? Who authorised that? The majority.
If slave drivers outnumbered slaves did that make it a moral act? Left-handers were shunned as a minority. Homosexuals were weeded out.
How long did it take to establish that these actions were harmful and how many people suffered in that time frame? Democracy isn't the be-all-end-all of decision making Animeniax. That's why there's a charter of human rights recognising the basic privileges of humans that should not be violated without a good reason, even if the majority says so.
I do believe that harm needs to be quantified (proven). If not then you restrict and oppress people out of fear and theoretical extrapolations. As you've rightly mentioned our laws do some stupid stuff already.
Alcohol and guns have some pretty good data behind their harm. Do you know why they're not as tightly regulated as you might expect? Because there are gun lobbyists and industry lobbyists driving it. Because while alcohol is a hazard to the health of yourself and others, the majority still want to get pissed.
Animated child pornography is illegal (despite the lack of harm in production) because the majority hold an unsubstantiated fear, and they don't give a fuck about the minority they are pushing their standards on.
Irrational laws exist, and are passed by the majority. Your argument revolves around
-that's okay because we're the majority and should continue doing so.
-As the majority if we don't like something, fear in theory or don't find it acceptable we're allowed to trample on all voices and acts that promote otherwise.
Because fuck human rights and informed decision making.
Have you got any more to add to this?