Why should society be tolerant?

[Disinterested]

The whole point of a society is to have the majority make rules that benefit themselves.

[tman_ndsu08]

Why should anyone do anything?

[Osborn F Enready]

Don't confuse the general term of society, with the characteristics that define societies by type.

There are two types of societies in the most basic sense of generalization: Complex, and Simple.

Since we (man) has become a division of complex soceities over time except for the very few hunter-gatherer groups that still exist, we have been no resemblance to anything simple.

Economics, one of the biggest differences in modern complex societies.
Social Order, another major difference still found in various complex societies.
Laws, their basis, and their system of Law.
Values, and where they originate, and why.
Societal goals, defined through either constitution, religion, tribal leaders or other methods.

Your lead topic starter, is ignorant of the politics of which you attempt to discuss, so I feel it would be wrong to dignify it with any other answer than this.

[SteveA]

The whole point of a society is to have the majority make rules that benefit themselves.

If someone doesn't benefit from this arrangement they excluded from society as you see it or still held captive by it?

Why not just vote on whether or not to bring back slavery?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Disinterested The whole point of a society is to have the majority make rules that benefit themselves.

"Society" doesn't make rules. Government does. Society makes... guidelines.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Disinterested The whole point of a society is to have the majority make rules that benefit themselves.

There is no point to society aside from whatever those in the society want it to be. Just like there is no meaning to life aside from whatever one wants it to be.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Nurse Sheep said:
The majoritys opinion should always be held as most important, minoritys opinions dont really count for much until they become a majority.

I say:
So you support a 100% democracy, where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%?

If that is the case, you will have to leave this country to find your dream government, and start looking at more socialist inspired nations, or governments not LIMITED by their constitution.

Regardless of how large the majority in this nation, our government is supposed to exist to protect OUR rights, and that is why we created it. No percentage of majority could remove rights in this nation constitutionally. Don't get me wrong, they are doing it through "legal" channels now, but just because it appears legal, doesn't mean it trumps the Constitution, since the Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND, and once it is restored and the strong Central Government FDR created is laid to rest, most of the interior problems of this society will end.

The funniest thing Nurse Sheep, is that you have already shown your blatant bias in another thread, and shown you don't respect other humans as equal, so to me, your opinion matters as much as a grain of sand on an endless beach.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Autolykos There is no point to society aside from whatever those in the society want it to be. Just like there is no meaning to life aside from whatever one wants it to be. - Rob

I'm an existentialist myself.

[LemonButt]

If the point of society was to make rules that benefited the majority, the 80% of the population would kill the other 20% and spread their wealth evenly making everyone richer and the world less crowded, but that hasn't happened because that's not how society works.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Disinterested The whole point of a society is to have the majority make rules that benefit themselves.

Man, you need someone to explain to you what a republic is. We are NOT RULED BY A MAJORITY. We are ruled by laws passed by representatives elected by the people. The people do not make the laws (except in the case of propositions in various states that has them - I don't think we should have them, but since so many legislatures are clueless, people have enacted propositions.)

We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that is made to protect the rights of the minority. We do not want majority rule. In that case government could be run by a charismatic despot, as we had in the instance of Bill Clinton .

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Logjam Man, you need someone to explain to you what a republic is. We are NOT RULED BY A MAJORITY. We are ruled by laws passed by representatives elected by the people. The people do not make the laws (except in the case of propositions in various states that has them - I don't think we should have them, but since so many legislatures are clueless, people have enacted propositions.) We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that is made to protect the rights of the minority. We do not want majority rule. In that case government could be run by a charismatic despot, as we had in the instance of Bill Clinton .

Actually, even under a republic, the majority still rules. The rebublican system is merely administrative, not qualitative. If our country was only a democratic republic we could vote for representatives who would make black slavery legal again. Why can't we do this? Because we are a constitutional democracy. We go with the majority within certain moral boundries.

[Dirty Name]

Why not just vote on whether or not to bring back slavery?

Why not indeed? Do you doubt the outcome? I don't. The issue of slavery would be soundly defeated. What's wrong with voting on it?

[Logjam]

Quote by: Prometheus Actually, even under a republic, the majority still rules. The rebublican system is merely administrative, not qualitative. If our country was only a democratic republic we could vote for representatives who would make black slavery legal again. Why can't we do this? Because we are a constitutional democracy. We go with the majority within certain moral boundries.

I agree that we are a republic with a constitution that guarentees individual rights. The consitution stipulates how the power of our government is limited. Not the other way round. Our bill of rights, among other things, guarentees that the rights of the minority will be protected. Freedom of Speech, Fourth Ammendment. etc.

Indeed the framers did not want a pure democracy. That's what cooked Socrate's goose. Our government is built upon the primis that government is here to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....(It was originally written; life, liberty, pursuit of property (as was stated by John Locke) who our Founding Fathers read, understood and agreed with.) The change from property to happiness was a pen change made to the document by Jefferson, just prior to it's being signed.

[oranged]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Why should anyone do anything?

That's a perfect counter for selfishness, first comes "Why should I help other people?" then comes "Why should I help myself?" I don't know about other people, but I always fail to understand how I'm any less important than anyone else. Is that Liberalism? Maybe even functioning communism? It was supposed to be Cristianity but that doesn't seem to work quite as much, that kind of says, help others as long as there not gay or heretical.

[Jack]

Good, they have my 100% support to remove rights from all the freaks and people like you who want freaks around in power.

If you were half as wise as you suppose yourself to be, you wouldn't be near as judgemental. Besides, we already have freaks in power; the religious right.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Dirty Name Why not indeed? Do you doubt the outcome? I don't. The issue of slavery would be soundly defeated. What's wrong with voting on it?

While I'm not a huge fan of slavery, I think it could be brought back. Here's how might happen.

You scan the census of poor neighborhoods. Send an announcement to all folks with ten kids or more that you'll pay $200,000 for one of their kids. I'll wager that many parents would take one kid and turn it over. I mean, what's one kid more or less? Furthermore, I'll wager that after they'd spent their 200 grand that they'd offer up another.

Or you could put an add in all of the major newspapers announcing that you'll pay $200,000 for any healthy child. I'll bet you'd be swamped with offers. Race would not be an element in the new slavery. It'd be strictly a monitary transaction.

What do you think?

[Osborn F Enready]

Nurse Sheep:
If their rights conflict with the majoritys yes.
There would be mayhem if there was such an unrealistic society anyway, so try to keep it real.

I say:
So you do not understand the shortcomings of pure democracy, nor have you any respect for the lessons proven by past democracies, which proves your ignorant of the facts of history,and have terminal shortsightedness.

Keeping it real, would be executing people who attempt to remove rights from citizens, when they are under oath and voted in to do the opposite, as well as putting to trial their supporters for their crimes of political corruption and usurpation.

Understand this system, or be prepared to deal with the penalties of subverting it.

Nurse Sheep said:
No I'll just stick to this one and disrupt any freaks who want rights for two women having kids from twisted science like you probably support as much as possible

I say:
It is your choice to try to repeal the Constitution, as well as it is your choice to try to usurp and subvert it. It will however be our choice, what to do with you people once we isolate you, trial you, and probably execute you for treason.

Nurse Sheep said:
If your rights conflict with what the majority views as unstable for society, then the government has the responsibility to listen seriously to this too, sorry but you can't have it all your own way.

I say:
Yes they have the obligation to listen to all appeals for justice, in accordance with the Constitution. However, they are limited in their actions, as rights are unalienable.

What people like you fail to understand is that the debate over what this country was, ended with the Constitution. Since then, it has been, and will be until declared, a Constitutionally Limited Democratic Representative Republic.

Federal Governments job is to protect the Constitution, and respect its limitations, as well as ensure the states do the same. What you speak of is open subversion of those responsibilities. This makes you my enemy, as well as every other right respecting, Constitutional respecting citizens enemy. It has nothing to do with having everything MY way, it is about obeying the Constitution as THE way it was written and AGREED TO.

Nurse Sheep:
Good, they have my 100% support to remove rights from all the freaks and people like you who want freaks around in power.

I say:
Thank you for so clearly identifying yourself as a sell out to your country, your fellow citizens, and all that they value. You should try putting a yard sign out in your yard stating that, and see the results.

Nurse Sheep:
The constitution wasnt made for freaks and perverts... like the ones you support, to twist around to suit their own agenda which is to destroy white hetero males power in society, don't deny it.

I say:
Well, your ignorance has baffled me. Any attempt to remove the rights from one man, is an attempt to remove the rights from all men! I support and defend the rights of all men, as well as I support the Constitution.

It is racist, bigots like you who can't see the forest for the trees that are a bigger threat than Al Queda, since you are working within our borders to trample and demean the Constitution, as well as our way of life.

Your hatred of blacks and others not like you, has done more to demean your own being than any political policy could ever do. Revel in it. Blind faith in ANYTHING is bad, but blind faith in hatred is just Sado-Masochistic.

Nurse Sheep said:
I couldnt care less about that if I tried.

I say:
So obviously you weren't replying in an attempt to debate my opinion, or to change my feelings as much as to either hear yourself talk, or defend your statements so as not to appear a fool to everyone else.......

Congratulations in your failure.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Isherwood If you were half as wise as you suppose yourself to be, you wouldn't be near as judgemental. Besides, we already have freaks in power; the religious right.

The religious right is not in power. They don't constitute a majority of the Repub party. Most Repubs whom I know don't care a whit about religious questions.

What is true is that the Left has put off religious people by calling them names (as in the progenitor of this post) and my supporting things that are repugnant to religious people such as homosexual marriage and that abolition of prayer in schools.

Since the left has lost the support of religious people (However, there are many liberal church groups; many in the Presbyterian Church, for instance.) they have demonized them. Not good. Certainly demagoguery isn't helping the left. Except to the Looney Left; which I think is beginning to dominate Democrats.

Remember. The more looneys on the left the more righties win elections. Which is a good thing.

[JLO]

Quote by: Disinterested The whole point of a society is to have the majority make rules that benefit themselves.

To which nation are you referring? In the US, the majority does not rule. It's in the constitution that way.

[SteveA]

Why not just vote on whether or not to bring back slavery? Why not indeed? Do you doubt the outcome? I don't. The issue of slavery would be soundly defeated. What's wrong with voting on it?

Sure, if we called it slavery it would probably be defeated but what if we called it community service instead?

What's wrong with some people doing community service?

I know this is probably old and overused but seriously, Hitler was elected in an entirely democratic fashion.

It's the mentality that just because you can do something to someone else, you're in the right that's a danger to us. You and I might both have faith that slavery would be defeated if there was a general vote today but the reason why isn't because of democracy. In this particular example it's actually believing that democracy itself is the basis of justice that puts something like slavery into the realm of possibility. It's concepts like individual rights and protections under the law that are the only things that have kept democracy at bay. Democracy is the problem. Individual rights is the solution.

I think to an extent democracy is unavoidable and not always unjustified, IMO, especially if you consider that even social pressures to an extent are democratic forces and there are times when there are conflicts of interest that can't be resolved by following the letter of the law and someones rights are violated out of necessity for others. That should remain the exeption though, not the rule or the ideal. We all live in the same world and occasionally people have their feet stepped on but that's what the courts are for. We already have a system to resolve disputes over rights, and the intention was to do it on the basis of something more than might makes rights.

Something else to consider. If we don't include minority views from being represented or tolerated in our country, guess who won't consider themselves to be part of our country? So sure, you can have your majority and try to rule with it but you'll find it an ever smaller and smaller group of people.