president bush knows you...

[cgarrett]

i think that this thread is missing another important issue around misuse of this information... economic benefit.

having our health information in the united states must be like having a steak in front of a dogs nose to the american health delivery industry. and with the cozy relationship between dog and republican...

[Stoker]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I asked if you would be OK with something. Therefore, who defines "OK" is you! I'm asking you, if the majority voted for an atrocity like genocide, if you would accept that, or if you would think that the majority was wrong to desire genocide. Yes or no. Very simple really.

If the question is if I'm in favor of genocide, of course not, I'm also opposed to abortion. So since I'm opposed to abortion, are my human rights being violated? Same with same sex marriage. High taxes. Big government etc.

As to who can change it, it's very difficult to change it. This is because even those who created our democracies knew that the majority, that elected representatives, are fallible and can do the wrong thing on occasion. Hitler came to power according to the letter of the Weimar constitution. He came to power democratically. Think about that.

Did the majority know of Hilter's plans?

So you are a nihilist and believe that nothing is moral and right? That one is entitled to do whatever one is able to do? That murdering 6 million Jews is no morally worse or better than saving 6 million Jews?

I think the murder of the jews was wrong, did the majority of German think it was right? Did the majority of Germans even know about it?

It doesn't matter how many voted for it because as long as there is one lone American who disagrees with the Patriot Act, that Act is unjust. The majority cannot justly force their views and opinions on the minority and violate their rights nor can they confer power on others to do so. All you need for oppression is one man who disagrees and is forced to comply by force or threat thereof. That's what we have.

So if I protest same sex marriage, my rights are being violated?

More to the point, you're still dodging the actual question. How can A confer a power over B to C that A does not have over B in the first place? How can one give what one does not have?

When one lives in a democracy, the "reins" are handed over to elected indivuals. This is the choice of those that live within a democracy.

[Hugo]

Did the majority know of Hilter's plans?

He made them pretty clear in Mein Kampf, which was published several years before he came to power.

I think the murder of the jews was wrong, did the majority of German think it was right? Did the majority of Germans even know about it?

That isn't the question at hand. I'm asking if you're a nihilist. I did ask you to answer the question, obviously I should have qualified that: Answer the question being asked. You consider some things wrong, so is this just your opinion (in which case, you have no right to make it law since it's no better than anybody else's opinion) or is it a part of some universal law, a moral absolute?

So if I protest same sex marriage, my rights are being violated?

Is somebody forcing you into same-sex marriage? If not, you're claiming that your "rights" include the right to tell other people what to do.

When one lives in a democracy, the "reins" are handed over to elected indivuals. This is the choice of those that live within a democracy.

What choice is that? Where's the contract bearing my signature whereby I agree to abide by the rules of democratic government?

[Stoker]

He made them pretty clear in Mein Kampf, which was published several years before he came to power.

So did the majority know?

I'm asking if you're a nihilist.

No........ thats not too obtuse?

You consider some things wrong, so is this just your opinion (in which case, you have no right to make it law since it's no better than anybody else's opinion) or is it a part of some universal law, a moral absolute?

Sure I do, but I also understand that I live in a democracy and like Mick Jagger says, "You can't always get what you"......

Is somebody forcing you into same-sex marriage? If not, you're claiming that your "rights" include the right to tell other people what to do.

But isn't the law forcing people to recognize their marriages?

You didn't answer my question about aboration though.........Is not the rights of the fetus being violated by having a metal rod punched through it's skull?

What choice is that? Where's the contract bearing my signature whereby I agree to abide by the rules of democratic government?

Thats the beauty about democracy........nobody is forcing you too stay, you can leave anytime. But if you choose to live within the confines of the democracy, it's rules apply onto you.......just as they apply to everybody else.

[Hugo]

So did the majority know [about Hitler]?

It's irrelevant. The fact is that democracy produced Hitler's government, which is an example that proves my original point: having democracy is absolutely no guarantee that the government will do the right or the just thing at any given time.

This, combined with your moral-absolutist stance, means that your original argument (that the Patriot Act was just because it was approved by the majority and/or their elected representatives) is invalid, using your own logic.

No [i am not a nihilist]........ thats not too obtuse?

Then you are in direct contradiction of your earlier statement:

Whats "right" and what "moral" is all in the eye of the "beholder".

...Which is an inherently nihilistic argument. I would suggest you need to examine the self-contradictions in your own thinking and decide which side of the fence you're actually going to stand on.

Sure I do

Sure you do what? The question I asked was an either/or, not a yes/no.

But isn't the law forcing people to recognize their marriages?

Recognise whatever you want. But for you to use violence or the threat thereof to force others to share your recognitions is wrong.

Is not the rights of the fetus being violated by having a metal rod punched through it's skull?

Obviously.

Thats the beauty about democracy........nobody is forcing you too stay, you can leave anytime.

I can impose rules regarding the use of my own property, and I can insist that those who won't follow those rules leave my property.

I cannot impose rules regarding the use of somebody else's property, nor can I insist that they leave unless they follow them.

Therefore, you are saying that the government of Canada owns the entire country and everything in it, or that the "majority" (which changes every election) owns the entire country.

[Stoker]

It's irrelevant. The fact is that democracy produced Hitler's government, which is an example that proves my original point: having democracy is absolutely no guarantee that the government will do the right or the just thing at any given time.

When in power was Hitler's germany a democracy? If the German people did infact know about the killing of the jews, could they have voted Hitler out?

I fail to see the contrast between Hilter killing the jews, and Bush putting the patriot act into place...

QUOTE 

No [i am not a nihilist]........ thats not too obtuse?

Then you are in direct contradiction of your earlier statement:

QUOTE 

Whats "right" and what "moral" is all in the eye of the "beholder".

...Which is an inherently nihilistic argument. I would suggest you need to examine the self-contradictions in your own thinking and decide which side of the fence you're actually going to stand on.

It seems as if you are mixed up......

The Merriam-Webster definition of a nihilist is as follows:

Main Entry: ni·hil·ism 

Pronunciation: 'nI-(h)&-"li-z&m, 'nE-

Function: noun

Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing -- more at NIL

1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

2 a (1) : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility (2) capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination b : TERRORISM

I believe that "traditional values and beliefs" are very much well-founded and that those (the beholder) that disagree see them in a different light.

QUOTE 

You consider some things wrong, so is this just your opinion (in which case, you have no right to make it law since it's no better than anybody else's opinion) or is it a part of some universal law, a moral absolute?

Sure I do, but I also understand that I live in a democracy and like Mick Jagger says, "You can't always get what you"......

If my opinion is voiced and shared in a democracy, it very much so can be made law.

Sure you do what? The question I asked was an either/or, not a yes/no.

And what if ones opinion(s) is founded on some "universal law"?

Recognise whatever you want. But for you to use violence or the threat thereof to force others to share your recognitions is wrong.

Ahh but it's not that simple.........If I were an employer, I have to recognise a homosexual employee's spouse for work related benifits.....In this case, one persons rights are being forced onto another. Is this not wrong?

Therefore, you are saying that the government of Canada owns the entire country and everything in it, or that the "majority" (which changes every election) owns the entire country.

I never said the majority/government "owns" anything...........but I will say that they govern over everything, at the people's request.

[Hugo]

When in power was Hitler's germany a democracy? If the German people did infact know about the killing of the jews, could they have voted Hitler out?

That's also irrelevant. The fact is that democracy put Hitler into office who then proceeded to enact thoroughly unjust and immoral public policy, therefore, democracy is not a guarantee of a moral or just public policy. That is what I am saying and you are repeatedly missing that point in your efforts to construct strawmen.

Just answer this question: Does democracy guarantee that the actions of the government will always be ethical and just? Yes or no.

I believe that "traditional values and beliefs" are very much well-founded and that those (the beholder) that disagree see them in a different light.

That was not what you said. I already cited your quote, which was of a nihilist viewpoint. Now you are saying you are not a nihilist. Fine - but you contradict yourself.

In any case, if you believe in moral absolutes it therefore follows that what is right and good does not necessarily rest with the majority but with an absolute that transcends the numbers and qualities of people and their opinions.

Therefore, the majority cannot make something just and right simply by their assent. From the moral absolutist viewpoint, something is just and right or it is not, no matter how many people believe it.

From this, we can see that your initial remark that the US electorate can legitimise and have legitimised the Patriot Act is necessarily false because the majority cannot confer moral legitimacy.

If my opinion is voiced and shared in a democracy, it very much so can be made law.

Does that make it just? To reiterate my earlier example, if your opinion was "voiced and shared" and "made law" in a democracy, and that opinion happened to be gassing Jews, would that be just?

And what if ones opinion(s) is founded on some "universal law"?

This is absolutely no relevance to the question I asked you. But if your opinion was founded on universal law, this would mean that you were right and those who disagreed, wrong. For instance, if it's your opinion that perpetual motion is impossible, then you are correct because of the universal laws of thermodynamics. Those who disagree are wrong.

This, of course, assumes that you know the absolute.

Ahh but it's not that simple.........If I were an employer, I have to recognise a homosexual employee's spouse for work related benifits.....In this case, one persons rights are being forced onto another. Is this not wrong?

Of course it is wrong! What in my previous posts could possibly lead you to think otherwise?

I never said the majority/government "owns" anything...........but I will say that they govern over everything, at the people's request.

I never requested for the government of Canada to "govern over" my property. For other Canadians to have conferred this right on the government against my will means that they must have had that right (since you can't give what you don't have), so basically, "other Canadians" - Liberal voters, perhaps - have the right to govern me and my property.

Is this what you are saying? Do I have the right to tell you you can't use your computer between 8am and 4pm? Or do you have that right over me?

[Black Dog]

When in power was Hitler's germany a democracy? If the German people did infact know about the killing of the jews, could they have voted Hitler out?

I fail to see the contrast between Hilter killing the jews, and Bush putting the patriot act into place...

Hitler's Nazis gained power through the democratic process. However, by the time the "Final Solution" was enacted, that process had been dismantled by the Nazis through the Enabling Act.

As for the Patriot Act, the circumstances by which it was put in place bear many similarities with Hitler's Enabling Act. Both were put in place following a national emergency (9-11/reichstag Fire), both expanded government powers and curtailed civil liberties.

[Stoker]

That's also irrelevant. The fact is that democracy put Hitler into office who then proceeded to enact thoroughly unjust and immoral public policy, therefore, democracy is not a guarantee of a moral or just public policy. That is what I am saying and you are repeatedly missing that point in your efforts to construct strawmen.

And your point is irrelevant. The German people (if they knew about it) could not vote Hitler out. Those Americans that disagree with Bush and the Patriot act, have that option.

Just answer this question: Does democracy guarantee that the actions of the government will always be ethical and just? Yes or no.

Have you stoped beating your wife? Yes or No.

With that said, a democracy can make sure that those that govern without ethics or morals will be voted out.

That was not what you said. I already cited your quote, which was of a nihilist viewpoint. Now you are saying you are not a nihilist. Fine - but you contradict yourself.

How was my quote of a "nihilist viewpoint"? Can not both sides share a common point of view? If a person diagrees with a certain course of action does that make them a nihilist?

I believe that abortion is wrong, but the majority of Canadians don't..........does that make me a nihilist? Or perhaps a person that accepts that they live within a democracy and things won't always go my way?

In any case, if you believe in moral absolutes it therefore follows that what is right and good does not necessarily rest with the majority but with an absolute that transcends the numbers and qualities of people and their opinions.

How so? Can not the majority believe in moral absolutes?

Therefore, the majority cannot make something just and right simply by their assent. From the moral absolutist viewpoint, something is just and right or it is not, no matter how many people believe it.

I beg to differ. I (the minority) may not believe a course of action (abortion) taken by the majority is right, but does that make the course of action (abortion) wrong in the minds of the majority?

From this, we can see that your initial remark that the US electorate can legitimise and have legitimised the Patriot Act is necessarily false because the majority cannot confer moral legitimacy.

The majority can very much so legitimise such a thing. (as in my example above). In doing so, they don't have to have a 100% concenus, since in a democracy both the majority and minority choose to live within the "democratic country", and the given minority must understand that their choices will not always be followed.

Does that make it just? To reiterate my earlier example, if your opinion was "voiced and shared" and "made law" in a democracy, and that opinion happened to be gassing Jews, would that be just?

Yes, if it was shared by the majority.......it doesn't mean that the minority will agree though. As i said before, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

This is absolutely no relevance to the question I asked you. But if your opinion was founded on universal law, this would mean that you were right and those who disagreed, wrong. For instance, if it's your opinion that perpetual motion is impossible, then you are correct because of the universal laws of thermodynamics. Those who disagree are wrong.

This, of course, assumes that you know the absolute.

Do you think your opinions are wrong?

I never requested for the government of Canada to "govern over" my property. For other Canadians to have conferred this right on the government against my will means that they must have had that right (since you can't give what you don't have), so basically, "other Canadians" - Liberal voters, perhaps - have the right to govern me and my property.

But you have...you choose of your own free will to live within the boarders of Canada.

And you are very right, Liberal voters, do have the right to govern over you.

[Hugo]

And your point is irrelevant. The German people (if they knew about it) could not vote Hitler out.

No, my point is not irrelevant, no matter how dearly you wish you could wriggle out of this in such a fashion.

What you originally said was:

What "right" does any government have to pass laws/legislation? The people... The American people [gave the US government the right to pass the Patriot Act.]

These are your words. Now, as we have established, the will of "the people" does not guarantee against wrongdoing or of just policy, therefore, majority opinion cannot confer a just and legitimate right but merely a license which may or may not concur with rights.

For instance, majority opinion may deny the right of certain people to live and may grant license to other people to kill them. However, "rights" have not changed, only recognition of them.

You were wrong and you are unable to defend your point.

Have you stoped beating your wife? Yes or No.

Are you going to answer the question? Yes or No.

It's a pretty easy question. If you can't answer it without refuting a part of your argument then that should speak to the viability of that argument.

How was my quote of a "nihilist viewpoint"? Can not both sides share a common point of view? If a person diagrees with a certain course of action does that make them a nihilist?

Read what you said. You stated that 'Whats "right" and what "moral" is all in the eye of the "beholder".' Your words, again. There are no qualifiers in your statement and if you meant it to have them, you should have included them.

If you lack the ability to verbalise your thoughts properly you're going to have a hard time debating! I can only react to what you write, and I don't know what you think, so when the two don't coincide it is your problem.

How so? Can not the majority believe in moral absolutes?

Yes, hence my use of the qualifier "necessarily." Read what I wrote properly.

I (the minority) may not believe a course of action (abortion) taken by the majority is right, but does that make the course of action (abortion) wrong in the minds of the majority?

Their opinion is irrelevant to whether or not they are right. I can believe 2+2=5 with the most concrete and unyielding faith, but that will never make it so. This is why the concept of "fact" is distinguished from that of "opinion."

And you are very right, Liberal voters, do have the right to govern over you.

Why? And do you mean the right, or the license?

The majority can very much so legitimise such a thing.

Then we return to the question you steadfastedly refuse to answer: if the majority voted to gas the Jews, would that be morally legitimate?

And here we have your answer:

Yes, [gassing Jews would be just] if it was shared by the majority

So according to you, any act is moral and just as long as the majority assent to it.

There's not much point continuing this debate, then, since by your own admission you have no concept of "right" and "wrong" and your moral compass is dictated entirely by other people. It's pointless to discuss an issue of ethics with you because you don't have any ethics.

Your flailing and floundering is laughable. You've contradicted yourself repeatedly, held opposing opinions in the course of this thread and refuted your own arguments. Every question is met by more questions of increasing irrelevance and obfuscation. I suggest that you need to do a lot of thinking and research and actually formulate a coherent opinion before trying to debate from it.

[Hugo]

Oh, and one parting shot:

If whatever the majority decides to be right is right, as you have said, does that not make the position of the US government wrong and immoral since the majority of world opinion is that they are wrong and immoral?

[Stoker]

These are your words. Now, as we have established, the will of "the people" does not guarantee against wrongdoing or of just policy, therefore, majority opinion cannot confer a just and legitimate right but merely a license which may or may not concur with rights.

For instance, majority opinion may deny the right of certain people to live and may grant license to other people to kill them. However, "rights" have not changed, only recognition of them.

You were wrong and you are unable to defend your point.

I beg to differ.........I don't see any difference between "right" and "license", or for that mater claim, interest, title; freedom, liberty etc........I could quite easily have used any of those words and have expressed the same meaning.

My point still stands.

The people give the {insert one of the above words} to the government.

Now this does not guard 100% against corruption/wrong doing etc, but unlike Nazi Germany, the people of American will decide in a mater of hours if they will give a {insert one of the above words} to govern to Bush or Kerry.

Read what you said. You stated that 'Whats "right" and what "moral" is all in the eye of the "beholder".' Your words, again. There are no qualifiers in your statement and if you meant it to have them, you should have included them.

If you lack the ability to verbalise your thoughts properly you're going to have a hard time debating! I can only react to what you write, and I don't know what you think, so when the two don't coincide it is your problem.

I stand by my statement. If you put five people into a room, and of those five, two were opposed to abortion (the minority). The three people in favor believe their choice to be moral, well the two people opposed believe their choice to be moral. The moral are in the eye of the beholder.

That doesn't mean that the three in favor of aboration are nihilist, in that they don't believe in longstanding values or beliefs. Nor does it mean that the two people opposed to abortion are nihilists either.

IOW in a war, do the "bad guys" think that they are the "bad guys" as opposed to being the "good guys"?

Their opinion is irrelevant to whether or not they are right. I can believe 2+2=5 with the most concrete and unyielding faith, but that will never make it so. This is why the concept of "fact" is distinguished from that of "opinion."

And how do you decide whats "right" and whats "wrong" in a moral debate?

Why? And do you mean the right, or the license?

They are one in the same.

As for why, it's the will of the people.

So according to you, any act is moral and just as long as the majority assent to it.

As I said before, it depends if you belong to the majority or the minority. If I'm in the majority yes, if I'm in the minority no.

I'm in the minority on aboration rights, so in my view, the majority is wrong and my postion is moral. Now if you ask a person in the majority, there postion is moral, and mine is wrong.

There's not much point continuing this debate, then, since by your own admission you have no concept of "right" and "wrong" and your moral compass is dictated entirely by other people. It's pointless to discuss an issue of ethics with you because you don't have any ethics.

Where did I say that? I very much so have a "concept" of whats right and whats wrong, just because our concepts differ, does not disqualify a person.

Oh, and one parting shot:

If whatever the majority decides to be right is right, as you have said, does that not make the position of the US government wrong and immoral since the majority of world opinion is that they are wrong and immoral?

Depends if you are the "rest of the world" or the United States.

[Hugo]

I beg to differ.........I don't see any difference between "right" and "license"

A right is a natural entitlement (life, property) that could exist even solipsistically, whereas license is a grant of entitlement. A right generally has responsibility as well as entitlement, for instance, the right to life carries with it the obligation to respect the right of others to live. License does not necessarily hold any obligation or responsibility, in fact, it is usually used to mean a lack of responsibility.

...That doesn't mean that the three in favor of aboration are nihilist, in that they don't believe in longstanding values or beliefs.

Nihilism is not a specific value or a disagreement with a consensus, it is a belief that there are no values. Usually, it's used to refer to morality. Nihilists believe nothing is moral or immoral. Nihilism is often wrongly used as a slanderous term against those who disagree with current popular opinion, and perhaps this is where your confusion stems from.

And how do you decide whats "right" and whats "wrong" in a moral debate?

Personally, I hold that since we have free will, and in the Cartesian sense that is all we may have, that is the foundation of all rights and values, to whit, the exercise of free will and the respect of the free will of others. Basically, no rule or action of man should transgress on free will, and if one has the exercise of free will one is not held to any course of action one considers immoral or restrained from any course of action one considers moral. Each person is free to exercise their own morality.

Since no man is inherently and demonstrably superior to other men, none of them have the right to oblige others to follow their morality. Only a superhuman could do this, and the Son of God taught exactly what I have said above, so that settles that.

Depends if you are the "rest of the world" or the United States.

That isn't a valid answer. You are saying that the majority can grant rights or take them away, so as the majority of the world disagrees with the foreign policy of the USA, that would make them wrong, or strip them of their right to wage war in Iraq, wouldn't it?

Either that, or democracy doesn't make right, in which case your original contention that the people of the USA could grant legitimacy to the Patriot Act or any public policy must be wrong.

Your third alternative is that you are a nihilist, and there is no "right" or "wrong", in which case our actions are solely limited to what is practical, not what is "moral", Hitler was perfectly justified in his slaughter of 11 million innocent people, and so forth. But you have already denied being a nihilist, so that alternative is closed to you.

As I said before, it depends if you belong to the majority or the minority. If I'm in the majority yes, if I'm in the minority no.

Then you have a dilemma. Abortion is the majority consensus, but you disagree. Either you can allow the majority to hold sway, in which case you are violating your own moral code with your implicit consent to an immoral act.

Or, you protest the decision of the majority, in which case you are violating your principles of democracy and stating that democracy can and does fail, and that your will should transcend that of your fellow man.

Where did I say that? I very much so have a "concept" of whats right and whats wrong

Once again:

'Whats "right" and what "moral" is all in the eye of the "beholder".

Since you have not rescinded this self-contradiction I'm afraid I'm going to have to keep throwing it in your face.

[Cartman]

I thought that this story was somewhat interesting. I wonder what they really mean when they say some people have been unfairly targetted?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ort_041104.html

[caesar]

I thought that this story was somewhat interesting. I wonder what they really mean when they say some people have been unfairly targetted?

An easy example would be a well know person like Ted Kennedy was prevented from boarding a plane as someone using the same name was being investigated. Stupid and with someone unknown could have been carried much furthur

[Cartman]

HA! Campbell takes on the US...whatever.

http://mediresource.sympatico.ca/health_ne...d=&news_id=5187

Last week, Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis released an extensive report that found the long arm of the U.S. Patriot Act allows U.S. authorities to access the personal information of Canadians if it ends up in the United States or if it is held by U.S. companies in Canada.

The B.C. government passed a law last month aimed at preventing U.S. authorities from examining information about British Columbians held by private U.S. companies. It included fines ranging from $2,000 for individuals to $500,000 for corporations.

[brianw]

How would the criminal know who's hair was who's?

Simply follow the victim into a hair salon. Place gum on your shoe and walk up to the hair stylist to ask a simple question stepping into the hair while you are there. you now have DNA evidence. Plant it where you like and it is irefutable evidnce that your victim was at the scene of the crime. How can your victim prove that they were not there if the DNA evidence stated otherwise?

[brianw]

How many Iraqi civillians/ american/British/Australian/ etc and our own Canadian soldiers have died due to

Bush's ill advised invasion of Iraq?? And for what???? American experts and many of Bush's own men have stated that the invasion of Iraq has not made America any safer from terrorist attacks.

We were given these rights to prevent misuse of our personal information. This information can be obtained on a need to know basis; otherwise there is no reason for making them open and accessible without just cause.

What does Iraq have to do with the Patriot act?

Also, as I asked above, why is the onus on the Bush government instead of the BC Liberal party over these medical records?

What did IRAQ have to do with 9/11? Saudia Arabia was more invoved and yet they were allowed to board planes and leave while the whole flight system in the US was shut down.

Why is the onus on us to make you see that things are not exactly right with the whole thing? Why do you need convinding that people have basic human rights?

[brianw]

When did they use BC medical records?

Given the chance when wouldn't they?

[brianw]

If your government gives-up the records, knowing full well of the laws of the said states........who's fault is it that your records are being checked.....that is if they are.

People like you because you defend this type of activity. But after it happens you would claim that you didn't know and it wasn't your fault. It would obviously be someone else's fault. Maybe us because we couldn't make you see. Anybody but you right?

[brianw]

For what reason? If it was to alert of the public of a terror suspect sure.

Until you are a suspect why would your information be of interest. If you are not a terrorist why should you be "tracked". How do you become a none terrorist if you aren't constantly "monitored" to see a change in behaviour?

[brianw]

I think the murder of the jews was wrong, did the majority of German think it was right? Did the majority of Germans even know about it?

When one lives in a democracy, the "reins" are handed over to elected indivuals. This is the choice of those that live within a...

These are contradictory statements. If one hands over the "reins" and have no choice after they cast their vote then whether they know or agree is irrelevant according to your own statement.

[brianw]

I fail to see the contrast between Hilter killing the jews, and Bush putting the patriot act into place...

If you do not see a contrast then you must see the similarities! What are you actually trying to say?

[brianw]

Does that make it just? To reiterate my earlier example, if your opinion was "voiced and shared" and "made law" in a democracy, and that opinion happened to be gassing Jews, would that be just?

Yes, if it was shared by the majority.......it doesn't mean that the minority will agree though. As i said before, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

So you agree that if the majority decides to kill then murder is justified? Again, what are you saying. You keep contradicting yourself every time you post.

If basic human rights are basic and fundamental how can you suggest that having one more individual on your side makes violating those rights OK?

If two people disagree and one kills the other there is a problem because there is no majority? If two people gang up on one then it is OK because there is a majority?