I want to force my moral values onto everyone else.

[Alexander's Horse]

oh - it's all about a 1% issue - gay marriage *yawn*

[Elok]

So, if I believe my neighbor is a witch who cast the evil eye on me, and I believe it's morally imperative for me to kill him, does the law make an exception to accommodate my differing moral beliefs? What if he fooled around with my daughter, and it's a matter of honor for me to kill them both? How about if he was in my house trying to steal stuff, I have a shotgun, and the state doesn't have a castle law?

No? Then the law is imposing its moral beliefs on me. The fact that the moral beliefs in question are common and generally not controversial is totally beside the point.

[giblets]

There is a distinction between laws that protect society from dangerous individuals and laws against victimless activities that some people consider immoral, and you're apparently unable to understand what people are trying to communicate when they say you shouldn't legislate morality.

[Dinner]

Gribbler: Like prohibition in the US.

[Aeson]

So, if I believe my neighbor is a witch who cast the evil eye on me, and I believe it's morally imperative for me to kill him, does the law make an exception to accommodate my differing moral beliefs? What if he fooled around with my daughter, and it's a matter of honor for me to kill them both? How about if he was in my house trying to steal stuff, I have a shotgun, and the state doesn't have a castle law?

Any moral system which allows for men to be witches isn't a moral system I'd want to live under. Next thing you know you'll have witches marrying witches and that's just not right!

[Kuciwalker]

There is a distinction between laws that protect society from dangerous individuals and laws against victimless activities that some people consider immoral, and you're apparently unable to understand what people are trying to communicate when they say you shouldn't legislate morality.

You do not believe in the logical conclusion of this argument, and while people who say "you shouldn't legislate morality" do sometimes have a coherent idea in their heads, it is one completely disconnected from the actual meaning of the words.

[Kuciwalker]

you might want to look up the definition of morality and/or take an intro college philosophy class, where people will rightly mock you for being stupid

[Aeson]

Yes, anyone who willfully takes philosophy courses in college is stupid and deserves to be mocked.

[giblets]

You do not believe in the logical conclusion of this argument, and while people who say "you shouldn't legislate morality" do sometimes have a coherent idea in their heads, it is one completely disconnected from the actual meaning of the words.

I'm sure the phrasing annoys some very literal-minded people to no end.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes, anyone who willfully takes philosophy courses in college is stupid and deserves to be mocked.

Correction: Anyone who willfully goes beyond one philosophy course (intro) is stupid and deserves to be mocked. Intro philosophy can be very useful to teach people to think clearly and logically. Beyond that, you are joining the philosophy pyramid scheme.

[Aeson]

Correction: Anyone who willfully goes beyond one philosophy course (intro) is stupid and deserves to be mocked. Intro philosophy can be very useful to teach people to think clearly and logically. Beyond that, you are joining the philosophy pyramid scheme.

You aren't thinking this through clearly and logically.

[Kidlicious]

Correction: Anyone who willfully goes beyond one philosophy course (intro) is stupid and deserves to be mocked. Intro philosophy can be very useful to teach people to think clearly and logically. Beyond that, you are joining the philosophy pyramid scheme.

If you only know how to think logically, you're ignorant.

[notyoueither]

There's something about the smell of illiterate insults in the morning. It smells like... Apolyton!

[Kidlicious]

I think you're ingorant, by definition, if you've only taken one philosophy course. If you think that taking one philosophy course makes you smart then, well you aren't.

[Elok]

There is a distinction between laws that protect society from dangerous individuals and laws against victimless activities that some people consider immoral, and you're apparently unable to understand what people are trying to communicate when they say you shouldn't legislate morality.

No, I understand what they're saying just fine--they're espousing something akin to social liberalism--it's just that the phrasing is ludicrous. There are thousands of laws imposing restrictions on how human beings are allowed to behave. These are moral concerns: we do not wish to live in a society where child marriage or cockfighting or the sale of phony medicine takes place, so we have laws against these things (I don't know if you're inclined to try the preservation-of-society line here, but if you are, please don't). The very idea that people should not be harmed against their will by not-so-victimless activities is a moral judgment. What you're saying isn't "no laws based on morals" but "no laws based on morals which I do not happen to agree with." The latter isn't necessarily an untenable position, but your use of the former implies that you haven't actually though in any depth about what you're saying.