Poll: 1. All laws will be blind in their enforcement to such issues as race, ethnicity, gender, age; religion, sexual identity, affluence, social status, ed
 

Agree

Disagree

 

Vote on an ideological premise.

 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19830
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
01 December 2014 02:06
 

1. All laws will be blind in their enforcement to such issues as race, ethnicity, gender, age; religion, sexual identity, affluence, social status, education or any condition or trait that does not immediately impact non-consenting others by means of overt behavior.  All laws will be guided in their enforcement only by overt expressions of behavior from anyone that impacts others. No one will be denied protection by law for conditions or traits that do not impact others.

This is the first of what be many, or few, or none at all of “premises” we here might agree too.  If and as 75% of 20 or more members vote in favor, that numbered statement will be reserved as modified into a read-only list (if admins agree and can do that).  Other “premises” can be articulated, proposed, and voted on by anyone and if the 75% of 20 members or more agree, they’ll also be aside.  Each premise must be numbered.  At any time anyone can propose a “minor premise” by, numbering it, for instance here as “1.1” etc, and subjecting that to a vote.

I suggest that outcome statements don’t make sense, such as “everyone will be happy and equally wealthy….”  The idea here is to see if we here on PR can articulate and agree to any list of “premises” that we consider essential to promoting desirable outcomes.

This may flop, but WTH thought I’d try it.

[ Edited: 01 December 2014 02:10 by Dennis Campbell]
 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
01 December 2014 02:26
 

I think some clarification regarding ‘enforcement’ is required since this is Sam Harris’ site, after all, and he has spoken out in favor of profiling based on perceived ethnicity. I disagree with Harris’s stance there, but again, it is his site, so would this be inconsistent with your statement above? Or not, because it involves screening vs. a more final application of the law?

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
01 December 2014 02:28
 

I’m inclined to agree, but how would affirmative action laws factor in? It seems that AA laws don’t age well, but I’m not convinced that they’re never appropriate.

 
 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19830
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
01 December 2014 12:01
 

This is of course a straw vote.  Want to see if we can get enough people here to agree on anything.  If we can get 15 people here to agree on a statement, will set that aside and I or anyone can propose another one, same vote standard.  It might be interesting to see if we can in time acquire a number of such “premises.”  I will then ask admins to set up a read only thread to publish them.  If we cannot do this, that says I, or we, cannot write anything that deserves a vote; we here cannot decide anything;  there’s too few of us and/or we’re too indifferent.  This is an experiment.  Have no idea how it will turn out.  Again, anyone can propose their own, just number them differently and h ave a poll attache.

 
 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
01 December 2014 12:59
 

Dennis, it seems like a decent set of (anti-)rules, though they might be worded more clearly if you were to drop the double negatives in the first and last sentences. Also, “anyone that impacts others” could be changed to “anyone who impacts others,” but that’s a minor point.

 
 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19830
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
01 December 2014 13:15
 
envy me - 01 December 2014 11:59 AM

Dennis, it seems like a decent set of (anti-)rules, though they might be worded more clearly if you were to drop the double negatives in the first and last sentences. Also, “anyone that impacts others” could be changed to “anyone who impacts others,” but that’s a minor point.

Agree, anything I write can be improved.  Will save such tweaking for latter if there’s any point.  Anyone here can propose something.  Cannot make any changes, in good faith, once a vote has been made.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
01 December 2014 14:03
 

perhaps a better process would be to go through a discussion and edit cycle first and then set up a vote?

it seems that the odds of anyone cooking up a letter-perfect statement on the first crack are slim.

 
 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19830
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
01 December 2014 14:34
 
icehorse - 01 December 2014 01:03 PM

perhaps a better process would be to go through a discussion and edit cycle first and then set up a vote?

it seems that the odds of anyone cooking up a letter-perfect statement on the first crack are slim.

Good point.  Will do so if there’s another drafted.  Did want to get something started, has been boring here of late.  Hell, I could screw it up in the 10th crack.

 
 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
01 December 2014 17:31
 

Dennis, you’ll get my vote if the wording comes close to the following.

Laws, regulations and covenants must not discriminate positively or negatively on the basis of skin tone, national origin, religion, age, marital status, gender—including gender identity, intellectual as well as every other disability, socio-economic status, educational achievement, and all other conditions as long as they respect extant rules of law, remain open to court revision, and are overwhelmingly seen to be harmless to the general well-being of people. Other conscious creatures will need to get in line—or on line for New York City residents.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6389
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
01 December 2014 17:36
 
envy me - 01 December 2014 04:31 PM

Dennis, you’ll get my vote if the wording comes close to the following.

Laws, regulations and covenants must not discriminate positively or negatively on the basis of skin tone, national origin, religion, age, marital status, gender—including gender identity, intellectual as well as every other disability, socio-economic status, educational achievement, and all other conditions as long as they respect extant rules of law, remain open to court revision, and are overwhelmingly seen to be harmless to the general well-being of people. Other conscious creatures will need to get in line—or on line for New York City residents.

NV, I just saw your BM quote hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
01 December 2014 17:40
 
Dennis Campbell - 01 December 2014 01:34 PM
icehorse - 01 December 2014 01:03 PM

perhaps a better process would be to go through a discussion and edit cycle first and then set up a vote?

it seems that the odds of anyone cooking up a letter-perfect statement on the first crack are slim.

Good point.  Will do so if there’s another drafted.  Did want to get something started, has been boring here of late.  Hell, I could screw it up in the 10th crack.

well dr wonderful, if anybody could screw it up i’ve been told you the man
gregory

Post Scriptum: need i add the smiley face thing?

 
 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
01 December 2014 17:52
 
jb8989 - 01 December 2014 04:36 PM
envy me - 01 December 2014 04:31 PM

Dennis, you’ll get my vote if the wording comes close to the following.

Laws, regulations and covenants must not discriminate positively or negatively on the basis of skin tone, national origin, religion, age, marital status, gender—including gender identity, intellectual as well as every other disability, socio-economic status, educational achievement, and all other conditions as long as they respect extant rules of law, remain open to court revision, and are overwhelmingly seen to be harmless to the general well-being of people. Other conscious creatures will need to get in line—or on line for New York City residents.

NV, I just saw your BM quote hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha

Yes! I didn’t realize I’d been berating the almighty God all these years, either, till He came clean on the matter.

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
01 December 2014 21:22
 

How about having just two laws, with both having the death penalty: Law1, it’s against the law to offend someone and Law2, it’s against the law to be easily offended.