E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I’m not so sure there are “important questions” that don’t have a consensus one way or the other. Again, I’m not talking about a 51-49 vote in the Senate or something, I’m talking popular approval. The cases I can think of that “imposed” the will of a tiny majority on everyone–prohibition, for example, or perhaps a better example the 2000 election in Florida that was decided by something like 512 votes, or Brexit–did not end well. It seems to me if an issue were “important” you wouldn’t want to make something legal or illegal without a consensus. So I would just wait. Again, we’re not talking technical or administrative issues here, we’re talking about making something legal or illegal.So, what, in your opinion, should happen if you have an important question with no consensus one way or another?
Which, by the way, is what often happens.
It is not as if there is a “neutral” option. One opinion ends up winning one way or another. So, which one should, in your opinion?
Well, I suppose if I believed in free speech, and I thought everyone should have free speech, if you want to call that “inflicting my personal beliefs on someone else,” I’m guilty. I think individuals should make their own decisions on abortion. So if asking everyone to make their own decisions is “inflicting my personal beliefs” I plead guilty to that. But that’s not the meaning I would give to the term.Actually, I get an impression that you are quite willing to “inflict your personal beliefs on someone else”, just different ones.
But anyway, what exactly, in your view is wrong with “inflicting personal beliefs on others”?
What’s wrong with inflicting your personal beliefs on others? You don’t have the right. It’s that simple.