Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 22,498
- 29,683
I believe the government is mediator between when personal rights overlap. It's a subject I can elaborate on greatly if you are truly interested.
It's interesting you bring up the republic. It's been a long ass time since I read it- but my memory should be fresh enough to argue about it with you. One of the concepts that was struggled with the most early in the book was the simple fact that justice comes in many sources and ideologies, and justice can be used to inflict harm on people or even societies. How then do you determine if justice is good or bad for a society as a whole, when those who do it believe it is right? The answer that socratese came to is self serving at best- the truly just are the philosophers, but the reason he came to it is logically sound.
Justice is found when you can separate what is good from your point of view from what is good for society. A truly just man is one who does the right thing for everyone because it is the right thing to do for everyone, but people often argued, is such a society even possible? What happened with hitler and germany and Hitler was -exactly- the scenario that was predicted in the republic. A charismatic leader emerges wielding justice in a way that serves himself and appears to serve society. People place too much faith in them, and democracy quickly breaks down into tyranny while many people think they are doing the right thing- it aligned perfectly with what they believed.
So we come back to modern day. Yes, christians have systematically persecuted gays and other people for a long time, yes a lot of people think the right thing to do is to answer that prejudice with an equal amount of prejudice back. I say this as a gay man in the south- I WILL NOT support a vengeful ideology where people's freedoms are taken away to suit my offensibility just because my group is now in the majority's will. My right to feel accepted is not higher, not more important than their right to be free- to think and say what they want. If they hate gays or whatever group, I will simply tell them that I disagree with them, argue with them WHY I disagree with them, but I strongly think the approach that goes against this law is extremely un-american, un civil, and I do not support laws or policies based around the concept of retribution.
The difference is huge. I am for removing all laws that discriminate against minority groups, because I think the government should be required not to discriminate or offend. That essentially, it should be a neutral arbitrator at all times. On the flip side, whenever you force people to do stuff, you ARE discriminating and oppressing them. As much as I think the government itself should be a neutral arbitrator, you can not take that stance when the government is used as a weapon to eliminate people's opinions or views.
