Believing in fate suggests that some people are entitled to authority while others are obligated to endure punishment for no reason besides luck.
Therefore, should fatalists be banned from government because they don't treat everyone as created equal?
No, people should not be banned from office for their philosophical or religious convictions.
Now whether you should vote for such a person or not is a different question...
no. that would constitute a religious test and be unconstitutional.
Would you please explain what's religious about fatalism?
I don't think believing in fate is a good trait for a political leader. However, I exercise my preference in how I vote, not by trying to legally ban them from participating at all.
...so you think arguments by stolen concepts should be permitted even if they threaten the downfall of civilization?
For example, fatalism is acknowledged by free will, yet it denies free will.
If free will is denied, then there is no premise by which civilization can be distinguished from a state of nature.
Anybody can believe what they want and still serve in government so long as a majority of the electorate decide, for whatever reason, they are worth serving in government.
Anybody can believe what they want and still serve in government so long as a majority of the electorate decide, for whatever reason, they are worth serving in government.
Whats that called anyway...democracy or something
...so you think arguments by stolen concepts should be permitted even if they threaten the downfall of civilization?
For example, fatalism is acknowledged by free will, yet it denies free will.
If free will is denied, then there is no premise by which civilization can be distinguished from a state of nature.
Can you explain how "government" exists as long as society subscribes to mob justice?
Believing in fate does not necessarily mean that the believer claims prescience.
Can you explain how "government" exists as long as society subscribes to mob justice?
Who determines if some abstract concept "threatens the downfall of civilization"? You? Thanks but no thanks. There are plenty of people who think Obama's views on health care threaten the downfall of civilization; there are plenty of people who think Mitt Romney's views on crony capitalism threaten the downfall of civilization. They are free to make that case to the voters, but they don't have any right to ban people from running for office in the first place. Just as YOU don't have any right to ban people from office for supporting some abstract concept that pisses YOU off. If you think that fatalism threatens the downfall of civilization, then go convince a majority of voters that you're right.
Voting is mob justice ?
I could, but fatalism has nothing to do with mob justice, so if you want to lash out at your critics, you don't really need my replies on the issues to do so.
If I say 2+2=4, is it wrong just because I say so?
Are majorities predetermined in accordance with the distribution of emotions in advance of an election?
You are not special. Your ideas are not so self-evidently perfect that you get to be the sole arbiter of who is and isn't "threatening the downfall of civilization." If your belief that fatalism threatens the downfall of civilization is as obvious as 2+2=4, then it should be quite easy for you to convince the voters of it, and thus there is no need to ban anyone as they simply won't win elections in the first place.
Why is anyone obligated to convince others of anything to deserve respect?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?