Debates Community
The debates community, chat, and discussion.
249K SOULS
4mo
The central point is this: a society does not function well if the law is merely a reflection of the opinions of the majority, because opinions can be inconsistent, emotional, or unjust at certain historical moments. It is true that the law, in a democracy, arises from the collective, but it does not arise from "whatever the collective thinks at a given moment": it arises within precise constraints, such as fundamental rights and constitutional principles, and this serves precisely to prevent opinions considered "ethical" by some groups from automatically becoming laws that harm others. Furthermore, it is not a matter of "allowing" one group or another to think something. In a free society, everyone can have different opinions, even radically different ones, and the point is not to control opinions, but to prevent any opinion from automatically turning into a law without filters.
4mo
Now your comment makes more sense. Not only are you against equity, you call the law something subjective and evil if it's liberal, but I also notice some resentment and misogynistic generalization. Let me guess, you are or were MAGA even with all the warnings about tariffs, their global economic impact, the president's relationships with a certain island party guy, his abuse allegations, his 1950s German analogies, climate denialism, Zionist support, and insults every 3 words in interviews. Again, I'm just assuming, am I wrong?
Meet New People
50,000,000+
DOWNLOADS