jks writes:
> It's supposed to be tepid and superficial. It's very carefully designed to
avoid deep questions about which people cannot agree. Choices about what to
do about suffering are mainly best left to the legislature.
Why just the legistlature?
> And you have an approach that is immune to this? Please share it with the
world!
Well, I will think about it. But your liberal proceduralism clearly has failed.
> I should also say that the whole point of the constitutional protections
for discrete and insular minorities is that anti-minority legislation has to
pass by a lot more than a supermajority -- basically it requires a
constitutional amendment.
Well, the amendments passing in the states seem to need only a simple majority. I realize the U.S. Constitution is different.
> BD: DOMA also needed only a simple majority.
> jks: That's not a Const. Amendment
I know that. But DOMA is an act of persecution against queers that required only a simple majority to be enacted.
> Are you sure? Would you want to require a supermajority to pass civil
rights legislation?
To pass legislation that restricts rights -- yes it should require a supermajority.
> Not exactly, I think. Domination is actually suffering disadvantages for the benefit (in a broad sense) of a dominant group. Lack of control of one's own destiny -- well, that's the human condition, hmm?
You have misdefined domination. To dominate is to have control over others. Exerting that control is domination. The reason behind the domination (whatever it is) does not alter the fact of the domination.
> But who cares if it can be measured (assuming that is true -- without
getting complicated about it, the issue is very vexed and very complicated),
the question is, how much does matter?
It matters a great deal since it offers an alternative to the useless liberal procedural approach. It focuses on the effects of legistlation, laws and institutions rather than if the right color paper was used. Of course, the legal profession is based on the existence of these procedures, with lawyers acting as sherpas through the complicated, yet tepid and shallow, maze of procedures.
> Should I care, or how much should I care, if putting someone who has done
something bad in jail will only increase the amount of net suffering?
If you care about the construction of a just and fair society I would think that you would care about suffering and its creation and diminishment. Is your sole interest in proper procedure?
> you can't favor your religion's tenets this way.
I am favoring empirical, pragmatic investigation and fact which happens to be the approach of Buddhism (as well as other philosophies). I would still favor empiricism and pragmatism whether or not Buddhism did. As I noted in my previous post, I know of no community/society that seeks to increase suffering for its citizens.
> Ah, so people are free to differ unless they disagree with your religion.
That is a common view, I am sorry to say.
Again, people are free to believe what they want. What I am talking about is the infliction of suffering.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister