Why are people so concerned about what other individuals do in their private life? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Why are people so concerned about what other individuals do in their private life?

Debate Information

I've seen many different arguments on being against gay marriage, adopting by gay parents, abortion, and the likes, but I wonder: Why do people even care about these things when it's none of our business? Abortion was legalized because of privacy after all. If we enable people to enact laws against what people do in their private lives, like abortion and gay marriage, then it'll set a precedent for other restrictive laws of private life.
OakTownA
"I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    I have wondered the same thing all of my life. Only the same people who see the problem with the government intruding in the romantic affairs between individuals rarely see it with the government intruding in the economical affairs between individuals. Yet economical affairs are just as private as romantic affairs, just the currency used is different.

    The best explanation of this phenomenon I came up with is the path of least resistance effect: that, given multiple means of achieving the same goal, humans tend to choose the one that requires the least amount of effort. And, say, convincing someone to behave you want them to behave through voluntary means is generally much harder than pointing a gun at them and saying, "Do it". Now, doing it on your own is dangerous, as your target may fight back. But if you have the government behind your back, well... now you are a tyrant to be reckoned with!

    Same people as those who grouped up and bullied kids without many friends to protect them back in high school, once grown up, group up and bully other adults without powerful allies. Only they are now more sophisticated and find many ways to justify this behavior. Back in high school, it was as simple as raw power, without any pretense, but now it is different. Picking on gays for, well, being gays is much more straightforward, than picking on gays because "blah-blah-blah low fertility rates blah-blah-blah the Bible". Taking away a toy from a kid because you want it is much more straightforward, than taking away 40% of someone's income because "you have responsibility before the society".

    As for why people care at all about changing others' behavior - well, because they want the world to be as close to their vision of paradise as possible, and in many people's minds it implies everyone behaving the way they would behave in their place. Seeing someone not living their life the way you would in their place causes discomfort in some people, as it makes them question their own life choices. "Really, this person made different choices and is still doing fine? Perhaps my choices were wrong? Ah, to hell with it, they are wrong and they should pay for it!"
    So, really, it comes down to a combination of laziness and insecurity.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 409 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    Argument Topic: Do no harm

    Luigi7255 said:
    I've seen many different arguments on being against gay marriage, adopting by gay parents, abortion, and the likes, but I wonder: Why do people even care about these things when it's none of our business? Abortion was legalized because of privacy after all. If we enable people to enact laws against what people do in their private lives, like abortion and gay marriage, then it'll set a precedent for other restrictive laws of private life.
    From my point of view, Luigi, you are promoting compassion and critical thinking.
    If so, you agree with my two core values.

    Our world already HAS very intrusive precedents. There are many laws prohibiting gay love, and what women can and cannot do with their own bodies. We have made SOME progress, such as LBGTQ rights and women's rights, but with progress sometimes, comes push-back. The people who want to control others due to ideology or religion seem to think that it's their god given right to boss us around.

    Such zealotry is the problem.

    We can be zealots for good.. I am a "zealot" for compassion and critical thinking, in that I am always promoting both strongly. I am not, however, closed minded, dogmatic and aggressive. I try to convince people using my compassion and my reasoning, not be forcing through laws that people don't want. But there is negative zealotry.. the kind that has caused so many wars, so much hardship for children and adults for so very long.

    I say that most of the world suffers from PTSD, which is a mental illness and never helps us think clearly or critically. It makes us TRIGGERED so that we REACT in an emotional way, usually, quite negative, aggressive, and all too often, violently.

    We need to be KIND to each other.. we really do need to think critically about compassion, otherwise, people will continue to suffer so needlessly and spread the bigotry even more than it already has.
    TreeManOakTownA
  • @Luigi7255
    Abortion was legalized because of privacy after all.
    No, it wasn't legalized it was found to be illegal due to the loss of privacy. The cause of the privacy loss was never determined in the court rulings.

    Why do people even care about these things when it's none of our business?
    The people had been asked to be a witness to an official event medically for abortion and legally for the Marriage, Binvir and Unosmulier.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -   edited November 2021
    @Luigi7255

    Privacy, or the right to have privacy is dangerous, and in fact very oppressive.

    It's conceivable that every moment of our lives can be video documented, and perhaps streamed live, and this could happen within our lifetime, or even the next decade. If we were forced to stream our entire lives as we live it, and everybody were allowed access to the entire videography of our life, then we could all see how common taboo behaviors are, and we could either learn to accept those behaviors, or attempt to help these people to not do the things they do. The only possible bad outcome of this could be an oppressive social standard that is enforced as of it were law, but even that could be a good outcome because it encourages civility. 

    There's no benefit to allowing privacy. It only benefits those of us who we should probably not allow to have privacy.            

    But I am pro-choice 
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @Luigi7255
    Abortion was legalized because of privacy after all.
    No, it wasn't legalized it was found to be illegal due to the loss of privacy. The cause of the privacy loss was never determined in the court rulings.

    Why do people even care about these things when it's none of our business?
    The people had been asked to be a witness to an official event medically for abortion and legally for the Marriage, Binvir and Unosmulier.
    Oh, which court proceeding found abortion to be illegal because of "loss of privacy", and if it did actually happen, what says the verdict was an irrefutable precedent? 
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 569 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    I'm literally convinced that John_C is living in an alternate universe.
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -  
    Luigi7255 said:
    @piloteer

    I'm literally convinced that John_C is living in an alternate universe.
    That's not nice. But, I'm in a mood today, and I just really feel like grilling someone, and he happened to be the first one to annoy me here, so I lashed out. Grrrr  >:)
  • @piloteer

    Both Roe V Wade & Griswold V Connecticut

    Roe V Wade (1973)

    The case involved a Texas statute that prohibited abortion except when necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Blackmun, recognized a privacy interest in abortions. In doing so, the court applied the right to privacy established in Griswold V Connecticut ( 1965)

    Because there was a fundamental right involved, the court applied the strict scrutiny test. 

    Roe v. Wade (1973) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

    Overview

    Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. Strict scrutiny is often used by courts when a plaintiff sues the government for discrimination. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.

    Equal Protection

    Strict scrutiny will often be invoked in an equal protection claim. For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have passed a law that infringes upon a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Suspect classifications include race, national origin, religion, and alienage. 

    Strict scrutiny | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

  • Luigi7255 said:
    @piloteer

    I'm literally convinced that John_C is living in an alternate universe.
    A better way to say the difference between my presentation of a more perfect union and other unions might be. I am holding a united state in the constitutional principles which creates all women equal by their creator. For I understand the basic principle of all men having been created equal by their creator is my burden to hold purgatory in its union addressing a constitutional right.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch