The Forum > General Discussion > Greyhound Racing Gone To The Dogs
Greyhound Racing Gone To The Dogs
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
I am well aware that in an ideal democracy laws should reflect the wishes of the majority. However, an ideal democracy would also only apply to groups of people who freely chose to associate and have this arrangement between them.
This is not the situation: here, someone declared without your consent that whether you like it or not, you and JBowyer belong to the same "nation" and are thus tied and locked to each other in a cruel game.
Suppose you have practically nothing in common with JBowyer, suppose s/he feels that dog-racing is the most important essence without which life is not worth living - while you feel similarly about your homosexual relationship (just an example): why the hell should JBowyer be allowed to deny you this which you value above all else, just because he happens to have a larger family, more friends or breeds more children to increase his/her number of votes?
Assuming JBowyer is not personally/physically hurt by your homosexual practices and assuming you are not personally/physically hurt by his/her dog-racing, what right have any of you to deny the other's lifestyle?
We all do the wrong thing from time to time, but this does not authorise others to force themselves on us uninvitedly, self-appointing themselves as our moral-guardians and saviours.