Not particularly, there are many actions/activities that I find deplorable or don’t approve of; yet I’d be willing to tolerate/wouldn’t want penalty associated with said activities.
I find adultery/cheating on a spouse/SO deplorable (barring special circumstances), I don’t approve of gambling, horse racing (cruel), putting animals on display for entertainment (i.e SeaWorld), I don’t approve of unregulated captiolism. That being said I’d be willing to tolerate these aspects of society or otherwise accept that these elements are probably here to stay. Despite my percieved sense of morality, my personal preferences I don’t think I could justify a blanket ban on all of this. As a result I’d rather have the public decide.
That’s right. How DARE you think differently to me! BaCk Of tHe LiNe!!!
I wasn’t intending to insult you. If you prefer dictatorships to democracy that’s fine with me, though I don’t agree with the concept of a dictatorship as nearly all modern dictatorships have the same fundamental flaws. Extensive breaches of fundamental human rights, mass poverty/starvation, generally poor percieved quality of life within the generalised populace etc.
I have a few friends who actually think in a similar fashion, said friends advocate for communism; whereas (one) other advocates for right wing authoritarianism. My peer groups are fairly diverse, I like it this way as it allows me to open myself to new and differing perspectives. At this point, aside from this forum there are few I talk politics with as I find people tend to resort to ad hominem attacks or try put you down in a futile effort to try discredit harboured ideology. It’s an immature/juvenile approach of which signifies an inability to have a coherent conversation with someone who thinks differently.
There are many ideas of which may sound nice in theory, but when applied and exposed to all the external variables within the real world things don’t pan out. You can’t just “force” say eighty percent of the population in line with religious rule. The push back would be extensive. As @mnben87 has said, with a homogeneous population this might work. Even then, from looking at covid response within religious communities and draconian, nonsensical legislation instated, human rights abuses, religious extremism etc I’m inclined to think a new modern era theocracy wouldn’t pan out well.
As to those who participate in activities you find deplorable (drug dealing, adultery, production of pornography, bullying/extensively manipulating others for personal gain). Do you advocate for extreme avenues in effort to combat these issues (death penalty)? You’ve alluded to this before, I’m just not sure if you were referring to the death penalty or long stints in prison.
You’d probably require a dictatorship for this kind of policy to be instated. However dictatorships tend to have tyrannical leaders of which even when drunk on power can’t be voted out.
If you do advocate for the death penalty for said actions. How can you justify such extreme, barbaric and cruel punishment if as a result a fairly large swath (say 1-2% of the population +) may be put down as a result. The Phillipines has enacted the death penalty for drug users/sellers. As an example this has led to tens of thousands of deaths, many of which comprise of extra judicial killings. Many of those shot to death as a result aren’t related to the drug trade, kind of like a modern era Salem witch trials. What’s more, harsh laws haven’t altered the prevalence of the issue they’re trying to combat
