I don't agree with all the laws we have but we are given the chance to speak on these laws and vote on them. If you do nothing to prevent a law from becoming a law then you have no argument about that law. Break it, deal with the consequences. I have no desire to live in an anarchist society. Laws help keep this from happening by having consequences and by making people accountable. It's funny to me that you think me a radical because I don't think people should break laws. Because I have morals. Because I am ethical. Because I think if you steal a car you broke the law, if you stole a pack of gum you broke the law.... break those two things down, what did someone do? They stole. Stealing is against the law. I don't give two shits that one is a grand theft felony and the other is petty theft... both are violations of the law and it is up to those elected officials to judge at that point and decide their punishment. HOWEVER, I think we should be harder on criminals from the get go. I think we should still be allowed to spank our smart mouth kids. I think this is a sad time in America which is why I do my own things and mind my own business for the most part. So yes, it pisses me off when the actions of another person now interferes with my life causing me to interact with the very criminals I try to avoid. Selfish, lawless pieces of trash who care nothing of the world around them or the people on it and think they can do whatever they want with no backlash or consequences.
@fithwheel It's Jury selection for a criminal trial.
You're missing the point entirely, I never said people should break just laws, did I? Hence the radical ideology I accuse you of.
So you seem to be a standards based individual, great, I am too and it'd be interesting if you knew my background. I love standards, for physics and scientifically based reasons. I should not have to explain this, but I will. We're talking about a completely different beast. "Standards" in the essence we're talking in DO NOT set a precedent and are not really standards. They're made to be interpreted based on a complex circumstance. There's a distinct human factor here that cannot be defined by law.
I make a law that determines you should commit *******, and if you don't the state will commit it (e.g. murder). PR campaigns lead people through rhetoric to believe this "minor" thing is something that should be voted for and it becomes law. According to your logic you'll abide by that law to the best of your ability, and that's completely within the realm of acceptable and normal. You want to tell me that type of thinkng isn't radical? Please.
Here's a question for you, what is a jury? Do juries democratically determine the outcome of an individuals charge? Can they null a law that was democratically put in place that may not actually be just? Can they be misled? You're missing the point entirely. Instead of providing some substantiating rebuttal, you've skirted around my point and brought up red herring arguments that don't have to do with just vs not just (e.g. your example of theft). Law and societal standards implemented by the government are much more complicated than that, you of all people, should know that.
This is quite sad to me because you can't seem to think for yourself.
Last edited by a moderator:
