The Solution to Avoiding Punishment

Discussion in 'Debate Corner' started by Lauriam, Oct 22, 2011.

  1. Lauriam I hope I didn't keep you waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Gender:
    Nonbinary she/he/it?
    1,348
    738
    NOTE: I am not intending to be a part of this discussion, as arguing makes me anxious and increases the chances of insomnia, but I just want to know where everyone stands, so debate all you want.

    It has come to my attention that some people are of the veiwpoint that the problems with extreme punishments are brought about not by crime, but by the existence of rules themselves.

    Take pirating, for example. This should be easy, as it seems to be the main topic of the forums lately. We're probably all at least somewhat familiar with the proceedings by nnow. According to law, if a person is caught with pirated material, wether it be for personal use or resale purposes, they are fined enormous amounts of money and can be given up to 5 years in federal prison. To some people, this punishment seems extreme and unjust.

    Their solution? Remove the laws that classify it as a crime.

    Here's a story to illustrate my point. Yes, it oversimplifies things, but it explains my basic theory.
    A mother had raised several children, all of which had drawn on the walls at one point in their lives. Now she has another small child, one who hasn't yet drawn on the walls. She tells him that if he draws on the walls, he will have to pay for the repairs out of his allowence, and he will be grounded from fun for the whole day. The child understands this, his mother made it very clear to him what would happen, but he draws on the walls anyway.

    This punishment might be seen as extreme or unjust, but what is the solution to avoiding it?
    When I was that age, the solution was clear: Accept the consequences, or just don't do the crime, but Nowadays it seems like the people are calling for a third solution: Remove the rules that classify the activity as a crime. If the mother had never made the rule, the child would now get off without a punishment at all.

    Therefore, the solution to avoiding punishment is not obstaining from crime, but rather, dissolving the rules which make the crime worth punishing.

    I used piracy as an example, but really it works with any law.
    The solution to avoiding those pesky shoplifting punishments: Make shoplifting legal.
    The solution to avoiding those annoying drunk-driving punishments: Make driving under the influence legal.
    The solution to avoiding those irritating abortion punishments: Make abortion legal.

    I don't know about you, but this seems like a flawed system to me.

    Again, I want to make it clear that I do not intend to join in this discussion, I'm just getting the ball rolling so I can see who's who.

    EDIT: I just want to make it clear that I am not trying to open another discussion on the ethical or moral attributes of the four mentioned laws, I was just using them as an example to make my theory better understood.
     
  2. EvilMan_89 Code Master

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Gender:
    Male
    203
    i'm not sure what we're supposed to be debating about but here goes. i don't think anyone would try to dissolve the three laws you used as an example (well except maybe the last one because it's hugely debated) because there are undeniably very good reasons as to why they need to be enforced. with shoplifting, people taking things that don't belong to them and hurting the store's profits. with DUI, you can really hurt yourself and other people. there are solid reasons why those laws are just and i'm pretty sure no one would argue they need to be dissolved. i don't think anyone against the first 2 examples have a solid argument to make.

    EDIT: actually i think i know what you're getting at now. i myself am a bit annoyed when people propose to invalidate rules just for self-serving reasons.
     
  3. Ars Nova Just a ghost.

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Gender:
    hungry
    Location:
    Hell 71
    2,986
    EDIT: As of PM notification by the OP, I realize I've taken the discussion in the wrong direction. My bad, although I don't know why it couldn't have been said in-thread, for others' benefit... At any rate, the examples given are a bit misleading as to the overall argument, but they also don't serve it too well, in my opinion, and many of my points still stand. Having said that, I've enclosed my previous statements in spoiler tags, so they may be skipped at the reader's discretion.

    The example of a child drawing on the walls over-simplifies a highly complex situation, which is exactly what we don't want to be doing (and is what usually causes these problems to begin with). Not to mention the assumption that laws are up for review as a means of avoiding punishment seems flawed to me. It's not just that people don't want to be punished; it's that they feel they don't deserve to be. It's a question of what's actually hurting people and what isn't.

    Now, I'm of a mind that laws exist to protect. There are few to no laws for offenses on the personal level (lying to a friend, manipulating a couple to break up, etc.) because they do not drastically affect an individual or community. It's in poor taste to commit such an offense, but it tends to work itself out, e.g. the victim avoids or shuns the offender, enacts some small, negligible form of punishment that nevertheless discourages the offender, what have you. As for murder, theft, fraud, and the like: There must be laws in place to prevent, discourage, and/or punish these offenses, for the simple fact that they go too far. Killing someone does permanent, irreparable damage to them (obviously) and often to their family and friends. Stealing from a company can cause them to go under. It's not about right or wrong; moral dilemmas really ought to stay out of legal practice, since morality and law turn out to be oil and water in many cases. If a moral is worth its weight, people will take steps to maintain and enforce it, but explicitly tying it to law is determining the objective by the subjective.

    When the use and effectiveness of a law comes into question is when it can be argued whether or not it is too restrictive of an action that does not cause much harm. In terms of abortion, one must weigh the life of the embryo against the potential complications it might cause. A child is an expensive thing, and the parents may not be ready. If they're not ready, it will cause them stress, making it more difficult to properly raise the child. The child may then lack fundamental experiences or values, due to effectively inheriting that stress. Not to mention, there's the issue of over-population. Of course, I say all this with a grain of salt, as I'm an accidental birth with a rocky childhood. But that does help demonstrate my point on morality. I think it's absolutely wrong to abort a fetus, no matter the circumstances, but that has no bearing on what I think is fair to the woman.

    I don't believe that drunk-driving or shoplifting laws have ever been under intense scrutiny; not the kind that sees such laws repealed. They are performing an essential service by discouraging harmful acts. One might argue that one shoplifter will never bankrupt a convenience store, but it is a palpable loss, and were there no law against it, it would likely become an issue for many such stores to stay in business. As for drunk-driving, really the only issue here is whether the intoxicated person is liable for his/her judgment calls, an issue which I believe has been debated in alleged date rape cases as well. There seems to be a slight double standard there. But I don't foresee the lifting of drunk driving law, nor do I believe the driving force behind such a move would be a bunch of drunkards who didn't want to get jailed. They wouldn't have enough power, influence, or organization to do so.

    There is a relevant issue which probably should have been brought up: the legality of cannabis. This is a much better example of the point. So it's illegal, but alcohol isn't? Why? Well, quite simply, because people made a stink over alcohol being illegal. For our American audience, remember prohibition in 1920-1933? Yeah, didn't turn out so hot. Outlawing a substance altogether often proves debilitating, as it forsakes a ton of tax revenue and becomes a base for organized crime. The law should be involved on a more precise level. That is, if you want to drink, go right ahead; but if you do it carelessly and irresponsibly and cause serious damage as a result, then the law ought to step in. By all rights, the same should apply to cannabis, a decidedly less dangerous drug by a long shot. It's not about avoiding punishment; it's about avoiding the repercussions of unnecessarily restricting people's freedoms. They tend not to take kindly to it.

    And now here we come, to that inevitability lately in the Discussion section, piracy. This swamp of an issue has been trudged through ad nauseam already, and I don't want a legitimately interesting topic to turn into "Piracy Thread #324809," so I'll try to keep this brief: I challenge any anti-piracy advocate to produce hard, empirical evidence of a company, developer, or corporation which went under specifically, explicitly, ostensibly, provably because its products were pirated, and to produce a logical argument for its illegality, independent of morality and taking aforementioned evidence into account. And bring your A-game, because you've got a lot of ground to cover. If an argument fails to be presented, then perhaps it would be reasonable to say the law serves little explicit purpose. But no one is going to make a substantial case for the repeal of said law based in whole or in significant part on their personal desire to avoid being punished.
    Now, in an effort to better address the topic... Why does the person seek to avoid punishment? That distinction must first be drawn before any argument can be made. In my case, I never lobby for a change in a system if I feel it is being fair. As in the cannabis example I used above, I do not expect to be punished for using something that, if used responsibly, has no significant ill effect on me or those around me; I would, however, accept punishment for irresponsible use which led to damages. I expect this to follow naturally from my misuse. It should not, however, be in my hands to avoid a punishment I do not deserve, not without appealing to the fault of the law. To have a law abolished which restricts freedoms is an effective method of avoiding punishment, albeit one that requires extensive effort and co-ordination of like minds. However, in the case of generally harmful acts for which the offender simply wishes to suffer no repercussions, by far the easier and more logically sound course of action is to cease the offending behavior.
     
  4. Lauriam I hope I didn't keep you waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Gender:
    Nonbinary she/he/it?
    1,348
    738
    You are right, sorry about that... Also, I edited my first post in an attempt to make it more clear. Hopefully now I won't be as misleading. Again, sorry about all that. :P
     
  5. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    First, let me say that you may not express your opinion and leave. That is taboo in any debate. Do not try this again, please. You must continue to debate if you are going to express your views in a debating section. It is called the debate corner for a reason, and it is a bit more rule-based than the Discussion section. It is bad etiquette to go into a debate hall, make a point, and then tell the others to argue it amongst themselves. You are protecting yourself while intentionally causing conflict. You cannot do this.
    This is always the case; it should be obvious. If I murder someone, I am not going to be punished by default. It is not a law of nature. It is a law of man. No crime 'justifies' a punishment. There is no such thing as justice. I will lead into and explain this later.
    In their defense, has even one person said that they are fine the way they are? To my knowledge nobody is okay with them. There is no debate there.
    Solution to what? You need to expand on the problem more. Without a clearly defined problem, any solution is meaningless.
    This is in no way related to piracy. The mother owns the walls, and the child violates her walls. They are different from when she started. Tangible loss.

    Using this example, you could put any crime in and get away with it because you wish to ignore reasoning. As long as we get rid of the rule, you will bring up any situation where someone gets rid of a rule and try to parallel it. You can equate any action with any other if you ignore reasoning.

    The same argument could be used to make anything a law if you did not like it. Lying, drinking... Being of a different religion, being promiscuous. If the only specification is that we get rid of the law, then you are in essence saying that anything you consider wrong should be illegal. Otherwise, why are you arguing that piracy should be illegal and these things should not? You have made no distinction in your original point, and I see no difference from argument to the next.
    Why is it unjust? Entertaining the notion of justice, here... That is not out of bounds according to anyone but the child. A parent gives a child his allowance and lets him do fun things, gives him fun things to do. If she takes those away, the child is not, shall we say, being punished out of bounds. If you want to have things given to you, you have to please the givers.
    Again, a solution to what? You are being inconsistent. Your two solutions solve two different things. One solution solves the problem of the child writing on the walls, and the other solves the problem of the child feeling like they have been treated unjustly. You cannot compare two solutions that aim to solve two different things.
    This makes no sense. Rules do not make the crime 'worth' punishing. They make sure that you get punished, but they do not make themselves worth enforcing without reasoning.
    So I was right. See my argument above for this.
    Indeed. Both this and the inverse are disgusting. Let me explain your opposing position.

    The solution to liars: Make lying illegal.
    The solution to promiscuity: Make promiscuity illegal.
    The solution to meanness: Make insults illegal.
    The solution to annoyance: Make annoying me illegal.


    It works with any potential or existing law. See what I mean?
    Once again, you are not able to enter a debate and refuse to defend your position. Unless you forfeit, but then why are you posting?
    I am having trouble believing this. As I read it, you wish to sidestep ethics and justify a law (i.e against piracy) via reductio ad ridiculum. Two can play that game.

    Back to justice. Justice does not exist, as it is a man made concept. It is a pretty word that people use to make their feelings sound acceptable, or morally righteous. Morality is subjective and should have nothing to do with law, as previously stated. Laws should be based on ethics. Preventing as much loss on a whole as possible is the 'purpose' of law. Not to satisfy me, but to satisfy humanity, or all interactions that involve me. You cannot ignore ethics because ethical treatment is far more logical and expansive than any one person's perception of something called justice. It is always you who argue for laws that use the word justice. We do not use it for a reason. We do not think the laws unjust personally. We think them unethical and crimes against humanity. Justice is simple, to the point of being simpleminded. It is not a good word and I do not use it easily. At the simplest level, it reverts to an eye for an eye, and that is a bad idea according to almost anyone.

    If an eye for an eye were made into a law, you could use this same argument against it:

    The solution to losing an eye for taking one: make taking an eye legal.

    OR

    The solution to justice: dissolve justice.

    Not what I propose, but that is your argument. It assumes that all laws are just.

    Your argument and personal preference, on the other hand, assumes that all laws and potential laws are just; it makes no distinction:

    The solution to taking an eye: exact justice.

    OR

    The solution to (what I consider) a problem: exact justice.

    An eye for an eye leaves whole world blind, and this if we are talking about crimes that actually cause losses. Are you sure that you want to leave ethics out, or does this sound accurate to you?

    Piracy does not apply, again, as 'justice' would demand downloading the pirate's works in return and not outlawing his actions.
     
  6. Lauriam I hope I didn't keep you waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Gender:
    Nonbinary she/he/it?
    1,348
    738
    All right. *sigh* If you insist. Yes, I do agree that this thread should not have been posted in the debate corner, I should have put it in discussion if I did not intend to join in.
    However, you have appealed to my lack of etiquette, and therefore, you have successfully reeled me into another argument. So here I go. :P

    Alright, you say that if you murder someone, that nature is not what makes you punishable, but rather the imperfect law of man. You then say that no crime justifies a punishment. You mean that murder isn't deserving of punishment? That in your eyes, a man should be allowed to murder and then continue with his life uninterrupted, and that only the imperfect law of what man decrees to be acceptable is what says he should be put in jail? What about all the families living in this murderer's neighborhood? Don't they have the right to be protected from this man, or are they supposed to simply sit by and say "well, murder's not really wrong anyway, the only thing he's got against him is the law." And what about the man murdered? What about the murdered man's family? You say that justice does not exist, that it is merely a word or idea reflecting the ideas and beliefs of the person using the word. So I looked Justice up on dictionary.com.

    1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: toupholdthejusticeofacause.
    2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: tocomplainwithjustice.
    3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
    4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
    5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

    Number five is what I'm referring to when I use the word "justice" in this discussion. The administering of a deserved punishment or reward. There were two men, one murdered the other. By the laws of nature, not only man, is this deemed unacceptable. The law was written by man, yes, so therefore, it must have been written based on the principles a man felt at the time of writing the law. Feelings and consience are the law of nature, not of man himself. Yes, I do believe that a man may condition himself through repitition of action to no longer feel the pull of conscience, but it is extremely rare, almost impossible even, to find a person who has been morally alright with murder from the day he was born. If murder were only deemed wrong because of law, why would the law have been written? There's no reason to make something illegal if it is perfectly morally fine.

    Honestly, I'm not sure to what you are referring to here. What people are you talking about? Who said anything about them being unhappy with themselves? And to your knowledge, nobody is okay with what? Sorry for being so ignorant, but could you expound a little bit on this?

    Again, sorry for not being more clear. I was referring to the issue of punishment. I believe that some people are against punishment, and are calling for something to be done about it. The problem, according to some people, is punishment. People shouldn't need to be punished, it's wrong to punish people for anything, all that jazz. That's the "problem" I was referring to, and the solution I mentioned was dissolving the rules. It seems to me that these people think that laws are the unneccesarry force in this society of actions and consequences. They want to remove the consequence: they must first take away all right people have to get these consequences performed. That way, the man can murder his neighbor and get off without even a warning.

    I know. I didn't mean to compare this example of a story to my previous example of a real-ife law, they are both seperate examples of the same point, not one being an example of the other.

    Yes, that was my point. As long as we get rid of the rule, someone will bring up any situation where someone gets rid of a rule and try to parallel it. I mentioned Piracy, Shoplifting, Drunk-driving, and Abortion. You brought up Murder all by yourself. And as for my ignoring reason, I didn't intend to do that at all. On the contrary, I was trying to inspire reasoning in others. Based on my observations of your post alone, you prove a pretty good point for all who believe in the "Slippery Slope Fallacy". It did not take long for you to jump from piracy to murder, grouping them both as basically alright actions, not really worth punishing. To me, that is the real example of ignoring reason.

    You are contradiciting yourself with this statement. First, you say that I am trying to create laws based on my own morals, then you say that by trying to remove law altogether, I am attempting to make illegal the things I find wrong. This makes no sense. If I'm saying that we should remove law, how am I arguing to make new ones? Then you accuse me of arguing against piracy, and I have tried to make it very clear that I am not here to do that. Piracy is not the issue being debated here, rather, the mindset of people who are against law. I repeat emphatically, I do not want to argue the moral or ethical implications of piracy, or any other law for that matter. You also say that I wish for piracy to be illegal and these things not to be. To what "things" are you referring? I again must ask you to expound a little more with your accusations, so that I actually can find out what I'm actually being accused of.

    Why is any punishment unjust? Using murder as an example, how is capital punishment unjust? Or a lifetime sentence, how is that unjust? It's one life for another, how is that unjust? Or maybe drunk driving. What's the punishment for that, getting your liscense revoked? You used your state-given privelages irresponsibly, how is it unjust that they be taken away? I won't argue about the punishments of abortion, because I actually have no idea what they are. Or with piracy as the example, how are those punishments unjust? The government pays men their money, the government issues the bills and controls the taxes and makes the jobs, the record companies produce the media that is pirated, if they take those things away from the pirate, how is this unjust? If you want to have things given to you, you have to please the givers.

    Again, you prove my point while trying to argue against it. The "solution" is the solution to the problem of being punished. One solution pegs the "crime" of drawing on the walls as the issue, the other is saying that drawing on the walls is hardly a crime at all, and that rules are the only thing giving the parent a reason to punish. To the people of the latter opinion, any kind of punishment is unjust.

    Yes, I think that "worth" was the wrong word. How about I say this: "Rules make the crime a crime." If the rule "Don't draw on the walls" was not a rule, then drawing on the walls would no longer be deemed as disobedience or rebellion, or even wrong, therefore, it's no longer a punishable crime. This is what I meant, I just didn't have the words.

    Yes you were. See my defense above for this.

    Yes, I do see what you mean. However, I do not support this argument either. I believe that there should be a balance between laws and (for lack of a better term) freedoms. While I maintain that law is a neccesarry evil in today's society, I do not pretend to think that increasing the amount of laws will fix the problem either. Think of law like it's a grandfather clock. As time moves forward, the pedulum hangs down and is rocked back and forth, moving from one side of the casing to another. The pendulum is representative of the mindset of the people. They believe either that there should be no law whatsoever, or there should be a law about every subject, every idea, every little bit of breathing space in this world should be cluttered up with law. I support neither. I believe that the pendulum should hang in the middle, having enough law to establish justice and promote the general well-fare of myself and my family, (paraphrased from the constitution of the United States of America) while still allowing such freedoms as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to protest. I stand that the pendulum should hang in the balance.

    Yes, we've established that fact.

    Again, I do not wish to argue with you against piracy, if I did, I would return to the discussion of Burning A Game, the discussion I left, and take up my position there. You can play at that game all you want, but I'm not going to join you exept where you force my hand.

    I argued this position earlier in my post, refer back to that.

    This is a contradiction in and of itself, as the words "ethics" and "morals" both mean essentially the same thing.
    I again refer you to dictionary.com. I looked up both words, and these are their definitions: (I bolded each word as it appeared in the definition of the other.)

    For morals:

    1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moralattitudes.
    2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: amoralnovel.
    3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moralobligations.
    4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: amoralbeing.
    5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): amoralman.

    For Ethics:

    1. (usedwithasingularorpluralverb[​IMG]) a system of moral principles: theethicsofaculture.
    2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medicalethics;Christianethics.
    3. moral principles, as of an individual: Hisethicsforbadebetrayalofaconfidence.
    4. (usuallyusedwithasingularverb[​IMG]) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

    Also, "ethics" was listed as a synonym for morals, and "morality" was listed as a synonym for ethics.

    So pretty much, I agree that the law should be based on ethics, but dissagree that the law should have nothing to do with morals. Again, I propose that the law is based on both morals and ethics, not the other way around. Morals were around before law, not the law was invented to provide morals.

    Yes, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, all of it justice and all of it undesirable. But I would rather take that over your side of the pendulum: remove the enforcement of justice.

    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but an eye for free makes the strongest man alive the ruler. He can blind those he doesn't agree with, and walk away unchecked. Before long, the strong will have a bag full of stolen eyes while the rest of the world totters around in darkness, unable to see enough to protect themselves. This doesn't sound like ethiics to me.
    Again, I wish for balance, but if made to choose, I would rather take the constriction of law over the supposed "freedom" of dying by another's hand for their own selfish conveniences, knowing that he who took my life is allowed to go and do it to someone else.

    Piracy is not the issue being debated here, again, as I have said repeatedly. I am not going to argue the issue of Piracy with you.
     
  7. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    In my eyes, in your eyes, that is the problem. If it is up to someone's eyes, then it does not exist. Right and wrong do not exist unless people believe that they exist. There is no such thing as a natural law. No one deserves to be punished for murder as no one deserves to be murdered. It is all the same thing. In the face of the universe, what we want most is unimportant. Appealing to emotion will not change the fact that laws are man made and that murder has no objective value, good or bad. It just is as far as the universe is concerned. What I think will not change this, no matter how strongly I think it. Me or you, or anyone else, mind. Rights do not exist because wrongs do not, people made these concepts up.
    In other words, whatever happens is natural. So, when I kill a man, that is natural. When you punish me, that is also natural. When I kill myself, that is natural. When you stop me, that is natural. I see no morality in any of these statements. Even if it is by the law of nature, I have no reason to accept the notion that what is natural is right. If they are the laws of nature, then morality does not exist and appealing to it is folly, as might then makes 'right'; survival of the fittest. Determinism...
    This means in defense of the people who find this punishment ridiculous. No one has claimed that it is not ridiculous, so it should be assumed that it is.
    Why do you hold this belief? Has anyone said that? Who, and where have they said this? You should not decide what other people believe for them, much less counter that belief as is if it is their own. It does not bode well for your success.
    How exactly is paralleling them not the same as paralleling them? Either the principle applies to both or it does not. If it does, then I am refuting that. If it does not, then why did you mention it in your opening post?
    Murder and piracy were grouped only because they are both illegal. I did not make those laws, and I did not make your argument. I can link a parking violation to murder because your argument covers both in the same way. According to the slippery slope fallacy, something so small as lying may lead to murder. I did not link them because lying is not illegal. It has nothing to do with the fallacy, but with your argument which covers every illegal thing. You also might consider this: I was explaining your argument in an extreme. If I was expressing a fallacy, then what does that say about the argument I was expressing? If you still plan to link the fallacy to your point, then explain why you are doing so and how this helps your position.
    No, you misread. Or misunderstood... The opposite of "dissolve law" is "make all my of my preferences law". Since you do not agree with the first or do not want to dissolve law, and seem to be refuting it, it only follows that you are advocating the opposite, or that you think all of your preferences should be made into laws.

    You made no distinction between existing laws and potential laws in your first one. The fact that you used existing laws in your examples was to support your argument, but it was not well thought out. Let me show you your argument as used on a nonexistent law, a reoccurring theme with me.

    Solve the problem of being punished for lying: make lying legal.

    Does this sounds accurate? If I can do this for things that are legal, then I can use the inverse and say that you think things that are not illegal should be by default.

    If you think that your argument should only apply to existing laws, then you need to explain why that is and how it figures into your earlier argument.

    When I said these things, I was referring to this sentence: "Lying, drinking... Being of a different religion, being promiscuous." I assume you find some moral fault with these things, given your other stances, but if you are not arguing that they should be illegal despite being immoral then I see an inconsistency in your argument, that being that you have made exceptions without explaining them, messing with the simplicity that you had been aiming for. You are being accused of holding a double standard when it concerns your personal morals. If your morals are not good enough to be laws, when whose are, and why? And so on.
    I already explained this. Justice does not exist. Your question is loaded. I care not for justice. The law exists and should exist to recover losses for victims of involuntary trades and minimize losses for others. Punishment and justice have nothing to do with it, and if those two concepts cause more loss than letting someone go, then they are faulty and need to be dropped as legal practices. You should only punish someone if it will make the world a better place, not because it will make you feel better about it.

    However, with piracy, ignoring justice, the 'punishments', or losses that are being recovered are not proportional because you did not in fact take anything from the artist. He has everything that he started with. I just have a copy of it too. He lost nothing, but I gained something. Therefore, according to the law, I should lose. Do you see the problem?

    Taxation is not, shall we say, a nice thing to do because I do not get to choose whether or not I like a service before buying it; it is the forcible transfer of my wealth. In the case of the police, for example, they protect me without asking me and then tell me that I have to pay for the service at the price that they name. What if I had wanted to pay a private defense agency for that service, or wanted to protect my own property? I am forced to pay for the police anyway, or they will put me in jail or take my land. The mafia did a similar thing back in the day... But that is another discussion for another time and previous threads, one you should not have gotten into.
    I cannot prove your point if it does not make sense. What makes the child more wrong in this instance? Once again, you are struggling to separate the law from individual situations. One law is not in any way attached to another law in this society. If I think that one crime is not a crime, then we can argue about that one crime, but this has nothing to do with the concept of law itself, just that one crime. If your argument is that by denying one law I deny all law, then you already have a problem because not only do different countries and different states or regions have different laws, but each person has their own set of laws that they define for themselves, and again, if I lie to you, I deny all law, because it might be against either your set of laws or someone else's set of laws to lie to you.

    I will ask again, who proposes these ideas that you think there is someone out there who denies all laws? I have yet to meet even who person who says such things.
    Appeal to law, again and again. What makes a crime wrong? True, a law makes something a crime, but why should a crime be wrong? You cannot appeal to the law as a means of justifying its rightness, we have already gone over this, and it an obvious fallacy. I do not need to amend my statement in any way to counter your argument, so I will quote myself on it for old time's sake. If something is wrong, then it is worth enforcing. Something being illegal does not make it worth enforcing, that is a circular argument; "It should be illegal because it is illegal."
    Here you seem to be saying that law is an evil. Could it be that you yourself hold this position that all laws must stay or go, either all good or all bad? You are the first person I have heard say this, and it astounds me that you would talk about your sacred laws in such a way. I do not see law as evil, quite the contrary. However, I do find many laws that exist to be counterproductive and harmful to both the individual and society as a whole. Unlike you, I can argue for or against them on individual grounds because I acknowledge that they are not even close to the same.

    Laws exist to recover losses, I have said this before. If they cause losses, then they need to be repealed or changed so that they do not cause losses. It has nothing to do with rebelliousness or freedom fighting rhetoric if I am arguing about tangible profits instead of what I want to do with my life versus what you will let me do with my life.
    Whether directly or indirectly, you created this thread with piracy in mind and stated as such. You wish to avoid the fire of the last debate, but your point is the same, and that is that if it against the law then it is a wrongdoing.
    Unfortunately, you did not; rather, you told me which definition in the dictionary you liked without refuting my claim to the meaningless of it.
    You were not proposing this in the last thread... I was. I have not implied that they are based on ethics nor that either morals or ethics are based on the law. I hold that most of our current laws are based on morals and not logic or ethics, but I should define ethics as I use it before explaining.

    I view and define ethics as the pursuit of the fewest losses for the greatest number of people in any situation. An ethical route is the route that harms everyone the least. If two options do the same amount of harm then they are the same, ethically.

    Morals, on the other hand, are based purely in preference and self-righteousness. One would say that something is wrong morally, such as promiscuity or prostitution. Prostitution is a good example of something that is ethically sound in harming no one without their consent but morally wrong because someone said so, and illegal as a result of it. Laws should be based on ethics because no one is harmed against their will in prostitution and many other crimes, but every prostitute is harmed by a state when it enforces laws against it in the name of morality. Most of our laws and punishments exist in its name.

    If you could make an argument for why the law should involve morals, it would be appreciated.
    Oh, so you think that I am saying that? Whatever gave you that idea?
    I disagree here. In this case, the strongest would be called the king, and anything that he did not like would be illegal. Your argument applies no matter who is ruling, a lone king or a set of houses. The freedom that you speak of is the freedom to rule somebody else. You just think that one group should have it and the one man should not. This should be an obvious double standard or hypocrisy, but don't mind me, I'm just rambling.
    That is what you keep saying, but when you liken it to everything it does not sound very convincing.
     
  8. Lauriam I hope I didn't keep you waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Gender:
    Nonbinary she/he/it?
    1,348
    738
    Ugh, you'd think I would learn, but I never do. Last night I spent the better part of three hours writing a reply and then my compy lost it. :P Well, here we go again.

    You never answered the question. Do you or do you not believe that a man who murders somebody is deserving of punishment, wether it's capital punishment, prison for life, prison for a set amount of years with or without hope of parole, do you or do you not think murder is deserving of punishment?

    I'm having a little trouble understanding this. Can you please explain to me how having morals automatically links someone to survival of the fittest? Are you implying that having morals makes a man stronger? If so, please explain.

    I see... I think.


    Does that answer your question?

    Well, I was using two laws as an example for a theory, not using a principle to explain both laws. There's a difference.

    I am still linking the fallacy to my point, and I am at the same time trying to disprove that it is a fallacy. See, I believe that the slippery slope fallacy is not, in all actuallity, a fallacy. I believe this because of personal experience, myself and countless others. I don't believe that it is false.

    In the future, I reccomend you read my entire argument before you begin typing out yours. That way, we save time by not having to hash through the same old arguments.

    Yes, I do see what you mean. However, I do not support this argument either. I believe that there should be a balance between laws and (for lack of a better term) freedoms. While I maintain that law is a neccesarry evil in today's society, I do not pretend to think that increasing the amount of laws will fix the problem either. Think of law like it's a grandfather clock. As time moves forward, the pedulum hangs down and is rocked back and forth, moving from one side of the casing to another. The pendulum is representative of the mindset of the people. They believe either that there should be no law whatsoever, or there should be a law about every subject, every idea, every little bit of breathing space in this world should be cluttered up with law. I support neither. I believe that the pendulum should hang in the middle, having enough law to establish justice and promote the general well-fare of myself and my family, (paraphrased from the constitution of the United States of America) while still allowing such freedoms as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to protest. I stand that the pendulum should hang in the balance.

    I hadn't really thought about it, but I guess I think that my theory should only apply to existing laws, so that we can hold it against real-life examples and prove or disprove it accordingly. It's like taking a paint color sample card from a home improvement store to hold it against the furniture and carpet of a room in your house, so you can better choose the right color.

    So first you state that morals and law should have nothing to do with eachother, and then you accuse me of holding a double standard for not trying to project my morals onto the law? I'm confused.
    Yes, I find lying, excessive drinking, and being promiscuous (if that word means what I think it means) morally wrong. But I also think it's morally wrong to try and force everyone else to believe that they are morally wrong. That's where freedom of religion comes in. People should be allowed to believe these things, while still not being forced to. A person should have the right to hear my veiws on the subject (that these things are morally wrong) and they should also retain the right to reject these veiws if they so desire.

    I, too, already explained this. Justice does exist, it might not be the happiest thought in the world, but it still exists. The law exists and should exist to recover losses for victims of involuntary trades. So, a woman has money stolen from her, she is a victim of an involuntary trade. Justice is the recovery of her stolen property and the punishment of the person who victimized her. You can't have recovery without justice, and you can't have justice without punishment. The three are connected and cannot be seperated, to disregard part of the process because you care not for the idea is folly.

    Yes, I do. But I'm not going to argue piracy with you.

    That is all interesting conjecture, but you are right, that is a discussion for another time.

    First, I never said the child was "more wrong" about anything, and am confused as to why you think I said the child was more wrong. More wrong than what?

    Second, you also are struggling to accept the concept that I am not trying to argue laws on an individual basis, but rather, I am proposing a theory about the behavior and mindset of the people regarding the law as a whole. Yes, I know that every law is completely seperate from every other law, but I am not trying to argue about the law. There is one thing each law has in commen with every other law: consequence for breaking law. That is the issue being debated here. That was in the title of the thread. Punishment, not law, is what this thread is about.

    I'm sorry for not being more clear, that's not what I meant at all. A "neccesary evil" is a concept or practice that is imperfect in and of itself, yet neccesary for the betterment of the way things are. Example: Some people believe wars to be a neccesary evil. So, in essence, I meant that although the law is not perfect (and I think we can all agree on that), it is neccesary for the betterment of society on the whole. That's all, I wasn't trying to say that law is evil. And yes, I also find some laws to be counterproductive and/or harmful. For example, it is illegal to give alcohal to a moose in Fairbanks, Alaska. I find this law to be counterproductive. I can also argue against laws on an individual basis and acknowledge that they are not even close to the same. However, this discussion is not meant to argue laws on an individul matter, but it is meant to discuss the mindset of the people on the issue of punishment.

    I agree. But I'm still not going to argue piracy with you.

    Yes, I had piracy in mind when I thought up my theory, so piracy worked as a fairly good example. But the part of piracy I was thinking of while writing was not the issue of wether or not piracy was wrong, but rather, the issue of wether or not piracy was worth punishment. Therefore, piracy is an excellent example of my theory, but not the real issue being debated.

    Well, now I have expounded on my claim, here it is with the dictionary definition and everything.

    Justice does exist, it might not be the happiest thought in the world, but it still exists. The law exists and should exist to recover losses for victims of involuntary trades. So, a woman has money stolen from her, she is a victim of an involuntary trade. Justice is the recovery of her stolen property and the punishment of the person who victimized her. You can't have recovery without justice, and you can't have justice without punishment. The three are connected and cannot be seperated, to disregard part of the process because you care not for the idea is folly.

    1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: toupholdthejusticeofacause.
    2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: tocomplainwithjustice.
    3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
    4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
    5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

    Ah, now that you explain what you think ethics means, I understand your reasoning a lot more. Yes, I also think that law should be based on the mutual betterment of both parties involved. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. As for prostitution being victimless, that is also a discussion for another time, and I'm not going to get into it.

    Now, you ask me to explain why I think morals should be involved in law. I have already stated that I don't believe my morals should be forced onto sommeone else, but I still believe that it is a good idea for a standard of some morals to be enforced, like murder, for example. A person can argue for or against murder, they don't have to believe that it is morally wrong, but it is still a messy and undesirable thing to have happen, and as the law should be based on the mutual benifit of both parties, and murder is usually not for the betterment of at least one party, it is a good law to have in place. The same goes for some things like smoking in public places and driving under the influence. I'm not saying that I believe these two things to be morally wrong, but as these things are not for the benifit of either party involved, be it the smoker or the person breathing the second hand smoke, there should be a law in place against it. So, although I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to protest, I also believe in laws based on what some people would believe to be "moral issues". Again, I wish for balance.

    Read the above Makaze-Quotes.

    First, I agree with you that monarchy is "might makes right", as the king has the power to make illegal anything he doesn't like. For hundreds and hundreds of years, the rulers of England didn't like christianity, and thousands of christians were burned, beaten to death, imprisoned for life, and publically disgraced, merely because they believed differently than the man in charge. I am against this practice with all of my heart, wether it be christianity, catholicism, bhuddisim, you name it. We should be allowed freedom of religion.

    I also agree that a set of houses, while better than the one lone king, is still a flawed way to provide justice for the people, and I believe that the government has been getting worse and worse over time, and I believe it's time for a change for the better. However, I don't think that "the better" involves an absence of law, as people, in my opinion, aren't ready to handle that yet.

    Second, I bolded out a part of your sentence, and would like to refer you back to what I said, that I would rather have too many laws than the supposed "freedom" of being killed by the hand of another, who is then permitted to go about his way unchecked. Now you say that this "freedom" I speak of is the freedom to rule somebody else. How do you figure this? How is my unwarranted death me ruling somebody else? This doesn't make much sense to me. Not to mention, I was referring to life without law, and you seem to think I was talking about law itself. That's not what I meant.

    Yes, I see how you might have thought that. I refer you to earlier in my post, when I say this:

    Yes, I had piracy in mind when I thought up my theory, so piracy worked as a fairly good example. But the part of piracy I was thinking of while writing was not the issue of wether or not piracy was wrong, but rather, the issue of wether or not piracy was worth punishment. Therefore, piracy is an excellent example of my theory, but not the real issue being debated.
     
  9. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    You should type these up in a text editor instead like I am doing. Bigger text field that way.
    These questions are irrelevant to the argument as you wish to avoid a discussion of ethics, and I would rather not waste time answering something that is not relevant to the topic. I have explained my position well. No one is deserving of anything. I prefer for everyone to obtain the most profit that they can without causing loss to others. If killing someone is the best way to do that, then I am fine with that. That does not mean that they deserved to be killed. They were not taken into account. Only the results of their death were.
    No, I am saying that if morals are natural, then they do not exist outside of a pattern working itself out. They are not right, they are just impulses. And if nature is right, then if I win, nature decided that, and so I am right, as nature's messenger. Survival of the fittest is generally accepted as the overall nature of things. Morals do not make me stronger, but being stronger makes me more moral, if nature is a basis for morality.
    Do I need to explain more? It is not that some find them ridiculous, everyone but the ones who made it find them ridiculous.
    No, it does not. Let me explain this to you a bit more clearly.

    All laws end in violence; either through confiscation of property, arrest, beatings, or killings, every single law attacks me. If I do not attack someone or change their physical state, and the law changes my physical state, then the law is in the wrong. I do not deny all consequence, but again, I believe in proportionality combined with ethics, and no existing system of state-enforced law comes even close to matching these two principles.

    In other words, I have said nothing against law itself, but against the specific law of piracy. I have also stated that there are no rights and wrongs. However, I do have personal preferences, as do you. Unlike you, I can see that what I want is neither right nor wrong. Morality does not exist, it is only what I think is the best way to do things. So it is with every being that exists. You might say that I have morals or standards, but they are not right or wrong. They are what I want, and nothing other than that. The same with your wants, and the same with a church's, or a government's.

    I hold that losses must be recovered if a trade is made forcibly. This ties into the concept of law, and so I am not advocating the loss of all laws. I am saying that there is no meaning to anything that I am saying outside of my saying it and your believing it. I am not right. I just want certain things because I see the greatest amount of profit for the greatest amount of people if they come to be. Someone else might think that the world should die or that we should destroy the earth, and they are not more right or wrong than me. I will try to stop them because I want something different, but neither of us are right or wrong because we created those things. What makes my wants better than his wants? Just the fact that I want them and he does not. I might be considered a better person by other people because I say things that favor them as a whole while the destructive man does not, but then I am only good because other people think so, and nothing more. No matter how hard you think about it, good and bad are meaningless when you get an outside look at things.
    Can you please explain the difference? It would be appreciated.

    They are functionally the same. Your theory is not a theory, but a principle. A theory is something based on evidence. If you have a theory, it is that people believe the principle you are proposing. The principle is not a theory in itself, but it is being used by your theory to make a point about someone or something.

    You applied your principle to both laws and then tried to use your theory to say that because I hold that one statement is true, according to your principle I must hold that the other is true as well. Without the principle, your theory is that I hold both are true without any reasoning at all. The principle is what you used to link them unless you have some other explanation.
    This is impossible to prove, else it would have been proven by now. It has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years and has been refuted every century since its conception.
    I had read it, thanks. Your argument did not counter my own, but thanks for trying. Your first post did not espouse this, and you make no sense according to your principle with the statement you rehashed. You used political rhetoric and changed your position from what I stated to a defense of the status quo, stating that law is evil, which I have not stated, that freedoms are also evil, which neither of us have stated before, and that we need to balance them, which has nothing to do with either my argument or the principal you proposed in the opening post. You did not address anything in the section you quoted above, and did not address your own argument in regards to mine. I fail to see how this was any kind of response to what I was saying.
    That is not a good reason, in fact it is making an exception just because it is convenient for your argument. According to your principle, there is no distinction. If this only applies to existing laws, then your position is changed to this:

    If you deny an existing law, then you deny all existing laws.

    You have not provided any reasoning for this, and so it is invalid until further notice.
    You would be, but you are using morals for the law, and I am not. I can hold you to your own standards while holding seperate standards of my own. I can point out flaws in your beliefs whether I believe them or not, to clarify.
    See? That is a double standard. You think that pirates and prostitutes should be forced to believe that they are morally wrong, among other things, while these things that you also consider wrong do not need enforcing. Why do these not need enforcing, if things like piracy and prostitution do? What is the difference? If the only difference is law, then you are using an appeal to law and your argument is made invalid.

    That has nothing to do with religion, only preferences. Just because you find them wrong because of a religion does not mean that other people find them wrong for the same reasons if they share the same standards.
    Happiest? You have not explained anything. Justice does not exist, I have argued for this. You have stated that it does exist and have not reasoned it out. "You may not like it, but I am using this definition and it exists, so too bad." I fail to see the reasoning behind such a thing or how it even attempts to counter my claim that justice does not exist.

    The law exists, but it is not just, as everyone has differing views of what is deserved punishment, even by your definition.

    Saying that it is a certain thing will not make an argument for it being so.

    If you could explain to me why stealing the money back plus interest for time lost and damages made would not be enough, or why you think you can say that they are linked, it would, again, be appreciated. You are repeatedly stating that things are linked and that they do exist, but have no follow-up arguments to explain why you can say these things. That is folly if I have seen it.
    In which case you seem to be choosing to ignore logic because you wish to believe that denying one existing law is denying all existing laws, and will not argue specific cases or exceptions to the rule. You are not even willing to discuss the principle besides restating it, and that annoys me. When I bring up a law that exists that you can argue against, you decide not to argue about it, making your argument more invalid by the minute to anyone reading this.
    Than the parent. Let me clarify.

    It is a crime because the parent says so, or enforces the rule; crime does not imply right or wrong, just that a rule exists.

    Your argument is that the child thinks it is not a crime. This is not so. He believes it is not wrong. It is still a crime, but the action itself is not wrong.

    Who is to say that the child is wrong about the wrongness of the crime? According to your principle, the crime does not matter, so let us say that he stayed up playing too late, past his bed time. Why can't the child be right about this rule and not the one about walls?

    Your position is obviously against this, and you have stated that you find the parent in the right, so I see no need to ask me why I think that you favor the parent.
    This is faulty, for the many reasons stated previously; you are using the following fallacies by stating this one thing. Impressive, really.

    Accident: an exception to a generalization is ignored.
    Cherry picking: (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence): act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
    Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident): basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
    Overwhelming exception: an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume. (Pending explanation from you on these qualifications, not provided, but they seem to be needed.)
    Fallacy of divison: assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.
    [b]False dilemma[/b] (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy): two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
    Begging the question (petitio principii): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises.
    Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
    And, finally,
    Straw man: an argument based on misrepresentation of opponent's position twisting his words, or by means of false assumptions.
    In other words, the one thing that all laws have in common is that they are laws. Laws mean enforcement, otherwise they are just preferences. Rules do not exist unless spoken or exercised. You say you are not arguing about enforcement, because law and enforcement are interchangeable as you use them. Substitute 'the law' for enforcement in your sentence to see what I mean.

    "Yes, I know that every enforcement is completely seperate from every other enforcement, but I am not trying to argue about [the idea of] enforcement. There is one thing each enforcement has in commen with every other enforcement: enforcement of an idea. That is the issue being debated here. That was in the title of the thread. Punishment, not enforcement, is what this thread is about."

    If you see a distinction between a law and an idea that gets enforced, please define it clearly.

    There is no reason to debate this unless you wish to either go into specific laws or argue about law as a whole. As you wish to to do neither, there is nothing to be debated, and your point is nonexistant.

    You already quoted me once, you did not need to quote me again. It makes navigating your posts harder.

    You also failed to answer my question. More straw men... See below for more clarity.
    I will refer to the fallacies mentioned earlier, specifically one that I have not brought up yet called the the fallacy of composition, along with the straw man fallacy. For the first, you have assumed that because some laws are harmful, law itself must be. For the second, you have proposed my position as if I dislike all laws in themselves. I am not against laws in whole, and law itself has nothing to do with the laws that we have today. The laws that we have are imperfect because we are bad at making them and base them on emotions and money making rather than on ethics and logic. Law itself is a perfectly valid concept that exists regardless of nation or state. The concept of law is not attached to even one law that gets enforced, and I will tell you why, or illustrate it.

    The concept of law, aside from ones that currently exist, applying to all societies, is this: "The consistent enforcement of an idea or standard on one person by another."

    This is signifcantly different from any system of law that we have today, as they are extremely varied, and law is an extremely wide concept. Here is an example of a law: "The age of consent will be enforced at sixteen years of age for all persons."

    In what way is the concept of enforcement attached to the idea that ends up getting enforced? A hammer is a good tool until someone beats someone else with it. It is the same concept, and if either of us see the metaphorical hammer as harmful on a whole, you do instead of me.

    If we were going to argue about this law and its validity, then that would be one thing. But you want to argue about every single idea in one go? That is a bit too much on your plate, and any person would pick and choose which dishes they liked and which dishes they didn't, without many exceptions. I have never seen one and I do not expect to see one in my days.
    You said yourself that piracy was an example. If you have another exception in mind that you will not refuse to acknowledge, then please, oblige.
    If you bring up all laws, then piracy is fair game. You cannot ignore one exception or you fall into the accident fallacy again. Furthermore, if you bring up an example, it is only fair that we should pick apart the examples that you use lest we get sidetracked and bring up examples that do not apply.
    See what I said above. It is funny how easy it is to prove my point when all that you did here was say that it exists and cite the definition again. You told me which definition you liked and how much, unto italizing your text, but not why you liked it and how this liking was based in reason.
    It is not. You are avoiding getting into specifics because your point will become moot if you admit a fault. You are shifting the burden of proof onto me, but when I try to prove it you shrug me off and say that specific laws are not what we are discussing. Must be easy, eh?

    It is not a matter of misfortune. People choose to break this balance actively. They are acting unethically. Fortune has nothing to do with it.
    There is a misconception here. You do not need morals to outlaw murder; ethics takes care of that. As long as something causes someone a loss, morals are superfluous because you can reason it out with ethics instead of appealing to emotion. Morals are in no way needed to outlaw murder, or theft, or assualt or rape, or any other violation of physical property, including the body. What morals are needed for is those extra things, like drug regulations, laws against prostitution and gambling, pornography, age of consent laws, wars and other things. Ethics does not allow these kinds of laws to exist, and we would be better off without laws that are justified because of morality. Morality is obsolete, and if your morality lines up the ethical way of doing things, then great, but that does not mean anything other than that you personally will choose to act ethically and thus lawfully as a result, if the laws are based on ethics.

    Morality is a flawed concept while ethics are not, so morality should be left out of enforcement. Unless you can think of a situation in which something is both ethically sound and can be made illegal without causing more loss than would exist without enforcing it, this statement will stand.

    Ethics also factors consequences into those harm-based things. When two people do something and a third party comes in to stop them, the amount of harm that the third party is doing figures in ethically. If a person is smoking and another is breathing in the smoke, then will police intervention bring more harm or less harm to the situation? That is the question. If it will bring more harm, then it is not ethical treatment to involve the third party. This is my argument against piracy and many other things; you cannot leave the harm done by the law out if you are thinking ethically. If you do more harm than you prevent by exercising a law, then the law needs to go. It is as simple as that.

    Morality does not have these factors, and if something is considered morally wrong, a law may be made to stop it whether doing so will do more harm or not. I see no reason to keep morality around when you have ethics to go by.
    Read them, they do not explain anything.
    Those were laws. You have not defined a difference between those laws and the laws that apply to you where you live today in your principle. I am forced to assume that if I question a law against Christianity, it is the same as questioning all other laws, by your definition. Such laws do exist today, need I remind.

    There is nothing in your principle to distinguish between those laws and your laws. If the laws today are a necessary evil, then those back in the day were as well. There is no difference if you wish to speak of all laws as one. In other words, you cannot rebel against the law against Christianity without contradicting your principle, or making an exception, and that needs an explanation.

    Again, let me make clear that I do use all laws as one, but I may argue against your point without believing it. You have stated that I am contradicting myself several times out of the false assumption that I believe when I am saying when I am portraying your points and not mine.
    I did not state that it was better. Who are you agreeing with?

    People will never be ready for an absence of law, because they will enforce their own laws to protect their property. The nations might not be as big, but they will rise. Laws exist if people force other people to follow them, no matter how simple.

    As you stated earlier... "That is all interesting conjecture, but you are right, that is a discussion for another time." You did not address my point, which was they are the same in that they enforce laws. Instead you expressed your support of a specific system which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, as your principle does not distinguish between one system's laws and another's.
    The freedom to kill someone and go unchecked is the freedom to rule them. The one on top, or the ones on top in the case of houses, can do just that. There is no difference between a serial murderer and a ruler or ruling body, they both claim the freedom to rule over or crush the lives of others. A society without laws can never exist because if you kill someone, you are enforcing your own laws. Their living became illegal, so you killed them. You made a law for that occasion, and you enforced it. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the name given to the killer changes something, but it does not. I would cite wars as examples, but it should be obvious what I mean.
    I would refer you to my entire post, and specifically the part where I said that if you bring up an example you are duty bound to defend it if it is attacked. That is what it means to bring up an example in a debate; to open it up to scrutiny and defend it accordingly.

    EDIT: Some heavy editing, grammatical errors and changes in word choice were made. I have not refreshed yet, so hopefully you have not countered my post before editing... Meh.

    Edit again: Oh good, you haven't. Yay...
     
  10. Lauriam I hope I didn't keep you waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Gender:
    Nonbinary she/he/it?
    1,348
    738
    lol, I would, but my new laptop doesn't have a program like that yet. I know, that stinks, right? :P

    Thanx for answering, I just wanted to know where you stood.

    I never said that whatever a person feels must then be moral, I said that every person is born with a consciense, and knows (at least at first) the difference between "wrong and right", for lack of a better term. A young child knows while his hand is in the cookie jar that he should not be stealing cookies. It isn't until the child has ignored his conscience long enough that he begins to stop feeling it. He then grows into a person without a conscience, believing that nothing, is in fact, "wrong", able to guiltlessly murder without a second thought.

    Oh, I get what you're saying now. You're saying that the laws of today are ridiculous, and only those who made them believe them to be sane. I have never made a law, and I still don't believe that "Do not Murder" is a ridiculous law. What class do I fall under?

    So you admittedly state that all laws end in violence. You admittedly state that no action is wrong. Therefore, you say that punishment is the problem. There is nothing wrong with murder, so capital punishment is the real crime. The laws and the punishments are the problem, not the crimes themselves. This is what I mean when I say that I believe that some people are against punishment, and that they believe punishments to be the real issue. It is apparent to me that you are one of those people. Now, you have not specifically said so, but everything you have said points straight in that direction.

    So then, the issue of Piracy. You say that I am hurting my argument by not expanding it, so here I go. You obviously believe that piracy is morally acceptable. That's alright with me. You obviously believe that piracy causes no harm to the artist and the record companies, that's also alright with me. I'm not trying to force you to believe MY veiws, and you are not trying to force me to agree with yours. (lol, in fact, you've been trying to get me to argue against it from the very beginning.) You believe the real problem to be the punishment brought about by piracy. You have stated that intellectual property is by far more wrong than violating it. I disagree. I think there is great harm and loss to the artist caused by the pirate, and have explained in a different thread why I believe so. You don't agree with my reasoning, and that, again, is alright with me. There is no reason to continue arguing about the moral or "ethical" attributes of piracy, as I have nothing more to say and you don't agree with what I've already said. There also is nothing more to be said on the issue of wether or not the punishment is acceptable, because I think it is and you think it isn't. So piracy has become a moot point.

    Contrariwise, you said that "All laws end in violence; either through confiscation of property, arrest, beatings, or killings, every single law attacks me."
    You said that in this very post. That All laws attack you. "All" definitally refers to more then just the one issue of piracy. Another contradiction.

    So we come back to this; that murder is perfectly acceptable as long as you think it is. You say that there is no right and no wrong, that we just have our personal preferences, well, it's my personal preference that murder is completely and utterly unacceptable. So you and I meet one day in the street. Let's say that we hang out, and get into some trouble. I don't care what kind, but we're in a bad situation. Now, if you kill me, you can get off without a scratch. You want to go for it, I obviously don't want to be killed. We both have our personal preferences, which of them is "ethically" sound, using your definition of the word? If you kill me, you violate my personal preferences, that murder is senseless and unacceptable behaviour. But it is better for you, as you get off the hook. Which of us is right, as far as your idea of ethics goes?

    Good, so do I.

    Really? You had me fooled.

    In my opinion, good and bad are never meaningless, no matter how far outward you look. Yes, I can't end world hunger, but I can do as much "good" as I can with what I have. Yes, I can't completely destroy every other person on the planet, but I can do as much "wrong" as I can and murder everyone I see. This seems like an important bit of "right" and "wrong," definitally not meaningless, even if it's not really morally right and wrong. If everything is neither good nor bad, if nothing matters in the long run, if I could live my life for the betterment of only myself and have no meaningful end to reach, then what's the harm in me living as if I had something to live for? If everything is as purposeless as you suppose, then what I do doesn't change anything, and I just end up feeling better about myself. But if I'm right, and life is actually worth living, then my actions do matter and I'll come out on top.

    Alright. Applying two different examples for a theory is like writing two different stories to achieve the same end. For example, if an author of children's stories writes a book about a little girl who fids a lost puppy and works very hard to find the owner so she can return the dog to him, the author has made a point to return lost property and not keep it for yourself. But then she writes another book, about a little boy who finds a lost watch, and works very hard to find the owner. She wrote two stories to make the same point.
    Another example is this: I wrote two examples, one that utilized a story telling form, making the issue out in a simplified, easy to understand story, and one that utilizes a real-life situation, where you posed question and I'm answering it. That is using two examples to illustrate one theory.

    Applying one principle to two different ideas, however, is much different from applying two examples to one theory. If I applied one principle, say, the principle of "ethics" to the two different ideas of murder and piracy (I'm going to take on your side of piracy for this example, as it better illustrates my point. I'm not actually agreeing with what I'm going to say about piracy in the upcominng example), then the outcome would be something like this: "Ethically," murder and piracy are seperate, as murder causes inconsiderable damages to the victim, while piracy includes no real tangible loss.

    Do you see how the two are seperate?

    I think we meant "theory" and "principle" differently. lol, the English language is so confusing, with three or four definitions for the same words. These are the definitions that I was refering to when I meant both "theory" and "principle." Both definitions are copied from dictionary.com.

    Theory:

    A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regrded as reporting matters of actual fact.
    Synonyms: idea, notion, hypothosis.

    Principle:

    An accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: aperson of good moral principles. A guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.

    So when I say that my theory is in fact theory and not principle, I mean that it is a hypothosis, and not a moral obligation.

    According to my examples of two examples testing a theory rather then one principle testing two laws, I hold that I instead applied my theory to two different laws, and then tried to use that theory to say that because it worked on both, I think my theory is holding out. You don't have to believe it at all.

    I do and explained it, as you already read.

    Alright, you claim it is a fallacy that has been refuted every century since it's conception, can you show many any proof of this? Any links to scientific studies that state it as false and actually give legitimate proof to uphold their statemet? Can you cite real-life examples? Can you prove it in any way? If so, please do.

    You're welcome.

    Yes, I agree that my first post on justice did not refute your statement that justice does not exist. As for my making no sense applying justice to my theory, I think it makes perfect sense.
    In my theory, I state that people are fighting against punishment, believing it to be the real wrong. They do not believe that any of their actions are morally wrong, and therefore, do not warrant punishing. As far as justice goes, I state that justice is the exacting of punishment upon those who deserve it. I think the link between the two is pretty self-evident. If there is no such thing as justice, then there needs be no exacting it. If I wish for my argument for punishment to stand, then I need to establish that justice exists. So I think it makes sense.

    And how did I do that?

    I have not stated that law is evil, rather, I have now explained my choice of words twice, this being the third time. The law is not evil! It is an imperfect attempt at peace, and one of the better made attempts than most. It is sometimes faulty, and so is anything, nothing in this world is perfect. But it is not evil! When I used the phrase "neccesary evil", I meant that the law was an imperfect sytem neccesary for the betterment of society. Please stop saying I said law is evil.

    And when did I say this? It seems to me that I have explained time and time again that I wish for freedoms, and want more freedoms, and am much happier then I would be if freedoms were not in place. If you are referring to when I said that I do not believe un-checked murder to be an act of freedom, then you seriously misread my post, and I apologise for not being more clear.

    Actually, it has much to do with both your argument AND my opening post. In your argument, you have expressed openly that you believe me to be of the kind of person who wants there to be laws about every subject. You have accused me of wanting laws to be put in place about lying, insulting, being promiscous, and anooying me personally. I believe I have the right to defend myself against such accusations, and attempted to do so accordingly with this post about how I wish for balance. That's what it has to do with your argument. As for it applying to my opening theory, I think this post was warranted there too. You said that my theory disputes lawlessness, and must therefore condone constricting law. My theory proposes neither, and I felt the need to explain that. My theory promotes a balance, between the people and the system. It should have enough laws to ensure the safety and well-being of the people without having so many as to make the people wish for revolution. So I think my argument has to do with both your argument and my opening post.

    Again, you accused me of two things: Wishing for a constricting law, and having a theory which did the same. I attempted to refute both with my post, that's how it was a response.

    lol, if you didn't intend to abide by my decision to only apply my theory to existing laws, then why did you even bother to ask me to choose? I do not believe that applying my theory only to existing laws is making an exception for the convenience of my argument, rather, I think it's a very smart thing to do. If I apply my theory to non-existant laws, such as lying, it implies that I actually wish for lying to be made illegal. I do not wish for that at all, I wish for a balance between restraints and freedoms. I wish for things like murder and theft to be illegal, while things like lying and annoyance to be up to the individual to choose for themselves to do or not do as they see best.

    Seeing as how I don't even hold that position, I see no reason to argue for it. The position I hold is:

    If you deny an existing law, you deny the need for punishment when that law is broken.

    I don't pretend to think that to deny one law is to deny all, although I do believe that it can happen in rare cases. Usually, a person tries to pick and choose which laws they follow and which they deny (I am not promoting this practice, but it still exists). Some people, however few, do deny all law. That is not my position, however. My position is that people deny all need for enforcement.

    Oh, you were stating my opinions in your own words as an example of the faults in my theory. lol, you have confused me with this style as well. In the future, perhaps you should try to make it clear when you're doing this; it will make your arguments much easier to follow and reduce the amount of times people think you're being inconsistent.

    The difference is this: I believe that piracy and prostitution cause tangible loss and physical harm to others, while lying and insulting others do not. I believe they are each of them morally wrong, yes, but I also believe that laws should not be based on morality only, but also on the amount of harm caused by the actions. Therefore, I am not using the law to determine morality, but I am using damages caused by actions to dtermine what should be laws, leaving morality out of the picture.

    Alright, let me try to be more clear. Justice, the word, by itself, can mean many things. It means the exacting of punishment due to a crime done by the guilty, ideally, a punishment that is in relative proximity to the action done. So, justice exists in the form of consequence, even if the consequence makes some people angry or uncomfortable. It means the abilty to do business with another, and have the proccess be fair and well-protected, so that both parties gain in the transaction, and one cannot double cross the other. So, justice exists in the succesful completion of any business transaction, provided that both parties gained (or at least didn't lose) anything, and one did not double cross the other. It means the well-being and protection of the people, ensuring that they are treated fairly in regards to law and individual interactions, without having to worry about walking down a dark alley OR applying for a loan at the bank. So, justice exists wherever people are happy and secure, living in relative safety and financial comfort.

    Justice does exist, if not in one form, then another, justice is not merely an idea based on feelings of hate and revenge. Now, I'm not saying that all of the above are true in all situations, in fact, I'm not even saying that justice is around in our society today, but I'm saying that it has existed, it exists somewhere, and it can exist again if the conditions are right. Is this a sufficient argument, or shall I try again?

    True, very true, I agree whole-heartedly, with one small insertion: The law exists, but is not always just, as everyone has differing veiws of what is deserved punishment, even by my standards.

    Certainly, although I don't believe that getting the stolen money back from the thief would be classified as "stealing", as the money does not belong to the thief.
    If a man steals money from his neighbor, and the police find him and all they do is take the money back, the man will likely just turn and steal again. Unless "acceptable" behavior is praised and "unacceptable" behavior is punished, then society just becomes full of people who continue to do what has been deemed "unacceptable" until they manage to get away with it.

    Take, for example, the popular kid's show, Dora the Explorer. Every episode, Swiper the Fox comes and tries to swipe Dora's personal property. Sometimes he gets stopped before it happens, sometimes Dora has to chase him down and retrieve the stolen property. In every episode, however, he gets away. If he were caught and punished for his actions, he would be less likely to repeat them. Now, I know this is just a preschool cartoon, but my point still stands. If a criminal is allowed to get away with doing the crime, there is nothing to stop him from repeating that crime. So, while I believe in attempting to make the punishment just (I refer you back to my explanation of justice to see what I mean by that), I still believe that it is not enough to expect the man to change on his own.

    I also believe that they are linked as follows: The woman can not recieve her stolen property until it is sufficiently obtained from the thief, that is what I mean by you can't have recovery without justice, as justice (I again refer you to my explanation above) is the fair transaction of property with both parties coming out better or at least no worse then they started. The man did not treat the woman fairly, therefore, it is unjust to let him keep the money he stole. The second link is this: The man can not recieve sufficient justice until he has been punished for his crime. The man stole from the woman, and as justice is the exacting of punishment upon those who commited a crime, there cannot be justice without the thief receiving some sort of consequence for his actions. This is how they are the three of them linked. You can't have recovery without justice, and you can't have justice without punishment.

    Likewise, you are repeatedly stating that things are seperate, giving no follow-up arguments to explain why you say such things. Is this also folly?

    First, I do not wish to believe that at all, rather, I believe that denying one existing law is denying any grounds for punishment that law might condone.
    Second, I was choosing not to argue those specific cases or "exceptions" because I believed they were not relevent to my argument, however, you have stated that this hurts my case, so I no longer refuse. Be warned, though, that I can be extremely stubborn, and rarely believe in something without cause or reason, so don't underestimate my abilty to debate simpy because I chose not to fro the beginning.
    Third, I just want to say that you really changed my mind by appealing to my being illogical. If there was ever an insult I hate to hear, it is that I am not using logic. lol, it's irritating to the point of fault, really.

    Then let us begin arguing laws on an individual basis; I wish for my theory to be as valid as humanly possible.

    Alright, with you so far...

    Yup, it's true, the action itself is not morally wrong, and the child knows it. But you're wrong when you say that my argument is that the child thinks it is not a crime, my argument was on something completely different, the mindset of the child when faced with punishment.

    Not I. The child is right, drawing on the walls is not morally wrong.

    He is right about both. Staying up too late is also not morally wrong.

    My position has nothing to do with this, my position is that the child believes he has been punished unjustly. And where did I state that I find the parent to be in the right? Please, read through my posts and find where I stated this, and quote it when you post next, I really would like to see where i made such a statement. If anyone, you were the one who stated that the parent was in the right, when you said this:

    And this:

    I did not state that the mother was in the right, you did.

    Thanx, I try to impress my veiwers. XD

    Really? I thought I was making the generalization of law, and you were the one forcing me to take each one on individually.

    Again, I thought I was the one using a significant portion of data on the whole while you were trying to get me to focus on an individual case that seemed to refute my particular position.

    Although I admit I was not using sufficient statistics, and I led to a few conclusions, and I was pretty hasty, AND I don't know what the other words mean, again, it seemed to me that you were the one basing my broad conclusion of "People don't want to be punished" on the small sample of "Piracy doesn't deserve punishing".

    Once again, i was the one who made the (hopefully) accurate generalization, while you were the one adding on qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remained of my theory was much less impressive than my iitial statement of "People don't want to be punished".

    Guilty as charged. I admit, my theory needs a lot of work, but hey, no theory ever started out perfect.

    Hmm. It seems to me that I was the one opting for balance between law and freedom, while you claimed that I was against lawlessness, therefore must be for constricting law. You were the one giving only two options, not I.

    Again, I plead guilty to the accusation. I admittedly stated my theory and all my arguments for that theory without sufficient explanation as to why I believed what I stated. I apologize, and have been trying to expound further with my post this time around than I did before.

    I'm sorry, I thought when I left piracy out of the discussion I made it very clear that I believed it to be irrelevent to the matter at hand.

    You mean like saying that I must be for constricting law since I obviously don't believe in the opposite? Or like saying that I stated the parent was right in my example of a child doing an act of disobedience? Or perhaps you meant when you accused me of saying that law is evil. Is this what you mean when you say the Straw man fallacy?

    Precisely. Laws mean enforcement, which is why I have such a hard time understanding why the small child refuses to simply accept his punishment, pay for the damages, and give up fun. Instead, I see him whine, and complain, and argue, and fight that he doesn't deserve to be punished, as drawing on the walls is not morally wrong anyway. Laws mean enforcement, or else they are just preferences, and the mother just prefers that her son not draw on the walls. Rules do not exist unless spoken and exercised.

    Yes, I see. I guess what I should have said was this: "I am not arguing about the moral attributes of wether or not the enforcement is justified, I am arguing the issue of the mindset of the people when it comes to enforcement."

    No, you made your point, and I agree with it. Law and enforcement are both about the same thing.

    Like I said, bring on the specific laws if you feel they need to be addressed.

    Sorry.

    Let's see... the question was "Who proposes these ideas that you think there is someone out there who denies all laws?" The answer, Makaze, is you. Each one of the quotes that I posted were from posts of yours, stating that you dissagree with the law, or believe the law to be wrong, or dislike the idea of law altogether. That is where I got the idea that someone out there denies all laws.

    How can you refer to something previously mentioned, specifically something you hadn't? That doesn't make any sense.

    I have assumed nothing of the sort. On the contrary, I have stated several times that I believe law to be neccesary to protect my rights and safety. You were the one saying things like
    If a law exists, someone somewhere is getting beaten up over breaking it.
    And
    "If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law." ~ Edward Abbey

    Again, I am falsly accused. I proposed your position as if you don't believe that laws are a sufficient grounds for punishment.

    Yes, that is precisely what I meant when I said that Law is a neccesary evil. That I am not against laws in whole, but that the laws we have today are imperfect because they are made by people who are only human.

    Again, I am not the one making statements like
    I am bound by nothing but my own conscience. As are you. As is everyone else in the majority. Society exists only as a concept. In reality there are only individuals. Work out how those individuals should treat each other and ignore the concept that does not exist otherwise. You hold that I am bound because the law gets enforced, nothing more.

    Yes, by "law" I am usually referring to today's law, not every kind of law in the world. If I use it differently, I will try to make sure you know of the change. I'm sorry for the confusion, I guess I should learn to clarify the words I use before I uses them.

    "I'm assuming that's a joke. I'm ignoring you for time reasons." ~Wilbur Robinson

    Alright. Bring on the examples so I can pick them apart for you.

    Well, I hope I did a better job of explaining myself this time.

    I'm sorry for doing so, it was unintentional.

    ... Unfortunate means that the situation is undesirable and saddening. I know fortune has nothing to do with it.

    When I said words to this effect, you accused me of holding a double standard. What is the difference between my saying it and your saying it?

    Again, I said this too. And again, you accused me of holding a double standard and even hypocrisy. Please explain why this applies only to me if you say the same things.

    No, I don't believe it is as simple. If a third party does not step in, then you soon have people complaining that nothing is being done to protect their rights, and from there they go to protest and revolt, hoping to make a change. What results is mobs and riots of violent people who don't feel protected, and then the police come for "mob control", which also results in violence. If you take that into account, the one individual made to follow rules becomes a lot less violent then the mob looking for a change.

    Because if all you have to go by are "ethics", then the day will come when it is "ethically" acceptable for almost any kind of action, for example, murder. The day will come when it is perfectly alright for someone to murder someone "ethically", and then where will the world be?

    No, you do not need to remind me. I know. And no, questioning one law does not automatically mean that one questions all others by my definition.

    First, I said that law (in this case, meaning law on the whole), was a neccesary evil, I didn't mean the law of today, although the same classification applies. As for contradicting my theory, I don't think rebelling against an anti-christianity law would disprove my theory of people hating punishment. Instead, I think it would help to prove my theory.

    Again, sorry for this mistake, I understand now.

    What I said was this:
    I believe it's time for a change for the better. However, I don't think that "the better" involves an absence of law.
    By "the better", I was referring to when I said that it was time to change for the better. I wasn't saying that you had said it was better.

    Yup. People will never be ready for an absence of law.

    I'm sorry, I don't understand this. I've been typing out this thread for about six hours now and it's 10:30 where I live. I'm too tired to argue much right now.

    Yeah, it's obvious.

    Yup. So bring it on.
     
  11. Princess Celestia Supreme Co-Ruler of Equestria

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    166
    I can't believe you two are still going at this... *Facepalm*

    Marushi: Makaze's argument is a fortress. A literal fortress. Debates do not equal real life. Just keep reading.

    Makaze: Your theory is absolutely correct... in theory. But I've never seen a high population of people each capable of carrying weapons which can kill in an instant work without violence of any sort. Nor could I imagine it working so. The law is a deterrent of "bad". Based on -all- your arguments, I believe we can both agree that violence is "bad." I do believe that the law itself prevents violence. Without delving into the complications of nonviolent crimes in this discussion, I do believe that in modern society, if laws were out of existence, violence would go up. There would be a large population of selfish people who would commit atrocious acts in order to serve their own needs. The result? Street justice! People would retaliate with acts of violence of their own. The result? The same as now, except no trial, and more death.
     
  12. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Please read the text below this before opening the spoiler, as it may change your need to respond to me entirely.
    It doesn't have notepad? That is what I am using.
    They do not know these things, they are built to feel a certain way about a certain stimulus. Like how when you touch fire, you feel pain. Does that make touching fire wrong? I would not say so; it just forces you to react to the situation in a certain way. Whether this way has meaning or not is completely up to you, as is the meaning that it has for you.

    I can simultaneously hold that right and wrong do not exist outside of mind and that they do exist for me. What I want is right, and what I do not want is wrong. Is this true according to the universe? No, because if I were not here, those rights and wrongs would not exist. The same is true of all people. If no people existed, right and wrong would not exist. Even on the conscience level, no consciences would exist without people to have them. If something does not exist without people, then it does not exist at all other than as a concept in our minds.

    Someone who can murder without a second thought is not better than someone who cannot according to the universe, because it has no conscience. If those people were the only things that existed in the universe, then they would both exist, and the universe did not say that one was right and one was wrong. The people themselves did.

    I have preferences, things that I want. I want the best for everyone. Am I right to do this? That is up to me, it has no objective meaning. It means something because I say it does, and nothing more. And that is good enough for me.

    Furthermore, some children are born without consciences. Sociopaths are often lacking the function of guilt in the brain from a young age, similar to or caused by brain damage. Why are they more wrong than you, aside from your saying that they are?
    Someone with their own set of laws? Just because one law is ridiculous does not mean that all of them will be. The core laws stay the same in pretty much every system, that does not make it a good set. It is the extra ones that extend beyond banning violence that get ridiculous and decide whether a system is worth keeping. If al systems say that murder is wrong, but one says that wearing red shoes is wrong and the others think it is fine, you would still argue that the red shoes law is good because you agree with the murder law and you live in that country according to the way you have been speaking. Objectively, one that says that wearing red shoes is fine is better, but you seem to think that because yours still has the murder law, which you feel strongly about, it is morally righteous and it would be wrong to rebel against it.

    And you still might find fault with the punishment for murder, so while you believe that people should not murder and that such a law is a good idea, you might not agree with the exact laws against it that exist today. You fall under someone who likes to think that every law is a good thing with very few exceptions but does not think about it at great length because you think it is wrong to contradict it and rebel against it.
    How does that follow? If nothing is wrong, then there is no problem, including punishment. You are not making any sense. There is no crime if there is no wrong.

    All laws in violence. I prefer to avoid violence where it will not benefit all parties involved in a situation. Nowhere have I said that punishment is a problem. If I said that all violence is a problem, which is closer to what I have been saying, then you begin to make some sense, but then I would have a problem with all violence no matter who is doing it. When someone kills me for any reason, it is a problem, whether they did it in the name of the law or not. When I kill someone, it is a problem regardless of why I did it. That is pacifism. A little more coherent than anything that you are saying.

    You are twisting my words, and badly. No one will make the link that you did because it makes no sense. All laws in violence, and nothing is wrong. Therefore punishment is wrong? By that logic, nothing is punishment; substitute it in. I am not following.

    1. Law ends in violence.
    2. Nothing is wrong.
    (Your assertion, based on 1 and 2)
    3. Punishment is wrong.
    {Logical conclusion, based on 2 and 3}
    4. Nothing is punishment.

    Because both nothing and punishment are wrong, then nothing and punishment are interchangeable. It makes no sense to make this assertion if you believe that punishment exists, which I think we both do.
    On the contrary, I am not enforcing my views on you, but you are willing to enforce your views on me. You would vote for a law against piracy or see that it got enforced if you could. This is forcing your views on me, literally. The fact that you are willing to harm me over it but not discuss it does not change this position. I will not attack you with anything other than words over piracy, but you might attack me quite literally with the police over it.

    You have stated that you disagree but in all cases have failed to explain why. You just disagree and do not want to talk about it anymore. When it came down topert it, you started defending the law again instead of arguing about the harm caused. I presented the harm caused by intellectual proporty and presented numbers and examples that illustrated this point. You just said that you disagreed. Because I have presented reasoning, it is not a matter of opinion but a question of a logical conclusion, and you have failed to uphold your side of the deal and instead opted to claim that you respect my position as an opinion while you would still enforce a law against it. You are willing to harm me over what you called a matter of opinion, so I see little reason to accept either your claim that you respect my position or that you do not want to force your opinions onto others. If you would like to keep these laws in place or would try to get them in place if they did not exist, then you are forcing them onto me, as that is what laws mean; enforcing.
    I did not say that all attacks were bad for all parties, and I said that I favor ethics such that all actions must benefit all parties. All laws attack me, but some laws that attack me do what is best for all parties. You might say that they are justified, but I would say that they please me and many others.

    There is no contradiction. I have said that all laws attack me, but I have said nothing stating that I am against all attacks. Really...
    That is correct. It is your personal preference that it is. The thing is that when I kill someone, you will probably agree with me that he deserved to be dead. Your example presupposes that I would kill for something arbitrary. I will kill people if I feel that they are a constant and otherwise unavoidable threat to ethics or my person, or have no other alternative. This is because I want to. It is the same with you, or any other person. Everyone acts as they want to. When I kill someone, I will do it because I believe that I have no other choice. I would rather get off free in such a situation because it had become the only ethical choice of action. I would, in my mind, feel 'justified', and have no regrets. You would do the same, but you have not thought about it much or you would easily agree with me. When you are forced to kill someone, you should not be charged for it. I hold this easily on a personal level, not that it is right for everybody, but that it is right for me. If you agree, then I am happy, but that does not mean that it means something. It is still just you and me and nothing else.
    Oh, good, then you think that I should be payed back for taxation and things like that. Glad we agree.
    You fooled yourself, darling. You seem set on believing that I cannot be a good person and against morality, so you try to demonize me and portray me as if I am not for enforcing anything. You want to believe that I am all bad, so you make me out to be.
    That is all meaningless. Whether every person lives or every person dies, the world keeps on turning. One is not better than the other because one person will say that it is better if all die and one will say it is better if none do. More, if neither of those people were there, no one would say or think anything about it, so there would be no meaning behind it.

    Your life has meaning because you give it meaning, but only you and other people think so. It is up to you to accept that you have to give yourself meaning, and that nothing else will do it for you, no moral code, no other person or being. That your meaning is of your creation, you do things that mean something to you, and that is the 'purpose' of living. The question is, what is the best way to please yourself? There is a lot of stigmatization on selfishness and hedonism, but when it comes down to it, you help other people because you like to, and you do good by others because you want them to do good to you, and it all works more or less perfectly with you feeling that your life has meaning. The feeling should be good enough for you, but you need to remember, especially when thinking ethically, that no one deserves to be punished. What they did might be wrong to you, but you should only punish them if it will help things, not because they deserve it or you are angry. Think logically instead of with meaning when you are thinking about how to do with troublemaking.
    And they were about the same thing: returning physical property. Though whether or not someone can own a living thing is debatable, these are the same example, save the object in question. It is one example that reads thus: "A woman writes a book where person A finds object X and brings it back to the owner." There is no difference between the two examples, though you have changed the names used for A and X in each of them.
    You cannot use an example to illustrate a theory, that is the point. A theory is a general idea that is based on a large sample of data, and it cannot be illustrated but explained, using the definition you quoted below. A principle can be illustrated because it is real, and it exists between people. A theory is an observation, an over-arching theme that is based on multiple rules or principles and the correlations between them. No one example can show you a theory, because a theory is much larger than that and it cannot be proven or illustrated by itself. Evolution is a very famous example of a theory. Many small examples of rules or principles in an organism's development allow us to theorize about the beginning of man, but we cannot give examples for it, only the minute details that point to the theory. Theories are never complete and you cannot apply a theory to an example because it is not accepted as true yet. What you can do is apply a principle or rule to an example and see if it solves the equation. If it does, then it might support your theory, but you applied the concrete rule to see if it would work out and not the conceptual theory. You cannot work out a theory when applied to an example because theories are by definition shaky and incomplete, not proven. You will get shaky answers if you do not use concrete principles in your examples.
    They are separate because they are different actions, that is obvious. They are separate inside and outside of ethics. You have not specified what this separation means within ethics. Let me clarify, since you did not bother to.

    Murder violates the property of someone else and causes loss to both them, their family, and the people that they worked with, cutting off all of their ability to trade against their will. Because nearly every party suffers as a result of murder, it is not ethically sound and is one of the least ethical actions one can take. Piracy benefits the pirate and not the artist, with no alterior side affects. Thus, it is ethically sound. It does not benefit all parties, but it does not harm any parties, either. Why it is more ethical to give the artist money, this would be true if you had not downloaded his work as well. According to ethics, if you can give money away to benefit the greatest number, then you should, regardless of the art that they do. The reason why I am more or less 'okay' with piracy is because enforcing a law against it is far less ethical than not paying the artist for sharing his idea. The amount of harm visited upon people because of such a law makes that law less ethical than a violation of it would be. This is not the same with murder, because in most cases, taking care of a murderer in a variety of ways will tangibly benefit everyone that he interacts with. If you hit, jail, bring life-ruining debt to or otherwise harm a pirate, you make him more of a threat to more people than he would have been otherwise, and you harm him while doing it. Enforcing such a law profits the artists, the record companies and the people who enforce it, but they are not the only people that you should take into account if you are counting ethics into your equations.
    I do, in a variety of ways, but I do not think that you did. See my explanation above. If you mean explaining a principle instead of a theory, then yes, I see, but again, I explained this above, and your example has nothing to do with that difference. I use the principle of ethics, and you use the principle of a dichotomy. Let me illustrate this.

    If I applied one principle, say, the principle of "if you deny one law you deny all law" to the two different ideas of murder and piracy, then the outcome would be something like this: "According to the princple," murder and piracy are not separate, as murder and piracy are both laws.

    I see no way to express this using a theory, because this principle covers everything and you have only given an example of a principle, namely ethics, and not an example of how you would apply a theory.
    A principle is not neseccarily a moral obligation as a sense of requirement or rightness. Rightness is not always moral, as the principles behind mathematics are not moral but they are considered right or correct concepts by nearly all people. They use morality here, but that is not all that principles are used for. You apply a principle in a proof in mathematics, and not a theory, which is why I insist that that is what you are doing here. You cannot apply a theory in mathematics or you will get inconsistent answers, and if you cannot find the truth of a matter mathetically, then there is no point in debating it to me.
    In which case you make no sense for the aforementioned reasons. You have neither applied a theory nor given an example in which you applied a theory, you have merely stated that you have done so. I am reading over your posts and see nothing even remotely like a theory other than your conclusion, which is that I of all people deny all laws.
    Repetition...
    I can link you to Wikipedia again if you want, but that seems redundant to me. In which case you are shifting the burden of proof but denying evidence to the contrary... I can cite most lives on the planet as examples of why this is a fallacy. Your own is included. A vast majority or people do not fall down a slippery slope even though they commit what others would call wrongs in their lives. More importantly, the vast people who believe that one thing you consider wrong is just fine do not go on to do worse things. We have a lot of liars, a lot of cheaters, a lot of frauds, a lot of theives, a lot of mean people, and a whole lot of drug users, but very, very few violent criminals in comparison to these, and even fewer murderers among those. It is hard to cite a study of things that are not there, but I have never known someone who had not committed a crime that they considered fine before hearing it was a crime, and I do not see these people falling down a slippery slope. If you are not falling down one naturally, then why should other people do it naturally? You have no reason to think so other than a sort of demonization of not just wrongs, as you seem to be fine with general wrongs and will not enforce them, but wrongs that have been banned by law.


    Slightly irrelevant, but... If you do not see something as wrong and then find out that it is against the law, you will decided that it was wrong all along, if your general pattern is to be followed. Is it then added to the slippery slope, even though the only thing making it wrong is the law against it? Why or why not?

    There is also the point that many laws that exist where you live do not exist elsewhere, and the violent crime rates are the same if not lower in those places. I would cite examples, but it should do to state that the US has the largest number of inmates per capita of any country in history.

    I shift the burden of proof back to you, and wish to see something showing close to or over thirty percent of people in a given area falling down a slippery slope because of lax laws. It has to have happened sometime, right? You are asking me to prove that something does not exist, while it is easier for you to prove that it does. If I have to cite examples on my side, then you should have to on yours, instead of these 'theories'. I recommend thinking about the proof behind your own argument before asking for proof behind the other's.

    Also, while it is of course true that some people have committed petty crimes and committed worse crimes later, those including murder, the number of people that do this even among criminals is so low that arguing that the petty crime made him more likely to commit worse crimes is fallacious because it is not a predominant pattern among criminals (it does not show in a majority of criminals), let alone all people who do wrong. If specific crimes lead to other crimes, then you have yet to make this case and instead have argued that all crimes lead to other crimes.
    Your language makes no sense because you refuse to define this part in bold here. Justice is punishing people who deserve it, but what does that mean? What is deserved varies widely from death to nothing depending on who you ask. You cannot claim that justice exists because people get what they deserve, because you cannot prove that they deserve it. It is a matter of opinion, and you cannot establish an opinion in support of a logical argument; you have to use fact.

    You have stated that justice exists, but this is the same as establishing it. In order to establish it you have to refute my argument that it does not exist, because an argument beats a statement every single time.
    Let me quote you on it.
    You used language that supports the system you live in rather than arguing about law as a concept. This talk of balance is half-hearted because you neither state that you wish to repeal laws or put in new ones, rather, you stated that you support neither. This is called protecting the status quo, avoiding change for any reason despite reasoning to the contrary; the current thing may not be perfect, but you do not want to change things anyway.
    Let me get this straight... Any consistent enforcement of ideas on one person by another is an attempt at peace? Why do you say that? And what attempt has been made other than by law?

    The law is not a system. There are systems of law, but law itself is a concept. It has no meaning. Any idea or preference that I consistently enforce on other people is a law that I have made. It does not have to be anything, so I see no reason to accept any instance of it as an attempt at peace.

    If you wish to change your argument such that it supports a specific system of law, which changes everything about your theory, then your argument instead becomes "if you deny one law in this system, you deny all law". This does not follow. If you were to be more consistent, it would be "if you deny one law in this system, you deny all laws in this system", which does not leave me denying all laws, just the ones in this system. I could still live by own laws in or on my own land and be a decent person according to this principal.

    That is the principle. Your theory is, to my understanding, that if you consider a crime morally fine, then you will find all crimes morally fine. Restated, it becomes "if you consider a crime in this system morally fine, then you will find all crimes morally fine." If I made it more consistent again, it would still apply under the principle that I could fine other crimes morally wrong if I do not adhere to this system. Does that sound accurate to you?
    Oh, you said that? I agree, murder is not an act of freedom, checked or otherwise. Your 'freedom' ends when it constricts on another's. Equal opportunity, and all of that. At the most basic level, I hold that all people own themselves, and that they own their property completely; you may not tamper with it without the express consent of the owner. When you say that law is a necessary evil, you are saying that both law and freedom are evil, but that a compromise will make them less evil. I argue that they are not evil and they are not opposing forces. You need consistent ethical laws in order to be free, from either theives, rapists, violent people or murderers. However, people like to use rhetoric to remove the two and oppose them. We need to constrict freedom in order to protect it, which makes no sense. If you restrict on someone's freedom, that is ethically wrong. The only reason why you would need to that even in the name of defense is if someone was already restricting your freedoms. Otherwise, restricting freedom for any reason is an initiation of aggression, and for that I do not stand.
    Indeed, according to your principle, you believe that. According to it, you believe that every moral wrong should be illegal, lest people fall down a slippery slope. I have already gone over this clearly, but let me break it down again. First, let us assume that everything already is a law. That should help you. Let us use a law against lying, since I like that one.

    Lying is illegal. The solution? Make it legal.

    Lying is now legal because I wanted to bring about the solution. This has likely happened in history, though I cannot cite it. Maybe a law in some town or something.

    Principle: If you deny one law, you deny all laws.[/i]

    Murder is also illegal. Because I wanted lying to be legal, I want murder to be legal too, according to the principle.

    This argument is used to protect existing laws. However, why should you stop at laws that exist now? Imagine that every single thing had a law against it back in the day. At the dawn of time, someone proposed your argument. Somehow, we came to the laws that we have today, and not everything is outlawed. Did the people who repealed all those laws deny all law, or even come close to doing that? I don't think so.

    You have no legitimate reason to use the system that you live in and more importantly the current laws in the system that you live in over a system where everything is illegal. Because of your 'theory' and position against all law breaking, logic forces me to conclude that you support every single law that has ever existed or will exist, or you support the creation of all laws that could exist.

    However, you have stated that you simply wish to protect the laws that we have now that you do not wish to make a law about everything or repeal a law about anything. This contradicts your principle, and the defense rests because of this.
    I accused your principle of that. Let me make what I am actually doing in the greater scheme of things more clear. I am making you drop your original argument and state your true position which is a moral standpoint that cannot be defended aside from saying that you believe it. I am showing you very slowly just how much you will have to edit your original argument to make it fit what you actually believe, thus making it a useless argumnet in the process. You oversimplified to an unbelievable extreme and I am making you take that back, one step at at a time.

    See above for where you denied your own principle. You attempted to refute it, and what you did is this: you expressed a principal and then told us what you believe. These are two very different things and they do not follow logically, so your principle needs some serious editing if I am supposed to arrive at your beliefs based on it.
    Exactly. It is smart because it is convenient for you. You need to amend your principle to match this decision, or else you are making very large exceptions to fit your personal beliefs while still claiming that your original theory is valid. Your preference for a balance and your theory contradict for the reasons stated above.
    Your position in bold is axiomatic and irrelevent, as it does not state anything other than if you deny a law, you the need for a deny that law. Your paragraph below it, however, clearly states that picking and choosing which laws you deny is a bad practice. In choosing existing laws where you live, you are picking and choosing laws. You clearly promote this practice as you are an example of it.

    Your position is that other people deny all need for enforcement, but this is false. When I want something or need something, and I enforce that need, I hold that my having it needs to be enforced. So I enforce it, perhaps on you, by stealing your food. Finding someone who sees no need to enforce anything is the same as finding someone who does nothing to interact with other people in any way.
    It should have been obvious, but I can understand why you thought I was speaking for myself; you keep wanting to believe that I deny all laws, so when I say something about it, you assume it is me saying it about myself.
    Cause tangible loss through forcible trade, that is important. When I burn money, I cause a tangible loss. If you give me money and I burn it, I have caused you a tangible loss. If I take your money without asking and you have less than when you started, I have caused you a tangible loss through forcible trade, and that is where ethics and the law would come in.

    You have not explained why either piracy or prostitution cause tangible loss, and your belief that they do is not enough to make a law on it. If you cannot make an objective argument from ethics, then I will win by default, as I have provided reasoning to the contrary and you have argued back aside from stating that you believe differently.

    You say that you base it on harm but have been unable to explain said harm or refused to do so aside from claiming that it exists. While you are not using the law to determine reality, it seems that if something is against the law, you will assume that it must cause harm, and that is enough reason to believe that it does. Your argument states that these are against the law and that these cause harm, but nothing else. Without something else, I will assume that they are linked that you think they cause harm simply because they are illegal, which makes little sense to me.
    Let me give you something. You annoy me, I kill you. That is the consequence for annoying me. What makes your definition of deserved consequence better than mine?

    Taxation is a good example of the flaw in your reasoning outside of which is better. It seems that you think taxes deserving, but according to my conjecture earlier, I did not agree to anything. What contract are they protecting? They forced a service onto me and demanded payment, made it into a law.

    It means those things to you, but that does not mean that it exists. Without you or likeminded people to think of it like you do, it would not be here, so it does not exist.
    You have stated that it is not, again, and you have specified what you think is just, but you still have not reasoned out why it exists outside of your mind. You cannot tell me what you think it is and then say that it exists because of what it is. I can tell you what a unicorn is, but that does not mean that it exists. I have to reason out why it would be here if I and others who believed in it were not there to tell you about it. If I cannot do this, then it does not exist.

    In other words, it is not sufficient, and you shall try again.
    Indeed! So your entire argument becomes invalid. If something depends on who is saying it, then it does not exist outside of their minds. Otherwise everyone could observe it like some object and come to the same exact conclusion about it almost every time. It exists as a concept, but it is not even a concrete concept because it varies from time to time and place to place.
    It would be stealing, technically, but I agree.
    Why is that? He did not get to keep the money, and he had to pay extra for the time lost and damages made. He lost money. If the police are good at their job, then he will think it ineffective to try stealing. Most people who get caught do not try it again. More coherent is the argument that you need to scare others into not doing it. In that case, you should not harm someone that you caught because you are bad at catching everyone else; you are punishing him for their crimes.

    Punish unnacceptable behavior by not associating with people that you dislike. It is the best way to take care of things.
    Your point does not stand. A fictional portrayal of a fox is not a valid representation of a real person. A criminal who does not profit from crime has the useless of his actions to stop him from repeating the crime. It would be a waste of time that caused him a lot of stress and court hearings, even if all he had to do was pay the money back and so on. It would be useless to go to all the trouble if he had to pay for the time lost and damages on top of going to court hearings. Make the crime a profitless pursuit and you will stop the crime.

    Getting away with a crime is getting to keep the money. No one steals and thinks they succeeded if the money is returned unless they do it for thrill seeking. If the criminal does not feel that he has succeeded, then what makes you think that he has?

    Swiper stole things just to steal. The vast majority of theives do not do this. The fact that you even tried to compare a character whose one trait is stealing to a person is astounding.
    It sounds like you are changing justice in for ethics. Noble, but not acceptable. And it is flawed. Someone may have less than when they started, in the case of giving, and it may be called a just transaction by you even thought it contradicts the idea that both parties should profit or come out at no worse. One gained and another lost in a gift transaction. What matters is whether or not both parties were okay with it. There is no objective standard for just and fair. The only thing that makes any transaction 'fair' is if both parties agree to the trade, so it is different with each trade.

    You can commit recovery without justice, as justice is not necessarily linked to ethics. Ethics are not just or right, I just prefer them more than anything else. You can also commit a recovery without punishment, as described in the case of the theif.

    Your logic is as follows.

    1. Justice is fair transaction and protection of such.
    2. Justice is punishment.

    Here you already have a problem. Punishment is never fair, it is called punishment because after you balance the equation, or you take an eye back, you take his other one. That is punishment as most people use it, vengeance, or going above and beyond recovering a loss to make sure that they never do it again. Because it is not fair or even, the first two statements contradict each other. Moving on.

    3. The man cannot receive sufficient justice until he has been punished.

    Which justice are we talking about, now? One of them says that the woman should get her money back, making the trade fair again. She gets back everything that was taken, that is a fair trade. His being punished makes no sense if you are aiming for a fair trade, so your two definitions of justice are conflicting. It does not follow that he should be punished once the money is returned, because the trade is fair already, and her items have been protected. What does justice mean now, then? Concluding.

    4. You cannot recover a loss without punishing someone.

    I cannot take my money back without hitting you in the face for it. Got it.
    I have been giving follow up argument after follow up argument, building on each post as I go. If you feel that I have not given an argument for something, then point it out to me. Otherwise, I will assume that my arguments are complete.
    This is obvious, it did not need to be stated. It is not even a theory, it is an axiomatic. If you deny something, then you deny everything about that one thing. It is itself. "Denying a the enforcement of a law is denying the enforcement of that law" is not a good basis for a thread.
    I underestimate your reasons more than your ability to explain them, darling. If I understimate you at all.
    It is an easy thing to do when it is true. If you got offended then there was probably some truth behind the statement. Apply that generally.
    Oh, you must have understand. I have been explaining this thoroughly, but let me make you understand. If your theory (I say principle) is "denying one existing law is denying any grounds for punishment that law might condone" then the debate becomes meaningless.

    Logic comes in here. If we go back to your point of "the solution to enforcement is to stop enforcing" and you counter this position, then you must take the opposing view, which would be "the solution to a lack of enforcement is to start enforcing". If you deny both the opposing statement and its opposite, then why exactly are we speaking? It makes no sense to debate a position that neither side holds.
    I have been proving again and again that they are one and the same. The child's mindset regarding the crime and the punishment are the exact same thing. When the child gets punished, the parents says that he committed a crime. His reaction is to the crime, because without enforcement, the crime does not exist.

    The rule creates the crime, and without the rule there is no punishment. The child's mindset is not towards the punishment, but towards the rule. Everyone has a concept of what is fair. While the child does not like being punished, he will put up with it if he feels guilty. When a child reacts to punishment, he does not separate punishment from crime, and when a child rejects a punishment it is because he feels no guilt and is still being hurt, not because he simply wants to avoid being hurt. Your argument seems to be that the child both feels guilty and will try to get out of punishment. This is not the case. He may try to come to a compromise on the punishment depending on how guilty he feels, but he will not evade all punishment if he feels guilty. He may even come forward about the crime himself. This is true of all children that I have known, including myself.

    I have not said that the child knows anything of the sort. He has a sense of what he thinks he deserves. That is all. Children do not know that writing on walls is not wrong.

    Oh, did you mean the parent? I just realize. The child still knows nothing of the sort. The child still has a sense of what he thinks he deserves for his crimes. He does not know that the parent is not wrong. It has nothing do with morality, but how guilty he is feeling.

    You cannot know that anything is morally wrong because morality depends on the person. We have been over this many times.
    Oh, okay. No harm in refuting both, I guess...
    You personally believe that, but I was not using morals in this example. You cannot be right about morals. I was using ethics. We was acting unethically by writing on the walls but not in staying up late. When in doubt, I am not using morality unless explicitly stated.
    I figured it was implied, since all of your previous arguments favor the rulemaker over the rulebreaker. Even if a rule is unjust, you believe that the child should follow it. This shows you do not think the child is in the right. If he were, he could break the rule as he wanted and would have reason be aghast when a hand was raised against him. Is this the case? Are you changing your position completely to favor me? Because the child surely caused more damage to the parent's walls than a pirate does to his artists. If your position is no longer against all law breaking, then I think we are done arguing.
    Welcome.
    That is correct. I brought up individual exceptions and you ignored them and simply stated that you believe they are not exceptions without further expalanation of this belief. Perhaps you got caught up in the wording, but you had to roles right.
    Here you are half right, but this applies to you as well. You ignore my exceptions while picking out special laws that fit your model. You made a generalization and used specific laws as examples of why all laws deserve to be respected. You also ignored the exceptions that I brought up. It satisfies both models. I could bring up many more examples, but it would take a lot of time and we spend enough time on these posts already. We can move on when we get past the ones that I have pointed out.

    Let me illustrate it a bit more. You have stated three laws in your opening post, and out of all of the laws that I could have used, I used two to start with. You both ignored these and claimed that your three were valid. My two and your three make both of these fallacies apply.
    This is somewhat incoherent, could you restate it? I do not remember doing such a thing, as that sentence does not make sense. I did not base your argument on anything but itself. I used piracy as an exception, not as a basis for your broad conclusion.

    If your conclusion is that people don't want to experience pain, then I agree, but I see no reason to state this. Why make a thread about something as obvious at that people wish to avoid pain? You point has to go beyond that.

    Piracy is a good example because I am not against it for my own welfare or trying to avoid pain. I have never been charged with it I probably will not be charged with it, I do not feel personally threatened by anti-piracy laws. It is a threat, like anyone's spoken wish to do me harm is a threat, but it does not feel threatening to me. I am against it because I know that there are other people who do get charged for it and I feel that they are being treated unethically. It has nothing to do with avoiding pain.
    Indeed. You are still getting caught up in wording, or like to point out which of us is doing what. It does not matter which of us is pointing out the holes in your generalization. If I ask you a question and you specify, and another, and another, until your ending point has nothing to do with the original generalization and starts to look more and more like a personal outlook than an actual theory/principle, then the fallacy applies.
    At least you can admit it. That is saying something, however little.
    Again, this is where the overwhelming exception comes in. Until very recently, you were indeed expressing this dichotomy, and you have only expressed your views about freedom and justice with prodding, providing overwhelming exceptions to your opening post.
    You have been getting slightly better, but you still assume things as a means of proving them. Justice is a prime example. Or that punishment (extra loss above and beyond recovery) is needed for justice, specifically.
    This is clearly false. You did not think it was irrelevant when you said that it was a good example in your opening post. You only said that you did not want to discuss it. That is not the same thing. There are other examples of exceptions as well, but you have glossed over them a little more easily than piracy.
    Those were misunderstandings, but I still hold to my first one. Logically, if you argue against Principle A wholeheartedly, then you hold the opposite to be true. Otherwise, you have no definite reason to be against it. There is no reason to argue against something if you take it on yourself. And you do that when you pick and choose the laws where you live over others.
    Oh, so I was right when I said that you thought the parent was in the right! See, I knew I had you down. If you honestly thougt that the child was right, then you would be against the mother. You are not saying this here, but the opposite. A contradiction, you say that it is not morally wrong, but you still think that he should take the punishment. This makes no sense.

    Aside from that, what are you talking about? The child's preference is to be treated fairly. You see the parent punish him out of preference, and you see him disobey out of preference. I would use the rule about not going to bed again, because it is an ethically sounds thing to do. The child wishes to be treated fairly, or to be left to his own devices, and the parent wants to control his body regardless. What don't you understand?
    Which are still the same thing. People think about whether or not is ethical. There is no reason to think about enforcement without thinking about the value you put on it and why. A person's mindset on any action is intrinsically tied with how good that action seems to them. You cannot seperate a person's values from their ideas very easily and still hold a conversation about it.
    Taxation is a good one. Let's go with that, and you already know my position on it. Quote and counter my earlier comments on it if necessary, I would hate to repeat myself.
    None of those quotes espouses any of these claims. I disagree with most laws, but that does not mean that I disagree with law altogether. I believe specific laws to be wrong and I argue against those laws. I did not generalize my view of law at any point. I have stated things such as 'all laws are violent' and 'all laws attack me', but they are not dissenting in themselves. They are just statements of a law's functionality. Whether I agree with the violence used or not is what we would be discussing.
    I mentioned that you had used many fallacies, and that those fallacies would be following, and that one was below the the part where I said that, surely.
    What I was saying is irrelevant to your position, it only applies to mine. More, as I keep saying, the fact that all laws do harm does not mean that all laws are bad ideas. Whether a law is necessary or not does not negate the harm it does. The question is not whether or not a law harms people, but whether or not the harm done in its name is greater than that done in violation of it. In the post that I quoted, you stated that some laws are harmful, there all laws are a necessary evil. Let me quote you again.
    Here you speak as if all laws are necessary, and some are evil, therefore it is a necessary evil. Therefore, because some laws are bad, all of them are; guilty by association.
    Which is the same as saying that I dislike all laws. I dislike most laws because I see their enforcement as unethical. Because I feel that the punishment does not fit the crime, so the speak, I argue against a law. Let me clear this up for you once again.

    I proposed your position as if you don't believe that crimes are wrong.

    OR

    I proposed your position as if you don't believe that enforcement is right.

    OR

    I proposed your position as if you dislike the enforcement of laws.

    And since we both agree and laws and enforcement are the same thing,

    I proposed your position as if dislike laws.

    If you have portrayed my actual position, your sentence would look something like this:

    I proposed your position as if you don't believe that laws are enforced ethically.

    Doesn't that sound much better to you?
    No, it is not. You are against breaking laws in whole. By default, this means that you are for them in whole. What you meant by a necessary evil was that all laws are necessary and that they are not perfect. I have stated that some laws are necessary, and that the imperfections must be done away with. The fact that we both think the current ones where we live are not perfect does not touch on why you think they are necessary. You think that you need them to protect yourself and your transactions, but I have explained why the current laws do not do that according to ethics. You have not provided reasoning to counter ethics but instead stated that you believe the current laws do what you want them to do. You have not explained this belief despite ethics arguing to the contrary.

    On a side note, I hold that humans are capable of creating perfect laws, they just choose not to. Stupid beings...
    You failed to address anything that I said in the quote. I fail to see relevance of my nihilism to the quote. You have failed to respond properly.
    It is not just confusion. Of the laws today, why your country's? Why your state's? Your original theory has nothing to with either time or place. You most certainly need to ammend and restate your theory to fit these. Do so, please.
    I edited my post after this; I was missing a 'not' in there.

    "Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit." ~ Oscar Wilde
    I already have. If you would go back and argue them instead of making me restate them, then please.
    A little bit, but not really. It is still a matter of preference with no real standard outside of emotion, as you are using it. See far above.
    Forgiven...? But it persists...
    However, I do not consider a situation saddening when it is enraging. A person dying is unfortunate. A person being murdered is not. The same with a law. It is not unfortunate that an unethical law exists, it is appalling. They are not related.
    Could you show me? You have not said anything close to 'morality is obsolete' and proposed the opposite position, that it is necessary.
    You did not say this. Are you reading correctly? I am saying morality both does not exist as a concrete concept and should not exist as one, that ethics should replace it completely. You have not even come close to stating this.
    Guess what happens when people act violently because someone stepped on their lawn and was not arrested for it, according to ethics? Their violent action is treated as unethical or a crime.

    Now, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that people will rise into a mob over things like piracy or traffic regulations.

    Again, in stating this, you directly imply that if people dislike something, there needs to be a law against it; otherwise, they will rise into a mob to get rid of it. Eventually, this will mean that there should be a law against everything. If you do not believe this, then define, in detail, the line at which your argument about a mob does not apply to any given dislike. Define where my lone dislike stops and the mob starts. And do not give a vague answer like, "when people agree with you", because that helps no one. You need to give realistic examples of when you think a mob would in fact rise.

    And then explain why ethics does not take care of this line by itself, if you still believe that it does not.
    What are you talking about? At some point, it will become more profitable for everyone involved if someone commits murder? Why do you think this will change, and under what circumstances?

    Morality already says that you can murder for a variety of reasons, according to many people. Wars are a perfect and painfully obvious example. Where is the world now? I don't like it, frankly.
    So then, not all laws are necessary. Thanks, that's all I needed to refute your entire argument.

    If not all laws are necessary, then when I break a law or would prefer that an action were legal, it does not necessarily have anything to do with avoiding pain. It is just that the law is not necessary for the profit of all parties and causes unecessary losses according to me.
    It is not a theory, again. People hate pain. You hate being killed and tortured by a murderer. This is not a theory. You would express this yourself. This is not enough basis for a thread. Beyond the idea that people feel pain and do not like it, what is the point of your thread?
    This is where we have a false dilemma. If you are not countering me (you must not be if you are not saying that I said that), then the only apparent reason for you to jump from existing laws where you live to no laws is if you believe that these are the only two choices.
    It is theoretically impossible. I guess you didn't catch that. Lawlessness is a useless concept because at no point will people actively choose to stop interacting with each other completely. They will develop laws, either of their own dictator-like making or of a group of friends banding together to protect the neighborhood, willing or not.

    It is not that you will never be ready for it, but that it will never happen. Unless you become a hermit, I mean.
    You argue for your own system's laws instead of all laws. You have no real reason to do so and have not stated a reason, nor have you edited your original principal to fit this.
    Go back and review, I have brought up many examples that we have glossed over. Piracy, taxation and prostitution are three of them. Argue for why these laws are ethically sound.

    I will say this before you even get started on taxation. No amount of service can make up for the wars that it pays for. How much would it cost to feed the poor and hungry in any given country? Not as much as bombing it. Not that we actually feed the poor and hungry in our country let alone others, though.

    You have stated multiple times that your theory is this:

    People wish to avoid punishment.

    This is not worth debating in itself, so I ask why you mention it if you have nothing else to say. Your thread title and opening post state that this is about the solution to punishment. You have not included this in your theory in later posts.

    Furthermore, your principle, as I have seen it and stated it, has changed to include only currently existing laws from the system that applies to you.

    At this point, your entire argument is an appeal to law, or simply implying that no one should dissolve a law. No reasoning is presented for this other than your theory, which is that people wish to avoid pain. Even if that were the only reason to dissolve a law, your argument becomes this:

    People should not dissolve laws because their only reason for doing so is to avoid pain.

    Except that this is not your argument, because you wish to appeal only to existing laws in the system that applies to you. So it becomes this.

    People should not dissolve the laws in the system that applies to me because their only reason for doing so is to avoid pain.

    This is fairly ridiculous for a number of reasons, but if you have any objections to this, then please state your position as simply as I have been doing like with these bold statements, and more accurately.
    Once again you propose that laws would be out of existence. I am really tired of this lawlessness argument. I am not proposing it, and claims that I am have been failing since they started. You have seen my PM. Counter it if you wish to continue; I am not interested in repeating myself.

    I see little to no reason to try and scale things. I hold no affiliation to people that I have not interacted with and have no reason not to keep it that way. If everyone that I meet and interact with acts ethically, then I see no reason to complain about scaling. Agorism requires neither the consent nor the participation of the unwashed masses. I simply wish to be able to do it in peace.
     
  13. Princess Celestia Supreme Co-Ruler of Equestria

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    166
    Makaze, it is a different arguement now. I will not repeat myself. You should clearly see the difference between my arguement this time and last time. I don't even need my computer to win this arguement. I wil post assuming you notice the difference.

    A lot of people I interact with act unethically, and will murder you and all your friends and family if they thought they could make a profit of it. Your arguement is mute. I am non-violent. But I would be forced to watch a violent world errupt if the current way of enforcing laws stopped. The only way to stop a warband from murdering everyone they com in contact with is a bigger warband. Prove me wrong...
     
  14. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    I do not need to prove you wrong. Your argument is irrelevant; it does not address my own. I do not advocate lawlessness. Perhaps I was not clear enough, so let me say it again: I advocate laws that are ethically consistent. I am against all laws that are not ethically consistent. Do you get it now? This using ethics as I defined it earlier in the thread.
     
  15. Princess Celestia Supreme Co-Ruler of Equestria

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    166
    you prove yourself wrong. you are also againt violence, yet you advocate violence when it suits your arguement. You are a contradiction. You debate to "win" rather than debate as to what you believe.

    My arguement is perfectly relevant. You argue that if people around you behave as they do, there is no need for violent eforcement of the law. I argue, that if people around me act as the do, without fear of anything bigger than a "private security" force, then may (insert all powerful being of choice) help you. Youll need it.

    Maybe its because you grew up in a different world than me. People are not peaceful. Makaze, find me one history book showing a peaceful society, that was nevr taken over by an agressive one.
     
  16. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    In the same way that hating hatred is a contradiction, indeed. You must react with an equal and opposite force. You show me where I stated that no violence is worth it, and I may take you seriously.
    Oh, sorry, you meant that. No, there would indeed be need for enforcement. However, if the only laws that affected me and those I know were ethical, then I would be happy. I should have clarified.
    As I said in the PM, nothing lasts. Appealing to entropy is not a solid basis for argument, as entropy applies to all things. Not just my preferences, but yours as well. You show me an aggressive society that did not fall. Everything is prone to change. I hold that I am taking an evolutionary curve, where you are appealing to the way things are. How long a society lasts is not relevant to the system if the people within it live better lives while it does.
     
  17. Princess Celestia Supreme Co-Ruler of Equestria

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    166
    Pacifism was always your moral high ground. Do you wish to give that up?

    I really do not have issue here. The law itself is flawed. I kinda wish we did not need law enforcement. But, as long as laws do exist, I shall follow.

    Many violent aggressive societies existed for years. Many still do. Since human history has not ended (or else we would not be having this discussion) I cannot say if any will truly last forever.

    But if you must ask me for examples. Spain, Rome, Egypt, Russia, United States of America (violence isnt what they want to be known for, but to call them a non-violent state is silly). And the most superlative example, China and Britain.

    Sure, many of them have had minor and major changes to their political structure, some have lost a majority of their power, primarily through other aggressive states attacking them. Lets focus on
    Britain, they have existed since the fall of the Roman Empire, and throughout the dark ages have acted violently towards Northern Africa, and Europe. Once the Imperial Age their aggression spread world wide. Granted, they lost a colony here and there, but otherwise, their empire has only grown. Now, they are one of the most powerful societies in history. Over a thousand years of aggression and growth. Is it right? No. Could a civilization which does not have an organized police force or military ever stop such a juggernaught arriving at thier doorstep? No...
     
  18. Lauriam I hope I didn't keep you waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Gender:
    Nonbinary she/he/it?
    1,348
    738
    I read your text, and still find reason to respond. I will give my reasons for this when I get to those portions of text at the bottem of the page. lol, you won't get rid of me that easily.

    Well, what do you know? It does. Thanx, I guess I just didn't know what to look for.

    So when you touch fire and feel pain, it's not that the pain is natual, but that it was taught behaviour? Please explain the difference between feeling pain when you touch fire and feeling guilt when you take a life, as these things seem to be seperate.

    BE WARNED: for this next statement, I am going to state what I believe to be a morally and "ethically" sound statement, in dissagreement with your own.
    I can simultaneously hold that right and wrong do exist outside of mind and yet are denied by people who do not wish to believe so. What is best for everyone, defined by your use of the word "ethics" is right, while what causes harm to any one party is wrong, what I personally want is irrelevent. For example, I believe that murder is morally wrong, not just because I don't want to be murdered, but because murder is a sensless and violent act that causes inconsiderable harm to the murdered party, while providing food for those who cannot afford food for themselves is morally right, as it is best for both the hungry, as it feeds them, and the one giving up some of his food, as this teaches selflessness and sympathy, both admirable traits. Someone might want there to be no such thing as right and wrong, so they can live however they want without worrying about the rest of the world or about any law they decide affects their abilty to live for themselves. In my opinion, basing any law on what is best just for you is more unfortunate than basing any law on a standard of morals.

    Now, in regards to this statement, you know that I am a christian, and for me to argue against this while keeping within my beliefs, I would have to introduce my veiws into the discusssion. Is that alright with you, or should I just let this one go?

    If you want what is best for everyone, including artists who market their work AND the government who's paycheck comes from our taxes, then you are acting by what is right. However, I don't believe that this affects just you, and only means something because you think it does, but again, in order for me to argue against this effectively, I would need to introduce my beliefs into this argument.

    By from a young age, I presume you are meaning that something happened to this individual while they were still in conception, like their parent did drugs while pregnant or something of that nature. This does not neccesarily mean that they originally were concieved devoid of the potential for conciense, rather, that their conscience was eaten away by drugs through no fault of their own before they even got the chance to develop it. In cases like these, they are not in themselves wrong, but they do things that are wrong while feeling no guilt.

    So first, by the core laws being the same, but not neccesarily being good, do you mean that these core laws, such as "do not murder" and "do not steal" are not good laws? If so, then what makes them so undesirable? If the answer is that you don't think they are morally wrong or "unethically" sound, then I see much wrong in your line of reasoning.
    Secondly, I would not argue that "do not wear red shoes" is a good law, regardless of wether or not "do not murder" is also a law in place, for the reasons I have already explained. I wish for a system of balances, where it is illegal to murder while still allowing much freedoms as what kind of shoes you wear. Is it so hard to believe that I can be against lawlessness while not being for constricting law? Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Let me say it again, this time in a bolded, easy to understand statment.
    I do not wish for constricting law, or complete lawlessness, but for a system of balances, where I can have such freedoms as freedom of speech and religion, while knowing that if I am murdered, the murderer will be punished for his actions and not allowed to go free.
    Third, you say that "Objectively, one that says wearing red shoes is fine is better." I thought that, according to you, no one law is "better" than another, as nothing is morally wrong and all are written by "stupid beings" who cannot judge accurately what is right and what is wrong. Why do you say that this law of "wearing red shoes is fine" is better then the one that says "wearing red shoes is wrong"?
    And fourth, while I don't believe that wearing red shoes is wrong, if such a law were in place where I live, I would respect that law and obey it, not because I agree with it, but because it is now a law, and according to my christian beliefs, I should respect and obey those who are in authority above me, and that includes the law. The only exception to disobeying the law is when it clashes with my christian beliefs. For example, "do not murder" is also something that I believe to be wrong according to my christian beliefs, therefore, I would follow it gladly, happy to know that the law of my day and place agrees with my beliefs, but if there were a law like "do not become a christian," I would have to dissagree, as that is against my christian beliefs.

    Again, you state that because I do not agree with complete lawlessness, I must therefore believe in constricting law. I do not like to think that every existing law is a good thing, and there are many exceptions to the law being good, and I do think about it at great length, not because I agree with the law, but you are right, because I believe it is morally wrong to disobey the law and rebel against it, except where it clashes with my moral beliefs. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to murder, wether or not it was against the law, while being a christian is something I would fight for were it agaist the law.

    Yes, but I believe in the existence of wrong. Therefore, I believe in the existence of right. Therefore, I believe in the existence of justice, as justice is praising and protecting the right and punishing and preventing the wrong. Therefore, I believe that punishment is, in fact, not the real problem, but denying it's value and neccesity is the real problem.

    On the contrary, I am saying that while I abhor violence of any sort, I prefer violence being carried out by part of punishment then violence being allowed to continue by part of the guilty party.
    Murder, for example. Murder is an act of incosiderable violence, and is about as violent as violence can get. If a man murders, than he has commited an act of violence, and justice (The exacting of punishment on those who are deserving) requires that he be justly punished, with his punishment being within reletive proximity to the crime commited. This, also, is violence. But it would be more violent to let the murderer go freely, as he is likely to kill again if he so desires. He did it once, why not do it again? This is more violent then punishing the murderer for his act and getting him off of the street.

    I see your point, but you fail to see mine. I say that because you believe that no act is wrong, and all acts are met with punishment, punishment is the real wrong. You stated that "No one deserves to be punished for murder as no one deserves to be murdered." So you say that since murder is not wrong, that no one deserves to be punished for murder. Therefore, if a man murders his neighbor, and then is punished for it, this violent act of punishment is more "unethical" then the actual crime commited.
    As for punishment not existing, I think you and I both agree that it does, in fact, exist, and your believing that it is wrong does not make it follow that it does not exist.

    Yes, I admit that I would willingly force you to abide by my views of piracy being wrong, but I would not try to force you to agree with me. There's a difference there. For example, I will use murder again. While I do not have to make you believe that murder is morally wrong, I would insist that you abide by my veiws and not do it.

    Okay, Let's see, as far as piracy goes, I have not failed to explain why I believe it to be "ethically" wrong, but rather, I did explain my beliefs, and you denied it as insufficient facts and faulty reasoning, merely because you dissagreed with my veiws. To remind you, I'll quote what I said in a previous thread and your response to it.



    So, I explained why I believe piracy to be harmful to the artist and the company, and you denied this belief as insufficient proof and faulty reasoning. However, this is all the knowledge I have on the matter of piracy, and therefore, have no more facts left to offer. In other words, you win the battle of piracy, and although you don't change my mind, I cannot prove my side of the argument. But I can say that I still intend to follow this law, as disobeying it would go against both my christian beliefs, and my "ethical" ones.

    On the contrary, I never saw one bit of scientific study that presents the harm caused by intellectual property, and the only examples I saw you give were greatly exaggerated and pointedly one-sided.

    [QUOTED]You just said that you disagreed. Because I have presented reasoning, it is not a matter of opinion but a question of a logical conclusion, and you have failed to uphold your side of the deal and instead opted to claim that you respect my position as an opinion while you would still enforce a law against it.[/QUOTE]

    Again, I uphold that I did present reasoning, even if it was devoid of scientific studies, and that you just dissagreed. And I maintain that you also have only presented reasoning, devoid of facts or studies, and therefore am justified in my decision to respect your beliefs and stop arguing the issue. As for my enforcing them, I explained above what I meant about this.

    Again, I explained above how I can enforce a law without enforcing an opinion. Refer to that to see my response to this post.

    All actions must benifit all parties? Then in my example of the situation where you would murder me strictly for your benifit, you do not act "ethically", as that action benifits only yourself and not all parties.

    I see. That makes sense.

    Then I seriously misuderstood your statements, and apologize for my confusion.

    I find so much wrong in this statement that I am saddened by it. Although I agree that every person deserves to die, I do not agree, and I mean this strongly, that it is up to us individually to take matters into our own hands and punish the man ourselves. And no, I would not do the same, and believe me, I have thought about it more than you suppose. I have seen countless episodes of Psych, Columbo, Perry Mason, Monk, and even a few episodes of Numb3rs. As a child, I read almost every Nancy Drew book (the old good stuff, mind you, not the new fifty-page stuff) and I hope to one day write homicide TV shows. I've researched murders and man-slaughter, and I've followed real-life cases on the news. In all my life, I have never seen a single case where I believed the murderer to be perfectly justified in their actions. So I easily dissagree with you. If the only way out of a bad situation is for me to kill someone, I would face the bad situation with my conciense intact. And if I did murder someone, I would expect and deserve punishment for my actions, and would not feel justified or regret-free until the said punishment was delivered. The fact that you would almost frightens me, and I personally hope for my own safety that I never meet you in real life.

    I do not think you should want your taxes to be repayed, seeing as how the government gives you your money in the first place. Technically, your money belongs to them already, so they are in fact recovering it from you, not the other way around.

    Seeing as how morality is the belief that something is either good or bad, I agree that someone cannot be against morality and still be "good", as without morality, "good" simply becomes another petty word used to describe a persons feelings and desires. And no, I am not trying to demonize you or portray you as if you are not for enforcing anything, and I do not want to believe that you are all bad, those are just the impressions I got when you said that you think murder and thievery and prostitution are perfectly all right, and it's the punishment for these actions that you find fault with.

    Again, in order for me to present my side of this argument, I would need to bring my christian beliefs into play, and I don't think you want that.

    You need to remember, especially when thinking "ethically", that as "ethics" are the best actions possible for everybody, and it is better for society on a whole to have people like murderers to be locked up where they can no longer cause any harm to said society, punishment will in fact, help everyone, and therefore is "ethically" sound. I dissagree whole-heartedly with punishing someone when you are angry, but still think punishment is neccesary.

    Precisely, that is what I meant by two examples to one theory, in this case, the two examples of children returning lost property to its owner supporting the theory of personal property, wether or not this theory is debatable.

    Yes, a theory is much larger than proven fact, and it cannot be proven or illustrated by itself. Therefore, it follows that it should be illustrated or proven by examples, as it cannot be illustrated or proven by itself. If you cannot prove or illustrate a theory by itself, and you cannot prove or illustrate a theory by examples, than how is said theory to be proved?

    So then, what you are saying is that a theory is never anything more than a theory, because a theory cannot be proven without sufficient examples of said theory, and we cannot use examples in a theory until it is proven. How then, is any theory ever made into a scientific fact? At the very beginning of man, there were no textbooks filled with facts that had been proven, every fact had to have started as a theory. Now, you say that a theory can not be proven without examples, and you say that examples cannot be applied to a theory until it is proven. This circle of nothingness seems very foolish to me.

    Seeing how every proven principle or rule started out as a theory, your entire method of solving equations is faulty and makes no sense. It would be like saying "Unproven theories are never complete and you cannot apply an unproven theory to an example because the unproven theory is not accepted as true yet. What you can do is apply a proven theory to an example and see if it solves the equation. If it does, then it might support your unproven theory, but you applied the proven theory to see if it would work out and not the unproven theory. You cannot work out an unproven theory when applied to an example because unproven theories are by definition shaky and incomplete, not proven. You will get shaky answers if you do not use proven theories in your examples."

    Do you see how this is faulty?

    I know they are both seperate ideas, that's why I used them in my example of applying one principle, the principle of "ethics", to two seperate ideas or actions, the actions of murder and piracy. You really did not disprove my point at all with this statement, instead, you took my example and worded it in such a way as to make my point clearer to any who read it.

    Yes, if you applied that principle to those two laws, the outcome would be different than if you applied the principle of "ethics" to those two laws. Again, Thanx for better illustrating my point that applying one principle to two seperate laws is different than applying two examples to one theory.

    That's because my theory does not apply to laws in this manner, rather, these laws apply to my theory. My theory, stated in bolded, easy to read statements, is this:

    If you deny the moral and "ethical" meanings of laws, than you deny the need to be punished when said law is broken.

    If I tried to apply this theory to one of these laws in particular, say, the law of "do not murder," it would be a theory that only applies to this certain law. If, however, I apply different laws to this one theory, the theory can be better explained and/or proven. So, pretty much, I am not planning to apply my theory to a law. I am planning on applying laws to my theory.

    Seeing as how we're not debating any mathematical subjects, I see no point to your argument. It is true that we cannot apply a theory in mathematics, but why would the same be said of a law? Theories can be applied to laws, as laws are in no way consistent or absolute, as mathematics are. Laws are imperfect rules set down by the people for the protection of themselves and their families. This is in no way related to mathematics.
    And how on earth am I supposed to prove my theory mathematically? 2+2=4, yes, but 2+2 does not = If you deny the moral and "ethical" meanings of laws, than you deny the need to be punished when said law is broken.

    Contrariwise, my theory is this:

    If you deny the moral and "ethical" meanings of laws, than you deny the need to be punished when said law is broken.

    The examples I gave in my opening post were this:

    "According to law, if a person is caught with pirated material, wether it be for personal use or resale purposes, they are fined enormous amounts of money and can be given up to 5 years in federal prison. To some people, this punishment seems extreme and unjust.

    Their solution? Remove the laws that classify it as a crime."

    And this:

    "A mother had raised several children, all of which had drawn on the walls at one point in their lives. Now she has another small child, one who hasn't yet drawn on the walls. She tells him that if he draws on the walls, he will have to pay for the repairs out of his allowence, and he will be grounded from fun for the whole day. The child understands this, his mother made it very clear to him what would happen, but he draws on the walls anyway.

    This punishment might be seen as extreme or unjust, but what is the solution to avoiding it?"

    So I believe that I have indeed proposed a theory instead of merely a conclusion, and have provided examples testifying to that theory.

    Seeing as how wikipedia can be edited by anybody who dislikes what it says, I don't consider it to be a sufficient source of information. My uncle is a highschool teacher in one of the best schools in his state, and he says that his school doesn't allow their students to cite wikipedia in their reports, debates, or homework assignments precisely for that reason. It is an incomplete and faulty source of info and unless you have another source to back up your wiki one, I cannot accept your information as fact.

    And how can you cite my life as proof of your fallacy? You do not know me, and you do not know what kind of life I lead aside from what I choose to tell you. You also cannot cite the lives of most people on the planet either, as I am very skeptical to believe that you know at least a fourth of the people on this planet personally.

    Yes, but there are also a lot of people who do, and it is not very wise to ignore their examples merely because it has not happened more often.

    Again, can you supply legitimate proof to back up this statement?

    Again, can you cite proof?

    Like I have said, I do not base the importance of these laws on that they are laws themselves, I base the importance of a law on the dangers that certain law poses to society.

    I do not do this, as I have mentioned. If I live in Fairbanks, Alaska, and I do not think that giving alcohol to a moose is wrong, and then I find out that it is illegal, I do not then decide that it must be wrong, rather, I laugh to myself at the foolishness of this law and then procceed to follow it, regardless of wether ot not I see the sense in this law. My general pattern, if it is to be followed, is that if most people gave alcohol to a moose while staying in Fairbanks, and then found out that it was illegal, they would be angry at any form of punishment administered to them, and they would fight because they do not think this law is worth following and not worth punishing over. That is my theory.

    I'm sorry to insist that I would like some actual studies, and I would like a link to the site where you find that the US has the largest number of inmates per capita of any country in history. Hopefully, you're not getting all your info from wiki.

    *Sigh*... unfortunately, I cannot find any proof on the internet, because I have no idea how to utilize a search engine. :( I'm sorry to admit it, but I am still a noob.

    And how have I argued that all crimes lead to other crimes? I have said no such thing. Instead, I have said that if you are morally alright with things like theft and prostitution, you are more likely to be perfectly alright with murder as well. And you have proven this somewhat, with your own statements. You are perfectly, morally fine with piracy, and you are perfectly, morally fine with murder. What else are you okay with? What about theft? If you believed that by stealing something from me, you would be helping yourself while causing no real harm to me, would you steal from me?

    Like I have said, I believe justice means the exacting of punishment due to a crime done by the guilty, ideally, a punishment that is in relative proximity to the action done. This means, that what is deserved is what is within relative proximity to the crime commited. For example, if a man murders his neighbor, an ideal punishment is something like prison for life. He took the life of another, what is fair and deserved is his life taken from him. Pretty much, justice in punishment is "an eye for an eye".

    Have you been reading my arguments for justice? You read my arguments as if they were simply statements, you do not seem to realize that my statements are in fact arguments that justice exists. I have said that justice exists, provided a dictionary definition, showed how I believe these definitions to be accurate in my description of justice, I'm not sure what else to say in my arguments, and yet you deny that I argue. What else can I do to argue this matter?

    I did state that I supported neither, but I did not say that I wished to not repeal any laws or not put any new ones in, I said that I do not want complete lawlessness or complete constriction. Yes, I want change, I have stated this at least twice, I think we need to change, I think this system is not perfect, but I favor it over either complete lawlessness or complete restriction. Is it so hard to believe that I propose neither?

    I did not say any, I do not believe that any law is an attempt at peace. Sometimes, laws are made for other reasons and don't make any sense. But I believe that most laws are made in an attempt at peace. And at this time I was referring to the current law in the U.S. I think that this is one of the better attempts at making peace.

    Your idea of law is greatly mistaken. Again, I refer you to dictionary.com to see what law means.

    1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
    2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
    3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaininglawandorder.
    4. a system or collection of such rules.
    5. the department of knowledge concerned with these rules; jurisprudence: tostudy law.

    Law does not mean your personal preference as you enforce it on someone else, that is just your personal preference and a bit of rudeness thrown into the mix. Law, as it was stated above, is rules and regulations established by authority and it is in fact a system. Your version of law, that is, your personal preferences being enforced onto others, is more just that, your personal preferences, not actual law.

    Actually, if you were to take my theory and make it even more cosistent, it would be this:

    If you deny any and all moral and "ethical" reasons of any law in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for the punishment inflicted on an individual when that law is broken.

    Not this:

    "if you deny one law in this system, you deny all laws in this system".

    No, it does not sound accurate, as you do not get my theory. My theory is this: That if you consider a crime morally fine, then you will find any punishment inflicted on an individual when this crime is commited "unethical" and undeserving of punishment. That is my theory, not that if you consider a crime morally fine, you will find all crimes morally fine. While I believe this to be true in some cases, that is not my proposed theory.

    I see. I also agree that all people own themselves, but I disagree that they own their property completely. In the U.S., for example, all property belongs to the government, and although they sell us property and houses, they still tax us on our land. I agree with this practice, as the property is, in fact, a part of the U.S. However, I do not agree that they charge so much. I think they should charge less on property, seeing as how they charge for so much already, especially in this time of national financial crisis. But, I do not make laws, nor do I have the power to change the laws that are already in affect, so I must live by them until they are changed by someone else.

    No, I don't. I say that law is not perfect, I do not say that law is evil. I say that freedom is a good concept, but that people can't be trusted with complete lawlessness, not that freedomis evil. Please stop saying that I think law OR freedom is evil, as I do not say either of these things.

    I agree. Law and freedom are not evil and are not opposing forces. We need consistent "ethical" laws in order to be free from thieves, rapists, violent people, and murderers. Only when I said this, I was accused of holding a double standard and of being a hypocrite.

    So you are saying that to tell you "do not murder" is to constrict your freedom? And that to tell you to not murder is "ethically" wrong? And that the only reason why I would need to tell you that, even in the name of defense, is if you were already restricting my freedoms? Otherwise, my telling you to not murder is an initiation of aggresion and is therefore wrong? Please, explain this to me. I do not see how this helps anybody.

    Indeed, according to my theory I believe nothing of the sort. I have explained time and time again that I do not wish either for lawlessness OR constricting law. I have stated repeatedly that I do not wish for things like lying, insulting, OR general annoyence to become illegal. Why do you keep insisting that I do?

    This is not my theory. My theory is this:

    If you deny any and all moral and "ethical" reasons of any law in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for the punishment inflicted on an individual when that law is broken.

    Therefore, I do not wish for lying to be made illegal, and do not believe that it should be merely because murder is illegal too.

    I just imagined such a world, and shudder at the thought. Good thing I don't hold that argument, huh?

    Again, you propose only two sides of an argument, instead of accepting that I might wish for balance, which I have stated repeatedly. You realize, I also can use this same technique against you?

    You obviously do not wish for constricting law, so logic forces me to conclude that you support no law that has ever existed or will exist, or you support that no law will ever be created that could exist.

    You see how this logic is illogical?

    Seeing as how my theory is this:

    If you deny any and all moral and "ethical" reasons of any law in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for the punishment inflicted on an individual when that law is broken.

    and not what you seem to think it is, I think the defense is napping unneccesarily in the middle of the race.

    I see. Is that why you have been trying to trap me with "trick questions" and statements with double meanings?

    I see no fear in this threat, as I don't think you understand what my theory is and believe it to be something entirely different from my actual theory.

    Again, you do not seem to know what my theory is, or else, you don't understand my theory and are mistaken with what I have stated.

    On the contrary, my position states nothing of the sort. My position is this:

    If you deny any and all moral and "ethical" reasons of any law in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for the punishment inflicted on an individual when that law is broken.

    It does not state at all that if you deny one law, you deny all laws.

    I do not believe that confining my theory to existing laws instead of applying them to fake laws is the same thing as choosing which laws you will and will not follow. I also don't believe that only applying my theory to a system of law I know and understand, thus making it easier for me to prove or disprove my theory is the same as choosing which laws I do and do not follow. To me, you are attempting to throw trapping sentences and trick statements at me in order to try and get me to slip up and say something against myself.

    So you hold that if you did steal my food, I would be justified in enforcing that you be punished for stealing my food?

    lol, I do not want to believe that you deny all law, nor do I want to believe that you would murder me if it meant bettering your own situation. On the contrary, I want to believe that you are a good, upstanding citizen, not capable of hideous acts like murder. What made me think you denied all laws was not my desire to do so, but your sentence structure and statements you have made both in this argument and others.

    I agree. But do you think murder causes tangible loss? What would your idea of "ethics" have to say about that?

    I have explained why I believe piracy causes tangible loss, and you have denied my reasoning as incomplete. As for prostitution, I do not think it causes tangible monetary loss, but instead, physical harm. Yes, here in the U.S. and in some other parts of the world, prostitution is usually agreed to by both parties, and is thereby generally accepted as a victimless crime. In the nation of Africa, a man will pay thousands of dollars to be the first one to have sex with a seven year old girl because if they're any older than that, they probably have contracted AIDS by then. You try and tell me that's not victimless. You try and tell me that's not physically damaging to that seven year old little girl. You try and tell me that you think we should remove laws against prostitution in America, so we can work our way to that ourselves.

    Again, read my last statements. I don't think these should be illegal merely because they are, I think they are illegal because they should be.



    The relative proximity of the punishment based on the crime commited. For example, I said earlier that if a man commits a murder, I think that a fair and just punishment would be prison for life. He took the life of another man, it's only fair that his life also be taken. I'll also use theft as an example. If a man stole money from someone else, it's only fair that he be made to pay fines for doing so.

    The contract they are protecting is that they decided to give you money, and would like to retain a portion of it. You seem to think that money grows on trees. Money has to come from somewhere, and it does. The government regulates the amount of money that is allowed in society at any given time; they print the money and create the jobs that pay us our money, why is it so wrong for them to retain a portion of it for themselves? I agree that they retain too much, that they should focus more on doing their jobs, namely, creating jobs, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and maintaining the schools and highways, instead of using up fuel for their three private jets. But, I still believe that as the money belongs to them anyway, they should be allowed to retain some of it for themselves.

    So you're saying that no one, anywhere, has ever been treated fairly in any way whatsoever? Justice is when someone is treated fairly, it all goes back to "eye for an eye." That is justice. So wherever a law is being enforced, justice exists, wether or not you think the enforcement is morally right or wrong.

    I do not know how I can better explain to you what justice is, as justice is not some inanimate object that you can hold or see. You are right when you say that justice is an idea, but just because something is an idea does not mean that it automatically does not exist. Also, you admit that things are unjust, by saying that something is "unethical", by your definition of the word, you say that they cause harm to one party or another. If an action causes undue harm to any individual, that action is unjust. So it follows that if there is such a thing as being treated unjustly, then there is also such a thing as justice. If justice is only an idea, then an unjust action also is not unjust. So, if you murdering someone is not imposing on their justice, then when you are punished for this murder, this also is not unjust.

    So, if you do not believe in justice, then you also do not believe in unjust actions, and this entire discussion is null, as punishment is perfectly, morally fine, seeing as how there is no such thing as injustice. But if you believe in unjust actions, such as being punished unfairly, you also believe in justice, which is the fair treatment of any one individual.

    How about now, or do you still not get it?

    So you think that unless law is the same everywhere it is applied, it doesn't exist? For this entire discussion, you have tried to get me to agree that every law is different, that every system of law is different, and that I am being inaccurate and illogical by even suggesting that law might be on the whole, the same, and here you state that law must be null, as it is not the same everywhere in the world. Do you even hear yourself? You are so busy trying to trap me that you don't even notice that the hole you've been digging is now so big that you can't get out.

    Can you please explain to me how the woman having her stolen property taken from the thief and returned to her could possibly be considered stealing, even technically speaking? I don't see how this could be. Doesn't the money belong to her in the first place? Did the money ever belong to the thief, even when it was in his possesion, was it ever really his? How on earth does taking the money from the thief and returning it to it's owner classify as stealing?

    So, you agree that most people who get caught do not try it again. You do realize that when a person is caught stealing, he is punished right? Saying that a man who was caught and punished does not soon try to repeat his crime serves to confirm my theory rather than dispute it. You are practically admitting that punishment works, as opposed to those that got away with it and have done it again.

    I fail to see how simply staying away from a criminal and letting him do whatever he wants would serve to discourage "unethical" behaviour. I go back to the murder example. If a man murders his neighbor, and the only repercussions are that his other neighbors don't speak to him anymore, how on earth does that stop the man from killing again? What if he gets angry that his other neighbors won't speak to him? Why wouldn't he go and kill them, as the only consequence would be that even more people "don't speak to him"? Since when does the silent treatment ever work to discourage "unethical" behaviour, other than on Drake and Josh? I think this is a very silly way to punish people, and definitally not the best way to take care of a problem.

    Yes, but making the crime a profitless crime will never work, because someday, the thief will get lucky and get away with it. Practice makes perfect, and if a thief never gets punished, then what has he got to lose? You said, there's no reason to punish somebody, as taking away the stolen property should in and of itself discourage the thief from stealing again. But that's not how it works. What about the saying, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again"? And what about "Nothing ventured, nothing gained"? If the thief has nothing to lose, there's nothing to keep him from repeating the undesirable action. He'll just keep going until the going gets good, and he nabs something and gets away with it.

    Getting away with a crime includes more than just not getting caught. Getting away with a crime is being able to do an illegal act without being punished for said act. I once again looked it up on dictionary.com, but as this is a phrase instead of a single word, it was harder to get a definition. This was all I got, but I think it serves my purpose well.

    getting away
    Getting away with murder is an idiom that means to get away with what other people are punished for.

    Getting away does not just mean that you didn't get caught. It means that you didn't get punished for an act that others have been punished for. The criminal that steals money, then has it taken back from hi, but then is told to go away with a warning, might not feel like they have succeeded, exactly, but they definitally got away with it.

    Thanx, I like to astound my veiwers/ Keeps 'em on their toes. XD

    On the contrary, you have taken the word justice, a word you did not like, and applied its meaning to a different word, ethics. I have given you the dictionary definition of both words, and will repeat them here:

    Justice

    1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: toupholdthejusticeofacause.
    2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: tocomplainwithjustice.
    3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
    4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
    5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

    Ethics

    1. (usedwithasingularorpluralverb[​IMG]) a system of moral principles: theethicsofaculture.
    2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medicalethics;Christianethics.
    3. moral principles, as of an individual: Hisethicsforbadebetrayalofaconfidence.
    4. (usuallyusedwithasingularverb[​IMG]) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

    You have taken the word "justice", removed morals from the equation, and given it a different name, one that didn't make you as uncomfortable as the first word.

    Pretty much, when you say "ethics", you mean

    1. The quality of being fair; equitableness: toupholdthejusiceofacasue.
    2. a claim or title, fairness of ground or reason: tocomplainwithjustice.
    3. the "ethical" principle determining fair conduct.
    4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; fair conduct, dealing, or treatment.
    5. the administering of deserved reward.

    You see? That is what you mean you say ethics. I am not the one misusing the word, you are. Noble, but not acceptable. And this is flawed.

    lol, giving a gift is not just, that's the point. "gift" means that you gave something to someone when they did not deserve it, as justice is fair and equal treatment. No one really deserves a present, therefore, giving of your time and resources is not just, only nice.

    Alright, punishment, after taking back the eye, is to take one of his. You can never put your eye back in it's socket; once it's gone, It's gone for good. if you let the criminal go with both of his eyes intact while you are made to suffer life with one functional eye and one eye in a pouch, that isn't very fair. As justice is the fair and equal treatment of all parties,it follows that taking the eye of the one who took yours is, in fact, just. It is deserved. Yes, it is also vengeance, but it is still just. No, I do not reccomend revenge, but revenge is, in fact, the exacting of justice. Therefore, it is fair, and it is getting even. Moving on.

    [/QUOTE]3. The man cannot receive sufficient justice until he has been punished.

    Which justice are we talking about, now? One of them says that the woman should get her money back, making the trade fair again. She gets back everything that was taken, that is a fair trade. His being punished makes no sense if you are aiming for a fair trade, so your two definitions of justice are conflicting. It does not follow that he should be punished once the money is returned, because the trade is fair already, and her items have been protected. What does justice mean now, then? Concluding.

    4. You cannot recover a loss without punishing someone.[/QUOTE]

    I am going for both sets of justice. Yes, the woman should receive her money, but seeing as how she had no intention of trading in the first place, calling the trade "fair" just because she got her stolen property returned isn't sufficient grounds for letting the thief get away with it (see above for why I don't think returning the money is not getting away with the crime). Justice also is the exacting a punishment on the guilty party, ideally within relative proximity as the crime commited, as seen from the dictionary definition I posted above.

    lol, yup. And as I do not want to get hit in the face, I could either whine about how taking your money wasn't morally wrong anyway and how I don't deserve to be punished, or I could solve this dillemma by simply not taking your money.

    Likewise, I ask you to do the same thing.

    Good thing that's not what my basis for this thread was, huh? My basis for this thread was this:

    If you deny any and all moral and "ethical" reasons of any law in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for the punishment inflicted on an individual when that law is broken.

    Alright, I just thought I'd warn you.

    haha, I didn't say I was offended. I said that that insult is what is most likely to offend me. This time I just thought it was amusing. Perhaps it was because I was watching Psych at the same time and eating ice-cream. This combination highly raises my chances of being amused at any and every subject. lol, It drives my sister crazy. She'll say anything she can to get me riled up, and I'll come back with some dumb quote like "I've heard it both ways" or "Three-hole puncher", and then nothing can phase me.

    Then why don't you leave the debate, as you find it so meaningless?

    We are debating because while I do not hold the one side of the argument, that law should not be completely disregarded, I am still against the other side, that there should be a constricting law. Again, however, you seem to be unable to grasp that I can be neither for nor against something, but wish for balance between the two. Supplying only two options and making me choose between them...

    Wait, you're saying that the punishment given the child and the child's feelings toward the punishment are the same thing? This doesn't make any sense, as punishment is to inflict a penalty on someone in repayment of an offense, and feelings are the general state of conciousness in relation to thoughts or ideas. As one is an action and the other is an idea, the two cannot possibly be the same thing.

    Yes, but what if the child doesn't feel guilty? That is what I meant to say. I never intended to say that the child didn't feel guilty, in fact, I meant to imply that the child didn't feel guilty. That was the point of the example. The child didn't think that he was punished justly, as he knew that drawing on the walls was not morally wrong. (I know, pretty smart kid, huh?)

    I know that you never said the child knows that drawing on the walls was not morally wrong, I said that. The child does know that it is not morally wrong, at least, not in my example.

    ... Did I mean the parent what? What am I supposed of meaning the parent to have done?
    And you say that the parent is wrong here, and then immediately state that it has nothing to do with morality. Doesn't morality include right and wrong? If the parent is wrong, as you state, then morality exists, as morality must be in place for someting to be wrong.

    Again, I would need to bring my personal beliefs into the debate in order to refute this effectively.

    But I thought your idea of ethics was the course of action that causes the least amount of harm to any and all involved parties. In this case, when the child stays up too late, he wakes up in the morning tired and irritable, perhaps even late, which might mean that he misses breakfast, and his whole day at school could be miserable and unnaffective. If his parents had enforced their rule that he go to bed on time, all this could have been prevented. "Ethically", which is the better course of action?

    The child could be in the right and still obey his parents, if the individual knows that the law is in the wrong, it doesn't neccesarily mean that they have to break it. On the contrary, the individual can abide by the laws of the land and at the same time know that these laws are foolish. There is no need to disobey.

    Have I done a better job this time around?

    I agree. We spend way too much time on these posts. lol, I've been working on this one for about 14 hours now.

    Well, you accused me of commiting a "Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident): basing a broad conclusion on a small sample." And I said that although I had made some of these mistakes, the main point, basing a broad conclusion on a small sample was better descriptive of your posts, as you had taken my broad cunclusion of "People don't want to be punished" and based it solely on the one sample of "Piracy doesn't deserve punishing". Not to mention, you made some of these same mistakes as well, such as insufficient statistics, insufficient sample, and leaping to a conclusion. You accused me of this fallacy, and you yourself made the same mistakes.

    My point does go beyond that, my point is tha people wish to avoid punishment, yes, but they want to be able to break as much law as they want without invoking punishment, instead of obstaining from lawlessness in the first place.

    On the contrary, you say that you are against it because other people are getting punished for it, and then you say that your being against it has nothing to do with not wanting to get punished for it. This is another contradiction. If you think someone somewhere is getting punished and you are against this, then you are wishing for the avoidence of punishment.

    Yes, but you accused me of commiting the fallacy of pointing out holes in my own generalization, and I defended myself by respoding that it was you, and not I, who was doing so. That has nothing to do with either getting caught up in the wording or pointing fingers, I was merely trying to defend myself against your false accusation. And while the fallacy might apply in that situation, I wanted to point out that it was you commiting that fallacy, and not I, as you had originally proposed.

    Aw, thanx! It takes a lot to become the kind of person who can admit their mistakes. I've been working very hard at it, a year ago, I wouldn't have been caught dead admitting I had made a mistake of any kind, wether or not I had done so.

    And where have I expressed that I believe the solution to avoiding punishment increasing law? Please, find any post where I even implied such a belief and quote me on it. I'm really very curious to see where I said this.

    Thanx, I've been trying. Have I done better of explaining things this time?

    Something can be a good example of a theory and still have its moral attributes be irrelevent to the discussion. I was saying that the issue of wether or not piracy was morally wrong was irrelevent to the fact that people don't think they should be punished for it, and that people's aversion to the punishment for piracy made it a good example of my theory while arguing about its moral rights and wrongs was unneccesary.

    So again you prove your inabilty to understand how a person can be against one thing without being for another. While I completely dissagree with lawlessness, I also completely dissagree with a constricting law. Is it so impossible to be against both?

    No, you were wrong. I never said the mother was in the right, just because the child should accept his punishment without complaining, I mean, he did disobey his mother and cause damage to her property, why is it so hard for him to accept the system? However, just because I dissagree with the childs inabilty to obey his parents, it does not automatically follow that I agree wholeheartedly with the parents with every rule they ever make.
    Again, you display your inabilty to accept that I might be against one wrong while also being against its inverse wrong.

    I have already argued this point, see above for my explanation of why going to bed too late is not "ethically" sound.

    And yet, you are trying to do the same thing with me. If this is so difficult, why do you insist on continuing?

    Alright, here I go.

    The law reserves the right to tax us on income, property, sales, all kinds of things. And why shouldn't they? The government decided to give you money, and would like to retain a portion of it. You seem to think that money grows on trees. Money has to come from somewhere, and it does. The government regulates the amount of money that is allowed in society at any given time; they print the money and create the jobs that pay us our money, why is it so wrong for them to retain a portion of it for themselves? I agree that they retain too much, that they should focus more on doing their jobs, namely, creating jobs, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and maintaining the schools and highways, instead of using up fuel for their three private jets. But, I still believe that as the money belongs to them anyway, they should be allowed to retain some of it for themselves.

    All right, fair enough.

    Yes, some laws are harmful or unneccesary, and law as a whole is a neccessary evil.

    I do not say that at all. Law on the whole is neccesary for the betterment of society, just because some laws don't make any sense does not neccesarily mean that they are evil. Let me say emphatically, in bold, italicised letters, on a seperate line altogether to distress the importance of my statement:

    I do not believe that any law is evil, I do not believe that law on the whole is evil, I do not believe that law, any kind of law, by itself, or in a group, is evil. Please stop saying that I think law is evil.

    Okay. I believe now that you do not deny all law, nor do you wish for complete and utter lawlessness. I am willing to believe that you wish for balance, that you neither want complete lawlessness or a constricting law.

    Yes, that does sound much better and much more accurate. I proposed your position as if you don't believe that laws are enforced "ethically." Thanx for helping me word myself better. Now hopefully people will understand my point better.

    True. It is against my christian beliefs to break laws simply because I see no moral fault with them.

    False. I wish for balance, I want neither a lawless society or a society of constricting law.

    False. I have stated that law, as a whole, is neccesary for the betterment of society. I never even pretended to think that all laws are neccesary. For example, in the city of Fairbanks, Alaska, there is a law in place that it is illegal to give alcohol to a moose. I believe I have made it very clear that I do not think this law is neccesary. Not every law is neccesary, but law itself is. But yes, no law is perfect.

    Have I done better this time?

    I see. Well, I can't debate you there.

    I was saying that I was not the one saying that law was like a hammer beating down on the people of society, but rather, you were the one saying so.
    I have been trying to argue this whole time that law is neccesary for the betterment of our society, while you were the one posting that every law attacks you and if a law exists, someone somewhere is getting beaten up over breaking it. I was saying that you were the one saying the hammer was being used to beat the people, not I, as you had accused.

    Well, seeing as how my theory is

    If you deny any and all moral and "ethical" reasons of any law in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for the punishment inflicted on an individual when that law is broken,

    I see no reason to change it, as it states that my theory only applies to the laws of a certain system. And as I have already explained in this post, the reason why I chose to apply my theory only to the law and system I am famliar with is because I am better prepared to argue for or against it, since I actually know what I'm talking about. Since I know nothing about the laws of other systems, my theory probably doesn't work there anyway, so why try and make it work where it won't?

    "Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit." ~ Oscar Wilde

    lol, if there was a "like" button for this, I would be clicking it right now. Good comeback.

    You do realize you have been making me restate myself from the beginning of the discussion, right?

    How about now? Better?

    Well, this time, I have tried to submit sufficient proof and have admitted it when I cannot.

    I said that one day man might be able to live in a society without laws, but that unfortunately, we were not ready for that. And you counter this by saying that certain laws enrage you and are appaling? Please explain this to me, it makes no sense.

    Yes, I have not said anything close to "morality is obsolete", and I do believe that it is neccesary. But I still hold that we should attempt to leave a lot of morality out of lawmaking, as some people's ideas of morality conflict with others, and I want to be able to enjoy the freedoms of religion and all that jazz. When I said this, you accused me of holding a double standard, and that I was trying to make all my morals into laws, such as lying, insulting, being promiscous, and annoying me in general. Am I wrong?

    I must not have been reading correctly, because I didn't know you were saying this at all, I thought you were saying that morality should not be a part of the lawmaking proccess, and that "ethics" were what should replace morals during the law-making proccess.

    That's because stepping on somebody's lawn is not considered "unethical". Just rather rude.

    False. In stating this, I am directly implying that if people find an action "unethical", they will wish for a law to be enforced making said "unethical" action illegal in public places, and if the system ignores their calls for change, they will rise up in violence to protest their being ignored.

    Alright. This fine line between "crying for a change" and "this just really annoys me" is when the offensive action causes physical harm to a large group of people, and doesn't just cause general annoyance to a single individual.
    Take, for example, the two issues already presented in this part of the discussion: Smoking and Walking on somebody's lawn.
    Smoking causes considerable damage to both the smoker and everyone he comes in contact with. I spent a week in the emergency room of a hospital once because one of my uncles was in the I.C.U. with one of the worse cases of pneumonia my other uncle had ever seen, and he's an R.N. This pneumonia was complicated with severe damage to my uncles lungs, because he had been smoking heavily for thirty years. You try and tell me that smoking doesn't hurt the smoker.

    An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are currently non-smokers are caused by second-hand smoke. About 3,400 lung cancer deaths are a result of breathing second-hand smoke
    Other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function are often the effects of breathing in second-hand smoke.
    50,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually are because of second-hand smoke.
    Second-hand smoke cause increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
    More than 750,000 middle ear infections in children are caused by second-hand smoke
    Pregnant women exposed to second-hand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth-weight babies.

    You say I do not give sufficient proof of my arguments, here you go:

    http://www.healthcommunities.com/qu...GAW&kw=second_hand_smoke_facts&cr5=7691080957
    http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke

    As far as walking on somebody's lawn, I looked it up, and while there are some interesting stories about trespassing accusations, I didn't find anywhere that walking on somebody's lawn causes premature death or any kind of disease. And therein lies the difference.

    I never said that "ethics" wouldn't take care of this line, in fact, I have stated that it would, and that we should not try to place morals into our laws, instead, we should base our laws on a system of "ethics".

    Well, you yourself said that you would kill me if it meant bettering your own personal situation, and if you go back 200 years, and posed the same question to any person in America, you would find that they would be shocked that you even would suggest such a thing, and would peg you as a criminal. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the situation could deteriorate from that point to this in 200 years, and we continue to allow it to deteriorate, then in another 200 years, a person will likely find it shocking if a person suggests to not murder somebody when the death of this person would serve to further their convenience.

    Nor do I, friend. But while we have a common goal in mind, we choose to go about making that goal a reality in two different ways. We neither of us want to have complete lawlessness or constricting law, but when forced to choose, you lean towards the first and I lean towards the latter. And I am not trying to say that your way is more wrong than mine. We just lean differently.

    lol, nope, not all laws are neccesary. Funny, I thought I had stated this several times. Tell me, how do you intend to refute my argument of

    If you deny any and all moral and "ethical" reasons of any law in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for the punishment inflicted on an individual when that law is broken,

    with my agreeing with you that not every law is neccesary?

    I agree. I also feel that way about certain laws, but I still maintain that we should at least attempt to abide by these laws, even if they aren't neccesary, at least until we are in a position where we can change them.

    That people, though willing to admit that they do not want to be punished, instead of obstaining from the behaviour that gets them punished, stubbornly insist that the rule calling for their punishment be dissolved so that they can go about their business, wether right or wrong, knowing that nothing they do will warrant their being punished.

    I see your point, and apologize for taking such a position.

    Yup. That's why I am against lawlessness, because it will never truly be lawlessness. One of my favorite books growing up, Nightmare Acadamy by Frank Peretti illustrates this point well. It's a good read, I highly reccomend it to anyone looking for a new book to read.

    lol, I actually have considered the possibilty. But nah, I like people too much, be they foolish or not.

    [QUOTED]You argue for your own system's laws instead of all laws. You have no real reason to do so and have not stated a reason, nor have you edited your original principal to fit this.[/QUOTE]

    Well, I hope I have made a better try of it this time.

    Alright. As you have already read, I made my arguments. Counter if you will.

    I know, right? Urgh, sometimes the governments decisions really just make me cringe.

    AND NOW ON TO THE OPENING STATEMENTS!

    Well, have I done a better job of it? The solutions, according to what I have seen, are as follows:

    1: Accept the punishment without complaint.

    2: Fight against the punishment with all amount of reasoning within you, hoping to inspire change.

    3: Obstain from breaking any laws whatsoever.

    4: Try your hardest to live under the law while doing your best to change what is faulty.

    The best solution, according to what I have seen, is the fourth. While the first two are both noble, they are unlikely to work, as the first will never express dislike with the system, and the second will not get any respect from the system. The third solution is absolutely impossible to do, and the only reason I even thought it worth mentioning was so that I could say for any veiwers that I don't believe it to be possible.

    Well, while I agree with this statement, I do not find fault with this change, for the reasons I explain in my argument.



    Well, I addressed this in my argument, and see no reason to repeat myself here.

    I'm not sure if you were talking to me or Princess, so I'm just going to leave this alone.

    lol, I don't know what scaling means, or agorism, so i think I'll leave this one alone too.
     
  19. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207

    While these may or may not be valid arguments, they are growing too far out of hand for us to manage and I would rather address the main argument instead of going infinitely into rabbit holes, costing us hours of our time. That is what I meant by it might change the need to respond to all of this. If you change the original point, then all of this is meaningless, and we have to go back to the drawing board. There is no need to argue these things if your point has changed. While they may be worth arguing about, they are no longer relevant to the point, because your point has changed, so we have no more reason to argue them here, at the very least. Moving on.

    Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Because this position and the position that I have been arguing against are not the same, I must start again from the bottom, as I said.

    In those four statements, you have stated a reason for the first, but with the other three you have simply stated that they will not work, and not have not offered reasons for why. Let me pick it apart to explain.

    the first will never express dislike with the system,


    This is true without having to argue a reason, as 'to complain' is to express dislike. You did give a reason because of this.

    the second will not get any respect from the system.

    With this, however, you have simply stated that it will not get respect without reasoning. Allow me to reason out the opposite position.

    Civil disobedience has been the only thing to change major laws in this country since its conception. For an example, please consider the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. and where we would be if he had not openly disobeyed the law. If you believe that he would have been more successful by simply complaining, then please explain why this is the case.

    If you wish to read what he had to say on the subject, click here.

    The third solution is absolutely impossible to do, and the only reason I even thought it worth mentioning was so that I could say for any veiwers that I don't believe it to be possible.

    Again, you have not provided reasoning for why it is impossible. You stated that it was and that you had little reason to mention it, but no reasoning. I hold that if you are taught all laws, then you can avoid breaking them, as long as they do not directly contradict.

    If laws directly contradict, then why are they valid? If they do not, then why is following all of them impossible?

    You are begging the question again.

    Please restate why you feel this way in the context of your new position below your spoilered post. I would rather argue it from the ground up instead of moving backwards and using things that do not apply any more. Be as coherent as possible, and if you need to, write things out like this:

    Position: X is true.

    Reason: Because of Y and Z.

    An example would be:

    Position: You should not disobey currently existing laws in my system.

    Reason: Because of Y and Z.

    If you could say 'because of' or something like it every time that you make a blanket statement, I would appreciate it. And making things into small bullet statements like this makes reasoning easier and helps us avoid ridiculously long posts like we had earlier. Your previous style of arguing is to tackle each quote separately, and your overall point is hard to discern because instead of stating it simply, you argue each thing individually, and in doing so you end up contradicting your original point. You should constantly keep your original point in mind and state why it works in each of your mini-arguments. It will help things go more smoothly, since I will not have have to ask you to explain how you think it works every time that you miss it.

    While you addressed it, you did it by begging the question on many levels, and so you did not address it well, or truly. Please try again...

    I was talking to princess. You should look to the posts I quoted if you wish to discern who I was speaking to.

    Would you like me to explain? ICSP (Princess Celestia) is saying that while agorism could work on small levels, if you try to scale up, from a city to a nation, for example, it will not work. That is what I mean by scaling. If you were going to scale a system of law in a town, you would try to make it apply to a city, or a state, which is the same as a nation. This would be scaling the town's system to a larger area or group of people.

    Agorism is a kind of anarchist philosophy that states that if I want to trade with you, I should be able to do so as long as you are okay with it. Let's say that I want to sell you a game (a board game, for ease of use) and you want to buy it from me. We should be able to do this without a third party bothering either you or me. Now, let's say that I opened up a shop for board games instead of just trading with you personally. I should still be able to trade with you without being bothered. This is not possible in today's system of law. I have to pay taxes on each game. A third party is coming in when you try to buy and tells me that in order for me to trade with you, I have to pay them. If I do not pay them, they will shut down my store.

    I used the mafia earlier for a reason. They do and have done very similar things to people that I know. If you do not pay a fee for the 'privilege' to trade with other people who want to trade with you, they will put an end to your trade, possibly by stealing your store from you or burning it to the ground. This punishes both you who want to buy my games and I who wants to sell them.

    Agorism is the philosophy stating that something being under the table does not make it wrong in the least. In fact, fewer people get harmed if you do not pay a service like the state or a mafia. If a state is willing to threaten you, then it will threaten others, and if you pay them, then you are enabling them to keep threatening, so you are adding to the problem. If you do things under the table, between you and your customers, then you threaten no one. If the two parties trading do not want a third party involved, then they should not be.

    Agorism is a little bit more complex than that, but it advocates a 'black market' as a solution to changing laws or avoiding harming people by contributing to the current laws.

    You do not have to argue against these, and in fact it would make little sense to, since I was not speaking to you, but I hope that you understand this philosophy now.

    There are a few things that annoy me, though. Let me get over them, since you went through the trouble of summarizing them more accurately. You do not have to respond, but I felt a need to or it would nag at me. Anyway...

    Your theory is this:

    This argument is redundant because if you deny both moral and ethical reasons, then that covers all possible reasons for the law to exist, and your theory could be restated as:

    If you deny any and all reasons for any law in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for the punishment inflicted on an individual when that law is broken.

    (You used 'of' before, and this was incorrect, so I fixed it.)

    And since we both agree that enforcement is interchangeable with law, it becomes:

    If you deny any and all reasons for any (specific) enforcement in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for that enforcement on an individual.

    Simplified again, it becomes:

    If you deny any and all reasons for any (specific) enforcement in this system, you would be denying any and all reasons of that enforcement in this system.

    Do you see why it is redundant now?

    Because it is redundant, it is obvious, and there is no reason to debate it.

    However, one does not simply deny ethics like one denies morals. Unlike morals, ethics exist as an objective concept. You can find an ethical solution using mathematical principles in any given situation. One can always deny that ethics are worth pursuing, but denying that a thing is ethical when the math shows you to be wrong is ridiculous. Two plus two will never equal six no matter how many times you deny it. You cannot change ethics in your mind like you can morals, so your argument does not apply to me and other people who follow my definition of ethics.

    I can deny all moral value behind a law and still acknowledge the ethical value, ending with me following the law for the good of all. This is what I am doing. I cannot change what is and is not ethical to suit myself, because ethics do not apply to me as a person, but everyone's actions. If my existence is a threat to the whole, then ethics would demand that I be eliminated, and I would agree with that because I could not argue with it on any logical grounds. How I feel is irrelevant to the ethics behind killing me. The good of all wins out every time.

    If I became a constant threat, that is.

    A more perfect theory, as it would apply to me and you seem to be targeting me specifically, would be:

    If ethics denies any reason for a law in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for the punishment inflicted on an individual when that law is broken.

    This is the perfect representation of my position, and I see no problems with it.

    -------------------------------------------------

    You could have provided reasoning, as in logic? You have not argued, you have expressed your opinion. You said that justice exists, in what form you think it exists, and that you believed this to be true but not why you do. You kept italicizing your text and giving a definition, but again, just because I can tell you what a unicorn is does not mean that it exists. You have to be able to provide evidence, and this you have not been doing.

    -------------------------------------------------

    It literally does grow on trees. Money is made of paper. You do not need a government to validate it. If you want an example of where people just up and decided to use a currency without enforcement of the currency, see Emperor Norton and the people that uses his money of their own free will.

    Money is equivalent to value. People value paper because everyone else values it. If other people didn't want it anymore, then it would just be paper, and paper does grow on trees. Likewise, if people suddenly valued a certain thing, then you would start to see it as money. An example might be leaves. If people started trading leaves instead of dollars, it would be the same as we have today. What makes an organization's values better than everyone else's, that their money means more than leaves?

    This is an irrelevant argument, and we have no need to continue it, but it still annoys me that you think money is given to you.

    -------------------------------------------------

    Wrong... If you damage someone else's property without profiting anyone, then you are acting unethically. Many accidents are unethical, but you still have to repair damages when accidents happen. It is the same concept. I may not have damaged your property much, but it was still an unethical thing do to. Because it is unethical, you might ask why I do not advocate a law against it? This is because enforcing such a law would cause even more damages, and so it would be even less ethical than stepping on someone's lawn. A law is only 'justified' according to ethics if enforcing it is more ethical than letting the crime happen. This means that the damage done via enforcement is crucially important when deciding the ethics of any given enforcement.

    -------------------------------------------------

    This is incorrect. I am not purporting to use a dictionary definition of the word... However, if I give a name to my version and define it clearly, then there should be no problem. If you want me to give a different name to it, then fine, but is that what you are asking of me?

    I would quote Wilde again, but that will get old quick. As I have already given my own definition and have stated that this version applies to the way I use it, citing a dictionary is a useless act. A dictionary is not correct or incorrect about a word; it only shows you what most people will use it to mean. It is a reference to help you understand people better, not a statement of fact. No word's meaning is fact, it is a sound that people gave meaning to themselves. If those people and the dictionary died, people would come up with different words for the same meaning. If I do not use it to mean that, then neither the dictionary nor I are correct. Imagine if the same word existed in a different language with a different meaning. The same sounds. That is what you are seeing with me and the dictionary and our meanings behind acting ethically.

    If you cannot accept my definition because that is not how most people use it, then that is a fault on your end. I made how I use it very clear a long time ago and you agreed with me that it was okay. Imagine that we are using a separate dictionary just for this discussion, and I have changed the definition of ethics as it pertains to this discussion. Imagine a dictionary from a century ago or a few centuries ago. Is that dictionary wrong because it does not match today's dictionaries? I do not think so. In the same way that both of them were references of what people used at the time, my definition here is a reference for what I use it for at this time. There should be no conflict as long as you understand my meaning.

    You are telling what I mean in direct opposition to my own clear statements, and this is not acceptable to most people, including you.
     
  20. Lauriam I hope I didn't keep you waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Gender:
    Nonbinary she/he/it?
    1,348
    738
    Alright, while I agree that our arguments are too long and got out of hand, you say that you would rather address the main argument instead of going infinitely into rabbit holes. You seem to forget that you were the one insisting that we argue each law on an individual basis, while I wanted to just stick to my main argument, as I thought it would take way too much time to argue about laws when it was irrelevent to my argument. The rabbit holes were brought about by your insisting to delve into them. And I did not change my original point, it has been the same since the very beginning, you just were mistaken and thought that my argument was something else. Your misunderstanding, while partly my fault for not being more clear from the beginning, is not entirely my fault, as I tried to correct your misunderstanding the moment I realized what it was. My position has not changed, you just did not know what my position was. This is why I thought those individual arguments invalid, and refused to argue against them at first. Moving on.

    I agree. You have been arguing against the wrong position.

    Civil disobedience is an excellent way to change laws. But civil disobedience is different than what I meant with Fight against the punishment with all amount of reasoning within you, hoping to inspire change. By this, I meant to break whatever laws you want, and then throw hissy fits about being punished. If you dissagree with a certain law, and decide to protest that law with as much peace as possible, which is what civil disobedience is, then you will not get respect from the system if you have a criminal record. Take, for example, equal rights. This has been argued for and against, for equal rights for african americans, and women, so I'll use it as an example. If someone trying to fight for these things had a criminal record of breaking this law and that law and a few other laws, and then resisting arrest when the system caught up with him, he would not get much respect when he did this. The people of the system, mainly the police force sent to "control" this protest would treat you as a joke, they might say something like "Well, you know that So-and-so. He doesn't really believe all this stuff about equal rights, he's just looking for any way to defy the system." If you had tried your hardest to follow most laws, however, you would get more respect when protesting something like this, as the police woud realize that since you respect them and their laws, you probably would get some respect from them, and they might say something like this instead: "Wow, So-and-so is protesting. You know they believe it, they would never break a law unless they really thought it was neccesary." Do you see now what I mean?

    So you honestly believe that it is possible to not break any laws in your lifetime? Even if you are taught to memorize every law, how on earth could somebody follow every law? And seeing as how it's highly unlikely for a person to have every law memorized, I didn't think I needed to go into this one. I had been hoping it was obvious. I try my hardest to follow all laws, so if I ever find one worth fighting about, I'll be able to do so without getting disrespect from the system, as I explained above. But I can't pretend to have followed every law. Yes, I've never murdered anyone or stolen anything, but it would be folly for me to pretend I'd never broken any law in my life ever. For example, when I was a child, my mom would walk me down two blocks to my church, and in doing so, we crossed an intersection diagonally, instead of taking the extra two minutes to cross one street at a time and stay in the crosswalks. So I jaywalked. At least once a week for five years, and every weekday during the summer months (we had a vacation bible school that lasted the entire season). Even now that I'm older and know the law, I catch myself jaywalking a lot when I cross a street, instead of waiting and crossing where it's legal. I have broken a law, even though I try my hardest not to. I don't believe it is possible for any human to live their life without breaking any laws.

    Again, I hold that I do not have a new position, you just didn't know what my position was. But, I will do what you ask.

    Position: If you deny any and all moral and "ethical" reasons for the existence of a current law, you are denying any and all reason for the enforcement of that law.

    Reason: A man believes that piracy is morally and "ethically" fine, he will be angry when he or anyone else is punished for piracy. A woman believes that although she doesn't have a drivers liscense, she knows how to drive, and as such, there is no moral or "ethical" reason why she shouldn't drive, she will be angry when she or anyone else in the same situation is punished for driving without a liscense.

    Again, you seem to forget that I wanted to stick to my original point, and you were the one who insisted that I argue each law individually. For my first three posts, I refused to argue each thing individually, and you forced me to. Now you find that you are unable to stand against my arguments, and so shift the blame on me and accuse me of what you in fact did, which was force me to argue against each law individually.

    As for me arguing things quote by quote, lol, I'm sorry, but that's my style of debate. If I find something wrong with just one sentence in a paragraph that is more or less correct, I will seperate that quote from the rest and argue against that one quote rather than against the whole paragraph.

    Again, I apologise for not being more clear. However, I did in fact keep my original point in mind with every post and mini-statement, you were mainly confused because you did not know at the time what my point was.

    Alright, so the argument I was addressing was this:

    I will try and state my objections in bold letters and easy to read statements, as you did with your argument.

    You say:

    People should not dissolve the laws in the system that applies to me because their only reason for doing so is to avoid pain.

    This is not what I think. I think:

    People should not dissolve the laws in my system if their only reason for doing so is to avoid punishment.

    I think there's a difference, and will explain why.
    If I just don't want any laws in my system dissolved, as you state, then of course I would not care how much pain is caused, and this is the essence of what you say my position is. But if a certain law is dissolved just because somebody doesn't want to get punished for breaking it, of course I find flaw in this, for the following examples:

    1. A man doesn't want to be punished for piracy, but he still wants to pirate. So he has the law "do not pirate" dissolved. Now he can pirate without fear of punishment.
    2. A man doesn't want to be punished for assault, but he still wants to beat up this guy that owes him money. So he has the law "do not beat people up" dissolved. Now he can beat up that guy without fear of punishment.
    3. A man doesn't want to be punished for murder, but he still wants to murder the man who had an affair with his girlfriend. So he has the law "do not murder" dissolved. Now he can murder the cheating man without fear of punishment.

    This is different then if I said People should not dissolve the laws in the system that applies to me because their only reason for doing so is to avoid pain.

    If I held this position, my reasoning would then be faulty, as the examples would then become something like this: (and I know, these laws are not in place of the system that applies to me, but since you seem to have a problem with my using this system, I will use laws that are in place in other places of the world)

    1. People should not dissolve the law "do not become a christian" because the only reason for doing so is to avoid pain.
    2. People should not dissolve the law "do not use freedom of speech" because the only reason for doing so is to avoid pain.
    3. People should not dissolve the law "do not protest" because the only reason for doing so is to avoid pain.

    Do you see the difference between the two?

    Ah, thanx for clearing that up. lol, yeah, I guess I should. Sorry for my confusion.

    Yes, I understand now. Thanx.

    Thanx. lol, I can't believe I missed that.

    Yes, I see how it is redundant. But it is still my theory, and I still think it is an issue that needs to be addressed, for the following reason:

    While a law and the enforcement of that law go hand in hand and one cannot be had without the other, it is still important to understand the mindset of the people when faced with the enforcement of that law.

    For example, One can argue that "do not pirate" and someone being jailed for piracy are the same thing, but acknowledging this fact is not enough, we still need to understand why the person is angry when they are punished for pirating. The admit without a second thought that they pirated, they admit without a second thought that they knew piracy is illegal, they admit without a second thought that they broke this law, and yet, are angry that they are punished for doing so. As law and enforcement are the same thing, it logically follows that to break the law is to have said law enforced. It is not relevent wether or not piracy is morally or "ethically" fine, what I am confused about is the mindset of the lawbreaker. They broke a law, law is enforcement, why are they angry about this?

    Again, how do you apply an idea like "ethics" to mathematics? 2+2=4, but where does 2+2=Whatever choice causes the greatest amount of gain to both parties? This does not make any sense! I do not know a whole lot about math, yes, but I am fascinated by languages and words, and I am fascinated by psychology, and do not understand how you apply mathematics to something as psychological as "ethics".

    And yet you stated that "No one deserves to be punished for murder". How does this follow according to what you just said? If the existence of a murderer is a threat to the whole of society and must therefore be eliminated, how does it follow that we let said murderer go because he doesn't deserve to be punished? And again, you say "the good of all wins out every time", but you have said before that good does not exist. That good and evil both are just ideas people make up to make themselves feel better. If good does not exist, how can we determine wether or not something is for the "good" of all? Good does not exist, you say. Therefore, nothing is good. Therefore, nothing is for the good. If you take your position, and actually look at it from a distance, you soon realize that "ethics" does not exist, as "ethics" is, defined by your idea of the word, what is the best choice according to the benifit of any and all involved parties. "Best" is a step up from "better", which is a step up from "good", as anybody with a fascination for language knows, provided they studied the English Language. In order for something to be "best", it follows that it must be "good". As "good" does not exist, nothing is "best", so nothing is "ethical". According to your own statements, "ethics" do not exist.

    Yes, that is the perfect representation of your position. But the problem with this position are as follows:

    If you murder someone "ethically", that is, if you think that you were justified in your murder of the victim, like in the example where you murder me to further your own chances of escape, and then are caught and punished for murder, let's say, put in prison for life, you would feel like you had been punished unjustly, or, using your word for the same concept, "unethically". Therefore, if you did not get caught, you would feel perfectly fine with murdering me, and if faced with the same situation, would murder someone else to further your own chances of escape. This is the problem.

    Yes, I have been providing evidence. I told you what the word justice means, I told you in what way justice exists, and where it has existed, I said that

    1. Justice is the fair treatment of any one person by another person or by a system, as in, the system of law. Therefore, wherever a person is treated fairly, justice exists.

    You cannot possibly expect me to believe that no one, ever, anytime, anywhere, from the beginning of mankind until this point, in any place, in any town, in any house, in any country, in any part of the world, has ever been treated fairly. Someone, somewhere, at some point in time, was treated fairly by another person. In that instant, justice was used. Therefore, justice exists.

    2. Justice is the punishment of a criminal, if the punishment is within relative proximity to the crime commited.

    You cannot possibly expect me to believe that no one, ever, anytime, anywhere, from the beginning of mankind, until this point, in any place, in any town, in any house, in any country, in any part of the world, was punished for a crime by having the same action done to him, such as, a murderer punished for taking a life by being put in prison for the rest of his own. Someone, somewhere, at some point in time, was imprisoned for life becaue he murdered someone else. In that instant, justice was used. Therefore, justice exists.

    3. Justice is the protection of the people by the system the people put in place. Justice is when I walk down the street, and feel safe because I have confidence that no one is going to violate my person or steal my property.

    You cannot possibly expect me to believe that no one, ever, anytime, anywhere, from the beginning of mankind, until this point, in any place, in any town, in any house, in any country, in any part of the world, ever walked down the street and was not attacked and violated or had their money stolen from them. Someone, somewhere, at some point in time, walked from point A to point B without being attacked or stolen from. In that instant, justice was used. Therefore, justice exists.

    Do you see what I am saying now?

    You say that currency does not need to be validated by a government in order to be used, and to some extent, that's true. But only to some extent. A small child can sell his toy to another child, and the price is a different toy. They call it a trade, and it is. It is an object of value, given to another in exchange for a different object of value. This is barter that does not need to be validated by any form of goverment. In the case of Emperor Norton, he had followers of numerous amounts, yes, and his currency was honored in the shops he frequented, but that does not mean that you could find one of these forms of currency and use it to pay for your coffee today. You know my veiws about wikipedia, that it is not a sufficient source of information, but even your source says that Emporor Norton had no political power, and that his influence only reached as far as people were willing to humor him. This is not what I would consider a constant form of currency or protection. In order for a currency to be respected everywhere, it must be validated by the goverment. When I go through the McDonalds drive through, and pay with a fifty-dollar bill, the person in the window does a curious thing: They hold the bill up to the light before accepting it as payment for the food. Why do they do this? To see if the bill has been validated by the government. In order for me to pay for my food at any McDonalds in the United States, I must have currency that is validated by the government. In fact, I find your saying that I don't need validated currency to buy anything just foolish and an obvious display of ignorance. The same can be said of your remark of money growing on trees because it is made of paper. I know money is made of paper, and therefore technically grows on trees, I said the same thing to my dad when I was eleven. But if I tried to chop down a tree and use it to make dollar bills, my attempt at currency would not by me a double cheeseburger at McDonalds. Even if my bill was perfectly identical to a validated bill, it wouldn't work, because my bill is not valid. And yes, any form of currency is only as valuable as it is accepted to be. That's why the government tries to regulate their bills, because if they just let dollars be as numerous as leaves, then a dollar bill wouldn't be worth squat. You would walk down the street and kick up dollar bills with your feet just to hear the sound of the dollars rustling. For example, if you went back around a hundred years, you'd find that ten dollars was a lot of money, because money was regulated more. Children could take a penny and buy a handful of licorice sticks, or a candy bar, or a box of gumdrops. You can't buy a candy bar for a penny in stores today, and that's because money has lost some of it's value. This is the way money has lost value over the years:

    A man works for minimum wage.
    He spends his money at another man's store.
    The storeowner prices his items in a way that will get him profit.
    The man thinks he cannot afford all he wants.
    The man protests and insists that minimum wage be raised.
    The government obliges and increases the amount of money recieved.
    The government prints more money to comply with the new need.
    The man works for a higher minimum wage.
    He spends his money at the other man's store.
    The storeowner raises his prices in order to make a profit.
    The man thinks that he cannot afford all he wants.
    The man protests and insists that minimum wage be raised.
    The government obliges and increases the amount of money recieved.
    The government prints more money to comply with the new need.
    The man works for a higher minimum wage.

    This goes on and on and on as the value of money just decreases and decreases until what used to cost a penny now costs a dollar, and what used to cost a dollar now costs a hundred, and if we allow this to continue, eventually dollars will become as worthless as the bag of pennies I have upstairs. This is why money should be regulated, and we can't just use leaves.

    I agree. Stepping on somebody's lawn is insufficient grounds for a law forbidding it. That's what I said. But you forget my other example, that of smoking. In light of the facts and studies I provided, do you still hold that smoking is insufficient grounds for a law forbidding it? According to your idea of "ethics", I mean.

    Yes, because the name you gave is a word that means something else. You don't have to call justice "justice" to mean the same thing, but when you use the word "ethics", which is, as I remind you,

    1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
    2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
    3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
    4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions,

    you have taken one word and completely stripped it of it's meaning to apply it to some other meaning, a meaning that you agree with but the word itself makes you feel uncomfortable. I told you that I am fascinated by language and words, and I find this blatant disrespect for both words insufferable. If you insist on keeping the meaning of one word but rejecting the word itself, please either make up a new word to assign to the meaning, or at least find a synonym of that word to use, instead of a completely different word altogether.

    On the contrary, words are important and do mean something more than just what I decide the said word means. Yes, words change, and yes, words can sound identical to a word in a different language, but as you and I are both speaking the same language, I think we should at least attempt to use words that actually mean what said word means. If no word really means what it means, then how do you know anything I've said means what you think it means? And how do I know that any word you say really means what I think it means? For example, what if, after we have been arguing all this time, you find out that when I say "punishment", I really mean "argument"? It would change the entire debate, because my position would then be changed from

    If you deny any and all moral and "ethical" reasons of any law in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for the punishment inflicted on an individual when that law is broken.

    to

    If you deny any and all moral and "ethical" reasons of any law in this system, you would be denying any and all reason for the argument inflicted on an individual when that law is broken.

    And then imagine that I don't like the idea of arguing altogether, and so when I refer to two people debating an issue, I use the word "morals"? In that case, you and i would not be arguing, we would be moraling.

    As I do not want to have to define the meaning of each word I use, I think it would be a good idea to just keep the meanings of words assigned to the words those meanings belong to.

    Do you see why I think it is important to actually use language properly?

    lol, I never said it was okay. I merely said that now that I knew what you meant when you cut and pasted the meaning of "justice" and applied it to the word "ethics" your argument made a lot more sense then when I thought you actually meant ethics. In case you hadn't noticed, I made it a priority to place quote marks around the word ethics whenever I used it by your definition. I did this because while I knew that using the word by your meaning would make it easier for you to understand what I was saying, it was the wrong use of the word, and I wasn't going to mutilate a word without clarifying that I did not agree with what I was saying the word meant.

    So you admit that you changed the meaning of the word ethics from what it actually means.

    Like I said, while I agree that words change over time, I don't think it right or very wise to change the definition of a word merely by yourself and for your own convenience. As long as a word means one thing in society, for an individual to use that word differently in conversation only invokes confusion in the discussion at hand, just like how I was confused at first by your saying that morals should be left out of lawmaking and that law should be based rather on ethics. As these two words are extremely similar in meaning, your using the word ethics to describe something else entirely confused me and made me think that you were contradicting yourself.

    Actually, I thought I was pretty accurate in my description of your definition of ethics, based on your clear statements. For instance, you stated this:

    And this is a part of justice:

    The quality of being fair; equitableness
    the "ethical" principle determining fair conduct.

    You take part of the meaning of justice, and apply it to the word ethics, and this is an offense against both words.