Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Originally Posted by sans authoritas
coloradokevin wrote:
I invite you to counter any of my points, and to abandon your ad-hominem attacks.
Have I ever said no laws should matter unless they matter to me? Who should they matter, to, Kevin? The majority of people? Is a majority the arbiter of reality? Does slavery become moral when the majority of people think it's OK? Does prohibiting effective self-defense become moral when the majority of people think it's OK? No, sir, they do not. Things are either wrong in themselves, or wrong according to the circumstances. That is based on human nature, not a legislature. Laws should be based on human nature, not accruing loot for the state, nor forcing one person to pay for the services enjoyed by another person, nor on what makes people "feel good."
coloradokevin wrote:
Yes, Merriam-Webster has a great definition of "assault weapon," too. And they define torture, not objectively, but subjectively. A subjectively defined objective definition of an objective action? Bizzare. A dictionary is handy for a quick and dirty, broad brush interpretation of something, Kevin, but books have been written on mere words that a dictionary is absolutely incapable of encapsulating. What some people (especially those who do not specialize in a particular field) think something is does not cause it to actually be what the majority thinks it is. The majority of people think that Columbus was trying to prove the earth was round. He was not trying to prove that. What the majority of people don't know is that the "Columbus wanted to prove the earth was round" myth was started in Washington Irving's psuedo-biographical novel about Columbus, and that in reality, people knew the earth was round, and had even accurately calculated its circumference over 2000 years ago. The point is, the depth of a reality on certain subjects is usually something the majority of people fail to bother to probe outside their particular areas of expertise, though they can.
coloradokevin wrote:
By your definition, children should listen to their parents not because they are morally obliged to obey them, but rather, because their parents can FORCE them to comply with their commands.
coloradokevin wrote:
What is society, Coloradokevin? Again, a book could be written on the subject. A society is a collection of individuals freely interacting for perceived mutual benefit. Some people feel that violence other than self-defense benefits the whole of society. Such a notion is a contradiction.
I live in society. I may be subject to physical forces, and I will listen to anyone who tells me to do something that is morally required. But no more. My soul and will belong to God. If someone lives according to God's laws, he will, by the very things it requires, simultaneously meet any and all legitimate requirements of any true society.
I may be physically subject to stupid and arbitrary regulations that say I cannot defend myself effectively. I accept that reality. I am not, however, morally bound to obey such a regulation in itself, nor is anyone else.
That was the whole point behind the American Revolution. The founding fathers (a minority) defied the rules and status quo, recognizing a higher authority. Then, as now, however... some have no God but Caesar.
-Sans Authoritas
coloradokevin wrote:
I invite you to counter any of my points, and to abandon your ad-hominem attacks.
Have I ever said no laws should matter unless they matter to me? Who should they matter, to, Kevin? The majority of people? Is a majority the arbiter of reality? Does slavery become moral when the majority of people think it's OK? Does prohibiting effective self-defense become moral when the majority of people think it's OK? No, sir, they do not. Things are either wrong in themselves, or wrong according to the circumstances. That is based on human nature, not a legislature. Laws should be based on human nature, not accruing loot for the state, nor forcing one person to pay for the services enjoyed by another person, nor on what makes people "feel good."
coloradokevin wrote:
Yes, Merriam-Webster has a great definition of "assault weapon," too. And they define torture, not objectively, but subjectively. A subjectively defined objective definition of an objective action? Bizzare. A dictionary is handy for a quick and dirty, broad brush interpretation of something, Kevin, but books have been written on mere words that a dictionary is absolutely incapable of encapsulating. What some people (especially those who do not specialize in a particular field) think something is does not cause it to actually be what the majority thinks it is. The majority of people think that Columbus was trying to prove the earth was round. He was not trying to prove that. What the majority of people don't know is that the "Columbus wanted to prove the earth was round" myth was started in Washington Irving's psuedo-biographical novel about Columbus, and that in reality, people knew the earth was round, and had even accurately calculated its circumference over 2000 years ago. The point is, the depth of a reality on certain subjects is usually something the majority of people fail to bother to probe outside their particular areas of expertise, though they can.
coloradokevin wrote:
By your definition, children should listen to their parents not because they are morally obliged to obey them, but rather, because their parents can FORCE them to comply with their commands.
coloradokevin wrote:
What is society, Coloradokevin? Again, a book could be written on the subject. A society is a collection of individuals freely interacting for perceived mutual benefit. Some people feel that violence other than self-defense benefits the whole of society. Such a notion is a contradiction.
I live in society. I may be subject to physical forces, and I will listen to anyone who tells me to do something that is morally required. But no more. My soul and will belong to God. If someone lives according to God's laws, he will, by the very things it requires, simultaneously meet any and all legitimate requirements of any true society.
I may be physically subject to stupid and arbitrary regulations that say I cannot defend myself effectively. I accept that reality. I am not, however, morally bound to obey such a regulation in itself, nor is anyone else.
That was the whole point behind the American Revolution. The founding fathers (a minority) defied the rules and status quo, recognizing a higher authority. Then, as now, however... some have no God but Caesar.
-Sans Authoritas
