I knew what kind of reaction I’d get from the mindless minions, I was more interested in talking to Clayton.
No. You fail to elaborate on your beliefs when asked. All he wants is for you to state what it is you do believe, instead of the constant dodging you do.
But I’ve already told you what I believe. What do I get in return? " HE SAID MIGHT MAKES RIGHT HURRRRRR"
As far as I’m concerned, “dude”, I certainly don’t ignore everything you say, and I’m certainly not trolling. What kind of response did you expect from your incredibly vague (IMO) early posts in this thread? I think it’s highly likely that such posts would pique others’ curiosity, and yours certainly did. So I think it’s reasonable to expect probing responses, which you did receive. So I’m at a loss to explain why else you would bother making your initial posts at all.
Now then, what are you so afraid of that’s now keeping you from actually answering me?
Keep trolling.
As far as I can tell, there’s no avoiding it - it’s what you believe. Apparently you don’t like being outed so easily. Oh well. I mean, if the inferences I’ve drawn are so flawed, then it should be easy for you to explain just how flawed they are. Instead - again, this is from my own perspective - you try to change the subject and otherwise obfuscate the issue.
I’m still waiting to hear your thoughts on what you consider to be legitimate, if anything could be legitimate in your view. Until then, it is you who are the troll.
Anything could be considered legitimate or illegitimate. What makes the claim relevant is the ability to enforce it. Otherwise the claim doesn’t matter.
So, do you believe that whatever the current statutory law states is legitimate? Or do you have opinions based on any particular philosophy?
Strictly speaking legitimate means “according to law.” So yes, the current laws are legitimate by definition. But laws can be inconsistent with prior law, they can be widely unpopular, they can violate social norms or even seem immoral to people depending on their values.
If you’re asking me “can a law be immoral according to my personal values” then yes, I think a law can be immoral. But my personal values do not, by themselves, give me sufficient power to change the law. Without power my values are just my values and nothing more.
Thanks for providing your definition of “legitimate”. I can now see that it’s quite different from mine, which is “not to be opposed with coercion”. As you can probably see, “legitimacy” and “morality” are very similar in my view.
Your values are always just your values. How could they ever be anything more?
Anyways, if you’re not amoral, then what are your personal values?
Not all of us consider statutes to be lawful. Just because there is a gang making rules in a particular area, that does not make their rules lawful. I consider the US government to not be lawful, and therefore not legitimate.
I suppose I should’ve been more specific. These conversations are impossible when the words are left undefined.
My personal values are based on the fear of the wrath of God. Some things just seem…unconscionable, unforgivable. I do not fear being immoral in the eyes of man, I fear being immoral in the eyes of God.
K.
This is a pretty vague response. Do you agree with it, or just accept that I have stated it? Because it is a statement that contradicts your earlier statement. If I were to hold you to your previous statement, that “the current [statutory] laws are legitimate,” then it would seem that you do, in fact, believe in might makes right.
You haven’t contradicted anything.
You’ve just said the US government’s laws are unlawful. This is like saying the color orange is not the color orange.
What I think you’re trying to say is that the US government doesn’t have the moral right to make and enforce laws because they do so without the voluntary consent of ALL the governed.
So basically the US government’s laws are at odds with your values. I agree that the US government’s laws are at odds with your values, I do not agree with your values.
I said no such thing. That you call them laws does not make them such. They are statutes. That a gang can come into a neighborhood and enforce rules does not make those rules into law. It is like calling orange a sound because the man with the most guns says it is.
What I am saying is that just because some gang has the power to enforce its rules, that does not make those rules law.
Many of the US government’s statutes are at odds with my values. Why do you claim that its statutes are not at odds with your values?
A perfect example of how absurd statutes are: statutory rape. Statutory rape is not rape. It is consensual sex, and some gang has decided to call it rape. Well, it is not rape, as rape is nonconsensual sex. But of course, according to you, I must be wrong, because the gang with the most guns has said that it is in fact rape.
So what is a law then?
Law as defined by dictionary.com:
-
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.
-
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.
I do know why this is getting cut off.
Of course, how could I have missed it?! You failed to respond to this part of my post:
I suppose the only part of your post that responded to it was:
You make it sound as if you do agree with the US government’s laws in this statement. So, why do you agree with the laws the US government writes? Is it because you believe might makes right?
I believe you’re conflating the terms moral right and legal right.
In your mind they are one and the same.