User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 41

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    @DiscoBiscuit
    I'm bound to it not because I can't ultimately do as I please...but because if I were to do so the consequences would be, personally, too adverse to consider. Purposefully so, those doing the binding are well aware of that...it is, after all, a purpose of lawfulness. (Either that, or it's just the "right" thing to do..)

    @Jennifer Those are the practicalities that I haven't considered.


    Possible? At what point will it matter if it's possible? It's achievableness will be realized if it gets achieved. Until then it's all speculation..

    More importantly the value judgement (though it is it one, yes) isn't "past bad, future good"...but rather "past important, future more so". Why? Anti-stagnation..progress..hell, we're human and things need to be shaken up some or we risk going back to the caves (or whatever the modern day equivalent would be). Making an argument why human progression is paramount is something I'm not sure I have the time to do...for me it is though. Again, perhaps selfish, but I only have 80 years or so to affect things...it might as well be positive.

    If human development wouldn't occur under any other system then yes the current way of regulating human interaction would be acceptable. But I rather think that there are better ways to regulate human interaction...ways that would be ultimately "more free" and spur human development quicker.
    Progressive. Because there's no mistake like a new mistake.

    The future is important, its important to me that future generations are able to expect, experience and enjoy having things AT LEAST as good as I have today and the ancestors had before me. Its the entire point of memory, tradition, legacy. All of which are unknown or unappreciated by progressives who're just over awed by novelty and anything new. I think that's got something to do with the cultural consequences of consumerism, particularly on anyone who's not that reflective to begin with.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    437

    Default

    Well, as you said in the original post:
    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    Were we not all put on to this earth on equal standing? No one knows, really, what purpose existence promises...so I fail to see how a person can justify affecting another persons life in any way. We only get 80-100 years, if we're lucky...and that's all anyone has. How does another human being, no better, no worse look me in the eyes and tell me "Do as I say...or else"? This is, selfish as it may seem, my life and ultimately I'm the only one responsible for it. If I choose to live it in a way that you don't find particularly appealing then you have your life and you are free to do with it as you please. But I will defend my life with my life and I fully expect you to do the same. If not, then really, what is your purpose?
    Obviously, some laws - laws that make it illegal to kill, or steal, or damage property, or discriminate, or force someone to do something against their own will - are necessary in order to ensure that people can't affect other people's lives in negative ways. However, those are pretty much common sense in any decent human, but they're made into laws so that people who aren't decent can be punished. I think that laws that prevent people from doing things that affect only them are pretty unfair, but laws that prevent people from doing things that infringe upon the rights of other people (this includes things such as noise pollution and light trespassing) are useful to ensure that no one can affect someone else's life (as you complained about laws doing). I would rather have laws that are agreed upon by the majority affect my life than have my life be affected by just one person so that he can do what he wants.

  3. #23

    Default

    To be honest if the law per se is confusing to you I hope you've got good carers or handlers.

  4. #24
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Free will is personal responsibility and personal responsibility is being accountable for the predictable consequences of your actions, your actions are your words and deeds.
    I don't see that as freewill, because the governing force is an intimidation deterring freewill (ability to act in your own manner). It isn't explicitly saying you can't do it, but who REALLY wants to be sent to prison, or given a death sentence? Besides the fact there are still those who do act against the law; which, is mainly out of survival, or there own ignorance that freewill has actually been stripped from them. I think laws still do inhibit. To believe though that I could fight such a force is just as illogical as them believing they have freewill and so I calmly accept the fact that my actions are bound and determined.

  5. #25
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    This is a quote from somewhere (can't remember) that applies:

    "The only things that can properly be called crimes, are those acts with actively deprive others of their rights."

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReflecTcelfeR View Post
    I don't see that as freewill, because the governing force is an intimidation deterring freewill (ability to act in your own manner). It isn't explicitly saying you can't do it, but who REALLY wants to be sent to prison, or given a death sentence? Besides the fact there are still those who do act against the law; which, is mainly out of survival, or there own ignorance that freewill has actually been stripped from them. I think laws still do inhibit. To believe though that I could fight such a force is just as illogical as them believing they have freewill and so I calmly accept the fact that my actions are bound and determined.
    You're still stuck thinking in terms of freedom from sanction or consequences, what about free to achieve, accomplish and be rewarded?

    Most of the behaviour which warrants legal sanction is not difficult to avoid, its also, to an extent not difficult to behave in a way which incurs rewards too.

    I believe in soft determinism so there are some who are fortunate to have influences or determinants in their lives which positively advantage them but I dont accept complete or hard determinism and the abscence of choice and decision making.

  7. #27
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Its called giving a damn and not being selfish.
    There's this, yeah. If you interact with or deal with other people in any way, you need expectations. If we didn't have some expectations or standards in some form.. well, others have covered that better than I.

    Laws are technically just words written on pieces of paper, yes. They must be known and enforced in order to actually have meaning. For example, if the de facto speed limit is 20 miles over the posted speed limit because cops don't enforce the actual speed limit enough, then the speed limit doesn't exactly set expectations for us and is kinda meaningless.

    Some laws are antiquated, misguided, or just wrongheaded, and they ought to be questioned, changed, or revised. That's not the same as not having laws, however.

    From a purely self-interested standpoint, you can choose to not follow laws, so long as you weigh the risk/reward of getting caught versus the potential pleasure that you might get in breaking the law. You could also move to a place that's more lax in the areas that you personally need more flexibility.

    For a broader perspective on the matter, I'd consult Mr. Kohlberg.

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    Anarchism is it? I ws thinking more along the lines of a system more fluid in nature and not bound necessarily to times past. A system that focuses more on the future.
    The only problem with this is that, in such a system, our expectations would keep changing and we'd still have the problem of not knowing what to expect. However, I agree that, in general, once in a while we ought to dig into the roots of our laws and see whether they actually have merit, or whether they are useful or even applicable to our current situation.

    I side with you on the whole "forward-looking" thing and would highlight your word "necessarily." Some traditions and laws that we've kept around for a very long time reflect great, productive, moral ways of thinking that are still applicable today; others do not. We should note the difference between those two sets of laws.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    There's this, yeah. If we didn't have some expectations or standards in some form.. well, others have covered that better than I.

    Laws are technically just words written on pieces of paper, yes. They must be known and enforced in order to actually have meaning. For example, if the de facto speed limit is 20 miles over the posted speed limit because cops don't enforce the actual speed limit enough, then the speed limit doesn't exactly set expectations for us and is kinda meaningless.

    Some laws are antiquated, misguided, or just wrongheaded, and they ought to be questioned, changed, or revised. That's not the same as not having laws, however.

    From a purely self-interested standpoint, you can choose to not follow laws, so long as you weigh the risk/reward of getting caught versus the potential pleasure that you might get in breaking the law. You could also move to a place that's more lax in the areas that you personally need more flexibility.

    For a broader perspective on the matter, I'd consult Mr. Kohlberg.
    Would you agree that you can be a conscientous objector to laws? Such as conscription laws?

    I dont believe that the older, antiquated laws are the most problematic but newer political legislation, the idea of gay "marriage" for instance but its only one example.

    If I think of some of the older daft laws in the UK there's one permitting englishmen to shoot scots or welsh men if they approach from a certain direction and they use a bow and arrow to do so, now obviously that is from the times of the waring baronies or territories, does it really matter? Not really because while its theoretically discriminatory its a curio in reality because the its impossible to shot someone without having committed assault or GBH or murder.

    Its a little like Shylock in Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare, he is allowed eventually to take a pound of flesh but discovers he can not because the judge tells him that if he sheds blood in the process he will be arrested immediately.

  9. #29
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Would you agree that you can be a conscientous objector to laws? Such as conscription laws?
    Oh, yeah, definitely. One can also not follow laws in order to outwardly demonstrate that they find them to be objectionable.

    I dont believe that the older, antiquated laws are the most problematic but newer political legislation, the idea of gay "marriage" for instance but its only one example.
    I added some stuff to my post that you might be interested in.

    If I think of some of the older daft laws in the UK there's one permitting englishmen to shoot scots or welsh men if they approach from a certain direction and they use a bow and arrow to do so, now obviously that is from the times of the waring baronies or territories, does it really matter? Not really because while its theoretically discriminatory its a curio in reality because the its impossible to shot someone without having committed assault or GBH or murder.

    Its a little like Shylock in Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare, he is allowed eventually to take a pound of flesh but discovers he can not because the judge tells him that if he sheds blood in the process he will be arrested immediately.
    Yeah. That is much like American states having laws on the books that are superseded by federal laws, that the states had simply not bothered to do away with. They're unenforceable anyway.

    When we have contradictory laws, sometimes one law holds above another--federal over state, for example. Sometimes, when it's not clear, courts would have to intervene and set a precedent.

    I don't know enough about law to make many detailed, rigid opinions about it, so hopefully I'm not just completely off target!

  10. #30
    Let me count the ways Betty Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    4,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    Laws confuse me. Apparently, I must do as other people wish or face consequences of their determination. Sure, there is some leeway that occurs in the system...but ultimately the premise remains the same..."do what we want you to do or suffer".

    I don't understand this. Were we not all put on to this earth on equal standing? No one knows, really, what purpose existence promises...so I fail to see how a person can justify affecting another persons life in any way. We only get 80-100 years, if we're lucky...and that's all anyone has. How does another human being, no better, no worse look me in the eyes and tell me "Do as I say...or else"? This is, selfish as it may seem, my life and ultimately I'm the only one responsible for it. If I choose to live it in a way that you don't find particularly appealing then you have your life and you are free to do with it as you please. But I will defend my life with my life and I fully expect you to do the same. If not, then really, what is your purpose?

    So, I'm not sure what anything's legal status has to do with anything. As far as I'm concerned one of the few things all humans have in common is that we ultimately can't get beyond our own consciousnesses and percieve an actual reality. We will always be boxed in by our limitations...until we aren't. And until that day comes (Something I would love to see happen, though perhaps not participate in)...no one can tell me that my reality is in any way more flawed than anyone elses...non the less punish me for thinking so...and acting on those thoughts.

    Of course this isn't to say that there shouldn't be consequences to actions...only that those consequences shouldn't be determined by laws written by people with whom I may or may not agree. Otherwise, am I not nothing more than a slave of those people? And, as a slave, do you believe, even for an instant, that I will not fight for my freedom...or die trying? It's ridiculous...

    Laws...they mean nothing. Words on a page, pages to a book, books of library, the owners of which I couldn't give a damn. I live my life with my expextations firmly at the forefront...and really do marvel at those who either can't or won't do the same. My wants and wishes, by my estimation, aren't particularly outlandish...but as I pursue those things I have very little time to consider what some legal mind of my time has to say about my actions. Who died and made him my master? Was he not just as idiotic as everyone else who existed? Why should his perception of reality affect my own, particularly without my consent?

    Yet, for practical reasons, I can see the merit of laws existing and being followed. I just can't follow them myself. The consequences of unlawful thoughts and actions are nothing compared to the consequences of a life lived in ways I do not accept. I have very little patience in explaining the way in which the reality I percieve operates...and ultimately I don't think it should be of any consequence to anyone anyway. I just assume that the system will evolve to incorporate my way of living...and if not, I honestly do not see a more noble fate a person can achieve. I'd be content and would go out insisting that it's ended for me...such that perhaps a better effort can be one day acheived.

    My only question, really, is what this means for my future.
    I agree with several of the points raised here.
    I do agree with some existing laws though but i'm not sure i agree with how the laws are implemented or that it is a wholely functioning system.
    I like the idea of a forward thinking (or futuristic? can't remember exact wording) fluid system... but please... i would like some examples.
    Also i am interested in which particular laws you do not follow and would change?
    Thank you.
    "We knew he was someone who had a tragic flaw, that's where his greatness came from"

Similar Threads

  1. [ISFP] ISFP confuses me-- shed some light?
    By markscol in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-07-2016, 04:49 AM
  2. [ENFP] ENFP girlfriend confusing me! Help!
    By fecaleagle in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 295
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 01:44 PM
  3. How to win back an ISTJ male? HE IS CONFUSING ME!!
    By CocoB in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-26-2010, 08:15 PM
  4. Socionics site confused me.
    By phobosdiemos in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 12:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO