The Argument Of Rain

[Resonance]

You might as well have thrown bits of sushi at a dart board to come up with this :/

 

[ragashree]

If people didn't abuse laws, we wouldn't need laws in the first place.

Without law in the first place, how is it possible to define an abuse of law?

 

[CollisionCourse?]

The both of you are saying near the same thing.

No, we're not. I was attacking consistency of your conditions. Blair was probably assuming, that if people never break a law, they're good enough to act the same 'good' way, if laws weren't present (correct me, if I'm misinterpreting you, Blair), which sounds plausible, but as a conclusion it's incorrect. People can consider laws unethical, but be law abiding enough to follow them, if those laws are being enforced.

Hope this clears a bit up.

Nice move. I'll think about it. It can be even simplified, that the lie detection method allows authorities to find which part of your testimony you don't believe to be true.

 

[Liason]

oh, my bad, so this hypothetical person has fully paid for the hypothetical house.

Which means this hypothetical man or woman has no hypothetical house note, mortgage payment, or any debt that is owed to a hypothetical bank.

If this is the case yes this hypothetical man or woman can shoot this hypothetical intruder, but he or she must also be aware of the hypothetical consequences and the hypothetical guilt that may follow afterward.

But if this hypothetically man does pay a hypothetical mortgage, house note, or what have you, then he or she is not the sole owner of the house and the bank which lent him or her the money can declare the hypothetical person as a trespasser and proceed to blow the hypothetical person away.

The bank is not a singular entity of which can be under threat. It holds no right to use force as it is a business, leaving such to the local officials.

 

[Liason]

No, we're not. I was attacking consistency of your conditions. Blair was probably assuming, that if people never break a law, they're good enough to act the same 'good' way, if laws weren't present (correct me, if I'm misinterpreting you, Blair), which sounds plausible, but as a conclusion it's incorrect. People can consider laws unethical, but be law abiding enough to follow them, if those laws are being enforced.

I meant, on what my response would need to be of. Perhaps I'm too scatterbrained?

Nice move. I'll think about it. It can be even simplified, that the lie detection method allows authorities to find which part of your testimony you don't believe to be true.

ty.

You might as well have thrown bits of sushi at a dart board to come up with this :/

Cool, you caught on. I'm bored, if you'll note. I like these sort of situations.

 

[Resonance]

Without law in the first place, how is it possible to define an abuse of law?

>.> Well, that's would have been the tautological defense of my argument, but it looks like my point got across to some people The idea is that if people were lawful in general, you could just make a law like "don't go in other people's yards without permission" and you wouldn't need to make allowances for murder. And if people aren't lawful in general, then someone is going to abuse that allowance for murder somehow.

Cool, you caught on. I'm bored, if you'll note. I like these sort of situations.

Touchée

 

[Liason]

So, just pushing this one out there since it seems I need a change of pace, let's go for an oldy.

"What makes one life worth more than another?"

I say nothing. Every life is worth the exact same, but I'm looking from a viewpoint where all life is precious, but it is all equal and minuscule on the grand scale. animal, plant, insect, etc equivocal to each other. I justify this by saying everything exists on the same plane of existence.

 

[Resonance]

I agree. All life is equally worthless o.o

 

[erm]

Every life is worth the exact same, but I'm looking from a viewpoint where all life is precious, but it is all equal and minuscule on the grand scale. animal, plant, insect, etc equivocal to each other. I justify this by saying everything exists on the same plane of existence.

Well, operating from those premises, those lives that will create and/or maintain more lives than themselves would appear to gain the worth of those that depend on them. Equally, those that will destroy other life would lose the value of them off of their own value.

You'd have to be a consequentialist to accept that argument. Meaning there's an invisible premise that one has to consider the future important, rather than just the present.

I'd also add that valuing all life equally is arbitrary, as is it being precious, as is the definition of life. Also that I have no idea what a "plane of existence" is, or at least how one would distinguish between different planes, if they did exist (going by the religious definition).

 

[ragashree]

^ Maybe she's been studying Jainism? What she says somewhat ties in with the Jain karmic philosophy anyway...

 

[Into It]

Those criteria are too loose. If a person calls out to you, "I'm going to encroach on your property with my fingers interlocked behind my head," and you're saying, "No, I would really prefer that you didn't," and they do it anyway...then they have not done anything to deserve death. That's draconian strictness.

It's different if they attempt to attack you, or any number of other possible situations, but those criteria are too loose.