lizzie
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 28,580
- Reaction score
- 31,554
- Location
- between two worlds
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
About the only law I break on a regular bases is speed limits. I leave for KC tomorrow and will probably drive 80 mph most of the trip. I don't do any illegal drugs, I never drink more than 2 and drive anymore.
In Texas, you can drive 80, and usually not get pulled over, unless you are in the metro areas. Many of our highways have a speed limit of 75.
I follow all laws because that's part of the social contract. If I disagree with a law, I will try to get the law changed, but until it actually is no longer in force, it is my responsibility to follow it, even if I disagree with it.
So if a law were to say jews should be killed on sight, or politicians have the right to have sex with your wife, you would go along with such laws? I mean, until they're changed, they're laws and must be followed, right?
I suspect you wouldn't, meaning there is in fact a limit to what you'll accept as an immoral law, yours just happens to be a lot higher than most.
Those are nonsensical laws that would never exist in the United States or any first world countries. When you have to delve to this level of absurdity, it's clear that you've got no real argument to make.
Bahahahaha, the "our country would never make nonsensical laws" argument. What a bunch of exceptionalist bull****. Pick up a history book, Cephus.
You're full of ****. You would NOT follow every law just because it's a law. All you've done is look at our laws and said "I can live by that, so I will." Only a coward would follow every law, no matter how heinous, just because it's a law.
Then by all means, point out the specific laws that you mentioned and exactly when those specific laws were in place in the United States... ever. I'll wait. :roll:
You are completely unable to think outside of your little box. I gave an example of a law that you would not follow, showing you that you exaggerated when you said you would follow any law, just because it's a law.
All you've done is looked at our laws and said "Yes, I find these reasonable enough, I will follow them." So you are not obeying the law only because it's a law, you examined them and gave them a reasonability test. There have been plenty of horrible laws in history that you would've violated, and you know it.
It's just ridiculous, it's like saying there's a law that you'll cut your own head off with a rusty hacksaw. Well no, nobody would follow that, but there would never be a law like that so it's really irrelevant. Come back with some reasonable laws that might actually exist and you'll have a point. Otherwise, it's argumentum ad absurdium.
All couples staying overnight in a hotel must have a room with double beds that are at least two feet apart. Making love in the space between the beds is strictly forbidden.
- North Carolina
A woman can not be on top in sexual activities.
- Massachusetts
It is unlawful for "negroes" to be within county boundaries from sundown to sunrise. - Fairfield, Illinois
Government should not be in in the business of legislating morality,
those some may view as immoral are usually choices, no one if forcing you to be a part of a same-sex marriage.
Morality is an underpinning of law.
I feel guilty if I go over the speed limit...
Not me. I just hope not to get caught. :lol:
It is, in the sense you must allow freedom of morality.
The government should not be the one to tell you what is right and wrong.
Mmm, nope. There should be freedoms of various things, but one's belief about what is moral does not put him/her above the law of the land.
How not? It does so on behalf of the society whose members, in the absence of government doing so, would tell you what is right and wrong via other (less controlled and less desirable) methods.
I am curious how people differentiate between legality and morality in their every day actions
Unless the activity does harm there is no reason to restrict it.
It is freedom, it doesn't affect anyone else but you and/or a consenting partner so the government has no need to legislate on it.
People already define their own morals and morals vary form person to person.
Agree.
So you're talking about gay marriage or gay sex or whatnot? I agree, not something ripe for government legislation/regulation.
Would you apply this rationale to wage laws? It doesn't affect anyone else but you and your trading partner so the government has no need to legislate on it.
Sure, beliefs about what is right and wrong may vary from person to person, but the society typically has some way of enforcing the rights and wrongs about which it widely agrees.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?