Iangb has been viewing this thread and replying to others. he's had days to respond. Yet, he has not responded. Because he knows he's beat.
Actually, I've been working - and this thread would take a while to answer, because I have to try and work out what your mindset is before I can actually respond to it, which is tricky, because you switch a lot between subjectivity/objectivity. Unwarranted assumptions are killers.
Before I make an attempt at responding to your posts, one other thought: The thread title here is "The legal system cannot justify its claims of personal moral responsibility." However, the legal system
makes no such claims. The legal system is concerned with what is legal or not, what with what is morally justified or not. Some people equate the two - but that is no reason to believe them.
Right... post #75 first.
STT (bolded text added by iangb to make a point) said:
The point was that you cannot define it. You failed to do so. But you know what it is. Your definition included things that are not art in my opinion. You cannot make it that broad in my opinion. What about the sun? If its subjective, I can say your definition of art does not meet My expectancy of what art is - then you cannot define it.
I can define it, and did so - art is anything which the beholder considers to be art; you could reword this as 'art is anything which matches the beholders definition of art'. The fact that my definition does not match your expectation/definition only shows my point - you have a different definition of art from me, and as such would not make it that broad. However, that is your subjective opinion (hence the bolded), no more.
Note that my definition of what
I consider to be art is different from my definition of 'art in general'. My definition of the latter potentially encompasses every single thing in the universe, and I certainly don't consider the entirety of the universe to be artistic (at least, as the word is commonly used).
The law is a malevolent and lie-based fascist dictate.
The law is an attempt to prevent socially undesirable behaviour, created by bureaucracy (and thus with the occasional hole). The fact that you may have a different opinion/definition of 'socially desirable behaviour' does not detract from the intent of lawmakers.
There is no point in you simply making statements like this as responses - it neither addresses my points nor advances any of your own. I am aware of your opinion on the law, you do not need to repeat it - and you're unlikely to change my mind by doing so.
Wrong. Arbitrary has a meaning. You know what i mean. What a weak attempt to dodge. It is capricious, and non-objective.
Arbitrary does, indeed, have several meanings. Which one you are choosing to use is highly relevant here - it is you who is dodging by refusing to say what the 'meaning' of arbitrary is, not I; in fact, I responded to your main point in a separately posted section.
An example - if 'arbitrary' means 'meaningless', that is your opinion only, not a reason behind your opinion. If 'arbitrary' means 'without reason', that is provably false - there are reasons behind every law, even if they aren't apparent to you. If 'arbitrary' means 'because of reasons I disagree with the validity of' - you now need to say what those reasons are, and why you disagree.
That is circular reasoning only. That does not answer why, nor solve the problem. You just used "legal" and "socially acceptable" interchangeable, but both are arbitrary and capricious standards.
Again, you use 'arbitrary' without any real meaning behind the word. As for using 'legal' and 'socially acceptable' as synonyms, that is largely correct - it is very rare that the majority of people in a country disagree with a law.
It is ridiculous to suggest that a punch used in a real-world dispute (say a row with a neighbor) is illegal, and a punch used to satisfy the blood-lust and sadistic drives of the citizen-slaves (who you say make the law) is legal. It makes no sense. The actions are exactly the same, and what else is there that is objective?
The opinion of society - the majority (or at least, the majority opinion of those with the power to affect law). When that majority changes, laws change.
Then the law is wrong. It is not objective.
The law is objective in that it applies to everyone, regardless of their personal morals. The law is subjective in that is is subject to change - but before a law changes, it applies to all.
That is not moral. They are immoral. Also, to appeal to a majority is logically fallacious. Not to mention as arbitrary as the individual decisions are.
Again with the 'arbitrary'!
'They are immoral' is just your subjective opinion, no more - it does not affect the objective fact of what their chosen morality is. As to being logically fallacious - that's how it works, logically fallacious or not. People cannot be relied upon to be logical.
Because there is no secular state, despite societal claims. To suggest the law is legitimate because it is based on a ridiculous book full of insane claims says it all. What kind of basis for anything is a religious book of contradictions and lies?
I said 'precedent' - not 'justification'. Precedent is simply the first/a major example of a situation. FYI, I have little to no belief in God (agnostic atheist) - I'm simply referring to a case where morality has resulted in legality.
There is no link between the law and any legitimate morality.
The word 'legitimate' means 'according to the law' - your words are oxymoronic. 'legitimate' is also a subjective qualifier you have introduced - which (I suspect) you are using to mean 'one that I agree with'. This reduces it, once again, to something based on your opinion.
99.99999% of humans are mentally deranged, and immoral. Just like their sick society.
Another subjective opinion. Out of interest, which side of the percentage line would you place yourself?
Ah, but you already admitted it does not judge the actions.
Where? Note also the 'quotes' around 'society'.
(emphasis mine) said:
You can try and argue that the law judges based on the actions AND something else, but that does not change the fact that its not actions that it judges. I know what it judges - your ability/history to conform to society, pay taxes, and believe in the endless stream of lies and behavioral dictates of society.
If one of the attributes the law judges by is 'your ability to conform to behavioural dictates' then 'your actions' is most certainly one of those qualifiers - in a specific social context, as mentioned before.
Yes, but then legality must be divorced from morality. So : what is it that you think is the basis of law? How is that objective?
I have said this before. The basis of law is the opinion of the majority of those in a position to influence the law, which in turn is affected by the morality of everyone in the country, what is 'socially acceptable' and what may benefit the population as a whole. While those opinions are subjective and subject to change,
what they are at any one time is an objective fact - and what the law says is also an objective fact, if not objectively justified. I have never said that the law is objectively justified, only that it applies to all objectively.
However, the law is nothing to do with morality, increasing quality of life or providing safety. It only CLAIMS to be trying to do these things.
On what basis do you make this claim?
There is no personal expression, no personal "views", no "independence" - except those of Forbidden Truth. This is because Forbidden Truth operates completely outside of all societal norms, values and dictates.
You're going to have to go into more detail on 'forbidden truth' for me - it's content, it's justification and its objectivity.
