2 ms·
It's interesting when people do and don't cite legal justification as the final consideration. It should be clear that I'm not concerned with the current legali
by hackinthebochs 9y ago
It's interesting when people do and don't cite legal justification as the final consideration. It should be clear that I'm not concerned with the current legality.
- danso 9y agoIt's interesting that you think "legal justification" is being used as the "final consideration", which would imply that legal justifications are ever final in a legal system that is meant to oversee the rights and well-being of 300 million different people. Moral beliefs change, governmental systems evolve, laws take time to pass. You're complaining about why there is or isn't a law, but then you want to take this debate out of the reality from which laws exist in the first place. That sounds about as fun and productive as arguing computational implementations with someone who doesn't believe in the relevance of time or physics. edit: replaced "computational theories" with "computational implementations"
- hackinthebochs 9y agoYou seem to have misunderstood my point. My point was that people cite the law when the law happens to allow their preferred state of affairs, and cite morality when it doesn't. In this case, the worthwhile debate isn't what the law says, but what it should be. When you respond to my argument about what should or shouldn't be by citing the law, you've severely missed the point.