3 ms·
> I don't believe I argued anything like that, just pointing out the fallacy of "if the law exists what are they gonna do?". It's not a fallacy,it's the whole
by barumi 6y ago
> I don't believe I argued anything like that, just pointing out the fallacy of "if the law exists what are they gonna do?".
It's not a fallacy,it's the whole point of rule of law.
Arguing in favour of the virtues of a corrupt system just because you believe it benefits you personally is not only naive but also very dangerous, because as we see on a daily basis rules are bent to harm you, not to benefit you.
If you care anything about a free and just society, you don't argue fora corrupt system that arbitrarily picks which rules applies to you. It's this simple.
- staticman2 6y agoApparently your definition of a just society is one where prosecutors throw people in jail in enforcement of bad laws because the outcome of how many citizens are in jail is not the metric of whether you think society is just. Furthermore your definition of a more free society is one where more citizens are in jail because prosecutors throw everyone in jail rather than being "arbitrary". Just noting the basic irony here. Freedom= jail em all without discretion.
- triceratops 6y ago> Arguing in favour of the virtues of a corrupt system Didn't do that. Pointing out something exists isn't the same as arguing in its favor. > just because you believe it benefits you personally I don't believe that either. As I already said, I have no particular opinion about this case. > we see on a daily basis rules are bent to harm you, not to benefit you. What?