3 ms·

Literally nobody in this conversation is arguing that they should be able to do what they want.

eightysixfour 3y ago
That is what arguments like this are: > In a word: discernment. If it's a miniature poodle, you can probably chill. If it's a big dog, it's probably worthwhile to enforce the law. Your whole argument is “judgement is an important component of the law” but what that leads to is differing judgements on what we can do. What individual is so far above reproach that they should have the right to discern whether the situation calls for applicability of a black and white law?
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  watch and be amazed as I successfully do what you're implying can't be done. raping a 5 year old should be illegal and there is no grey there. Go on, explain to me why I'm wrong.
  - eightysixfour 3y ago
    That… isn’t what I said can’t be done. In fact it is the opposite. I said that we should not empower people to decide when laws are and aren’t applicable, because what they judge as applicable may not be the same as what others judge as applicable. That’s the whole point. Black and white laws are black and white, you can’t just decide stop signs don’t apply to you because you are a safe driver. You can’t just decide your dog is safe to be off leash in a place where the law requires it. Not sure why this is hard.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      you can, however, decide that the rape of child is wrong and intervene. I don't have to be "beyond reproach" to conclude this. your problem is trying to apply one to the other, it's an equivalency issue. jaywalking is not equivalent to murder, and it never will be.
      - eightysixfour 3y ago
        > you can, however, decide that the rape of child is wrong and intervene I don’t know why you are latching on to this scenario when it aligns with my point. It is illegal to rape a child, you are agreeing with me. This is black and white. Now, there is some person out there who thinks this is okay, are they allowed to judge this is okay, break the law, and do it because in they judged the child is mature? No. Okay. We agree. That same exact reasoning applies to other laws that we, as a society, have deemed necessary for public life. Because you don’t get to judge those laws as inapplicable. If you do not like them you can try and have them changed or you can leave to a place that has different laws. Where I live it is illegal to have a dog off leash in public places, this law exists for a reason. People should not decide the law doesn’t apply to them because they “discern” their dog is not a threat. If someone cant accept that law, they need to move somewhere where they can have the lifestyle with their pet that they want.
- omginternets 3y ago
  Indeed it is. Applying judgement and "you can do whatever you want" are not the same thing.

That is what arguments like this are: > In a word: discernment. If it's a miniature poodle, you can probably chill. If it's a big dog, it's probably worthwhile to enforce the law. Your whole argument is “judgement is an important component of the law” but what that leads to is differing judgements on what we can do. What individual is so far above reproach that they should have the right to discern whether the situation calls for applicability of a black and white law?

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
watch and be amazed as I successfully do what you're implying can't be done. raping a 5 year old should be illegal and there is no grey there. Go on, explain to me why I'm wrong.
- eightysixfour 3y ago
  That… isn’t what I said can’t be done. In fact it is the opposite. I said that we should not empower people to decide when laws are and aren’t applicable, because what they judge as applicable may not be the same as what others judge as applicable. That’s the whole point. Black and white laws are black and white, you can’t just decide stop signs don’t apply to you because you are a safe driver. You can’t just decide your dog is safe to be off leash in a place where the law requires it. Not sure why this is hard.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    you can, however, decide that the rape of child is wrong and intervene. I don't have to be "beyond reproach" to conclude this. your problem is trying to apply one to the other, it's an equivalency issue. jaywalking is not equivalent to murder, and it never will be.
    - eightysixfour 3y ago
      > you can, however, decide that the rape of child is wrong and intervene I don’t know why you are latching on to this scenario when it aligns with my point. It is illegal to rape a child, you are agreeing with me. This is black and white. Now, there is some person out there who thinks this is okay, are they allowed to judge this is okay, break the law, and do it because in they judged the child is mature? No. Okay. We agree. That same exact reasoning applies to other laws that we, as a society, have deemed necessary for public life. Because you don’t get to judge those laws as inapplicable. If you do not like them you can try and have them changed or you can leave to a place that has different laws. Where I live it is illegal to have a dog off leash in public places, this law exists for a reason. People should not decide the law doesn’t apply to them because they “discern” their dog is not a threat. If someone cant accept that law, they need to move somewhere where they can have the lifestyle with their pet that they want.
omginternets 3y ago
Indeed it is. Applying judgement and "you can do whatever you want" are not the same thing.