4 ms·

So change the law, but "this thing shouldn't be illegal" is a completely separate discussion from "breaking this law should carry no penalty."

by pc86 3y ago

fantasybroker 3y ago
Not sure why you have such a strong opinion on this. There are countless examples of people suffering immense harm for trivial things that are considered unlawful in some jurisdictions. And no, "so change the law" is not the full answer, that's just blaming the victim.
- pc86 3y ago
  Not sure why you think I have such a strong opinion. You are not a victim if you break the law, and it's not victim blaming to say that you should follow the law and work to change it if you disagree with it. Plenty of people never smoked pot when it was illegal then started using it recreationally when it was legal recreationally. If you want to break the law I could care less for something victimless like low level recreational drug use but don't be surprised when some regressive jurisdiction nails you for it and punishes you. That doesn't make you a victim, it makes you someone who got caught breaking the law.
  - fantasybroker 3y ago
    How do you keep track of all local, state, and federal laws?
  - MeImCounting 3y ago
    So your thesis is that just because some arbitrary thing is against some law then nobody should use the word victim to describe people having their lives ruined by the enforcement of said law? Because laws are somehow divine and perfect by virtue of them just existing or something? Nobody has ever been the victim of any repressive system of government or "justice" because it was "the law?" Many people are victims of unjust laws from laws against pot to laws against homosexuality. Thousands of people across the US and across the world are routinely victimized by unjust laws and corrupt police.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      This. Pick pretty much any disadvantaged group and there will be or have been a law that keeps them in their place. I guess they should just follow the rules and complain via the methods the oppressors specify?
      - MeImCounting 3y ago
        The thing is that there is a huge amount of indoctrination from schools to popular media that encourages people to just accept "Law" as somehow of divine providence. Many many people go their entire lives without considering the possibility that the primary function of many laws and "justice" systems would be to oppress and victimize people.
        lostlogin 3y ago
        It’s not quite the same thing as what you are describing, but it leads into Peelian Principles of policing. By consent and with transparency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        This is a great addition to the conversation! I didn't know about the Peelian principles and had only a passing familiarity with the entire concept of 'policing by consent.' Living in the US, it is not surprising that this concept seems foreign to me. Personally, I still take issue with the idea of locking other human beings in cages. I think a police force that strictly follows the ideals laid out by Sir Robert Peel is about as close to ethical as it can get while still having people whose full-time job it is to enforce society's collective will on others. I believe there will always be better conflict resolution techniques than violence. That being said, the Peelian principles do lay out a seemingly ideal compromise in a society haunted by trauma and violence. Maybe even a path to a society where we don't lock anyone in cages anymore.
        3y ago
sowbug 3y ago
What penalty was appropriate for people who engaged in miscegenation in the United States before June 12, 1967?
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > What penalty was appropriate A life sentence. Silliness aside, I didn’t know this was a thing. Yikes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

So change the law, but "this thing shouldn't be illegal" is a completely separate discussion from "breaking this law should carry no penalty."

by pc86 3y ago

So change the law, but "this thing shouldn't be illegal" is a completely separate discussion from "breaking this law should carry no penalty."

fantasybroker 3y ago

Not sure why you have such a strong opinion on this. There are countless examples of people suffering immense harm for trivial things that are considered unlawful in some jurisdictions. And no, "so change the law" is not the full answer, that's just blaming the victim.

pc86 3y ago
Not sure why you think I have such a strong opinion. You are not a victim if you break the law, and it's not victim blaming to say that you should follow the law and work to change it if you disagree with it. Plenty of people never smoked pot when it was illegal then started using it recreationally when it was legal recreationally. If you want to break the law I could care less for something victimless like low level recreational drug use but don't be surprised when some regressive jurisdiction nails you for it and punishes you. That doesn't make you a victim, it makes you someone who got caught breaking the law.
- fantasybroker 3y ago
  How do you keep track of all local, state, and federal laws?
- MeImCounting 3y ago
  So your thesis is that just because some arbitrary thing is against some law then nobody should use the word victim to describe people having their lives ruined by the enforcement of said law? Because laws are somehow divine and perfect by virtue of them just existing or something? Nobody has ever been the victim of any repressive system of government or "justice" because it was "the law?" Many people are victims of unjust laws from laws against pot to laws against homosexuality. Thousands of people across the US and across the world are routinely victimized by unjust laws and corrupt police.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    This. Pick pretty much any disadvantaged group and there will be or have been a law that keeps them in their place. I guess they should just follow the rules and complain via the methods the oppressors specify?
    - MeImCounting 3y ago
      The thing is that there is a huge amount of indoctrination from schools to popular media that encourages people to just accept "Law" as somehow of divine providence. Many many people go their entire lives without considering the possibility that the primary function of many laws and "justice" systems would be to oppress and victimize people.
      - lostlogin 3y ago
        It’s not quite the same thing as what you are describing, but it leads into Peelian Principles of policing. By consent and with transparency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        This is a great addition to the conversation! I didn't know about the Peelian principles and had only a passing familiarity with the entire concept of 'policing by consent.' Living in the US, it is not surprising that this concept seems foreign to me. Personally, I still take issue with the idea of locking other human beings in cages. I think a police force that strictly follows the ideals laid out by Sir Robert Peel is about as close to ethical as it can get while still having people whose full-time job it is to enforce society's collective will on others. I believe there will always be better conflict resolution techniques than violence. That being said, the Peelian principles do lay out a seemingly ideal compromise in a society haunted by trauma and violence. Maybe even a path to a society where we don't lock anyone in cages anymore.
        3y ago

sowbug 3y ago

What penalty was appropriate for people who engaged in miscegenation in the United States before June 12, 1967?

lostlogin 3y ago
> What penalty was appropriate A life sentence. Silliness aside, I didn’t know this was a thing. Yikes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation