3 ms·

OK, so then you think the entire system is corrupt, and you should reform/replace it. Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in

OK, so then you think the entire system is corrupt, and you should reform/replace it. Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in every circumstance. Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust), or you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it. If you don't, then you're a hypocrite - you don't really believe that the system is unjust, you're just using that as an excuse to selectively ignore laws you disagree with.

matheusmoreira 7mo ago
> you think the entire system is corrupt I do. > you should reform/replace it This is a way to reform it. If nobody obeys a law, is it really illegal? It's more like a custom. > Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in every circumstance. So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay. > you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it I don't have the power to do so. Also, people who try "drastic" actions are called terrorists.
- throw10920 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - matheusmoreira 7mo ago
    This thread is devolving into insults and name calling, so I won't engage any further. Thanks for the discussion.
    - throw10920 7mo ago
      Before edit: > You've started calling me names so I won't bother trying to engage any further. Thanks for the discussion. A note to future readers of this thread: observe the inconsistency between the poster's stated positions and decide whether you believe that their words are genuine (and their positions/advocacy are worth taking into consideration) in light of that.
      - matheusmoreira 7mo ago
        Resolving inconsistencies between my ideas is the entire reason why I come here to discuss them. I'm just not willing to do it while being accused of bad faith and of having no reading comprehension.
        throw10920 7mo ago
        Factually, you do either have bad reading comprehension or are operating in bad faith, because otherwise you could not have made this statement: > So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay. No need to respond. This is just documentation for future HN readers.
fwipsy 7mo ago
There are many unjust laws on the books, and that will always be true: - some are backed by powerful interests - some have become load-bearing and are too difficult to replace - some just don't matter and aren't enforced - even if you fix some, new ones will be passed, because people are not perfect If I prove this to you, will you then take your own advice and "take drastic action" to replace the US government?
- throw10920 7mo ago
  > There are many unjust laws on the books, and that will always be true: > If I prove this to you, will you then take your own advice and "take drastic action" to replace the US government? No. You didn't actually read my comments before responding, and you're fundamentally misunderstanding my position. That's not "my own advice".
  - fwipsy 7mo ago
    Perhaps your comment didn't say what you believe, then.
    - throw10920 7mo ago
      It does. Read it again: > Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust) [...] I believe the system is just. That does not change in the presence of those unjust rules that you listed above, because those laws can be changed and are changed regularly, and because they're not egregious enough to constitute a failure of the system.
      - fwipsy 7mo ago
        I understood you perfectly, but you didn't understand me. You're trying to create a false binary between "follow every law as written, until it gets changed" and "drastic action." Nobody wants to take drastic action, so (you say) we should follow the laws. You seem to agree that there are unjust laws, but you don't realize the scope of the problem. There are many unenforceable laws, with drastic consequences if they were enforced, which are not being fixed[0]. A just system would not perpetuate unjust laws indefinitely, and so under your framing, everyone who disagrees with these laws and is not willing to follow them should take "drastic action." In fact, there's no such binary. We live under a flawed system which contains unenforceable laws; we can just ignore those laws (which law enforcement already does) even if they are not changed, without needing to overthrow the system, emigrate, or whatever it is you meant to imply by "drastic action." [0]https://claude.ai/share/b5d93161-65f8-432e-b04e-af98d951038e https://claude.ai/share/b5d93161-65f8-432e-b04e-af98d951038e

matheusmoreira 7mo ago

> you think the entire system is corrupt I do. > you should reform/replace it This is a way to reform it. If nobody obeys a law, is it really illegal? It's more like a custom. > Selective rejection of laws based on your own personal morals is wrong in every circumstance. So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay. > you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it I don't have the power to do so. Also, people who try "drastic" actions are called terrorists.

throw10920 7mo ago
[flagged]
- matheusmoreira 7mo ago
  This thread is devolving into insults and name calling, so I won't engage any further. Thanks for the discussion.
  - throw10920 7mo ago
    Before edit: > You've started calling me names so I won't bother trying to engage any further. Thanks for the discussion. A note to future readers of this thread: observe the inconsistency between the poster's stated positions and decide whether you believe that their words are genuine (and their positions/advocacy are worth taking into consideration) in light of that.
    - matheusmoreira 7mo ago
      Resolving inconsistencies between my ideas is the entire reason why I come here to discuss them. I'm just not willing to do it while being accused of bad faith and of having no reading comprehension.
      - throw10920 7mo ago
        Factually, you do either have bad reading comprehension or are operating in bad faith, because otherwise you could not have made this statement: > So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay. No need to respond. This is just documentation for future HN readers.

fwipsy 7mo ago

There are many unjust laws on the books, and that will always be true: - some are backed by powerful interests - some have become load-bearing and are too difficult to replace - some just don't matter and aren't enforced - even if you fix some, new ones will be passed, because people are not perfect If I prove this to you, will you then take your own advice and "take drastic action" to replace the US government?

throw10920 7mo ago
> There are many unjust laws on the books, and that will always be true: > If I prove this to you, will you then take your own advice and "take drastic action" to replace the US government? No. You didn't actually read my comments before responding, and you're fundamentally misunderstanding my position. That's not "my own advice".
- fwipsy 7mo ago
  Perhaps your comment didn't say what you believe, then.
  - throw10920 7mo ago
    It does. Read it again: > Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust) [...] I believe the system is just. That does not change in the presence of those unjust rules that you listed above, because those laws can be changed and are changed regularly, and because they're not egregious enough to constitute a failure of the system.
    - fwipsy 7mo ago
      I understood you perfectly, but you didn't understand me. You're trying to create a false binary between "follow every law as written, until it gets changed" and "drastic action." Nobody wants to take drastic action, so (you say) we should follow the laws. You seem to agree that there are unjust laws, but you don't realize the scope of the problem. There are many unenforceable laws, with drastic consequences if they were enforced, which are not being fixed[0]. A just system would not perpetuate unjust laws indefinitely, and so under your framing, everyone who disagrees with these laws and is not willing to follow them should take "drastic action." In fact, there's no such binary. We live under a flawed system which contains unenforceable laws; we can just ignore those laws (which law enforcement already does) even if they are not changed, without needing to overthrow the system, emigrate, or whatever it is you meant to imply by "drastic action." [0]https://claude.ai/share/b5d93161-65f8-432e-b04e-af98d951038e https://claude.ai/share/b5d93161-65f8-432e-b04e-af98d951038e