6 ms·

So by your reasoning, students caught smoking marijuana should be expelled? What about people like Edward Snowden? Should he have gotten the Aaron Swartz treatm

So by your reasoning, students caught smoking marijuana should be expelled? What about people like Edward Snowden? Should he have gotten the Aaron Swartz treatment too if he were at MIT? Right, because all laws are just.

tsotha 13y ago
>So by your reasoning, students caught smoking marijuana should be expelled? Depends. If it's a felony where you are, then yes. >What about people like Edward Snowden? What about him? If the feds ever catch up with Snowden he'll go to jail, and that's where he belongs. >Should he have gotten the Aaron Swartz treatment too if he were at MIT? Right, because all laws are just. Justice is a subjective thing, and that's why legislatures write the laws. If you're going to have the rule of law you have the rule of law. The upside is people in power have to obey the laws just like everyone else. The downside is everyone else has to obey the laws too.
- woofuls 13y ago
  You shouldn't put so much faith into our system. Your theoretical model for how the system works falls short of reality. If you truly think the law is applied equally among all, you need to do some serious research. The powerful among us don't have to obey the laws like everyone else. Finally, it isn't the powerless among us writing or influencing those who do write the laws.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    >Your theoretical model for how the system works falls short of reality. If you truly think the law is applied equally among all, you need to do some serious research. Actually, the laws in the US are pretty evenly enforced. It's as close as you're going to get in the real world. >Finally, it isn't the powerless among us writing or influencing those who do write the laws. Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all make large campaign contributions, but ultimately the vote is what actually matters.
    - omegaworks 13y ago
      >Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all make large campaign contributions, but ultimately the vote is what actually matters. Wrong, on the most basic level. [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_State...
      - dalke 13y ago
        Also wrong because in many states convicted felons are disenfranchised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#Unite... . "As of 2010, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together block an estimated 5.9 million Americans from voting."
        tsotha 13y ago
        Well, thank God for that. Let me rephrase then: Everyone who isn't a complete and total loser gets to vote.
        dalke 13y ago
        I find it very odd that a convicted felon in Kentucky is unable to vote, and considered a "total loser" by you, while someone who did the same crime in Maine has not lost the vote, and so is not a loser. You can of course define "total loser" to include someone who has been disenfranchised, but that would be an unusual definition that seems deliberately constructed to misinform.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        Refocus on the third sentence... Instead, they are elected by "electors" who are chosen by popular vote on a state-by-state basis.[3]
      - tsotha 13y ago
        It's not wrong at all. The vote is still what matters, even with the electoral college.
- omegaworks 13y ago
  >Depends. If it's a felony where you are, then yes. Lawrence Kohlburg classifies this kind of reasoning at the fourth of six stages of moral development. [1] Laws are created by people - no, even worse: by committee. Do you think people who have committed no violence on others ought to be stripped of their education and opportunities? >The upside is people in power have to obey the laws just like everyone else. This principle is violated time and time again by people in power. Consider the recent fines imposed on HSBC for facilitating money laundering in latin america. A pittance. A slap on the wrist. The consequences for them didn't even come close to the profits they made. 1. http://brianwilliamson.id.au/cit/level1/psych1/kohlberg.pdf http://brianwilliamson.id.au/cit/level1/psych1/kohlberg.pdf
  - tsotha 13y ago
    >Lawrence Kohlburg classifies this kind of reasoning at the fourth of six stages of moral development. Great. When I want Lawrence Kohlburg's opinion I'll seek it out. >This principle is violated time and time again by people in power. If by "time and time again" you mean "rarely, in the great scheme of things".

tsotha 13y ago

>So by your reasoning, students caught smoking marijuana should be expelled? Depends. If it's a felony where you are, then yes. >What about people like Edward Snowden? What about him? If the feds ever catch up with Snowden he'll go to jail, and that's where he belongs. >Should he have gotten the Aaron Swartz treatment too if he were at MIT? Right, because all laws are just. Justice is a subjective thing, and that's why legislatures write the laws. If you're going to have the rule of law you have the rule of law. The upside is people in power have to obey the laws just like everyone else. The downside is everyone else has to obey the laws too.

woofuls 13y ago
You shouldn't put so much faith into our system. Your theoretical model for how the system works falls short of reality. If you truly think the law is applied equally among all, you need to do some serious research. The powerful among us don't have to obey the laws like everyone else. Finally, it isn't the powerless among us writing or influencing those who do write the laws.
- tsotha 13y ago
  >Your theoretical model for how the system works falls short of reality. If you truly think the law is applied equally among all, you need to do some serious research. Actually, the laws in the US are pretty evenly enforced. It's as close as you're going to get in the real world. >Finally, it isn't the powerless among us writing or influencing those who do write the laws. Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all make large campaign contributions, but ultimately the vote is what actually matters.
  - omegaworks 13y ago
    >Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all make large campaign contributions, but ultimately the vote is what actually matters. Wrong, on the most basic level. [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_State...
    - dalke 13y ago
      Also wrong because in many states convicted felons are disenfranchised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#Unite... . "As of 2010, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together block an estimated 5.9 million Americans from voting."
      - tsotha 13y ago
        Well, thank God for that. Let me rephrase then: Everyone who isn't a complete and total loser gets to vote.
        dalke 13y ago
        I find it very odd that a convicted felon in Kentucky is unable to vote, and considered a "total loser" by you, while someone who did the same crime in Maine has not lost the vote, and so is not a loser. You can of course define "total loser" to include someone who has been disenfranchised, but that would be an unusual definition that seems deliberately constructed to misinform.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      Refocus on the third sentence... Instead, they are elected by "electors" who are chosen by popular vote on a state-by-state basis.[3]
    - tsotha 13y ago
      It's not wrong at all. The vote is still what matters, even with the electoral college.
omegaworks 13y ago
>Depends. If it's a felony where you are, then yes. Lawrence Kohlburg classifies this kind of reasoning at the fourth of six stages of moral development. [1] Laws are created by people - no, even worse: by committee. Do you think people who have committed no violence on others ought to be stripped of their education and opportunities? >The upside is people in power have to obey the laws just like everyone else. This principle is violated time and time again by people in power. Consider the recent fines imposed on HSBC for facilitating money laundering in latin america. A pittance. A slap on the wrist. The consequences for them didn't even come close to the profits they made. 1. http://brianwilliamson.id.au/cit/level1/psych1/kohlberg.pdf http://brianwilliamson.id.au/cit/level1/psych1/kohlberg.pdf
- tsotha 13y ago
  >Lawrence Kohlburg classifies this kind of reasoning at the fourth of six stages of moral development. Great. When I want Lawrence Kohlburg's opinion I'll seek it out. >This principle is violated time and time again by people in power. If by "time and time again" you mean "rarely, in the great scheme of things".