|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 8, 2006 15:45:58 GMT -5
Speeding goes agianst natural law. And what other possible reason would anyone need to make AND keep speeding illegal?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 8, 2006 15:58:33 GMT -5
Enforcing speed laws are about public safety and keeping E.R bills low.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 8, 2006 16:22:21 GMT -5
exactly, teancum: good, rational and substantial justification for making something a criminal offence.
saying that something does not concur with your philosophy is hardly different from saying, "nah, i don't like the sound of that", which is obviously insufficient to serve as justification on its own.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 8, 2006 16:27:07 GMT -5
Too a point we require seat-belts in most if not all states, motorcycle helmets in many and there are countless regulation and laws that are in place to protect people from harm of one kind or another. Minimum wage laws can't be bypassed in most situations even is the employer and employee agree. Some might say that is dumb (my first thought when I saw that rule posted at work, Subway I think), but without that the entire law could be worked around and leave people to being exploited.
Is the law perfect? No could it be better? Sure Are we better of with the law than without? Differently
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 8, 2006 18:20:20 GMT -5
did you mean to say "definitely" or do you mean something else by "differently"? i'm not sure the minimum wage is as clear cut as "definitely", though i agree that it does seem to have been beneficial on the whole.
if i may bring up another point about diana's "political philosophies", is it just me or doesn't each political philosophy (capitalism, socialism, democracy etc.) simply try to justify why their values are "what's best for society"? therefore to choose one of those political philosophies exclusively instead of simply aiming for the goal of what's best for society directly would be to unnecessarily limit your options, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 8, 2006 20:20:44 GMT -5
obviously there is no single concept that will dictate whether something should be legal or illegal, but many criminal offences can be justified either by deterrance or by punishment (or both). I didn't ask for a single concept. I asked for an example of a substantial reason to outlaw behavior. I see. Very well. Then to deter people from prostituting themselves, we should make it a criminal offense to do that. Okay. Very well. Then to keep women from making themselves readily available for sex to other women's husbands, we should make prostitution a criminal offense. Yes. Very well. To deter prostitutes from spreading disease, we should make it illegal to make a business out of behavior that spreads disease. Another false premise. Everyone knows a large number of deaths can be attributed to speeding every year, and that's not going to change.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 8, 2006 20:21:53 GMT -5
exactly, teancum: good, rational and substantial justification for making something a criminal offence. saying that something does not concur with your philosophy is hardly different from saying, "nah, i don't like the sound of that", which is obviously insufficient to serve as justification on its own. Which is why no one here ever offered that on its own.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 9, 2006 17:42:03 GMT -5
LOL sorry I meant defiantly. I was in a rush and hit the wrong spell check word.
Anyhow I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with your last post. Political ideologies are very strong and there is not all that much give in them. You can't simply take the best of every system and call it good. It would be like trying to combine Christianity with Islam, Wicca and Hinduism. Each has factors that make them incompatible with the other despite the things they do have in common.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 9, 2006 19:58:18 GMT -5
exactly, teancum: good, rational and substantial justification for making something a criminal offence. saying that something does not concur with your philosophy is hardly different from saying, "nah, i don't like the sound of that", which is obviously insufficient to serve as justification on its own. Which is why no one here ever offered that on its own. then what the hell was the last page and a half all about? obviously there is no single concept that will dictate whether something should be legal or illegal, but many criminal offences can be justified either by deterrance or by punishment (or both). I didn't ask for a single concept. I asked for an example of a substantial reason to outlaw behavior. duh, ever heard of an introduction? that might very well be the initial theory behind it, but if we later find out that society could be greatly benefited by altering the law in some way then this is no reason to stop that. in adultery cases it is only the adulterer who is seen as guilty of any wrongdoing (usually not even criminal) therefore if we want to remain consistent (which i believe we should) then this aspect of prostitution is not worthy of punishment through the law. what about factory workers or coal miners? their jobs involve a high risk of disease and long-term illness ... and even though there are certain laws about safety standards and stuff, it is only the employer who is punished if he fails to comply, not the employee ... are you totally incapable of abstract thought? the point i'm making is: why is it illegal to speed? it is the law purely because speeding causes a large number of deaths. if it turned out that speed limits killed more than they saved then there's no way that we would still be forced to obey speed limits, don't you see? to say that there's no point in thinking about that sort of thing (as you did with my question about prostitution) means that we aren't allowed to ask "why?" ... surely you are not so narrow-minded? and did anyone notice that the first thing i said (in the post to which diana replied) was "obviously there is no single concept that will dictate whether something should be legal or illegal" but diana then went on to treat each of my attempts to justify certain criminal offences as if the same justification can be automatically transferred to prostitution? diana: come on ... to quote one of my least favourite teachers from school, "use the grey matter between your ears" ... and by the way, i remember making a big long post at the end of page 26 - do you have anything to say about that other than what counts as a substantial reason?
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 9, 2006 20:29:39 GMT -5
LOL sorry I meant defiantly. I was in a rush and hit the wrong spell check word. Anyhow I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with your last post. Political ideologies are very strong and there is not all that much give in them. You can't simply take the best of every system and call it good. It would be like trying to combine Christianity with Islam, Wicca and Hinduism. Each has factors that make them incompatible with the other despite the things they do have in common. i completely disagree with you on this one. as i said on page 26, "is it not a fact that if something would be better handled via public control then that is what should be done? and similarly if something would be better handled via private control then that should be done?" political philosophies try to explain why certain things would be better run publicly or privately but it's only a theory, in the real world you have to work with some degree of pragmatism. for example: the minimum wage. the minimum wage is obviously a left-wing sort of idea but even in a rather right-wing capitalist country such as the USA it has turned out to be a great success. before its introduction in the UK the conservative party (traditionally the right-wing party) were whole-heartedly against it, but now even they have to admit that it is a good thing. my point is that since we can all see that no single political philosophy is perfect then simply saying that something does not conform to one's chosen political philosophy is not a reason in itself to dismiss it (as diana seemed to be doing for much of the last page and a half, though she now denies it)
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 10, 2006 9:23:18 GMT -5
I already explained that it goes against natural law to speed. There fore we must round up and punish all speeders. For that is what nature law demands.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 11, 2006 7:47:03 GMT -5
even though i think you are being facetious, would you care to elaborate on that, polytheist?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 11, 2006 13:23:01 GMT -5
my point is that since we can all see that no single political philosophy is perfect then simply saying that something does not conform to one's chosen political philosophy is not a reason in itself to dismiss it (as diana seemed to be doing for much of the last page and a half, though she now denies it) Littlepea, this is why I have discontinued this discussion at any depth and am only responding to you now with direct answers to direct questions. It would behoove you to attempt to understand views you have never held rather than make blanket assumptions about what others are saying.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 11, 2006 18:16:47 GMT -5
If nature wanted people to go faster, then we would be able to go faster without all these cheats. It is just not natural the use of cars and roller blades and trains and don't even get me started on how unnatural airplanes and helicopters are.
Since it is not natural it should be against the law. Period.
Same with artificial hearts, glasses, etc.
They go against natural law.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 11, 2006 20:58:42 GMT -5
Polytheist, if you believe you are appropriately characterizing natural law, you are quite mistaken. It has nothing to do with technology itself. If there is any connection at all with technology, it would be in the way it is employed -- it does not apply in any way with the existence of technology itself.
|
|