of law in general

  1. of law

Law is one human’s attempt at imposing s/his will on another human being. Laws in their essence have only human legitmacy.

I say ‘YYY is wrong’ and the rest of you must follow it. There is no justification for the law.

Some say law have to be applied consistently. But why? Things change, people change, situation change, I change. Why can’t I change my mind? Why can’t I be prejudicial? The only difference between subjectivity and objectivity is one’s subjective favouring of the objective.

  1. of prejudice

When people talk about reducing prejudice, they are really talking about changing me to make things easier for themselves. E.g there are 2 groups of ppl, greens and blues. greens in the minority and blues majority. the only reason greens is against prejudice is because prejudicial acts by the blues is harming their interests. if the greens were in the majority, they would do the same as the blues. none of them have any moral superiority.

2.1 we are the same

Human identity is at the heart of ourselves. It is natural to be on guard against people who are different. The artificial removal of racial integrity is in itself a tool of oppression. Let me illustrate, using greens and blues. This time, the greens in the minority are oppressing the blues. The greens realise that they are of a different color to the blues. They are afraid that the blues will unite under the banner of their color and over throw the minorty of oppressors. So the greens invented a saying ‘we all have colors’ therefore we are all the same, there is no need for you to resent us because resentment based on colour is irrational. The blues will go, oh yes, we are the same. and are happly oppressed by the greens, because they are just our cousins with different color, resentment based on colour is irrational.

  1. liars

the reason we are so much against liars, is not because what the liar does is wrong but because they are unpredictable. People who are consistent are far less dangerous than liars. Consistency implies predictability, in a way, deterministic, like machines. Liars, on the other hand, lack predictability, they have free will. they are an unknown quantity. the unknown and unpredicability is what makes liars dangerous, and why our society do not favour liars.

In the heart of us all, is a desire to propagate OURSELVES. Keep in mind, I did not say, people who are similar to us, but OURSELVES. It is almost instinctive and intuitive to be hostile against others who are different to us. Discrimination is only natural.

Imbecile self-contradictions from philosopher-shaped fanaticals are wonderful to read and to laugh at.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Hi

Really? One person lays down laws? Huh? Laws can be justified. If “YYY” is bad for the community then “YYY” is bad. The community has laws set to protect itself from things with in the community that could destroy it.

Like lets make “YYY”= murder ok? Well murder destroys the population so therefore it is bad. Hence the community must outlaw murder in order to protect itself from the community being killed off.

Then why call them liars. Why not just call them unpredictable? There are people I can count on to lie or stretch the true. So what would that make them. A lier is somebody who is not honest. Simple and easy.

EZ$

deleted

easymoney

what is a “community” but a collection of people. why is it ‘right’ to have mob rule? just because a mob says something is good does that mean it is good? community is just a statistic. law is what the mob dictates. democracy is mob rule.

liars have the characteristic of being unpredictable. and I explained it is that element that make liars dangerous. I did not ask for a definition of a liar.

just a side remark, your definition of a liar falls apart easily.

If I am dishonest all the time, wouldn’t my dishonesty become honesty? a consistent liar is a truth teller, but just tells truth as an opposite.

It really depends on which variation of the truth you’re telling. The truth is infallible and it will prevail in the end.

PoR

mob? define mob.

Mobs dictate nothing. The majority will dictate.

Anyways what is your point?

Nope. Dishonesty is dishonesty no matter how consistant you are. Dishonesty can only become honesty when somebody convinces themselves of a lie. The truth does not change because of the way it is told. What people believe is the truth is not always the same as the truth.

EZ$

easymoney

By majority, do you mean majority by numbers? if 1000 people said cannabalism is ok and I said it isn’t, is the majority right?

regarding truth. if you went to the land of opposites, where the way truth is told is always as an opposite. and everyone understands the convention, is everyone in the land of opposites liars? a consistent liar is someone who tells truth as opposite. if you are too slow witted and can’t mentally reverse what the person said, and can’t realise that the only difference is a reversal in convention in the manner in which truth is told, then I suggest you see a vet who specialises in chimp brain surgery.

PoR

I cannabalism in the best interest of the group? Maybe you should read what I say instead of saying a bunch of jibbajabba? How is cannabalism bad for the group and how is it bad will be weighed by the group. Does cannabalism hurt anybody. NO. Come on even you should know that. Please reread my statesments. You should be able to undersand what I am saying.

Man you are hopeless you keep missing my point. The truth happens and truth does not change. What is believed to be truth does.

Well I guess i will need that surgery because reading your stupid shit makes me dumber.

EZ$

easymoney

why should the will of the majority dictate the will of the minority? would you endorse the oppression of minority groups? my point if you have read it is that cannablism is always wrong, it is sick to imagine eating a fellow human being. if the majority is wrong and the minority correct, should the will of the majority prevail.

“Mobs dictate nothing. The majority will dictate.”

you should have said, 'the majority will dictate’s when they are right, not simply that the majority dictates.

Truth is given by content + convention. e.g what is said and the way it is said.

you mean truth does not change but what is believed to be truth change? this doesn’t even make sense. i call such sentences - ‘nonsense’

good to hear that you have become dumber.

deleted

And yet, we might hasten to guess at his response. On the previous night, for instance;

Regards,

James

I don’t think there is any absolute morality or law, only means to an end. Any end. The end is chosen by the one who leads. Thus, laws are the means to the ends of a state which usually follow some kind of fundamental rules or constitution. But let’ say a country adopts a new constitution in which the end goal is complete annihilation of the human species. The means to this end would mean writing laws to allow murder and mayhem until everyone is dead right up to the last man standing who would probably be the president. Then he would put a gun to his head and blow his brains out. The end was achieved. I know this sounds ridiculous but Hitler and his nationalistic followers were well on the way to achieving their end of a single master race. The law is imposition because it is a tool for everyone under the leader to follow. And we have to have some kind of leadership otherwise there is anarchy and chaos.

Hello

What is wrong with anarchy?

EZ$

p.s. I like ur name Knowone.

The ‘end’ is freedom, freedom from and freedom to.

easymoney, there is nothing wrong with anarchy if that’s what the end is. It’s wrong when the end is order and peace because anarchy would be an obstacle. (thanks for the compliment, by the way).

Rami, freedom is an illusion. They only way you have complete freedom is when you don’t want anything, don’t need anything and fear nothing.

Law Is Used To Persuade People Into The Hands Of A Ruler

God Gave Us The 10 Comment As Law To Follow Him

If Law Is Used In This Way What Is Free Will?

maybe but your main problem right now is social freedom. I was only stating what morals should be set around.

no.

if someone is prejudiced towards me because i am black it doesn’t need to take the form of conflicting interests.

prejudice comes from pre-judging.

it’s not about me wanting something different from you and therefore us making eachothers’ lives difficult.

it’s you hating me for a reason of my skin-colour or sexual preferences or religious beliefs or whatever, and not taking me as i am and making up your mind based upon my personality.

so why does God tell us to treat others as we would like to be treated, love our neighbours etc.

are you saying that God is wrong?