Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Disagreeing with laws and upholding laws and arguing they should be upheld
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 46 of 79 (442038)
12-19-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by macaroniandcheese
12-18-2007 8:21 PM


arresting a man stealing water and turning thousands of people over to a genocidal mob after lying to them and telling them they were being taken to safety are entirely different things.
Actually its not, when its all about following orders. They were not given orders to fight, in fact counter orders if I remember, and were given no military back up support.
It became a huge controversy, because it was the fault of higher ups as much as the guys on the ground.
The guys on the ground should have defied orders, and not worried about support, and stuck up for the humans they knew were about to suffer and die needlessly.
On the difference between public disapproval and disobedience. First of all one can simply not do something, or do something, contrary to orders but without making a scene about it. That keeps the disobedience clearly out of the public arena. Second, restricting the power of your state, is not the same as openly criticizing a policy. The latter does not gain much, for onesself or for one's organization/state. It creates a negative atmosphere without firmly committing onesself to action... sort of whiny.
It makes sense to minimize public displays of approval, to force those within the group to choose their battles (with policy) wisely. It can't be run like a normal office, which can fall apart with a bunch of bickering over anything and everything, no matter how silly.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-18-2007 8:21 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 47 of 79 (442061)
12-19-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ringo
12-18-2007 8:36 PM


I am confused about something. I thought you had argued that there are "unjust" laws, which people should not uphold, and those which are simply "disagreeable" (or stupid) and so should be until they are changed. I think you gave an example (in another thread) of Nazi like laws having to turn people over... you'd fight that, and agree they should not be upheld. Am I right that you still feel there is such a division?
I'm going to assume so, for purposes of debate.
My argument is that elevating fetuses (fetii?) to the level of human being, such that there termination is murder, is unjust. It actively holds people responsible, and their lives forfeit, for a blob of cells. To me that is as ludicrous as stating that a book or flag has the status of a person, and so one must not destroy them or be committing murder. And this law has direct repercussions.
Forget the guy in question, though his life is now forfeit (death or long prison sentence), think of what that means for doctors performing abortions, or scientists working on stem cells. If we agree that this guy should get prosecuted for murder, because a fetus is a person, just because its on the books, the rest begins to follow.
This is of course the road that anti-abortionists are trying to work. Setting precedence for that legal classification.
It is not just absurd, it is unjust, and this guy just got hit with it. And I do not understand why I should believe the State should uphold that law... just because it's on the books. Though of course I freely admit, neither of our opinions will stop whatever that state is going to do.
What I thought molbiogirl was saying, and what I was agreeing with, was that the state is justified in upholding the law by laying a fetal-homicide-type charge.
I don't want to make this thread about molbio, so maybe I can chop off and cauterize that issue right here. If she meant it the way you suggest then she was not answering my question (in context). Plus, and this is more important, that to me is still considered supporting the law... even if qualified to the time it remains on the books. As it stands in another thread, she seems to undermine your interpretation by appealing to a lack of prosecution as evidence certain laws (stupid ones) aren't real...
In Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana. That's hardly "against the law". And it has yet to be prosecuted. If you want to argue "it's on the books", there are any number of really stupid laws that are still on the books that are not prosecuted.
I think its obvious that logical problems arise for a person who in one post recognizes that it is possible not to prosecute laws that are on the books, and indeed that to not do so is to mark them as stupid (or not serious), and then claim that one is not supporting a specific law when arguing that particular one should be enforced because it is on the books. Remember she didn't simply say they were justified, she said they SHOULD prosecute. This was her exact reply in Post 149...
And, as I said earlier, because the law is on the books, he should be charged with it.
There is a problem here, and it is not mine. Hopefully my point on that matter is more than clear now.
My father used to say that democracy isn't about counting noses. The essence of democracy isn't making sure your voice is heard and your vote counted. The essence of democracy is the willingness to subordinate some of your individuality to the welfare of the group, to recognize that group decisions have value, to not start a guerrilla war every time a vote doesn't go in your favour.
Well I agree, and I don't think we're that far off. Frankly I would hope that in most cases people agree with the laws that are being passed. The question is what happens if one is put in place that is not liked... and I don't mean in some transitory or temporary situation. If that happens one has to begin considering how to confront it.
I agree completely that influencing legislators is the primary important vector for change. But one can really convince executive and judicial elements to take a stand... not to mention individuals on the scene. There's a huge gap between arguing something should not be done, or engaging in passive resistance, and conducting a guerrilla war. From a practical standpoint alone, for most things, using violence is likely to produce more harm than the odious law.
So I hope you can see I am not advocating taking to the streets, or grabbing the shot gun, every time something disagreeable gets passed. There are many vectors for change, and you pick the right one to match the severity of the problem.
In the fetal-homicide case I would argue public pressure should be brought to bear for the prosecutor to drop such a charge and so set a precedent that it is not important, that it is a stupid law, as molbio seemed to understand in that other thread regarding other laws.
The essence of democracy is to uphold the will of the majority (through it's laws) while protecting the rights of the minority and the individual - a tricky balance at times.
This I would disagree with. The essence of democracy... to me... is to use a majority vote system to generate agreements on solutions to communal problems, with a restriction on what "problems" they can address and "solutions" they can consider so as to maximize and preserve the rights of the individual. The state, or majority, is NOT the most important entity here, it is the individual.
I agree with you (and your dad) that these agreements will involve a subordination of one's will to carry out any solution, but in the context of an agreement, not obedience to a "power" above onesself.
That is to say the value of the decisions of the group, relate to the utility group decision-making and work division that kind of action provides. Once it strays beyond utility to the individual, and indeed the individual must view themselves as something that must be useful to the state's needs, then I think there is a problem.
It's just that Canadians are , at least, a little embarassed about breaking a bad law. You guys seem to revel in it.
While most actions follow the route you described. In fact I might argue that most Americans are totally apathetic, I do agree that our uhmmmm persona, and so those that will disobey take the revel route.
We tend to grow up with stories that foster that idea. The Boston Tea Party, and Massacre are two good examples. In fact, if we didn't have that spirit, and took the Canadian route, we'd likely still have the queen. In fact, wouldn't this all be Canada? And then YOU'D be stuck with shitty laws too.
Failure to arrest might be a dereliction of a police officer's duty, but it isn't a violation of the law. Pressing a different charge might be a bad judgement call on the prosecuter's part, but it isn't a violation of the law.
Actually police really don't have to go after every crime. It's the difference between letter and spirit of the law. The duty is to protect and serve the public, defending the Constitution. The laws are a merely a set of tools they can choose from, if they need to do something... not mandatory programs they must follow, or be derelict.
I think that may be one of our differences. I see them as tools, and not mandates for action.
Politicians aren't more likely to repeal a law if people are breaking it. They're more likely to put more "teeth" into it. (Do you use that expression in the U.S.?)
Yeah that expression works down here too. And I have to agree with your point. A good example is the drug war. That said, it can also work the other way. I think it tends to go enact a bad law, as it starts hitting bumps put in more teeth, and then when they find out what a bloody mess they are making (and they bit off more than they could chew), the whole thing is discarded.
That is essentially the process that Prohibition took. And I believe that is the same route the drug war will ultimately take.
The question is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision was influenced by defiance of existing laws. Was it? (I've just told you just about all I know about Roe v. Wade.)
Uhmmmmm. Actually I don't know. But I'm going to boldly assert YES. I do believe that the violence associated with illegal abortions, and the fact that (and this is true) doctors were more openly defying the laws (public media began including sympathetic images of abortion doctors in this wake) that the ruling coincided with public sentiment.
So anyway, I did answer your question about Prohibition, and yes I think the drug war is starting to fall (finally) into the same pattern.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 12-18-2007 8:36 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 12-19-2007 9:59 PM Silent H has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 48 of 79 (442066)
12-19-2007 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ringo
12-18-2007 8:36 PM


I'm here, Ringo.
What I thought molbiogirl was saying, and what I was agreeing with, was that the state is justified in upholding the law by laying a fetal-homicide-type charge.
That is exactly what I was saying, Ringo.
The state has a responsibility to uphold the law. The citizens have a responsibility to challenge unjust laws, by appropriate means, but that doesn't impinge directly on the specific case.
Absolutely.
Unfortunately, some states have chosen to ignore inconvenient laws, rather than go to the trouble of changing them.
To wit: The domain name dumblaws.com is for sale.
I argued (in a different thread) that a law that isn't prosecuted, despite ample opportunity, is null and void (the essence of my argument with Rrhain re: body mod).
The fact that "fetal homicide" is being prosecuted, on a regular basis, in 37 states, put it in an entirely different category.
Women have also been charged or jailed for murder for experiencing a stillbirth after refusing a caesarean section, or just from suffering a stillbirth. The worst offender is South Carolina, where between 50 and 100 pregnant women with drug abuse problems have been arrested under its fetal homicide law, even though they had virtually no access to drug treatment programs.
Talking Points Against the Unborn Victims of Crime Act | Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 12-18-2007 8:36 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 5:04 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 49 of 79 (442074)
12-19-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Silent H
12-19-2007 8:49 PM


SilentH writes:
I thought you had argued that there are "unjust" laws, which people should not uphold, and those which are simply "disagreeable" (or stupid) and so should be until they are changed. [...] Am I right that you still feel there is such a division?
More like a spectrum than a clear division.
My argument is that elevating fetuses (fetii?) to the level of human being, such that there termination is murder, is unjust.
You're welcome to your opinion but 37 states disagree with you. Presumably, some prosecutors in some of those states will uphold the law. Even if many of them don't, the precedent will be set.
I don't want to make this thread about molbio [...] As it stands in another thread, she seems to undermine your interpretation....
I didn't follow the other thread, so I have nothing to say about it. Molbiogirl doesn't seem to have any complaints about what I've said in this thread.
From a practical standpoint alone, for most things, using violence is likely to produce more harm than the odious law.
If you've ever heard of a fellow named Gandhi, you should know that passive resistance provokes reactions very similar to violent resistance.
In the fetal-homicide case I would argue public pressure should be brought to bear for the prosecutor to drop such a charge...
Depending on what you mean by "public pressure", that's exactly what I've been saying. Once again, public pressure in that specific case can not involve breaking the law (unless it's an unrelated law). Only the prosecutors are capable of breaking or upholding that particular law.
The essence of democracy... to me... is to use a majority vote system to generate agreements on solutions to communal problems, with a restriction on what "problems" they can address and "solutions" they can consider so as to maximize and preserve the rights of the individual.
You seem to be confusing the "essence" of democracy (which is why I used that word) with constitutional constraints on democracy.
The state, or majority, is NOT the most important entity here, it is the individual.
The system in which the individual is paramount is anarchy, not democracy. But your misunderstanding of democracy isn't the topic.
In fact, if we didn't have that spirit, and took the Canadian route, we'd likely still have the queen. In fact, wouldn't this all be Canada? And then YOU'D be stuck with shitty laws too.
How the @#$% does that follow? You guys are stuck with the shitty laws because you choose to disobey them instead of approaching them constructively. If legislators know a significant proportion of the people is going to ignore the law, what incentive do they have to pass good laws instead of bad ones?
The duty is to protect and serve the public, defending the Constitution. The laws are a merely a set of tools they can choose from, if they need to do something... not mandatory programs they must follow, or be derelict.
Seems to me to be the opposite here. I don't think I've ever heard of anybody upholding our Constitution. The Constitution is only there to guide the lawmakers.
I did answer your question about Prohibition, and yes I think the drug war is starting to fall (finally) into the same pattern.
I have to say, I'm not convinced.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Silent H, posted 12-19-2007 8:49 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 5:34 PM ringo has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 50 of 79 (442262)
12-20-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by molbiogirl
12-19-2007 9:21 PM


Re: I'm here, Ringo.
I argued (in a different thread) that a law that isn't prosecuted, despite ample opportunity, is null and void (the essence of my argument with Rrhain re: body mod).
The fact that "fetal homicide" is being prosecuted, on a regular basis, in 37 states, put it in an entirely different category.
That does not logically follow.
First of all, had this been prosecuted in that state before? It was passed, but had it been prosecuted there?
Second, how would a law's not being prosecuted yet, which would indicate a state's enforcement agency has chosen not to despite its being on the books, differ from one that has stopped being prosecuted, because a state later choses not to despite its being on the books.
Laws can go by the wayside, unenforced. To say, because they have been prosecuted in the past, NOW they must be upheld because they are on the books, is simply special pleading. Either agencies can decide NOT to prosecute, even though they are on the books, or they can't.
I admit precedence, especially with successful prosecutions, builds precedence... but not mandates. And as we have been discussing in this thread, precedence can be broken.
Given your apparent position here, that witches were being prosecuted meant that those were not dumb laws and you would have said they should be prosecuted? Laws against Atheism? Jews? Laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by molbiogirl, posted 12-19-2007 9:21 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 5:07 PM Silent H has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 51 of 79 (442265)
12-20-2007 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Silent H
12-20-2007 5:04 PM


Re: I'm here, Ringo.
I suggest you direct any further comments to Ringo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 5:04 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 5:45 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 79 (442286)
12-20-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
12-19-2007 9:59 PM


Okay, I can buy a spectrum. I'd still like to hear some criteria and examples.
You're welcome to your opinion but 37 states disagree with you. Presumably, some prosecutors in some of those states will uphold the law. Even if many of them don't, the precedent will be set.
I though you argued that precedent doesn't mean anything? In any case, what does it matter how many states disagree with me? I set out my criteria for what I feel is unjust and applied it.
If it doesn't fit yours, I want to understand why? People, including stem cell researchers, could hang on that decision.
I didn't follow the other thread, so I have nothing to say about it. Molbiogirl doesn't seem to have any complaints about what I've said in this thread.
You were just given all you needed to make a decision regarding the logic. On one hand she recognizes states choose not to prosecute, and when they don't the laws are meaningless (despite being on the books), yet then argues in one case that a law should be prosecuted because it is on the books. That makes the second argument one for support of the law... at the very least while it is on the books.
You may of course act as if her agreeing with what you said earlier, changes the logic. But it doesn't. There is a contradiction and it is quite clear. Of course we can drop the matter between us because she is here now.
If you've ever heard of a fellow named Gandhi, you should know that passive resistance provokes reactions very similar to violent resistance.
Okay, from a brutish imperialist army. How does that argue against what I'm suggesting. If one's state is overrun by foreign powers, or brutish thugs within one's own, are you arguing passive resistance shouldn't be enacted?
Once again, public pressure in that specific case can not involve breaking the law (unless it's an unrelated law). Only the prosecutors are capable of breaking or upholding that particular law.
Okay yeah, I'm not saying people should start shooting police and prosecutors or something. But if enough letters or protests convince the prosecutor to drop that charge... great. That would not be a dereliction of duty, that would be a choice.
You seem to be confusing the "essence" of democracy (which is why I used that word) with constitutional constraints on democracy.
My apologies for not getting my position out as eloquently as Omni might. I really was trying to address the essence. And that was to somewhat take democracy down a peg from some lofty concept, to that of a machine, an engine, a simple process.
I view its "essence" to be no nobler than a fine axe. While it is useful to the individual to get things done more efficiently, it is a good thing to use. But it should not be used for any chore one has, is no more important than any other tool, and once it loses its utility to an individual it should be put away.
The system in which the individual is paramount is anarchy, not democracy. But your misunderstanding of democracy isn't the topic.
I don't agree with your assessment. The individual chooses to engage in democracy for the sake of him(her)self. Its not that communities are evil or something, just that they only have so much utility, and then they can become useless. Once a community decides that it is more important than the individual, one loses democracy and gains an oligarchy.
To my mind, anarchy is a loss of community action altogether, a despisement of such activity. Though they always seem to manage to put together demonstrations.
But this may be semantics.
How the @#$% does that follow?
Heheheh... I just meant that if we hadn't rebelled, we might all be one country, and then you'd have the same dopes voting for the stuff we have now. Then again, maybe by combining our nations the majority would be sane.
I don't think I've ever heard of anybody upholding our Constitution. The Constitution is only there to guide the lawmakers.
That's because you guys don't have a REAL Constitution like ours, nyeah nyeah nyeah. Heheheh. There really is a reverence for the document here, I think mainly because it sets restrictions on the gov't (supposedly). Either that or because God gave it to us.
On the current drug war, I always wondered if later events would mirror what happened after Prohibition. Like Chicago is all somehow pro-capone and you can find places that emulate that time period and gangsters. Will there be restaurants styled after LA gangs? Wil people go to dress up and have their pictures taken with their shirts off and pants half pulled down, waving chrome plated 45s. Great fun for the kids!

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 12-19-2007 9:59 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 12-20-2007 6:02 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 53 of 79 (442296)
12-20-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by molbiogirl
12-20-2007 5:07 PM


Re: I'm here, Ringo.
I suggest you direct any further comments to Ringo.
No, I'm afraid Ringo has declined, and anyway that would be unfair to him. I realize we both do not like each other, but the point is logic. So there is no reason for emotion. We don't even need to bring in evidence (unless you want to show that state has prosecuted the fetal-homicide law before to support part of your position).
Two mature people should be able to handle this exchange without anger.
It is very simple. If a state can choose NOT to prosecute a law on the books, then it should not matter whether it has done so yet or not. The choice remains. There is no logical necessity that once a law has been prosecuted, it must always be prosecuted thereafter (or it somehow becomes mandated). And if one feels that is true, there are repercussions.
I asked a very simple set of questions related to that last point. Those were "stupid laws" which had been prosecuted. Would you then argue that they should have been, or should be upheld now?
Isn't arguing that something should be upheld, the same as supporting a law, at the very least while it is on the books? If not, why not?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 5:07 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 5:51 PM Silent H has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 54 of 79 (442301)
12-20-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Silent H
12-20-2007 5:45 PM


Re: I'm here, Ringo.
Two mature people should be able to handle this exchange without anger.
H, I've said it before, I'll say it again.
I have no desire whatsoever to discuss anything with you.
I let 2 threads that I started die rather than engage you in a debate.
Finis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 5:45 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 6:12 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 55 of 79 (442313)
12-20-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Silent H
12-20-2007 5:34 PM


SilentH writes:
In any case, what does it matter how many states disagree with me? I set out my criteria for what I feel is unjust and applied it.
If it doesn't fit yours, I want to understand why? People, including stem cell researchers, could hang on that decision.
I don't see why this is so difficult. Legislators in 37 states have seen fit to pass fetal-homicide laws. In at least one of them, prosecutors have seen fit to file charges. Neither your criteria for injustice nor mine have any bearing on those decisions. The legislators pass laws based on their criteria and the prosecutors file charges based on theirs.
In the context of the topic, there is nothing you can do to change that law by breaking it. Only the prosecutors could "break" it by refusing to ever file charges. But they work according to their own idea of justice, not yours.
Your plan to change the law by breaking it won't work.
If one's state is overrun by foreign powers, or brutish thugs within one's own, are you arguing passive resistance shouldn't be enacted?
Not at all. I'm arguing that it probably won't work.
Look at South Africa for another example. Was it passive resistance and law-breaking that brought an end to apartheid? Or was it international pressure? Did the white minority cave in to resistance or react with greater oppression?
But if enough letters or protests convince the prosecutor to drop that charge... great. That would not be a dereliction of duty, that would be a choice.
And that's what I've been advocating. You haven't.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 5:34 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 6:36 PM ringo has replied
 Message 58 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 6:39 PM ringo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 56 of 79 (442320)
12-20-2007 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by molbiogirl
12-20-2007 5:51 PM


Re: I'm here, Ringo.
Molbio, I also said that I have no desire to discuss anything with you. That fact remains.
However, sometimes necessity gets the better of desire. A point was raised about an argument you had made (and not by me). I have answered it properly and with quotes.
If you are going to pop in here and try to defend your position by agreeing with someone else, who did not and will not defend you further on the arguments I made, your point stands in contention.
I have not attacked you personally, nor have I distorted your statements or position. I have simply shown where they are inconsistent and illogical (or not sound). If you do not care to answer, fine, but your position has been rebutted soundly. And I think it is a distinct lack of maturity to pass the responsibility of making your own arguments on to others.
If you want to defend your position, then do so. And really how hard could those questions be to answer? Yes, no, and perhaps short explanations for the difference.
As a forward, I will freely post to you as I NEED to. For me that is when you pop into a discussion and try to defend a position, or attack mine, by agreeing with others or making veiled commentary. You may of course do the same. I don't like it, but there you have it.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 5:51 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 57 of 79 (442330)
12-20-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ringo
12-20-2007 6:02 PM


I don't think my point was clear. I wanted to know why you thought it wasn't unjust, given the fact that it has pretty bad repercussions. Wouldn't the fact that it could then be applied to abortion doctors and stem cell researchers, make it somewhat unjust to you... even if not for this guy?
Legislators in 37 states have seen fit to pass fetal-homicide laws. In at least one of them, prosecutors have seen fit to file charges. Neither your criteria for injustice nor mine have any bearing on those decisions. The legislators pass laws based on their criteria and the prosecutors file charges based on theirs.
Well those are a bunch of facts, and I agree with them.
In the context of the topic, there is nothing you can do to change that law by breaking it. Only the prosecutors could "break" it by refusing to ever file charges. But they work according to their own idea of justice, not yours.
This is another set of facts, though the first one I believe begs the question. If I break the law and I win, then I have changed it. It took a black lady breaking a law to win a huge set of civil rights. It took an school teacher to break the law (heheheh... see I sneak in EvC) to... well he sort of lost, but it still lead to a failing of the law overall and so a change.
You are right that prosecutors can "break" (in the vein of "bust") laws, by choosing not to prosecute. You are also right that they work according to their own idea of justice. But if enough people like me say a law is wrong, that might just effect their idea of justice, no?
Your plan to change the law by breaking it won't work.
Well it's not just my plan. The founding fathers discussed this as a necessity, a reality, and indeed put it into practice and won. So I think evidence is on my side with that point.
Then again, this shouldn't be advanced farther than I meant it. I agree that there are different methods to change laws, and breaking them is not the only route, or even the first one. And I don't believe law enforcement choosing not to use a law, is dereliction of duty or "breaking" (other than "busting") the law. Certainly pressuring them through letter campaigns or whatever to change their practices and policies is valid.
Was it passive resistance and law-breaking that brought an end to apartheid? Or was it international pressure? Did the white minority cave in to resistance or react with greater oppression?
Honestly I don't know a whole lot about that... is that in Canada? Seriously though, it was my impression that it took both sides of that equation to bring apartheid to an end. As it is, you mentioned Ghandi. In that case, didn't passive resistance and violence ultimately win?
To sort of repeat a point, in both those cases it started with bad policy, got worse (violence wise) as the upper ups tried to put greater teeth into their policy, and then it failed.
And that's what I've been advocating. You haven't.
Now now, let's not put words in my mouth. I have not argued that people should rush into simply breaking laws, especially in some public sense... which is likely to have repercussions. I am advocating for people to take a stand as they can. For law and prosecutors it can mean choosing not to take on cases that are bad or unjust. And we have the freedom to convince them to do so, until we get the legislators to change the laws.
Outright defiance and violence would really have to be made on a case by case basis, and with great caution. I can agree to your spectrum idea.
With that said, I certainly believe people should NOT be arguing law enforcement MUST prosecute any case, just because it is on the books. I think they should be arguing laws which they disagree with should NOT be prosecuted.
By the way, were you against gays getting married in defiance of the law? I realize they ultimately "lost". But I thought their defiance was laudable, and the civil servants who went along with it honourable for their actions.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 12-20-2007 6:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 12-20-2007 7:14 PM Silent H has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 58 of 79 (442333)
12-20-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ringo
12-20-2007 6:02 PM


Just FYI, Ringo.
Currently, at least 37 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. At least 15 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or post-fertilization).
IIS 10.0 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found
Legal challenges to these laws, arguing that they violate Roe v. Wade or other U.S. Supreme Court precedents, have been uniformly rejected by both the federal and the state courts, including the supreme courts of California, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.
Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina and South Carolina have chosen to prosecute ONLY women for fetal homicide (with the exception of this Patel character). There have been 5 prosecutions in Canada, too.
Furthermore, in 2004 , the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was passed.
The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), 1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) 919a (Article 119a).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 12-20-2007 6:02 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 59 of 79 (442349)
12-20-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Silent H
12-20-2007 6:36 PM


SilentH writes:
I wanted to know why you thought it wasn't unjust....
I don't think I said one way or the other whether "it" (fetal-homicide law?) is unjust. I've said it's stupid. In any case, whether or not I consider a law unjust has no relevance to whether or not it should be upheld.
Wouldn't the fact that it could then be applied to abortion doctors and stem cell researchers, make it somewhat unjust to you...
Sounds like the good-things-used-for-bad-purposes ploy. If it's illegal for me to cut you, it isn't necessarily illegal for a surgeon to do it. It comes down to consent and intent.
But if enough people like me say a law is wrong, that might just effect their idea of justice, no?
What language am I speaking here? That's what I've been saying all along. We change laws by speaking out against them, not by breaking them.
The founding fathers discussed this as a necessity, a reality, and indeed put it into practice and won. So I think evidence is on my side with that point.
On the contrary, the nation to your north, faced with a similar situation, approached it in a less lawless manner and achieved similar results.
... you mentioned Ghandi. In that case, didn't passive resistance and violence ultimately win?
There was passive resistance and violence. India and Pakistan became independent. Is that cause and effect?
I have not argued that people should rush into simply breaking laws, especially in some public sense... which is likely to have repercussions.
Well, that's all I've been arguing against. Who hijacked your computer?
With that said, I certainly believe people should NOT be arguing law enforcement MUST prosecute any case, just because it is on the books.
I don't think anybody has argued that. Law enforcement SHOULD prosecute what's on the books. If prosecutors take it upon themselves to decide which laws to prosecute, what do we need legislators for?
By the way, were you against gays getting married in defiance of the law?
What law would that be? Civil servants may have issued marriage licenses to gay couples in defiance of policy, but was there an actual law?
By the way, I'm all in favour of violating policy.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2007 6:36 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2007 9:45 PM ringo has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 60 of 79 (442882)
12-22-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ringo
12-20-2007 7:14 PM


In any case, whether or not I consider a law unjust has no relevance to whether or not it should be upheld.
I thought you said in the other thread that unjust laws could be fought... like Nazi laws against Jews and such. That there was a distinctive category of laws between which you would not say should be opposed and those that should be.
Sounds like the good-things-used-for-bad-purposes ploy. If it's illegal for me to cut you, it isn't necessarily illegal for a surgeon to do it. It comes down to consent and intent.
So you believe such fetal-homicide laws are a good thing? That it is bad only in how it gets applied? I don't know, while I see your point that there is a difference between the surgeon and the killer, I don't think this issue is the same. This law promotes fetuses as human beings, thus logically creating whole new set of viable legal cases.
If one says, okay we'll only consider a fetus human when the mother wants it, then we are entering a strange case of special pleading.
On the contrary, the nation to your north, faced with a similar situation, approached it in a less lawless manner and achieved similar results.
I'll give you the point that you have more sane laws, if you give me the point that we don't have a queen.
There was passive resistance and violence. India and Pakistan became independent. Is that cause and effect?
I think the cause and effect in that case is pretty obvious. But I'll tell you what, you give me the point that PR&V led to freedom in India and Pakistan, and I'll give you the point that it didn't in South Africa.
Law enforcement SHOULD prosecute what's on the books. If prosecutors take it upon themselves to decide which laws to prosecute, what do we need legislators for?
But first and foremost they don't always prosecute what's on the books. So your question is answered, whether they do or not lawmaking continues and is necessary. If anything, it just goes to show how many laws aren't really necessary.
I don't remember if you dealt with my explanation (my opinion I suppose) that laws are not mandates, but tools. The role of the Law Enforcement officer, is NOT just to enforce laws. The point is to keep peace and security, and the laws are available to them to do that. So they really can pick and choose.
Now more philosophically, the executive and judicial branches act as checks to the legislative branches. They do not simply have to do what any other branch tells them. Well, there are some restrictions to their freedom, but as far as enforcing laws goes, or judging in a court case, they are not beholden to uphold the legislature's demands. that is how laws get undermined and overturned.
Now if the public catches wind of some group putting a hold on what they wanted (through legislation) they have the power to put someone new within the executive and judicial areas to make sure the laws are upheld as they want. They can do the reverse as well.
The powers are adversarial, and that is a good thing.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 12-20-2007 7:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ringo, posted 12-23-2007 12:59 AM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024