What Justifies Breaking the Law?

That runs into the distinction between "lawful" and "right".

::

... which brings me to a great thread idea!

:: ::

... what?
cn

Padawanbater2 said:

Is it wrong to kill the murderer of your child?

Click to expand...

No, not in the least. That is my responsibility, and I could honestly give a shit on others opinion about it. I'd do it without shame or guilt.

To answer your question, to me the law only exist so I know what I have to hide evidence of. As a standard of what I should or shouldn't do, it means nothing.
I follow my own code on right or wrong the best I can. Is it perfect, no, but I do it based on what I feel is right and wrong and what I feel are my responsibilities.

Think about it this way, we follow the law only because they have the force to enforce it. Thats their job to do. I have my own to do. My problems aren't theirs, so their problems aren't mine.

Total Head said:

it makes you a hypocrite without a leg to stand on in your own defense. if it was so wrong for them to kill your kid, surely it's just as wrong to "kill them back". the idea that your killing is retaliatory and therefore just is again subjective.

Click to expand...

Do you have a kid? Because thats a damn easy thing to say if you don't. My child is my light. Before she was born this world was dark and lit by oil lamps. When she was born it was like seeing this world lit by sunlight for the first time. If someone takes that light away, you better goddamn well better believe I'm going to hunt them down and execute them in cold fucking blood, and then I'm going to set them on fire and walk away. I don't care about defense, or being a hypocrite, someone takes that away, in my eyes, they deserve to die. With that said, I live in Texas, chances are the system would beat me to it.

EDIT: PS- of you don't have a kid, you don't have an answer in that, well technically you can, but it means absolutely nothing. Having a parent say otherwise won't change my mind about it, but at least they know of what they speak.

Padawanbater2 said:

Even if everyone in the community voted on it? Would it then be subjective? Similarly, we instated the death penalty state by state, people of each state voted accordingly, is it still subjective if the majority of each state votes to uphold it?

Click to expand...

And you could also add, that he could be a future threat to other people. Thus execution is needed. They cut off peoples hands for stealing, and there are people without two hands...whats up with THAT??!!

smokinheavy79 said:

And you could also add, that he could be a future threat to other people. Thus execution is needed. They cut off peoples hands for stealing, and there are people without two hands...whats up with THAT??!!

Click to expand...

I have to say, if someone stole from me and I caught them, and they only had one hand...whatever they took, I'd probably give them double, because fuck they must need it....†LOL† seriously, if your missing one hand and risking another, that some serious fucking motivation going on there...

RavenMochi said:

Do you have a kid? Because thats a damn easy thing to say if you don't. My child is my light. Before she was born this world was dark and lit by oil lamps. When she was born it was like seeing this world lit by sunlight for the first time. If someone takes that light away, you better goddamn well better believe I'm going to hunt them down and execute them in cold fucking blood, and then I'm going to set them on fire and walk away. I don't care about defense, or being a hypocrite, someone takes that away, in my eyes, they deserve to die. With that said, I live in Texas, chances are the system would beat me to it.

EDIT: PS- of you don't have a kid, you don't have an answer in that, well technically you can, but it means absolutely nothing. Having a parent say otherwise won't change my mind about it, but at least they know of what they speak.

Click to expand...

woah, calm down there. the question that i was answering was philosophical in nature. all i'm saying is killing as a punishment for killing is inherently hypocritical. if kill #1 was bad then kill #2 is equally bad. i'm not passing judgement on anyone, and i'm not saying i wouldn't do some seriously effed up shit to someone who killed a family member of mine. i'm saying it's a bogus justification for murder in a philosophical sense. i'm pretty sure most people would do a life bid with a grin to avenge a family member. it's not a contest to see who loves whose family more. jesus.

unjust laws deserve to be broken. Sometimes we get fucked, so I don't see whats so wrong with fucking over a business or something once or twice in your life if it means no traces and lots of money.

Total Head said:

woah, calm down there. the question that i was answering was philosophical in nature. all i'm saying is killing as a punishment for killing is inherently hypocritical. if kill #1 was bad then kill #2 is equally bad. i'm not passing judgement on anyone, and i'm not saying i wouldn't do some seriously effed up shit to someone who killed a family member of mine. i'm saying it's a bogus justification for murder in a philosophical sense. i'm pretty sure most people would do a life bid with a grin to avenge a family member. it's not a contest to see who loves whose family more. jesus.

Click to expand...

†L† brother, the fucked up thing? That wasn't even me getting worked up over it. The problem with thinking things over in philosophical terms only is their not realistic. They leave out the human part of the equation. As far as treating it as a contest, I don't know where you get that, but to be a contest I first have to care what the competitors are doing. Regardless of what the norm is, thats what my reaction would be. Independently, and standing alone, without a basis for comparison. Whats more, I wouldn't do that for any family member. Most of my 'family' is already dead to me. Those I would I can count on 1 hand. The thing is, in those settings, what is justification? Would justification even be required? Is teaching society that there is no consequence for murdering a child really justified? That goes both ways.

Does anyone know anything about common law?

Statutory laws are created by corporations for corporations. Its a process of money exchange.

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. - Robert A. Heinlein

holy shit that guys name is basically mine. I was reading up on that nigga a few days ago.

RavenMochi said:

†L† brother, the fucked up thing? That wasn't even me getting worked up over it. The problem with thinking things over in philosophical terms only is their not realistic. They leave out the human part of the equation. As far as treating it as a contest, I don't know where you get that, but to be a contest I first have to care what the competitors are doing. Regardless of what the norm is, thats what my reaction would be. Independently, and standing alone, without a basis for comparison. Whats more, I wouldn't do that for any family member. Most of my 'family' is already dead to me. Those I would I can count on 1 hand. The thing is, in those settings, what is justification? Would justification even be required? Is teaching society that there is no consequence for murdering a child really justified? That goes both ways.

Click to expand...

well shit i'd hate for you to get worked up then. it's not that i don't hear what you're saying. on one hand there are circumstances under which i might very well kill someone and feel justified, but it would be out of rage and not planned (i would hope). on the other hand, i know that a world in which everyone kills everyone in that manner would be pretty shitty. it would be the middle east. and of course there's consequenses for murder. like you pointed out some states will even kill the guy for you. some people might even think that having to live the remainder of one's life in a shithole max prison is the most miserable punishment one could get. killing the guy just ends all his problems for him. no looking over his shoulder, no nasty prison food, no getting extorted and raped in prison. just peaceful death, and then you go to prison yourself? how is that just?

who was that guy heinlein worked with? Its driving me fucking nuts!!! was it tim leary?

Total Head said:

well shit i'd hate for you to get worked up then. it's not that i don't hear what you're saying. on one hand there are circumstances under which i might very well kill someone and feel justified, but it would be out of rage and not planned (i would hope). on the other hand, i know that a world in which everyone kills everyone in that manner would be pretty shitty. it would be the middle east. and of course there's consequenses for murder. like you pointed out some states will even kill the guy for you. some people might even think that having to live the remainder of one's life in a shithole max prison is the most miserable punishment one could get. killing the guy just ends all his problems for him. no looking over his shoulder, no nasty prison food, no getting extorted and raped in prison. just peaceful death, and then you go to prison yourself? how is that just?

Click to expand...

Who said I would get caught? I would hunt the man in a calculated fashion. There's a reason that scenario ended with lighting them on fire. Fire destroys most if not all evidence. Don't let CSI, NCIS, etc fool you. They are not infallible by any means. They don't always get their man.
As far as it turning into the middle east, that is alarmist and inaccurate. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196
A town 25 years ago passed a law that every head of household be required to keep a gun and ammunition. Guess what? Not only did it not become a land filled with killing, they've gone 25 years without a murder and their crime rate plummeted. You can act like it would cause a social breakdown, but the cold hard truth of the matter is, when people know their will be swift and deadly consequences, they tend to act better. You may consider it an act of mercy, I see it as an example. You won't be given years to reflect, write a book, etc, your ass is going to get put down like the dog you are. It may sound primitive, but who am I to argue results?

THENUMBER1022 said:

who was that guy heinlein worked with? Its driving me fucking nuts!!! was it tim leary?

Click to expand...

Here's a quote I found off of wiki which *may* be what your thinking of...
Leary's colonization plan varied greatly throughout the years. Because he believed that he would soon migrate into space, Leary was opposed to the ecology movement. He dismissed many of Earth's problems and labeled the entire field of ecology "a seductive dinosaur science." Leary stated that only the "larval," intellectually and philosophically backward humans, would choose to remain in "the fouled nest." According to his initial plan to leave the planet, 5,000 of Earth's most virile and intelligent individuals would be launched on a vessel (Starseed 1) equipped with luxurious amenities. This idea was inspired by the plotline of Paul Kantner's concept album Blows Against The Empire, which in turn was derived from Robert A. Heinlein's Lazarus Long series. In the 1980s, he came to embrace NASA scientist Gerard O'Neill's more realistic and egalitarian plans to construct giant Eden-like High Orbital Mini-Earths (documented in the Robert Anton Wilson lecture H.O.M.E.s on LaGrange) using existing technology and raw materials from the Moon, orbital rock and obsolete satellites.

RavenMochi said:

Who said I would get caught? I would hunt the man in a calculated fashion. There's a reason that scenario ended with lighting them on fire. Fire destroys most if not all evidence. Don't let CSI, NCIS, etc fool you. They are not infallible by any means. They don't always get their man.
As far as it turning into the middle east, that is alarmist and inaccurate. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196
A town 25 years ago passed a law that every head of household be required to keep a gun and ammunition. Guess what? Not only did it not become a land filled with killing, they've gone 25 years without a murder and their crime rate plummeted. You can act like it would cause a social breakdown, but the cold hard truth of the matter is, when people know their will be swift and deadly consequences, they tend to act better. You may consider it an act of mercy, I see it as an example. You won't be given years to reflect, write a book, etc, your ass is going to get put down like the dog you are. It may sound primitive, but who am I to argue results?

Click to expand...

i disagree. i don't know what else to say about that.

yep, thats the one. you have a good eye sir. Still sounds like a good plan to me, really sucks there was all of this movement into a positive - out of this world change or revolution of the human mind in the 60's, but all the laws just fucked everything up. Hard to research on LSD if you can't fucking find legit needlepoint

Total Head said:

i disagree. i don't know what else to say about that.

Click to expand...

I can show you examples supporting my argument, and thats your reply? Thats...kind of weak.

First of all on the internet anyone can do anything and tell people that they would do this or that. Personally if you have never taken a human life before you will never know if you could or not. When a childs death is caused by someone else in reality the parents hardly ever exact violent retribution. So that and the law of averages tells me that anyone who says they could is not being truthfull.

RavenMochi said:

I can show you examples supporting my argument, and thats your reply? Thats...kind of weak.

Click to expand...

in order to support my own argument this thread would turn into pages and pages of back and forth, and frankly i'm not up to it. but since you asked, that town of yours that forced every head of household to have a gun with no murders, what does that have to do with a retaliatory murder? at what point did i say people should not own guns? that's my point. if there were NO murders, then how can you prove that the chain of revenge would NOT go on forever? you can't. and how can you prove that if there WERE murders that the residents of that town wouldn't just let the police handle it? guns in the home are for stopping intruders. you were talking about a calculated plan to murder someone in cold blood as retaliation for them killing your child, not a back and forth shootout. also the notion that you are just so smooth that you'd NEVER get caught is just silly. maybe in the sticks with no neighbors. in the city you are under 24 hr surveillance from 50 angles no matter where you go so SOMEONE will see you. 3 arsons in my neighborhood in 5 years, yup, they all got caught by everyones cameras. someone will rat for a lighter sentence, some little piece of goofy technology could trip you up. your entire argument consists of the following: "i'm above the laws of society because i'm human and have these emotions, and i ain't gonna get caught" i'm not going to touch on the gun argument because i'm essentially pro gun, but not because i think possessing one "lowers crime", but because people should have the right to protect themselves from "bad people".