[QUOTE=Lankist;17133232]You do not understand law.
Go to school.[/QUOTE]
Laws are made by people, people have morals, laws have morals.
People=Morals
People>Laws
Laws=Morals
[quote]
Stop having sex with my brain.
[/quote]
:allears:[img]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/allears1.gif[/img]:allears:[img]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/allears1.gif[/img]:allears:
Like I said at the beginning of this, you can't say objectivity doesn't exist and be right because you're saying you're wrong.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133233]From a third person perspective everyone has different answers, and I believe from my morals that I am right.[/QUOTE]
But you are not right because objectivity does not exist.
You are arguing a paradox. Objectivity HAS to exist. Saying objectivity does not exist means there are no absolutes, but the notion that there is no objectivity is an absolute.
People are fundamentally flawed.
If laws were fundamentally flawed then they'd be useless.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133244]Laws are made by people, people have morals, laws have morals.
People=Morals
People>Laws
Laws=Morals[/QUOTE]
You are repeating yourself.
Who here has a doctorate in law raise your hand.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133233]From a third person perspective everyone has different answers, and I believe from my morals that I am right.[/QUOTE]
...You don't believe with your morals. You believe with your reasoning, which is faulty.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17133258]You are repeating yourself.
Who here has a doctorate in law raise your hand.[/QUOTE]
I watch Judge Judy sometimes.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17133258]
Who here has a doctorate in law raise your hand.[/QUOTE]
bet you can't clap with one hand
[QUOTE=Lankist;17133252]But you are not right because objectivity does not exist.
You are arguing a paradox. Objectivity HAS to exist. Saying objectivity does not exist means there are no absolutes, but the notion that there is no objectivity is an absolute.[/QUOTE]
Said this. He ignores it. Facts aren't real. >.<
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133244]Laws are made by people, people have morals, laws have morals.
People=Morals
People>Laws
Laws=Morals[/QUOTE]
If people = morals, and people > laws, then laws < morals.
Did you fail math?
[QUOTE=Doriol;17133265]bet you can't clap with one hand[/QUOTE]
I can make a select few clapping noises with one hand.
[editline]01:33AM[/editline]
bow chicka bow wow.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17133252]But you are not right because objectivity does not exist.
You are arguing a paradox. Objectivity HAS to exist. Saying objectivity does not exist means there are no absolutes, but the notion that there is no objectivity is an absolute.[/QUOTE]
There is no right answer, but I believe my answer is correct. I may be wrong in the grand scheme of things but I will defend my answer until proven otherwise, in which case I will defend another equally wrong/correct viewpoint.
[QUOTE=thisispain;17133256]People are fundamentally flawed.
If laws were fundamentally flawed then they'd be useless.[/QUOTE]
Lots of laws have loop-holes, and they can be flawed in different ways. So yes, laws are useless. Since people will follow their own moral compass, all laws do is force the ruler's morals onto the new population to breed a generation of like-minded morals.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133279]There is no right answer, but I believe my answer is correct. I may be wrong in the grand scheme of things but I will defend my answer until proven otherwise, in which case I will defend another equally wrong/correct viewpoint. [/QUOTE]
So you have self esteem problems basically.
[editline]01:34AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133279]Lots of laws have loop-holes, and they can be flawed in different ways. So yes, laws are useless. Since people will follow their own moral compass, all laws do is force the ruler's morals onto the new population to breed a generation of like-minded morals.[/QUOTE]
You are the most retarded anarchist ever.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133279]There is no right answer, but I believe my answer is correct. I may be wrong in the grand scheme of things but I will defend my answer until proven otherwise, in which case I will defend another equally wrong/correct viewpoint.[/QUOTE]
Your views are contradictory.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133271]If people = morals, and people > laws, then laws < morals.
Did you fail math?[/QUOTE]
No idiot.
People have morals
people make laws
laws have morals..
= sign, > sign, w/e. You got the point.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133279]There is no right answer, but I believe my answer is correct. I may be wrong in the grand scheme of things but I will defend my answer until proven otherwise, in which case I will defend another equally wrong/correct viewpoint.
Lots of laws have loop-holes, and they can be flawed in different ways. So yes, laws are useless. Since people will follow their own moral compass, all laws do is force the ruler's morals onto the new population to breed a generation of like-minded morals.[/QUOTE]
...You can't believe you're correct if there is no objectivity. How can you prove the absence of something? You can't.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133279]Lots of laws have loop-holes, and they can be flawed in different ways. So yes, laws are useless. Since people will follow their own moral compass, all laws do is force the ruler's morals onto the new population to breed a generation of like-minded morals.[/QUOTE]
No, laws protect the people from the person and the person from the people.
We could analyze morality, but the Greek have been doing it for fucking ages and they reached a conclusion.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133291]Your view are contradictory.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, they make perfect sense to me.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133295]No idiot.[/QUOTE]
Woot, ad hominem. Victory by disqualification.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133308]Woot, ad hominem. Victory by disqualification.[/QUOTE]
Good job. Have some Don Cab.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSQa9TbcqPE[/media]
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133295]No idiot.
People have morals
people make laws
laws have morals..
= sign, > sign, w/e. You got the point.[/QUOTE]
No that was a mathematical paradox.
It's okay though because there is no objectivity.
If laws have morals then laws =/= morals, laws > morals.
[QUOTE=thisispain;17133303]No, laws protect the people from the person and the person from the people.
We could analyze morality, but the Greek have been doing it for fucking ages and they reached a conclusion.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't mean it is the right conclusion
And we need to analyze morality before we can analyze laws, because morality plays a big deal in the formation of laws.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133305]I disagree, they make perfect sense to me.[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant what you think. They are objectively contradictory. The terms of the things you are saying and the concepts that the represent are in contradiction with each other. Period.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133313]Doesn't mean it is the right conclusion
And we need to analyze morality before we can analyze laws, because morality plays a big deal in the formation of laws.[/QUOTE]
Have you EVER taken a class in philosophy EVER?
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133305]I disagree, they make perfect sense to me.[/QUOTE]
Don't do this, you're going in circles. Just because you think that doesn't make it the answer. If it did, then I could think i'm a 7 foot tall blue skinned comic book character called Lobo, and you'd be dead.
[editline]10:38PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133313]Doesn't mean it is the right conclusion
And we need to analyze morality before we can analyze laws, because morality plays a big deal in the formation of laws.[/QUOTE]
Again, no it doesn't.
My dick is two feet long.
You cannot argue that it isn't because you see things differently than I do.
Also I'm not delusional.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17133308]Woot, ad hominem. Victory by disqualification.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lankist;17133282]
You are the most retarded anarchist ever.[/QUOTE]
Technical he posted this first, and you both are arguing for the same team.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17133313]Doesn't mean it is the right conclusion
And we need to analyze morality before we can analyze laws, because morality plays a big deal in the formation of laws.[/QUOTE]
The Greeks analyzed morality and determined that the proper correct morality is what is accepted by the majority of the people. This is before the Enlightenment Era, where the idea of Minority rights came into play.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
