Simple Question:

[JBeukema]

Again you appeal to the Law.

Killing Mormons was legal, too. Does that make it okay?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again you appeal to the Law.

Killing Mormons was legal, too. Does that make it okay?

No I didn't. I pointed out that YOU have a right to an opinion, and the LAW has a right to an opinion.

The difference is, if your opinion and the law's opinion are in conflict, the law is trump because we as a nation have chosen to be governed by laws.

 

[snjmom]

Again you appeal to the Law.

Killing Mormons was legal, too. Does that make it okay?

You can't talk about rights without talking about the law. There are zillions of morally reprehensible activity (to one person or another) that are perfectly legal.

Personally, I believe in the death penalty, right to die, reproductive choice, war as a solution to resource scarcity or political issues and personal retribution against those who have harmed you. Your are free to believe differently.

Hell, not wearing the hajib is legal, but does that make it okay?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again you appeal to the Law.

Killing Mormons was legal, too. Does that make it okay?

Laws are a codification of the collective morality, or sense of right and wrong, of a society, assuming that such a society is democratically represented.

You're challenging the legitimacy of Law because you don't like the Law having made abortion legal in some circumstances...

...if you have a better way of governing a society, one that does not depend on a respect for Laws as a legitimate representation of the will of the People,

you should tell us what that is.

 

[Jack Fate]

Again you appeal to the Law.

Killing Mormons was legal, too. Does that make it okay?

Laws are a codification of the collective morality, or sense of right and wrong, of a society, assuming that such a society is democratically represented.

You're challenging the legitimacy of Law because you don't like the Law having made abortion legal in some circumstances...

...if you have a better way of governing a society, one that does not depend on a respect for Laws as a legitimate representation of the will of the People,

you should tell us what that is.

Why didn't your asswipe pals in Wisconsin obey they law? They threw a fit. You guys are at war with your fellow Americans. Go fuck yourself.

 

[Steve Hanson]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

It does not. At least it should not.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Post # 66

I think I heard the fat lady sing about 30 post ago, this is over.

Post # 36

If you can't read for comprehension in context, then you're too stupid to bother with.

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

How does the context define what sort of right you are talking about? Under the law? Morally? Philosophically?

Might makes right. Has since the the first man got hungry. It's getting better though... To the future!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again you appeal to the Law.

Killing Mormons was legal, too. Does that make it okay?

Laws are a codification of the collective morality, or sense of right and wrong, of a society, assuming that such a society is democratically represented.

If that were true, adultry would be illegal.

 

[bripat9643]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Who told you you have a right to do as you will or want with your body? It is illegal to commit suicide, and ingesting dangerous drugs sans a doctor's supervision will also get you arrested and punished, among other things.

Simple logic tells you that you have the right to do with it as you wish. If you don't have the right to make such decisions, then who does?

Of course, drug warriors and other such morons don't accept simple logic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again you appeal to the Law.

Killing Mormons was legal, too. Does that make it okay?

Laws are a codification of the collective morality, or sense of right and wrong, of a society, assuming that such a society is democratically represented.

If that were true, adultry would be illegal.

You think most Americans want adultery to be a crime? Actually, adultery is a civil violation in some places, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Laws are a codification of the collective morality, or sense of right and wrong, of a society, assuming that such a society is democratically represented.

If that were true, adultry would be illegal.

You think most Americans want adultery to be a crime?

There's no doubb that, in the collective morality of our scoiety, adultry falls on the wrong side of right and wrong.
According to your argument, it shoud be illegal.
:shrug:

 

[NYcarbineer]

If that were true, adultry would be illegal.

You think most Americans want adultery to be a crime?

There's no doubb that, in the collective morality of our scoiety, adultry falls on the wrong side of right and wrong.
According to your argument, it shoud be illegal.
:shrug:

Illegal is generally a term of criminality. We also have civil laws. Civil marriage is a form of law. Adultery is generally grounds for divorce, if the one whose spouse has committed adultery wishes to sue for divorce on those grounds.

So yes, adultery is codified in the law in a manner that generally reflects society's attitude toward it.

 

[sinister59]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

there are no simple questions , this one is loaded with traps ,\

your mind mite well be simple but your question is stupid . but ya try it strap a bomb to your ass and go shopping see how rude people treat you .
now get off smokers ass .

property is controlled by local ordinances .

 

[dilloduck]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

You will always have the right to do whatever you want in spite of what anyone tells you.

 

[editec]

Does my right to do as I will with or to my own body and property extend to acts which cause harm to another or does it not?

Yes or no depending on circumstances.

Do I grant that you ought to have the right to throw yourself off building?

Yes.

How about if you will land on somebody below?

No.

Finding a single RULE about what is okay or not that does not have exceptions is pretty hard to do.

UNLESS, of course, you are an adherent of an ideology that cares more about the principle than the outcome.

Then it's easy to find all sorts of simple rules that we all must obey.

KID? NEVER play with matches because they're dangerous.

Not even if you need to light a fire to save your life.
​

Get my point?​