Viewing Single Post From: Vigilantism: Good or bad?

Viewing Single Post From: Vigilantism: Good or bad?
+Reaver	Mar 16 2009, 07:41 PM
Troll Posts: 8,614 Group: Advisor Member #47 Joined: June 9, 2005	Dragon Hellfire I see both of these in your post. Although, the first one isn't clearly defined, nor is it supported. It's acceptable if your argument only applies to situations which laws are clearly defined universal truths and positives. Not realistic, but w/e. It provides deduction on /something/ at least. Laws in nature have to be beneficial to the governed body; if the opposite were true, the Social Contract would allow individuals to dismiss such laws because they violate the rights of life/liberty/property somehow. Furthermore, if you look into the philosophy of Civil Disobedience and the belief that an unjust law is no law at all, people can violate the law without comitting any moral wrong should the law be unfair in some way, shape, or form. The second, indeed, is a premise I argue for. If this doesn't get much discussion going, I'll switch to the negative in order to push my case.
	Neon,June 8 2005 07:34 PM @Reaver: Me grammer is better than ur post count newbie. HJ, December 30 2008 06:20 PM You gave Inui his first (and last?) sexual experience, didn't you? That's historic. Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message

Vigilantism: Good or bad? · Debate Forum