Vigilantism: Good or bad?

Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2

Vigilantism: Good or bad?; LD topic, number 2
Topic Started: Feb 11 2009, 07:24 PM (346 Views)
+Reaver	Mar 17 2009, 05:35 AM Post #16
Troll Posts: 8,611 Group: Advisor Member #47 Joined: June 9, 2005	Allow me to correct myself: the nature of laws. I intended to discuss the nature of insitutionalized law. If you want, just replace the phrase "in nature" with "in essence".
	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


Dragon Hellfire	Mar 17 2009, 05:52 AM Post #17
Dragon Hellfire; three random words Posts: 1,563 Group: FEFFer Member #812 Joined: June 9, 2006	Reaver Mar 17 2009, 05:35 AM Allow me to correct myself: the nature of laws. I intended to discuss the nature of insitutionalized law. If you want, just replace the phrase "in nature" with "in essence". How does changing a term to another on the same specification level correct something? Since you aren't overlapping terms or changing what you said... If I misinterpreted what you meant, then please, correct me. Edited by Dragon Hellfire, Mar 17 2009, 05:53 AM.
	.:FES:. Formerly: Juggernaut, FireBane 100% of BwdYetis don't care about your percentages. ~~You're not a BwdYeti, so you can't copy and paste this into your sig. Ź_Ź~~


+Reaver	Mar 17 2009, 03:20 PM Post #18
Troll Posts: 8,611 Group: Advisor Member #47 Joined: June 9, 2005	Dragon Hellfire Mar 17 2009, 05:52 AM How does changing a term to another on the same specification level correct something? Since you aren't overlapping terms or changing what you said... If I misinterpreted what you meant, then please, correct me. Let me rephrase entirely: Because the Social Contract states that the governed must agree to submit to a government, it logically follows that the governed must benefit from all of the laws instituted by the government because - otherwise - nobody would agree to surrender their free will to act as they please in return for limited action and safety. After all, one agreement made in the social contract is that the government has the obligation to protect life, liberty, and property for all persons. Although some "liberty" to act without any restraint is sacrificed, the freedom to go about daily life without the fear of injustice - such as being killed or robbed - is provided, which is why people agree to the contract. If a law is not beneficial to the members of society - perhaps barring anyone labeled as a "Democrat" from voting - then people do not need to follow the law because the government has violated their half of the Social Contract by refusing to protect liberty, in this 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


Dragon Hellfire	Mar 17 2009, 08:53 PM Post #19
Dragon Hellfire; three random words Posts: 1,563 Group: FEFFer Member #812 Joined: June 9, 2006	Reaver Mar 17 2009, 03:20 PM Dragon Hellfire Mar 17 2009, 05:52 AM How does changing a term to another on the same specification level correct something? Since you aren't overlapping terms or changing what you said... If I misinterpreted what you meant, then please, correct me. Let me rephrase entirely: Because the Social Contract states that the governed must agree to submit to a government, it logically follows that the governed must benefit from all of the laws instituted by the government because - otherwise - nobody would agree to surrender their free will to act as they please in return for limited action and safety. After all, one agreement made in the social contract is that the government has the obligation to protect life, liberty, and property for all persons. Although some "liberty" to act without any restraint is sacrificed, the freedom to go about daily life without the fear of injustice - such as being killed or robbed - is provided, which is why people agree to the contract. If a law is not beneficial to the members of society - perhaps barring anyone labeled as a "Democrat" from voting - then people do not need to follow the law because the government has violated their half of the Social Contract by refusing to protect liberty, in this case. I'm gonna disagree with the axiom 'the majority of people understand what is good for them'. "It logically follows" ... not convinced. What defines what "injustice" is, and how could it be objectively linked to positive results? Life and property and concrete, but liberty is abstract. Symbology anyone? Environmentally conditioned consensual opinions and representations are not objective. What is the worth of any number of persons? Why is it worth more than any number of blades of grass? Any number of rocks? Any number of dreams? How could we say what is "good" or "bad"? How is that our decision? (Questions 1-4 do not need to be answered) (Question 5) If we want to take what's good or bad for the represented and affected community, we could use the pleasure/pain system for good/bad (like that nub Epicurus taught). (Question 6) It isn't really. For practical application we could synthesize a system for measurement, but making a decision doesn't imply the decision was intended as yours to be made. It just implies that you were the one that humbly made it.
	.:FES:. Formerly: Juggernaut, FireBane 100% of BwdYetis don't care about your percentages. ~~You're not a BwdYeti, so you can't copy and paste this into your sig. Ź_Ź~~


+Reaver	Mar 18 2009, 05:45 AM Post #20
Troll Posts: 8,611 Group: Advisor Member #47 Joined: June 9, 2005	Dragon Hellfire I'm gonna disagree with the axiom 'the majority of people understand what is good for them'. "It logically follows" ... not convinced. So I ask then: who does know what is best for people? Men can easily rationalize laws which protect life, liberty, and property without over-extending the power of government. Dragon Hellfire What defines what "injustice" is, and how could it be objectively linked to positive results? Consider the idea of crime as a disturbance to equilibrium. When one person steals, as an example, the equilibrium status between those two individuals leans towards one side, as he has unfairly gained at the cost of another. Injustice would be the prolonged or continued support of this imbalance, whereas justice is the force which returns the situation back to equilibria. Dragon Hellfire Life and property and concrete, but liberty is abstract. Symbology anyone? Environmentally conditioned consensual opinions and representations are not objective. Liberty is the toughest to define, I will give you that. Certainly, in our society, we can extend "liberty" to cover freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, habeas corpus, and a right to a fair trial. For a more abstract definition, I would assert that "liberty" would permit any action which does not affect the rights to life or property of another individual in some way, shape, or form. Dragon Hellfire What is the worth of any number of persons? Why is it worth more than any number of blades of grass? Any number of rocks? Any number of dreams? How could we say what is "good" or "bad"? How is that our decision? Easy. We've assigned a value to human life. It's not a scalar value, nor a money value, but we certainly cherish human life to some extent. We can agree that the loss of something generally beneficial to people would be "bad" if done indiscriminately. Dragon Hellfire If we want to take what's good or bad for the represented and affected community, we could use the pleasure/pain system for good/bad (like that nub Epicurus taught). Well, we could. But I would then come back to argue that we have the protection of liberty - preventing the minority from discrimination under such a utilitarian system. I would furthermore assert that, as John Stuart Mill suggested, the natures of mental pleasure far outweigh physical pleasures. Dragon Hellfire (Question 6) It isn't really. For practical application we could synthesize a system for measurement, but making a decision doesn't imply the decision was intended as yours to be made. It just implies that you were the one that humbly made it. Well, we have reason. And using reason - and the imagination - we can make the best decision possible.
	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


Dragon Hellfire	Mar 18 2009, 05:52 AM Post #21
Dragon Hellfire; three random words Posts: 1,563 Group: FEFFer Member #812 Joined: June 9, 2006	Lol Nevermind
	.:FES:. Formerly: Juggernaut, FireBane 100% of BwdYetis don't care about your percentages. ~~You're not a BwdYeti, so you can't copy and paste this into your sig. Ź_Ź~~


Greth	Apr 14 2009, 11:11 PM Post #22
fuck all y'all Posts: 3,936 Group: Veteran Member #407 Joined: August 28, 2005	pffft debating
	Has been known as: mrmastodon, Greth, MF Greth, L, Shu, Sailor Star Healer Voted most manly last time, and most underrated twice in a row, shit yeah!


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2