C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Aug 8, 2013 8:49pm
You may think a higher standard is need but there isn't. IN fact, there's an even a lower level of justification in today's world...it's whatever the legislator's who may be influenced by lobbyist desire.gut;1484310 wrote:My comment was in reference to your implication that what society desires is sufficient justification for going on the books. There needs to be a higher standard than that. Society might like the sky to be purple - doesn't mean it should be a law, or that there's value in that.
That doesn't mean that there isn't value in a law existing that's reflected and desired by society.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Aug 8, 2013 8:57pm
The legislative process tends to be both reactive and proactive at the same time. Or, if laws are to be grounded in reality, they can only reflect what has already happened (or sometimes what is likely to happen).Con_Alma;1484313 wrote:I don't hope for an osmotic effect. Lol
In general I view laws as reactive as opposed to proactive.
I would agree, however, that we have laws on the books we no longer desire as a mirror of our society.
The reality is that to eliminate them it takes an opposition of desire that's massive to get legislative activity.
That's just reality....even if you might think it's a "load of crap".
Antiquated laws are something entirely different than attempting to make some sort of statement of morality with new laws.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Aug 8, 2013 8:59pm
I said nothing of morality. They can be reflective of a society's immorality in the same manner...and still have value.
I agree that some laws are and can be proactive...but I think in general they are reactive.
I agree that some laws are and can be proactive...but I think in general they are reactive.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Aug 8, 2013 9:02pm
I'm aware of how they operate, that doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying.Con_Alma;1484318 wrote:You may think a higher standard is need but there isn't. IN fact, there's an even a lower level of justification in today's world...it's whatever the legislator's who may be influenced by lobbyist desire.
That doesn't mean that there isn't value in a law existing that's reflected and desired by society.
And I disagree that a law has value if it it's nothing more than words on a paper - truly not worth the resources that went into writing it down. Because what does that law do? What does that law accomplish? Nothing. How would we be different with out that law? We wouldn't. I fail to see how you find value in that.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Aug 8, 2013 9:04pm
I have never suggested a law that's just words on paper has value. ??? Quite the opposite.
Pick6
Posts: 14,946
Aug 8, 2013 11:34pm
dont give a damn whether the drug is legal or not, but enough with the damn threads.
Commander of Awesome
Posts: 23,151
Aug 9, 2013 12:17am
Because it proved him wrong. All he had to say, "wow I guess I was wrong and didn't think about that."(biting my tongue here) Instead he decided to be a stubborn idiot. SMHFly4Fun;1484286 wrote:Why is DoMA a poor example of the government changing their mind?
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Aug 9, 2013 1:01am
I agree but "wrong" is rarely found in the vernacular when it comes to government. Repeal is a more apt term and its about as good as you are going to get when you are speaking gubmint.Commander of Awesome;1484396 wrote:Because it proved him wrong. All he had to say, "wow I guess I was wrong and didn't think about that."(biting my tongue here) Instead he decided to be a stubborn idiot. SMH
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Aug 9, 2013 7:54am
Then explain to me a law that [paraphrasing your OP] "isn't about limiting activity and doesn't reduce usage...but works if it reflects the values of society"...Con_Alma;1484329 wrote:I have never suggested a law that's just words on paper has value. ??? Quite the opposite.
Please tell me why that is more than just words on paper. Give me an example. Like I said, this is a load of crap.
M
MontyBrunswick
Aug 9, 2013 8:05am
It wasn't really criminal in nature. Attempting to get married wouldn't get you 25 years in prison, but I didn't specify in my reply what I meant.Fly4Fun;1484286 wrote:Why is DoMA a poor example of the government changing their mind?
I'll let CoA blow his load over this since he clearly has nothing better to do than prove people wrong over the Internet.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Aug 10, 2013 6:16am
I didn't say a law wouldn't be about limiting activity.gut;1484443 wrote:Then explain to me a law that [paraphrasing your OP] "isn't about limiting activity and doesn't reduce usage...but works if it reflects the values of society"...
Please tell me why that is more than just words on paper. Give me an example. Like I said, this is a load of crap.
I said it didn't have to limit activity to till have value.
The reason it would still "work" is because it is the desire of the community to continuously try and restrict and punish those who participate in the activity.
Just beacuse therre isn't less of the activity doesn't mean there aren't consequences for doing such crime.
Sage
Posts: 2,070
Aug 10, 2013 12:30pm
Oh god the weed people who would vote for a conservative bag of shit like Gary Johnson merely because he supports weed legalization. Hey idiots, weed is only cool because it's illegal. If you have problems with cops over weed that's just evolution at work.
like_that
Posts: 26,625
Aug 10, 2013 2:53pm
Just admit your fail and move on.dlazz;1484451 wrote:It wasn't really criminal in nature. Attempting to get married wouldn't get you 25 years in prison, but I didn't specify in my reply what I meant.
I'll let CoA blow his load over this since he clearly has nothing better to do than prove people wrong over the Internet.
M
MontyBrunswick
Aug 10, 2013 5:06pm
OKAY I FAILED COA LOLlike_that;1485015 wrote:Just admit your fail and move on.
like_that
Posts: 26,625
Aug 10, 2013 6:30pm
dlazz;1485052 wrote:OKAY I FAILED COA LOL
Obvious butthurt is obvious.
M
MontyBrunswick
Aug 10, 2013 7:21pm
Someones sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.like_that;1485074 wrote:Obvious butthurt is obvious.