Actual Police State
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
Man of Honour
That's a creative stance - "it's only a crime if someone else does it!"
You probably can't even see how ridiculous your opinions are - but hopefully any future employment tribunal judge will.
I don't know what that means, sorry.
You'll grow out of it, like I said earlier. You'll be using real world language then too.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 540
That's not my stance.
My stance is that crime isn't made by law, because it exists outside of law.
Stabbing someone in the face is a crime, regardless of whether or not it's against the law.
Speaking is not a crime, regardless of whether or not it's against the law.
Governments are supposed to create laws to reflect crimes which already exist.
They are not supposed to create laws to make a crime out of something which is not a crime, because that's not possible.
Discriminating against someone for approving of kiddie-fiddling is not a crime, even if the government says it is.
If you look at the law on the matter, you cannot discriminate against someone because of the religion they hold, but you can discriminate against them if they hold a belief which "isn't worthy of respect in a democratic society".
What if a belief isn't worthy of respect in a democratic society, but is part of a religious belief? Why does it get protection for merely being part of a "religious belief"?
So under the law, I can discriminate against someone who believes in kiddie-fiddling outside of religious belief, but I can't discriminate against someone who believes in kiddie-fiddling inside of religious belief.
I'm an equal opportunities discriminator when it comes to people who believe in kiddie-fiddling, so I won't employ them.
If the government wanted to prosecute me for this, then I wish them good luck.
Man of Honour
[citation needed]
I don't think you understand what a crime is, or, in your world the definition doesn't matter.
[citation needed]
I don't think it'll be them needing the luck tbh.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 540
I do understand what a crime is, which is why I understand that a government cannot create crimes.
A government can make a law to address a crime, but they cannot create a crime out of thin air.
If you grant the government the power to create crimes as it sees fit, then the next stop is dictatorship.
I'm not stopping you from looking it up yourself.
Prosecuting the commission of a non-crime, is a crime in itself, so of course they'd need some luck, because criminals must be punished.
IIRC burnsey is in the police.
So it's a question of how full of **** are you.
Are you going to throw chaff in the air again and go for character attacks when asked for some substance behind your words or can you show support for what you're happy to say.
Man of Honour
Go on then, define it for me.
Every reputable source would not define it as you would.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
No message.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
No message.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
No message.
Last edited:
Soldato
Were you also drunk in public?Excuse my directness, but you weren't there and I did indeed have baked beans in my pocket!
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
No message.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Then your stance is simply wrong. A crime, by definition, is something prohibited by law. Whatever the law is. Regardless of whether you or any other individual agrees with it or not. That's what the word "crime" means.
What you're talking about is your personal ideas of morality. That's not the same thing at all, though there will be a great deal of overlap. Unless, of course, you're an absolute dictator who does have the power to make law by decree based on your own ideas of morality.
All of that is a logical conclusion but based on a false premise, so it's wrong.
There's no need to refute any part of it because it's based on a false premise and therefore wrong, but I'll refute one part of it because I want to:
Governments are supposed to create laws to reflect ideas of morality, based on a mixture of ideology and a guess at majority opinion. It's a difficult balance. On the one hand, the law should have majority support. On the other hand, the majority can be unjust if they're taught to be (e.g. blasphemy laws, no freedom of speech, homosexual sex being illegal, etc, etc).
Man of Honour
That's a language/cultural issue, yes.
From context, you must be referring to dried beans. "baked beans" is technically correct English for that if the beans were dried by baking, but in practice "baked beans" only refers to beans cooked in a sauce. It's a very runny mixture and nobody in their right mind would keep it in their pockets. If you want a good image, do a search for "beans on toast" and you'll find plenty.
It's why Communists hate religion so much, they want people with no moral basis who look to government for guidance rather than any external influence. IMO western countries became so successful because of their Judeo-Christian heritage, as religion has declined so has morality and so you end up with generations of people who think that just because something is legal by law then it right to do it and vice-versa. An example being German WW2 soldiers who genocided Jews under orders, if they had any moral basis greater than government they would have refused but it was what their government at the time wanted them to do and so they didn't see anything wrong with it.
Last edited:
Stop communicating with the troll...
Man of Honour
It was nice of you to use an example that so clearly disproves your own position. The majority of persecution of Jews throughout history has been explicitly religious, mostly from Christians and Muslims. Here's a reference to one example of massacres of Jews that occured explicitly as part of a religious campaign. I could give you many others - this is just the one that popped into my head first:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres
You are arguing for what you're also arguing against - morality being replaced by obedience to authority - only more so because the authority you want to see in charge is one with no checks, no balances, no restrictions in power, no allowance for dissent at all, no elections and a claim to vastly superhuman authority.
Religion is amoral. Your claim that religion is morality is no difference to any other supporter of an ideology claiming that their ideology is morality. "obey the party authorities" is no different to "obey the religious authorities".