|
Not Quite The UF Philosophy Corner | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-16 10:54:41 |
|
I disagree. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 11:58:41 |
|
Something sounds not quite right about that | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-16 12:08:56 |
|
Do we need to go back to defining what | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 12:46:37 |
|
That is incorrect | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:01:55 |
| I beg to differ. |
by Peace_man |
2009-04-16 14:19:28 |
If laws existed simply to inhibit people, they should attempt to inhibit everything. Which is ridiculous, of course.
So laws exist to inhibit selectively. Now, what are the criteria for what laws should inhibit? Go on, try to guess. I'll wait. What is the selection criteria for that which laws should inhibit?
Oh, by the way, in one respect you are correct. Laws primarily inhibit actions. That is in the nature of how laws work, not in the reason for laws. The point is still that this inhibiting action has a specific purpose -- or at least it should. What do you think that purpose is? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
The purpose is to prevent wrong. | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:25:12 |
|
Maybe we need to see what the definition of | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:34:04 |
|
No, because I believe in limiting certain freedoms | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:40:18 |
|
Maybe we need to converge here. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:47:09 |
|
That's because you believe we're entitled to | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 14:51:05 |
|
Entitled? Maybe. Maybe it is just something that | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 14:59:23 |
|
Psychology disagrees there. | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:07:15 |
|
True. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:18:51 |
|
Not herrings at all. We've already stated the case | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:22:46 |
|
Well, stated like that, we actually agree. | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:27:47 |
|
Yes. Good should be considered when creating | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:30:37 |
|
And I have to agree - reluctantly :-) | by Peace_man | 2009-04-16 15:40:16 |
|
you got the first 1/2 right :P | by subbywan | 2009-04-16 15:48:38 |
