The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
Not Quite The UF Philosophy Corner by MatthewDBA2009-04-16 10:54:41
  I disagree. by Peace_man2009-04-16 11:58:41
    Macchiavelli overstates the point. by kelli2172009-04-16 12:19:35
      Maybe this comes down to what the purpose of by Peace_man2009-04-16 12:52:31
        Good doesn't need to be enabled. by subbywan2009-04-16 13:34:10
          Good does need to be enabled. by Peace_man2009-04-16 13:37:16
            Why does good need to be enabled? by subbywan2009-04-16 13:55:04
              As you just said yourself: by Peace_man2009-04-16 14:12:58
                Um, leaving it alone doesn't enable it. by subbywan2009-04-16 14:15:46
                  What makes you think this is not so? by Peace_man2009-04-16 14:26:32
                    That isn't what was said previously though by subbywan2009-04-16 14:28:41
                      Hmm - how about this logic statement? by Peace_man2009-04-16 14:37:25
                        No. Because good would exist even with evil by subbywan2009-04-16 14:46:59
                          How does that constitute a 'no'? by Peace_man2009-04-16 14:50:35
                            Because good is there, regardless of laws by subbywan 2009-04-16 14:55:22
Evil is also there, regardless of laws.

Laws, ideally, inhibit the bad, and leave the good alone.

An ideal law will not touch, impact or otherwise have anything to do with good, because we WANT good to be there, and flourish.

Laws exist solely to inhibit (regardless of what they're inhibiting). Therefore, all laws short of ideal ones (which can't exist, as they're made by humans) can, at best, simply inhibit good less than they inhibit evil. The nett result is a good thing. But it's not enabling it. It's just not inhibiting good as much as it is inhibiting the evil.

[ Reply ]
                              I disagree. by Peace_man2009-04-16 15:02:10
                                Yes, it is. by subbywan2009-04-16 15:09:13
                                Protect and safeguard what? by Peace_man2009-04-16 15:13:32
                                Whatever it is you decide to protect and safeguard by subbywan2009-04-16 15:15:14
                                And we're back to the beginning. by Peace_man2009-04-16 15:23:44
                                No. Merely explored some of its nuances. by subbywan2009-04-16 15:28:37
                                I agree with that. Well, mostly :-) by Peace_man2009-04-16 15:38:09

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)