This weeks hot topic: Immigrants

[Sand]

OK, now you're sounding like an 18th century British magistrate. ...In a Mel Gibson movie. Remember I'm not saying society has to accept laws being broken. I am saying, however, that what a man does to feed himself and his family is rarely evil.

 

I am saying that we have laws and they need to be obeyed. If they are broken laws then it is up to our elected officials to change them and our place to encourage them to do so, but until then they need to be obeyed and respected. Just because we may disagree with a law does not give us a right to break it.

[Tale]

OK, now you're sounding like an 18th century British magistrate. ...In a Mel Gibson movie. Remember I'm not saying society has to accept laws being broken. I am saying, however, that what a man does to feed himself and his family is rarely evil.

 

I am saying that we have laws and they need to be obeyed. If they are broken laws then it is up to our elected officials to change them and our place to encourage them to do so, but until then they need to be obeyed and respected. Just because we may disagree with a law does not give us a right to break it.

Just because a law has been passed does not mean the law is right, nor does it necessarilly mean it is wrong to break it.

 

In the United States, the validity of a law is not simply based upon whether or not politicians have drafted then voted it into existence. The validity and rightness is based on it's ability to be enforced, the ability for a group of peers to convict for it, and the ability of it to withstand appeal.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Tale

[Sand]

It is always wrong to break laws.

[Tale]

It is always wrong to break laws.

If that was true, we wouldn't need a jury of peers or a Supreme Court.

 

Was it truly wrong to teach slaves to read? Was it wrong of Anne Frank and her family to hide?

Edited August 17, 2007 by Tale

[Sand]

If that was true, we wouldn't need a jury of peers or a Supreme Court.

Of course we do. That is how our laws work.

 

Was it truly wrong to teach slaves to read? Was it wrong of Anne Frank and her family to hide?

Last I checked there are laws against slavery. As for Anne Frank, because we currently have no laws designed to persecute those of Jewish descent. If we did, we do have a system in which we can change those laws.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

If that was true, we wouldn't need a jury of peers or a Supreme Court.

Of course we do. That is how opur laws work.

 

Was it truly wrong to teach slaves to read? Was it wrong of Anne Frank and her family to hide?

Last I checked there are laws against slavery.

Our laws work by seperating what's wrong from what's legal. That's the entire point of a jury and appeals process. (well, not ENTIRE point of appeals, but a large part of it)

 

Last I checked, during the time of the institution of slavery, there weren't laws against slavery. That's how "always" works. It's applicable to all periods of time.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Tale

[astr0creep]

Was it truly wrong to teach slaves to read? Was it wrong of Anne Frank and her family to hide?

 

Yes. At the time.

 

 

There is a difference between law and morality.

But both can be changed with time and common sense.

 

Recently a man was granted early freedom after being charged with pedophilia for exposing his own daughter on the web. The Judge's argument was that the little girl was not physically abused and that made the case less bad or something.

 

With time I'm sure these kinds of judgements will be eradicated but for now, it's the law.

[Tale]

There is a difference between law and morality.

Exactly. "Wrong and right" are moral judgements, not legal judgements.

 

But both can be changed with time and common sense.

Nonsense. If "common sense" was worth anything, you should have had the common sense to realize that law does not define what's wrong or right. But, that's the flaw of "common sense."

Edited August 17, 2007 by Tale

[Sand]

However, we are talking about laws. If you break the law then you deserved to be punished under that law.

[Tale]

However, we are talking about laws. If you break the law then you deserved to be punished under that law.

Again, that's the purpose of a jury of peers. To exercise the judgement that just because something is a law it is not necessarilly right, nor should people be necessarilly punished for it.

 

And again, you're arguing that people who taught slaves to read should have been penalized and that those who harbored Jews in Nazi Germany deserve death.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Tale

[Sand]

Again, that's the purpose of a jury of peers. To exercise the judgement that just because something is a law it is not necessarilly right, nor should people be necessarilly punished for it.

 

If it is the law that is on the books, and the person breaking the law is found guilty byt a jury of his peers then he or she should be duly punished, even if it is a "broken" law.

 

And again, you're arguing that people who taught slaves to read should have been penalized and that those who harbored Jews in Nazi Germany deserve death.

If that were the law then yes. Just because you disagree with a law does not give you the right to break that law. You should and do have the right to change that law, but not to break it.

[Tale]

And again, you're arguing that people who taught slaves to read should have been penalized and that those who harbored Jews in Nazi Germany deserve death.

If that were the law then yes. Just because you disagree with a law does not give you the right to break that law. You should and do have the right to change that law, but not to break it.

 

I honestly can't believe you know what you're saying here. I'm going to ask you to prove me wrong.

 

Say that for me. Say that "It was wrong for people to protect jews in Nazi Germany." Say it out loud, run it over your tongue and then type it straight back. I want you to actually process that message a little.

 

 

 

As for the rest of that, not that long ago you were claiming that a person like you had no power to change the government. I find it funny that you've turned a 180 already. hmm

Edited August 17, 2007 by Tale

[Sand]

Say that for me. Say that "It was wrong for people to protect jews in Nazi Germany." Say it out loud, run it over your tongue and then type it straight back. I want you to actually process that message a little.

 

I will say this... "It was morally right to protect Jews in Nazi Germany, but legally wrong to do so due to the laws its government had."

 

The moral thing to do is not always the legal thing to do.

[Tale]

There is no "legal wrong" and "legal right." There is only legal and illegal. Wrong and right are strictly moral terms.

[Sand]

There is no "legal wrong" and "legal right." There is only legal and illegal. Wrong and right are strictly moral terms.

Then I shall amend... "It was illegal for people to protect Jews in Nazi Germany."

[Tale]

By amending, do you now agree that it is not always wrong to break the law?

[Walsingham]

Tale, I am not objecting to your definition, merely challenging it...

 

The point of democracy is to permit the law to represent as closely as possible the consensus of morality. Therefore and I think I am paraphrasing Ben Franklin here, to break the laws of a dictatorship is of no consequence to the individual besides the threat of punishment, whereas participation in a democracy makes you bound by its laws by morality also.

 

Of course that in turn raises the question of where our immigrants stand. I would suggest that since they are breaking the laws of the country they are attempting to live in, and that country is a democracy, then they are committing a moral offence. However, my objection is to Sando's absolutist nonsense that this puts them on a moral par with gibbon-botherers and mountebanks. This in turn influences the position I believe the state should adhere to, which is adherence to the law - mediated by a humane temperance in judgement and sentencing.

[Tale]

Tale, I am not objecting to your definition, merely challenging it...

 

The point of democracy is to permit the law to represent as closely as possible the consensus of morality. Therefore and I think I am paraphrasing Ben Franklin here, to break the laws of a dictatorship is of no consequence to the individual besides the threat of punishment, whereas participation in a democracy makes you bound by its laws by morality also.

 

The US is not a literal Democracy. It is a Representative Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. You can argue that this is still "as closely as possible" but I will argue that it is far from being reasonably referred to as a consensus.

[Walsingham]

Tale, I am not objecting to your definition, merely challenging it...

 

The point of democracy is to permit the law to represent as closely as possible the consensus of morality. Therefore and I think I am paraphrasing Ben Franklin here, to break the laws of a dictatorship is of no consequence to the individual besides the threat of punishment, whereas participation in a democracy makes you bound by its laws by morality also.

 

The US is not a literal Democracy. It is a Representative Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. You can argue that this is still "as closely as possible" but I will argue that it is far from being reasonably referred to as a consensus.

 

I accept this and counter with a "yeah, but we're talking about practical policy" for +2 dmg.

[Tale]

Tale, I am not objecting to your definition, merely challenging it...

 

The point of democracy is to permit the law to represent as closely as possible the consensus of morality. Therefore and I think I am paraphrasing Ben Franklin here, to break the laws of a dictatorship is of no consequence to the individual besides the threat of punishment, whereas participation in a democracy makes you bound by its laws by morality also.

 

The US is not a literal Democracy. It is a Representative Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. You can argue that this is still "as closely as possible" but I will argue that it is far from being reasonably referred to as a consensus.

 

I accept this and counter with a "yeah, but we're talking about practical policy" for +2 dmg.

Practicality does not contest my point. If anything, it might support it by overcomplicating the supposed consensus. What is moral for an individual should not be judged exclusively by the dealings of politicians, even if operating within their practical means. The shortcomings of the system should be considered for limiting the scope of application, not enhancing it.

 

I'm not saying society has to accept laws being broken. I am saying, however, that what a man does to feed himself and his family is rarely evil.

I call you out for arguing against your own earlier position and crit you for +12.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Tale

[Walsingham]

Owie!

 

You're right!

[Sand]

By amending, do you now agree that it is not always wrong to break the law?

Irrelevant. Right and wrong, as you have said, are morality issues and not legal issues. I am focusing on legality. If you break the law you deserve to be punished by the law. If you want the law changed then change it within the confines of procedure under the law.

Edited August 18, 2007 by Sand

[Hurlshort]

By amending, do you now agree that it is not always wrong to break the law?

Irrelevant. Right and wrong, as you have said, are morality issues and not legal issues. I am focusing on legality. If you break the law you deserve to be punished by the law. If you want the law changed then change it within the confines of procedure under the law.

 

Actually, the way the US legal system is set up, you have to break the law, then take it through the court system, in order to get it changed, unless you are an elected official.

 

Hence Rosa Parks.

[Walsingham]

You mean clarify the law?

[Hurlshort]

You mean clarify the law?

 

I suppose so, although Supreme court cases have been known to make some pretty drastic "clarifications" that in essence change the way policy is carried out in the US. Immigration is a policy issue, and it's been my argument all along that a majority of our illegal immigration issues stem from the flaws in the policy. So, if we adjust our policy, it's reasonable to assume the illegal immigration issue will change as well.

 

Here's an insteresting little article on the steady change in border patrol policies since the 70's. It makes you wonder why we threw out the Bracero program.

 

http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section...;CONTENTID=8136

 

Oh, and just for Sand, here's a list of silly laws in the books in Iowa. Be sure not to kiss any women in public if you have a moustache, Sand.

 

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/iowa/