Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - And then there's the lesbian version of teacher having sex with 14 year old student

smooth · 12-08-2004, 03:43 PM

Mephisto,

I should have said that the inconsistencies in the laws point to the fact that there is no morality enshrined in the law itself.

Humans can certainly decide whether a behavior is immoral or not. That's the point I was trying to convey: that this one state's laws does not make the action immoral--the conduct might.

So I read some responses as: the law says it's wrong, therefor it's wrong. I think this is further complicated by the fact that people develop within their social context. Meaning, their definition of right versus wrong hinges upon and is shaped by the laws.

This places some of us in an untenable scenario of arguing against something that seems so self evident--purely because the law and morality says something should be viewed in a particular way. Without acknowledging that one can be directed by the other.

So, if we view law as a ground up process, we would be less concerned because legal reasoning would hinge upon the actual values in effect. But law doesn't operate like that in the states. On the contrary, law is handed down.

I'm not going to use your terms, they seem to not get us very far if I engaged in conspiracy language, but law is created and decided upon by people in a particular class--lawyers for the most part, politicians less often. It reflects their interests and is not often representative of the people it constrains (or protects, in some cases, if you prefer).

And you already ceded that I might have more insight into the background issues in the creation of our laws

Are you taking that back now? I never said anything about Orwellian conspiracies, but there are structural factors we could discuss and analyze--it isn't as clear cut as you are suggesting.

EDIT: and you should be aware that, although you snipped what you considered to be anomalies in my post, the overarching trends go far beyond a few isolated cases.

What I'm talking about is a current raging debate about how to treat minors under the law. In some instances they are increasingly treated like adults, in others as irrational actors without the ability to deduce right from wrong. Those factors point to our confusion, not the two examples I listed.

2nd EDIT: also, I will take you up on a discussion of Marxian critique of the law. It will have to wait for at least a week, but I will kick it off by quoting your portions in a new thread over in politics. I'll PM you when I am ready. If I forget, please remind me, because it will be an interesting discussion for at least both of us.

12-08-2004, 03:43 PM	#49 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Mephisto, I should have said that the inconsistencies in the laws point to the fact that there is no morality enshrined in the law itself. Humans can certainly decide whether a behavior is immoral or not. That's the point I was trying to convey: that this one state's laws does not make the action immoral--the conduct might. So I read some responses as: the law says it's wrong, therefor it's wrong. I think this is further complicated by the fact that people develop within their social context. Meaning, their definition of right versus wrong hinges upon and is shaped by the laws. This places some of us in an untenable scenario of arguing against something that seems so self evident--purely because the law and morality says something should be viewed in a particular way. Without acknowledging that one can be directed by the other. So, if we view law as a ground up process, we would be less concerned because legal reasoning would hinge upon the actual values in effect. But law doesn't operate like that in the states. On the contrary, law is handed down. I'm not going to use your terms, they seem to not get us very far if I engaged in conspiracy language, but law is created and decided upon by people in a particular class--lawyers for the most part, politicians less often. It reflects their interests and is not often representative of the people it constrains (or protects, in some cases, if you prefer). And you already ceded that I might have more insight into the background issues in the creation of our laws Are you taking that back now? I never said anything about Orwellian conspiracies, but there are structural factors we could discuss and analyze--it isn't as clear cut as you are suggesting. EDIT: and you should be aware that, although you snipped what you considered to be anomalies in my post, the overarching trends go far beyond a few isolated cases. What I'm talking about is a current raging debate about how to treat minors under the law. In some instances they are increasingly treated like adults, in others as irrational actors without the ability to deduce right from wrong. Those factors point to our confusion, not the two examples I listed. 2nd EDIT: also, I will take you up on a discussion of Marxian critique of the law. It will have to wait for at least a week, but I will kick it off by quoting your portions in a new thread over in politics. I'll PM you when I am ready. If I forget, please remind me, because it will be an interesting discussion for at least both of us. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 12-08-2004 at 04:03 PM..