“Law” is Not Determinative of Conduct

[Bosco1]

Why there was a ? at the end.
But it's the general impression I'm getting. Why else after you remove the rule of law would the shooter turn himself in out of the goodness of his nature? Why wouldn't he just keep running?

You did not say rule of law is not included in the scenario!

[cordex]

Bosco,

What we are trying to figure out is how you prefer moral violations be handled given your insistence that punishing violation of law is unacceptable.

Presumably you have an alternative system devised. What is that system?

In Sartreistan, do you plan to only have self defense at the time of the crime?  Is lynching acceptable?  If one of your family are lynched should you lynch the people responsible?  What exactly is the enforcement mechanism when someone harms someone else?

[Ron]

We humans have no predetermined nature. We are all ongoing blank slates, total freedoms, continually making ourselves from moment to moment.

That is observably and scientifically not true.

That is an unsupportable presupposition at the foundational level.

There is an incredible amount of genetic influence over how we turn out. Potentially or probably more than the nurture side of things. 

[Bosco1]

Bosco,

What we are trying to figure out is how you prefer moral violations be handled given your insistence that punishing violation of law is unacceptable.

Presumably you have an alternative system devised. What is that system?

In Sartreistan, do you plan to only have self defense at the time of the crime?  Is lynching acceptable?  If one of your family are lynched should you lynch the people responsible?  What exactly is the enforcement mechanism when someone harms someone else?

I have repeatedly said answers will arise out of a dialectic. I do not have prefabricated answers to all these endless questions!

[Bosco1]

That is observably and scientifically not true.

That is an unsupportable presupposition at the foundational level.

There is an incredible amount of genetic influence over how we turn out. Potentially or probably more than the nurture side of things.

You are speaking correctly biologically. I am referring to personality, i.e., there is no psychological predetermined behavioral nature of a human being; the psyche is a blank slate.

[WLJ]

You are speaking correctly biologically. I am referring to personality, i.e., there is no psychological predetermined behavioral nature of a human being; the psyche is a blank slate.

Guess you never had children

[zxcvbob]

The apostle Paul actually spoke on this in Romans chapter 4:
"13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression."

...and chapter 5:
"13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come."

[zxcvbob]

[Bosco1]

Guess you never had children

What are you saying about children?

[cordex]

I have repeatedly said answers will arise out of a dialectic. I do not have prefabricated answers to all these endless questions!

These should be simple questions to the man who surpassed even Sartre in determining that law is not determinative of conduct!

You are a philosophical arsonist, seeking to destroy that which is imperfect in favor of a perfect, Utopian future you have not even the slightest clue how to bring about.

[WLJ]

What are you saying about children?

there is no psychological predetermined behavioral nature of a human being; the psyche is a blank slate.

Children display unique personalities at a very young age often within days, anyone who has raised children knows that. What you said flies in the face of that.

[Bosco1]

These should be simple questions to the man who surpassed even Sartre in determining that law is not determinative of conduct!

You are a philosophical arsonist, seeking to destroy that which is imperfect in favor of a perfect, Utopian future you have not even the slightest clue how to bring about.

You keep on and on about me intending a Utopia!?  I have no such thought! I have mentioned no such thing! Your endless questions are your way of harassing me!
I have merely written a viable unpublished critique of law, in this miniscule microscopic portion of the world! Law is not going anywhere via my writing at this point! Calm down, everything is okay. I merely radically needed to do a meaningful theoretical destruction of law, because, all my life, pigs are constantly barging into my presence, forever attempting to make trouble. Nowadays, the stupid Nazi nitwits continually murder persons over nothing! This horrid police absolutism of law requires a radically intelligent kick in the nuts of law. I am radically seriously angry! This is a peaceful nonviolent way to ---- this police/law terror horror!

[Fly320s]

B  O  T  .    S  T  I  L  L   A   B  O  T.

[dogmush]

Holy crap I go the range for a couple hours and three pages of prattle happen.

I feel I need to point out the windmill Bosco is tilting at.

Bosco. No one, not one person, thinks that a law being written down is deterministic of human action.  Perhaps no one has said it to you because it's an obvious bedrock principle of our society.

Obviously a law's mere existence does not cause human action, that's WHY people are punished for breaking laws. Because the law existed, and the person chose to break it. 

Your entire philosophical breakthrough,  existential bibliography and all, is conveyed in the life experience of a 3 year old getting their first spanking.

Honestly it would be more interesting if you could find someone who thought a laws existence in a culture deterministicly caused humans to act.  That would be a strange worldview to discuss.

[WLJ]

90% of this thread was people just trying to figure out what he was getting at.

[cordex]

90% of this thread was people just trying to figure out what he was getting at.

And then finding out what he said had no relation to what he meant.

[Ron]

And then finding out what he said had no relation to what he meant.

Meaning can only be found in nothing or some such thing.

[Bosco1]

Holy crap I go the range for a couple hours and three pages of prattle happen.

I feel I need to point out the windmill Bosco is tilting at.

Bosco. No one, not one person, thinks that a law being written down is deterministic of human action.  Perhaps no one has said it to you because it's an obvious bedrock principle of our society.

Obviously a law's mere existence does not cause human action, that's WHY people are punished for breaking laws. Because the law existed, and the person chose to break it. 

Your entire philosophical breakthrough,  existential bibliography and all, is conveyed in the life experience of a 3 year old getting their first spanking.

Honestly it would be more interesting if you could find someone who thought a laws existence in a culture deterministicly caused humans to act.  That would be a strange worldview to discuss.

"Law" intends persons NOT to act in such and such a manner.  It is implicit that law is deemed to be determinative of human inaction. Of course it is rarely said openly that law determines human conduct; I have been in court when a judge told me he was bound and determined by law. Yes, that law is in fact deemed to be determinative of human conduct is seldom ever spoken of; nonetheless, that is what legislators; judges and police think! That is what it boils down to, i.e., law as a determinative!                     

[Fly320s]

A  d e c e n t  b u t  n o t  a  g o o d  b o t.

It has a limited program and a limited attack pattern. 

Either ignore it or nuke it.

[dogmush]

"Law" intends persons NOT to act in such and such a manner.  It is implicit that law is deemed to be determinative of human inaction. Of course it is rarely said openly that law determines human conduct; I have been in court when a judge told me he was bound and determined by law. Yes, that law is in fact deemed to be determinative of human conduct is seldom ever spoken of; nonetheless, that is what legislators; judges and police think! That is what it boils down to, i.e., law as a determinative!                     

The bolded statement is untrue.  Such a premise is not implicit in the laws of human society.

Whatever the judge may have said to you (and I suspect you misinterpreted his statement)  judges, prosecutors, and police in our system explicitly have discretion in their enforcement of the law.  They can choose to enforce it, or not.

If you don't believe me, ask Hillary Clinton what the legal punishment for mishandling classified documents is.

You have constructed and published a detailed, convoluted argument to disprove a thesis no serious person believes is true.

[dogmush]

A  d e c e n t  b u t  n o t  a  g o o d  b o t.

It has a limited program and a limited attack pattern. 

Either ignore it or nuke it.

We're having fun. 

Besides, once we finish crushing his current erroneous philosophy we can introduce him to Heinlan. Can you imagine a .....writer with his vocabulary addressing the morality of Lazarus Long?

[Bosco1]

The bolded statement is untrue.  Such a premise is not implicit in the laws of human society.

Whatever the judge may have said to you (and I suspect you misinterpreted his statement)  judges, prosecutors, and police in our system explicitly have discretion in their enforcement of the law.  They can choose to enforce it, or not.

If you don't believe me, ask Hillary Clinton what the legal punishment for mishandling classified documents is.

You have constructed and published a detailed, convoluted argument to disprove a thesis no serious person believes is true.

You are radically ignorant dogmush!

[Hawkmoon]

But hey, I'm just dense and inept...

Not to mention  indubitably stupid!

[RoadKingLarry]

You are radically ignorant dogmush!

And you are rude, disrespectful, arrogant, pedantic, egotistic and generally annoying.

[Hawkmoon]

You are radically ignorant dogmush!

AD HOMINEM !!!