• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How inclined are you to follow immoral laws?

How inclined are you to follow immoral laws?

  • I do not follow immoral laws even if the chances of legal consequences are high and severe

    Votes: 4 11.8%

  • I do not follow immoral laws only if there is a moderate chance of legal consequences

    Votes: 3 8.8%

  • I only ignore immoral laws if there is a small chances of legal consequences

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • I follow all laws, even if I don't morally agree with them

    Votes: 3 8.8%

  • I do what I want!

    Votes: 8 23.5%

  • other (please explain)

    Votes: 4 11.8%

  • taco rootabegas

    Votes: 7 20.6%
  • Total voters
    34
ttwtt78640 said:
I occasionally drink beer in public - usually either while mowing grass or at one of my favorite fishing holes. I have yet to be arrested for this serious moral offense.
Click to expand...

We had "booze and cruise", open containers on foot in Pacific Beach CA when I loved there in the nineties.

Now you can't drink on ANY beach in San diego. For the children.

Never have understood why EVERY beach has to be kid friendly. Why can't we split em up so some are for kids and some for grownups. We outnumber the kids after all. We're pretty sure "the children" were used as a shill to make cops lives easier.

I doubt that hard drug use spiking amongst young people after "cruising" was banned was a coincidence. Instead of going to a beach park to preen and check out the opposite sex they started sitting around at home getting high. Unintended consequences.
 
Tigger said:
No, the book of YOUR Lord. I made the mistake of following that bologna for more than a quarter century before my eyes were opened. I've learned more about the reality of the world in the 13 years since I gave up on that horse crap than I had in the 27 years I followed it.
Click to expand...

Typical atheistic anarchism. Abandoning god and so you abandon your commitment to law, order, and the responsibilities of citizenship. This is why we need a strong, strict, and godly system of government and order.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If I know I will get away with it, I have absolutely zero concern whatsoever for the law. I have a moral code that supercedes the law, and that is one of peace and tolerance. I believe without a victim there can be no crime, and I try to live my life as to do no one harm.
Click to expand...

Basically this. I have very little respect for secular law as a general concept, as it often has nothing to do with my personal sense of morality (or even simple common sense, for that matter).

I follow the law because I will get in trouble if I do not. If I feel like I can by-pass an inconvenient, unnecessary, or immoral law without harming anyone, or drawing undue attention from the authorities, I will do so in a heart beat under most circumstances.
 
Sherman123 said:
Seriously? The Bible. The book of our Lord.


Titus 3:1 - Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

Romans 13:1 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

1 Peter 2:13-17 - Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme

Feel free to go on spouting your godless anarchism that you twist into a morality argument, it is what it is. Discipline, obedience, and faith are what you and so many Americans need.
Click to expand...

I've always suspected passages like that were added when kings controlled the bible.

Can't see why worshipping a golden calf is worse than licking some king's boot

Doesn't that put kings before god?
 
Sherman123 said:
We've talked like a hundred times on here. God how does no one remember me? This sucks. I'm CLEARLY aping him.
Click to expand...

I've never seen you before in my life.

Sherman123 said:
Seriously? The Bible. The book of our Lord.


Titus 3:1 - Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

Romans 13:1 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

1 Peter 2:13-17 - Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme

Feel free to go on spouting your godless anarchism that you twist into a morality argument, it is what it is. Discipline, obedience, and faith are what you and so many Americans need.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. You're trying to say that the bible says you should follow ANY law, no matter how heinous, because that's "just what god said"? So if a law came out saying you had to piss on the cross while a politician has sex with your wife, you would say "Well baby, better get going, it's the law!"?

There are limits to what you would accept as a law, and you know there is.

Sherman123 said:
Typical atheistic anarchism. Abandoning god and so you abandon your commitment to law, order, and the responsibilities of citizenship. This is why we need a strong, strict, and godly system of government and order.
Click to expand...

I hear Sharia law has been working out super great for the people under it.
 
tacomancer said:
I am curious how people differentiate between legality and morality in their every day actions
Click to expand...

Who's moral code? And how immoral are we speaking?
I might follow laws happily that you think immoral, because I think the law the opposite and I might not risk my life unless I thought it was an Anna Frankel situation.
But that is the ultimate question for free socirty. Are the people willing to stand up and fight bad law.
 
tacomancer said:
I will use one of my own morals for example.

I very strongly believe that copyright law is immoral in that the balance between rewarding the creator versus progressing society is way off. In fact, I believe the US founding fathers had it about right 14 years plus a 14 year renewal (actually in the speed of today's economy 20 years is still way in favor of the creator versus society), while in the US, copyrights can go for as long as 75 years after the creator's death. Mickey Mouse should be public domain as well as Elvis songs. Our cultural heritage has value that is priceless and is more valuable than money or property.

So I pretty much ignore copyright law as a result (unless I am at work). I do so because I know that statistically, I am very unlikely to get caught, especially as I employ techniques to mask my identity as I do not believe I should be punished for something that I don't believe is wrong. If copyright law were such that I believe it to be reasonable, I would be more inclined to pay for media of a certain age.
Click to expand...

A short story, "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson(?), covers the subject well.

Its based on the premise that musically, there are a finite number of melodies that appeal to the human ear. Therefore, if all music is permanently copyrighted there eventually will be no "new" music. Most if not all "new" songs are close enough to earlier ones to violate copyright law.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If I know I will get away with it, I have absolutely zero concern whatsoever for the law. I have a moral code that supercedes the law, and that is one of peace and tolerance. I believe without a victim there can be no crime, and I try to live my life as to do no one harm.
Click to expand...

That is fine, when the riding is easy.
 
Sherman123 said:
Typical atheistic anarchism. Abandoning god and so you abandon your commitment to law, order, and the responsibilities of citizenship. This is why we need a strong, strict, and godly system of government and order.
Click to expand...

Not atheistic. I just do not believe in organized religion. The Gods most definitely DO exist, but not in the way the Abrahamic religions see Him.

Abandoning the Christian diety has nothing to do with abandoning a commitment to Law and Order. The fact that this society has abandoned any pretense of Law and Order is what makes me justified in ignoring their improper rules and regulations. Realize there are no actual responsibilities of Citizenship espoused in the US Constitution. That's one of the things the Founders made a major mistake in leaving out.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I've never seen you before in my life.



So let me get this straight. You're trying to say that the bible says you should follow ANY law, no matter how heinous, because that's "just what god said"? So if a law came out saying you had to piss on the cross while a politician has sex with your wife, you would say "Well baby, better get going, it's the law!"?

There are limits to what you would accept as a law, and you know there is.



I hear Sharia law has been working out super great for the people under it.
Click to expand...

Oh come on man:

ape
āp/
verb
gerund or present participle: aping

1.
imitate the behavior or manner of (someone or something), esp. in an absurd or unthinking way.

Another word for this starts with a T and it's been working fairly well so far.
 
Sherman123 said:
Oh come on man:

ape
āp/
verb
gerund or present participle: aping

1.
imitate the behavior or manner of (someone or something), esp. in an absurd or unthinking way.

Another word for this starts with a T and it's been working fairly well so far.
Click to expand...

If you're just taking up this position ironically, you need to use sarcasm tags. IE:

<sarcasm> God says we should obey all laws, no matter how bad they are! </sarcasm>

Your absurd rhetoric is far, far, far too similar to actual posters on this thread to not be taken seriously.
 
joG said:
Who's moral code? And how immoral are we speaking?
I might follow laws happily that you think immoral, because I think the law the opposite and I might not risk my life unless I thought it was an Anna Frankel situation.
But that is the ultimate question for free socirty. Are the people willing to stand up and fight bad law.
Click to expand...

I think its interesting because in our mythological context, we tend to think of an us vs them scenario. People vs the government, for example. When in our society, it ends up being people vs people, which flips the old model on its head. This is why, I think, in the past, politics had a definite trajectory, but over the last 100 or more years, we get mired in the same old questions. In a sense we are fighting ourselves instead of fighting another.

What this means and how or if things will work out? I have no idea.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If you're just taking up this position to be sarcastic, you need to use sarcasm tags. IE:

<sarcasm> God says we should obey all laws, no matter how bad they are! </sarcasm>

Your absurd rhetoric is far, far, far too similar to actual posters on this thread to not be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Because it's verbatim Tigger. Minus his abandonment of 'organized religion'. It also isn't as effective if you use tags!
 
I think the last option should actually be "rutabega tacos."

Depends on the law and how bad it's likely to be if I get caught. I might break it all the time, but put on a good public face.
 
rocket88 said:
I think the last option should actually be "rutabega tacos."

Depends on the law and how bad it's likely to be if I get caught. I might break it all the time, but put on a good public face.
Click to expand...

only if it was tacos
 
rocket88 said:
Rutabega tacos should be illegal. Otherwise you can pry my taco from my cold, dead hands.
Click to expand...

good thing its taco rootabegas then
 
tacomancer said:
I think its interesting because in our mythological context, we tend to think of an us vs them scenario. People vs the government, for example. When in our society, it ends up being people vs people, which flips the old model on its head. This is why, I think, in the past, politics had a definite trajectory, but over the last 100 or more years, we get mired in the same old questions. In a sense we are fighting ourselves instead of fighting another.

What this means and how or if things will work out? I have no idea.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting comment with some insight to it.
 
I follow all laws because that's part of the social contract. If I disagree with a law, I will try to get the law changed, but until it actually is no longer in force, it is my responsibility to follow it, even if I disagree with it.
 
tacomancer said:
Thats nice and all, but in a society with 300 million people all slightly different moral codes. There can't really be any laws with a moral foundation (even citizens like tigger are for murder). and because we are a republic, we are our own rulers, so that part of your argument doesn't work very well either.
Click to expand...

The legitimacy of governance comes from the collective right of self defense, that is born from the individual right to defend your life, liberty, and property, and so any moral law must of course follow it. In essence, if law is to be legitimate it must follow natural justice.

As for your question, if a law is immoral there is a conflict between justice and law, and thus we have a condition of tyranny, and with it a lack of obligation to follow such law.
 
I really can't think of any "immoral" laws right now. To me, immoral laws would be something that forced a person to do something that would harm another. An immoral law would be like from Family Guy when Stewie took over and made laws like "you have to throw an apple at Peter Griffin whenever you see him" or "everyone has to get their milk from Hilary Swank". The vast majority of laws are not moral or immoral, but rather laws that we have decided are for the betterment of society. I don't really view it as immoral to drink or use drugs, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws preventing/limiting these to at least a degree for the better of society.

And there are times when laws can be applied immorally by people in their enforcement, such as enforcing to the strict letter of the law no matter the situation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Generally those with no victim, save for offending the sensibilities of prudes. Drinking beer in public (say at a park or while fishing) is one that comes to mind. No, I am not condoning drunk and disorderly behavior - I simply see no harm in someone enjoying a cold beer on a hot (or any other) day. ;)
Click to expand...

I think it is bizarre that laws like that exist. If people get intoxicated then fine or arrest them. I do not drink so it is no problem for me one way or another.

I also do not see that as immoral anything but petty interference with the American public.
 
Peter King said:
I think it is bizarre that laws like that exist. If people get intoxicated then fine or arrest them. I do not drink so it is no problem for me one way or another.

I also do not see that as immoral anything but petty interference with the American public.
Click to expand...

Tbh, I suspect that a good number of our regulations and laws are primarily meant to bring in money to various governments and municipalities, in the form of fines.
 
About the only law I break on a regular bases is speed limits. I leave for KC tomorrow and will probably drive 80 mph most of the trip. I don't do any illegal drugs, I never drink more than 2 and drive anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom