 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 562 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If it's necesseary for someone to know a country's history to understand it today - then is the country constructed (it's laws, etc) logically? I say no. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
... and the 'word' logically might not be a good word... but please try to understand what I mean and not complain about it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this thread failed BIGTIME! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
know nothing of Sweden. Is that my fault or theirs? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
..it's quebec's fault. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha yeah I agree. thanks for replying. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No. Although the law is generally pretty logical, even if it is poorly implemented. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a countrys history difines the country it is today |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes... but that's not the question :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
then i dont know :) but for fun yes to balance things |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i can kind of see what you're saying but you have to elaborate a little more... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you don't understand the question? What should I elaborate on? hmm... me and a friend had this argument the other day where we talked wether history or social studies is the most important subject (cause they will make history a subject you must pass in High School to graduate, in Sweden [or if it just was a suggestion so far...]). And I said social studies were more important cuz you need to know how a country functions, and he claimed you need to know a country's past to understand it at present. And if that is the case, that you need to know the past to understand why the country is what it is, then it's laws (and whatever else make up a country) was not based on logics; they are not logical. Because if that were the case (e.g. the laws are logical) you wouldn't need to know a country's past - you could just act natural. Natural laws, that would allow us to act naturally, is of course the way to go. And on this topic, I don't think a country's past should control it's present. Things such as a non-perfect constitution should be perfected. Laws shouldn't exist to make lives hard - they should be there to protect you. And I don't really think they should exist as they do today. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i do agree with what you are saying (that laws should not be in place to restrict people needlessly), but i think it's difficult to know what would be the most logical way to construct a country without at least having an idea of what kind of constructions have been successful/unsuccessful in the past... i'd say that both history and social studies are important (actually, every school i've ever been in--aside from university--has taught history as a part of social studies)... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah that's true that the subjects are very connected. "what kind of constructions have been successful/unsuccessful in the past..." is that really necesseary? My idea of a construction is something that hasn't been done before - but it can't really fail. We should all be allowed to act naturally - cause there is nothing wrong in that (just like there is no right/wrong among animals. Natural behaviour feels good [when you're a sane, healthy, good-feeling person]). I understand if you don't understand what I mean... cause, most people can't. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but i don't think that you'll ever find a system that everyone is satisfied with... you can't really draw a model on paper, and then have it work perfectly in society... there's a difference between symbolic logic (if A then B and not C type stuff) and what we understand as the logical reaction (or most likely) of someone in the real world... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and a realistic system of "logic" is basically constructed by observing what has worked/hasn't worked in the past... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and a realistic system of "logic" is basically constructed by observing what has worked/hasn't worked in the past... well yeah. I wasn't sure about the word 'logic' so please don't focus on this word. instead try to understand what I am trying to say. Anyway, what I mean is more like 'natural laws' sortof 'unexisting laws that already exist'. Sane, healthy, people know (feel) what is right/wrong. Therefor no laws (restricions in way to live) are really needed for them - because if you feel good and is sane, you will not want to hurt anyone else. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Natural behaviour feels good" Unfortunately, cultural differences (which I suppose you could argue is the past) mean that this isn't very clear cut. Some people will argue homosexuality for example is inherently "unnatural". Others will claim that it is. In order to strike the right sort of balance between "uptight" people not being offended and most normal, decent, people's private lives not being ruled too much by the state, it is neccessary to be generally permissive, except where the actions of a person cause harm to another. It is debatable whether simple "offense" is damage enough to qualify as harm... In spite of its flaws and foreign policies, western society generally is pretty liberal and permissive towards its own citizens. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it could certainly afford to be more permissive |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well just that sentence you quoted don't mean much on it's own. But it's true that people just like myself, healthy, sane, etc does not want to hurt other people. It just makes no sense - that you hurt others if you feel good yourself. Unfortunately, cultural differences (which I suppose you could argue is the past) I didn't really understand that sentence... but I know that culture requires laws, when nature doesn't (I mean artificial laws, created by humans 'to protect themselves'). Because people now own things. And that whole money-part is something I know can't be discussed naturally because it's 100% culture... you understand what I mean? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so basically you're saying govern society on the harm John Stuart Mill's harm principle? (it's okay if it doesn't hurt others) cause if you are... well i pretty much agree with you, and i like the distinction you make between nature and culture, it makes a lot more sense after having discussed it for a little while |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We live in liberal democracies. People have so much opportunity we live in truly truly great great times!! The only limits are in people's minds. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sod! That was intended as a general post and not directly for you. :-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this thread failed BIGTIME! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The problem with that is what exactly constitutes "harm to others"? If you're talking only physical harm, people in the streets would be allowed to openly engage in copulation, fights (providing both parties were consenting), excrete on sidewalks, etc. In short, you would be doing away with "civilisation" and almost resorting to an atavistic state. If you include "causing offense" (neccessary to prevent things like racism, sexism, etc.) you need some degree of censorship of art/behaviour and age restrictions against things like age of sexual consent (it is perfectly natural, biologically speaking, for girls to be sexually active at 12- does that make it okay?)... Similarly, there's the issue of protecting people from themselves- should you allow all substance (ab)use, duelling, self-harming, suicide, etc. and not interfere at all in it? What about those things that do (indirectly) affect others? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, this is the issue which comes up in such circumstances... i'd say that harm should not inculde causing offense... people should be able to express whatever they want to under all circumstances... if one incurs direct "monetary harm" (stupid term that i only bring up because i have to)... like say i have to pay a street cleaner to clean a fellow's shit up off the street, then perhaps they should be punished in some form (of course in saying that shit must be cleaned up off the street i am making an ideological judgement about what constitutes a satisfactory appearance of my city... which i would like to avoid... )... i do not think that we should protect people from themselves on a LEGAL level either... in fact that is the crux of my belief... law should only be restrictive where it is relatively capable of being uncompromising... when someone shoots someone, it is clear that this constitutes harm (well, not really actually, but i rather suspect that the only one who would take issue with me on this one, is me...:P)... but when someone is harmed indirectly any sanctions towards that individuals actions must come through the social sphere as opposed to the legal one... law is inherently rigid, and if rigidity cannot be justified in all instances, then something more flexibel than the law should be applied |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
