Perhaps some laws aren't mean to be "just". They are meant to preserve public order or public safety.
Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
Perhaps some laws aren't mean to be "just". They are meant to preserve public order or public safety.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Try defining "a mask".
You're obviously almost as pathetic physically as you demonstrate yourself (on TOL, at least) to be mentally, if you are not capable of blowing out a candle while wearing one of these:
It's even a very easy matter to fog up a surface such as that of a compact disc, or a mirror, by exhaling through one of these.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
That's just more of the irrational, vicious Nazi leftard in you speaking: "the end justifies the means".
Well, at least you admit, here, that you're in favor of injustice--that you consider injustice to be congruent with your phrases "public order" and "public safety".
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You've seen virions caught and trapped on masks?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
If that were true then every used mask should be handled as a biohazardous material, correct?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I believe that's the argument the Nazis made to justify cleansing their society of contaminating factors like jews, homosexuals, gypsies ...
How to put on, use, take off and dispose of a mask: https://www.who.int/docs/default-sou...rsn=64ba1493_2
So every country in the world is using Nazi thinking? Give me a break. Think a bit- there isn't some obvious absolute limit here, it's a question of degree, and that is why I started this thread. Where is the line? Saying that "All Government Limits on Personal Freedom are Nazi-like" leaves no room for government. Taxes are "government stealing money, like the Nazis did from the Jews", and so on. How would roads get built, garbage collected, sewage get treated, army maintained- without the government stealing our money, and FORCING us to connect to the city sewage system, bag our garbage in a standard way, give up land for road construction, draft soldiers, collect taxes...
Humans have more government interference in our lives today than they did 10,000 years ago, but even then, tribes had rules, and they were enforced.
He's just trolling you at this point, because that's all he has left.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Off the top of my head I believe the Nazis called it the purification laws, maybe?
The top leaders in law including the judicial system convinced themselves that what they were doing was for the benefit of preserving public order and public safety.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
With the nazis that line was crossed when they allowed and encouraged the passage and implementation of laws that were recognized as inherently unjust.
I have been trying to get you to recognize that the same is true with systems that are not nazi.
Off the top of my head, I think you are way past absurd here.
Every country in the world that forces it citizens to stop at a red light is acting like Nazis? Traffic laws are like "purification laws"?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Please stop with the emotional responses and read what I wrote
My apologies. I get riled up when people drag the Nazis into every discussion.
So please tell me, clearly- where exactly is that line that governments should not cross.
Edit: What is "inherently unjust"? Is being forced to stop at a traffic light "inherently unjust"?
Last edited:
He is clearly not the conservative Republican he tries to lead people to think he is, because only the most extreme libertarian thinkers would agree with him on these absurd views.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
As a broad generality and thus difficult to define clearly in a manner that would apply to specific situations, the line that governments should not cross is enacting (and enforcing) laws that are unjust.
Which brings me back to my question - how just is a law that seeks to punish me for engaging in an action or a behavior in which no one is harmed?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, it's only trolls that do that anyway so bear that in mind.
Of course there's nothing "Nazi" about having laws in place that are for the safety of the public reflected in motoring laws. They're there to protect both motorists and pedestrians alike such as traffic light/speed limits and drink driving laws. They're straight forward and self explanatory and anyone who moans about them have already shown themselves to be either irresponsible or just plain ignorant.
Take drink driving. It's been proven that alcohol causes a reduction in awareness/reaction times so the reason it's illegal to drink and drive is because it puts people at risk, even including the driver. Anyone who knowingly drives to the bar with the intention of getting drunk and driving home afterwards is pathetically irresponsible and has scant regard for the safety of other people. Even someone who goes to the bar without the intention of getting intoxicated and yet still gets behind the wheel of a car while over the limit is just as irresponsible. There's harsh penalties for those caught inebriated while driving whether they've caused an accident or not and with good reason. There's simply no excuse for driving while drunk. The solution is simple. If you want to go out and get drunk then either walk to the bar or use public transport. Don't put other lives at risk.
Nazi? Hardly. An infringement of civil liberty? Nope.
It's not a law designed to be "just". It's designed to prevent people from having automobile accidents, and to make smoother flow of traffic.
Please explain what traffic would look like in your ideal country, the one with no traffic laws.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Ah, I've taken you off the ole ignore list for now as after seeing some of your latest drivel quoted by others it's just too funny and ironic to pass up commenting directly, especially after this little doozy or dozy considering... Rest assured, I may well not use the function to your snowflake sensibilities in future.
Um, where to start. You're not really in a position to talk about other people being "drunky" when you've freely admitted and feebly attempted to justify driving home while drunk. You've broken the law and put other people's lives at risk in doing so. Now, you claim to be indwelt with the "HS" which presumably stands for "Holy Spirit".
Hmm, well, on that night (or day) in question, you may well have been "indwelt" with several spirits but they'd be of the variety that are available for purchase on the upper shelves of my local bar and I strongly doubt that any of them were advising you to get in your car and drive home while intoxicated. Would the Holy Spirit endorse that type of irresponsible behaviour?
Do tell.