Praise Jesus

[cbh]

I'm bumping this.

I've encountered a lot of stances that go something like "yea I feel for him but he should have known the law." I think this stance is absurd. I respond by saying that this stance doesn't take into account the impracticality of being expected to know all the laws of your state. It also seems inconsistent, but maybe that's not the right word. If they "feel for him," that represents that they sympathize with something about the case (I assume the injustice) but in the next breath say that the law that administered the injustice should be known and followed. It doesn't make sense.

When I say something along those lines, I get the "well we have laws for a reason" or "so we're picking and choosing which laws to follow now huh?" lines. Am I talking with retards, or am I the one not getting it?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm bumping this.

I've encountered a lot of stances that go something like "yea I feel for him but he should have known the law." I think this stance is absurd. I respond by saying that this stance doesn't take into account the impracticality of being expected to know all the laws of your state. It also seems inconsistent, but maybe that's not the right word. If they "feel for him," that represents that they sympathize with something about the case (I assume the injustice) but in the next breath say that the law that administered the injustice should be known and followed. It doesn't make sense.

When I say something along those lines, I get the "well we have laws for a reason" or "so we're picking and choosing which laws to follow now huh?" lines. Am I talking with retards, or am I the one not getting it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're talking with retards. There's a lot of them about.
This kind of story makes me so disgusted and angry i can barely stand it. Don't know if this is the same video I saw, but my favorite part of the CNN version was the DA saying that he felt the sentence was too long, and he'd gladly cut it in half. As though 5 years for oral sex would be ok. Does this guy seriously not realize that HALF the children of GA would be in prison if this were evenly enforced?

Still, tip for the kids...if you videotape sex acts, try not to spread the tape around [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a taboo on sodomy, which includes oral, manual and anal sex

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always considered sodomy limited to anal sex but that's not my area of expertise so you could easily be right.

The key point is that without government it would be a non-issue. Atheist/naturalist lawmakers can and do use their power for unsavory purposes as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't my area of expertise, so can you please point to an atheist lawmaker?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say something along those lines, I get the "well we have laws for a reason" or "so we're picking and choosing which laws to follow now huh?" lines. Am I talking with retards, or am I the one not getting it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this the whole point of democracy?

I vote "you're talking with retards". But if you want to keep trying to convince them, you could point out that this law was created for a reason and this isn't it (this law, by all accounts I've read was to prevent child molestation, which this is not)