My definition of a "rule" is a standard that humans beings impose on other humans beings to attempt to prevent them from doing things they don't like. This imposition is applied through the use of force of varying degrees.Machinesworking wrote:What exactly constitutes a rule to you? Do you obey all laws in honor of your ongoing point? Your opinion on the law is strange to me? Everything is black and white is what it reads like.stringtapper wrote:Yet Polanski himself probably didn't "grasp" Manson's own form of anti-authority.Machinesworking wrote:Whether or not a crime was committed hasn't really been argued against by anybody taking the unpopular side here, what has been argued is that to judge an event 30 years ago by our standards now is pretty lame. At that point all anti authority activity was considered by many worthy of consideration, and in this case, by the girl, Polanski, and by the girls mother. A little hard to grasp for some I'm sure...
Just proves my ongoing point that those who like to break the "rules" usually pussy out when somebody comes along who really likes to breaks the "rules."
Again here's my take on the law in comparison:
The more freedom you have, the less protection you have.
The more protection you have, the less freedom you have.
That's the entirety of my take on the law, the ethics of it are nil! The government does not, and never has upheld a standard of morality that I can adhere to, and there's not a fucking thing pussy about using a system that I see as a parasite when it can be used to protect my freedom, and to break any rule I see that doesn't fit into my sense of fair play. In nature animals use parasites all the time for beneficial purposes; in fact you wouldn't be alive or healthy if it weren't for the e-coli in your intestines.
This is for the most part theoretical, as 99% of the laws out there make sense to me. I have little interest in underage girls, dating a 25 year old a few years ago was bad enough. Drugs are a waste of time, if you like them fine, but I'm not interested anymore etc. What I'm saying is for a free thinking person to not cherry pick to a degree makes me think of Brave New World, very distinctly.
There is no system ever, that was so perfectly invasive into the lives of the people as to not have any killers or rapists, it's not even a matter of there being one case where that's true.
All I've argued here is that it's lame that a 30 year old case is going to no doubt hang the guy, and that it's not really logical to judge the case by modern morality. That he was a douche for doing it isn't even a question.
To me personally, laws only exist as the set of consequences that tend to follow when they are broken. I choose to follow or not follow any of them at will based on how the consequences will affect me. What I won't do is any moral cherry picking here and there about what should or shouldn't be just because it's convenient. I like to stay away from "should." Most of the laws make sense to me too, but I won't let that be a reason to impose my way of thinking on anyone else.
The reason I say people pussy out is because even those who claim to want no rules or governance will almost invariably look to some rule or authority when nature meets them beyond their comfort zone. Most that would rail against governance might consider themselves anarchists to a degree. But put a gun in an anarchist's mouth and what will he do? Most probably he will look to find some authority to try to stop you from pulling the trigger. Of course this is a broad sweeping generalization based on the types of people I have observed who hold such beliefs, but I find this paradox interesting.