the paradigm of anti-plagarism allows people to repeat similar things so long as they are false. it is like a game of telephone but the only rule is to say as similar a thing as possible without saying the thing you heard.
lay in our insanity
that which we do beyond reprimand.
our robotic rules are just despotic tools,
for tradition’s stately demand.
so in the calamity,
we laid heavy handedly,
ideals and delusions to cause
because the cause- be cause,
apt laud the cause- through the laws.
for when rhetoric lay derelict
and the wishing well runs dry
the people fall to waste
beneath a rocket’s cry
i don’t argue, cause i wont win
i wont win, cause i wont sin
i recently read the post and i disagree with every point. but there is no point in arguing with someone that corrupt to be without conscience.
the first problem is that the issuer/claimant uses rules with exceptions.
the seccond main problem is contradiction. if a cop isn’t required to tell you they are a cop, why would a criminal (or undercover cop) tell you what you are delivering?
so to rebuke the content (paraphrased quotes):
- “a cop must reveal he is a cop”.
violates: aiding and abetting, conspiracy to commit a crime, unlawful use of police resources, men rea, and the rule of law,
- “the police can’t ask you to commit a crime”
the dissonance isn’t about can, but whether you are liable if they orient you to commit a crime. say you are on a one way street and holding up traffic and the city has a law against cars driving on the street/sidewalk. a cop commands you to drive onto the sidewalk to allow an emergency vehicle through. in this, a cop asks you to commit a crime. you may not have committed the crime without the express direction of the officer.
- “the police can’t commit a crime themselves”
this is the one which renders them as illegitimate due to not having clean hands. again it violates mens rea and rule of law to tolerate such a double standard.
- “the police can’t help you break the law”
any law which is physically possible by one person tends to be physically possible by others. also laws are rarely enacted if they can’t be repeated. there are many frivelous laws but few (if any) that frivolous as to be impossible to commit. most of the errors in law are having exceptions and extenuating circumstance which go beyond the event to mitigate the perceived need for punishment. what i think is intended instead is that it isn’t permissible for the police to aid and abet you in breach of the law. that is, that the government believes it is okay for the police to engage more prolificly, diversely and obnoxiously in criminal activity, because it also catches actual criminals too. it isn’t just though. there is a difference between allowing someone to break the law, and causing them to break the law.
“it is just the flipside of (point) 3” yup… you are basicly wrong there for the same reason you were wrong here. you were just also less grammatically poignant. the question isn’t whether police can do wrong, but whether the get treated with equal justice. the can’t morally commit the same offences to the same degree, without repercussion. it is the equivalent act in law to moral bankruptcy, pardon the cliche. they get all these moral debts and they get written off by preferential treatment. it is on par with defaulting to police testimony during a he-said-she-said.
- “the police can’t just let you commit an offence and then arrest you for it”
now i agree with the reasoning but not the example. i agree, the only time the can legitimately arrest someone ‘as witness to a crime’ is when they witness a crime. they can’t commit the same offence to similar degree. if a group of people can’t block off a bridge without a permit, that applies to all people. and if the police were also blocking off the bridge they are as guilty of the crime as those they arrest. the way there would not be shared guilt would be for the law to either be about weight limit and arrest those who violate that, or to have a person test if the crowd of demonstrators would actually part to let someone trying to cross in the other direction walk by unimpeded. this doesn’t cause a crime to be committed, so the police are witnesses to the crime but not part of the source.
it is like a cop busting someone for acquiring a drug which was given to him by the cop. the cop was the source, so that acquisition is not valid; it must be written off. if the cop is witness to an illegal behaviour which the cop didn’t cause. then it is valid. if the cop caused a crime, then he is part of the instance of crime being committed. you can’t viably write off half of a crime. either the crime instance is invalid, or it is valid, for both/all participants in the act.
the problem isn’t entrapment, but whether the law is intrinsicly valid/coherent/consistent or not. you can get more guilty people the bigger you make your net, but tolerance of incriminating the innocent while affording known criminals preferential status under the law, invalidates the methodology.
but i know i can’t argue that in any court. no judge would listen to me because she/he isn’t either the voice of the people nor an impartial observer but a lawyer- someone whose morality is corrupted by precedence and circumstance. a person who will believe the stupid arguments mentioned in the cited document. how can you argue before someone with such nonsensical and invalid prejudice?
here is another example to demonstrate my point:
- the police cause you to commit a crime
- you wouldn’t have committed otherwise
- then you were entrapped
…that is every police act which has ever happened and will ever happen.
that is the foundation of the executive branch; that is the foundation of the judiciary; to find people who do bad things an punish them if they are proven to have actually done them. that is the mindset that the wrongdoing is in getting caught. yes getting caught causes you to commit the crime because outside of getting caught there is only action. and without the prejudice that the act is wrong, it isn’t. and the point of law is about projecting wrong and punishing those who aren’t intimidated into compliance.
entrapment as such, is a catch all, it alone invalidates the existence of law multiple ways, and is by extension illegal. how the fuck can people not see it is a catch all for everyone, if it was expressed accurately.
the rule of law is valid when there are no exceptions to a law. it is mere pretence if there are so many exceptions that there is no valid grounds for guilt.
noise rings out
silence rings in.
it hides behind the wake of the wave,
faster than time,
hidden from sight
no riddle nor rhyme
nor freedom from blight
it carries the weary,
horizon rings unrung to pure point
a parse now the part.
an ink’s art anoints.
the vacuum is calm, far from the bustle of ideal pretence.
unstill the silence is gone, with another lost “recent”.
senses hallucinate when bored.
so is signed the extrovert’s accord.
such is the fear of the unknown
from the fear of alone.
terrors through time, and rush,
jump with claws – “but to brush”.
predators hidden from light.
survival is not missing the knife.
are traffic laws vallid? is the act of turning social conventions into mandated law vallid?
take speed limits: stop signs (and traffic lights), and posted upper limits.
is it one’s duty to adhere to them?
an analogy comes if you evaluate roughly what makes law wrong. is the law there to codify and recognize bad behaviours which the society admonishes regardless of personal views? or is it the consolidation and embodiment of authority solely for the purpose of empowerment through familiarity?
so is the wrong of the law the act you do, or projected from others and so your wrong no further than “getting caught”?
also the concept of harm to other parties matters how? is a law unjust if it personally doesn’t apply to you (IE jaywalking in rural or suburban environments), and what degree of harm and certainty thereof legitimizes the criminal aspect?
take murder for a seccond, murder implicitly contains (by popular definition) 100% chance of whoever murdered the victem/corpse of harmful intent (mens rea) and arguibly harm. is the non-negotiable post hoc aspect of harm what makes what happened criminal? or could reckless/intoxicated driving even without manslaughter also be criminal despite there not being any actual personal harm occuring.
seccondly, to what degree is harm frivelous and by what metric is it measured? is the active variable: pain, fiscal-loss, potential victem count, antipathy/intent, social disruption, …? how intense does the harm need to be or how long can it be? is crippling someone with a life of pain worse than murder due to the integral of suffering, or is murder worse because it impacts more people….
see the crux of your position is a double negative it is entirely based on ” breaking it wouldn’t cause more harm “
the key being wouldn’t and harm. but how minimal is harm for it to be relevant is subjective, and partial. and you can’t really make partial/favorable rules without breaking the rule of law. when setting up any metric you need a primal unit to reflect the least significant unit possible; 1. if you allow everyone to define what qualifies as 1, then some people will be happy with the general census, but others will be upset either finding cenus too harsh/easy on the convicted. if one respects all personal opinion instead of the census, then there is no backing for law. you might find murder harmful, but others may not, and if you aren’t allowing either appeal to popularity or appeal to authority then one voids the pretence of law.
this circles back to any/every contentious issue. abortion as murder, a woman’s sexual autonomy; necessity of vaccine, religious freedom; right to discipline children, respect of shild’s human right of agency without coercion/assault… in general, the right to choose to not follow popular wisdom.
how do you know your ethical code is better than the law? what gives it more cause for respect than the law? because it is yours?
the ideal of individualism is very destructive, and allot of our convention is done because by merely having consolidated ritual within the madness will always offer the pretence of control over our lives. in the west we worship ideals under the title of gods because they give us place and companionship. any paradigm shared widely enough would be suffecient- but it needs to be shared widely enough. one way to combat this is to start with a genuine appeal to popular opinion, democracy. it is stupid and ineffectual, and as slow as the voting mode. BUT it is stable.
it is the stability of the status quo which gives it the reliability and the threat of consequence. the law has a long memory, but only as far as the premise is perpetuated and projected. everything less is opinion.
i was just one a forum reading thoughts women have about various social conventions and one of them interested me.
it basicly expressed that women didn’t want a cold approach from strangers. they always wanted some premise of common ground from mutual friends to mutual hobbies. that is they actively wanted to be coerced into a relationship due to a premise of commonality. what i find curious about this is how by having common ground one sets themselves up for uncanny relationship failure.
basicly if you are skilled at some thing, and your partner is skilled at the same thing, then when you are talking about your day that thing will enter the conversation and you and your partner will judge and make suggestions because they are competent in the field.
also this linked back into the premise of women being equal to men. (getting pregnant is a myth!) so it seems the old expression of beauty as means for mate attraction is in these women’s minds replaced with technical competence. curiously the only people who can really recognize the competence are those she would be competing with if equal. and if either partner struggled the caring intent to aid the other would be corrupted by that uncanny lack of respect.
they want to date and profess the same thing. they want to do acts which perpetuate their woes, but not be held responsible for them.
this vilifying of the solution just seems strange, but i guess it is necessary if you are creating problems to conquer.
funny how one upsetting experience taints mediocre ones.
bad experiance involving possibly forsaking part of my social circle, and then when i’m looking at products trying to figure out “what is this” and i get a waste of time instead. the neutral experiance of having my time wasted becomes negative due to teh previous but completely unrelated event.
it is like anger makes people more sensitive to faux pas, and reduces tolerance of people doing things so unethical that they are already borderline worth forsaking the community which practices the precarious behaviour.
before, there is the possibility of rational discourse, but after the previous injury to identity (by loss of integrity to group identity), it incites anger and intolerance. “you are wrong, and i refuse to put up with you right now, either leave or apologise”.
it is an attempt to sublimate personal outburst to maintain the perception of cultural reliability by expelling the dissenting group/individual who refuse the pretence of personal and interpersonal/cultural authority and by extension threaten the stability/survival of the group by misleading the females. a culturally functional equivalent to death of the mate.
… and another person basicly forfeits credibility.