christ-on-a-stick

...when it suits them.

Republicans are notorious for barking about "state's rights, state's rights.." except when it is interferes with their agenda.

Wouldn't that be a convenient way to strip state's rights ENTIRELY? For whatever law a state has that the Fed doesn't like, just make a federal law that is the opposite. But wait... somehow that strikes me as contrary to the constitutional principles of the roles of state's rights vs. federal powers.

long winded fool

The reason to accept the position is the implications of not accepting it. If society is a good thing, it is illogical to do something that encourages its downfall. If society is a bad thing, it is illogical to encourage its continued existence. If society is unjust, it is dishonorable to participate in its activities. If you live in this society, you are paying taxes and participating in its economic growth. If it is "unjust, but not unjust enough to make me leave," then it is your home and you ought to take care of it. This includes obeying the laws that the society legislates to the letter. To do otherwise undermines the power of the laws, which in turn weakens the society as a whole. Why would you live in a house and refuse to take care of it? Because your friends say that patching the roof is someone else's job and you'd rather have a skylight anyway?

Human beings are societal creatures. They must obey laws in order to live together in harmony and cooperation. Picking and choosing what laws to obey is not logical. Picking and choosing what kind of a society you'd like to live in is. To willfully destroy a society so that you can construct your own on the fertile land is, IMO, unnecessary warmongering. That is what rebellion, civil disobedience, and individualism lead to. Individualism and revolution are often considered just, especially here in America, but they are essentially conquering territory and driving those who currently control the land out of power so that you or your friends can build your own society there. This is not cooperative, societal behavior. If you don't like my society, don't live here. Don't kill me and take my land, because this doesn't just hurt me, it hurts you and your children and the rest of humanity. Solving our problems with force always breeds violence and fans the flames of fear and individualistic pride. I'm not any better than those who disagree with me. I don't deserve their land more than they do.

Refusing to cooperate ultimately leads to war and the killing of those people who disagree with the more powerful society. This is a tendency that is detrimental to the survival of the species on the whole. (Assuming that the willful destruction of individual human beings by other human beings is detrimental on some level to the survival of human beings as a species.) So just agree with me in practice as long as you live in my society, and I'll do the same in yours. Never disrespect any law. Laws should be absolute for as long as they are laws, and it is not rational to attempt to change laws in a society by purposely disobeying them. If you can't obey, your only rational course of action is to leave. To do otherwise is to abandon courage and embrace fear. If you're physically (not "financially") prevented from leaving, you are a prisoner and not subject to the laws of your captors' society. It is not cowardice to disobey the commands of someone holding you prisoner in a society you'd not be in if you had the choice.

LHP Adept

You have identified the real reason for the cultural bias against the 'snitch'. It is a perceived betrayal.
Snitching is most strongly condemned when the accused and the accuser are members of a (perceived or actual) peer group. For example, students at a school, prisoners in the same prison, residents of the same neighborhood, or even those who share a common racial, ethnic, or socio-economic background are often expected (rightly or wrongly) to have a degree of loyalty to each other, particularly when there is a contrasted group (teachers, prison guards, 'the establishment') which is regarded as an enemy or rival of the peer group.
It derives from an US vs. THEM mentality which is very much a part of our sociobiology. This is especially notable in cases where the THEM group has a perceived or actual advantage (such as wealth, police powers, etc.).
When a person who is percveived as US (however the individual defines who is US and who is THEM) informs authorities who are perceived as THEM, this is regarded as perfidy, but that perception is only as valid as the definitions of US and THEM.
In the above example where you learn that your neighbor is hiding jews in Nazi germany, people seem to agree that snitching would be reprehensible. IMO, this is because the THEMness of the Nazis (who do not respect the same principles of right and wrong as US do) and the USness of the jew-hiding family (assuming the neighbor shares their fear of the Gestapo) are regarded as valid.

Pyrrho

I see from your later posts that a shortcut will not be satisfactory. Therefore, I will go back to the examination of an earlier post.

You are betrayed by your own example, and prove that you have not thought seriously about this matter. The "Mexican people who simply stroll across the desert and climb over into The United States", who you mention with evident approval, are, in fact, a nice example of how wrong you are. Every second of every day that they live in the U.S., they are breaking the law. By breaking the law so continuously, they cannot possibly be, by your proposed standards, good citizens of their adopted homeland. By your proposed standards, they must either leave, or turn themselves in immediately for violating the law, or they are "cowards".

I had hoped that you would consider the matter as a real issue, rather than merely as a verbal game, which is why I suggested that you seriously investigate what it would take to move to New Zealand. I see that that was a vain hope.

The simple fact is, it is not as easy as you imagine to move from one country to another. And with your standards, one must conform to the laws of the country into which one moves, or the move will serve no purpose, as one will still be a "coward".


Why assume any such thing? And, as has been stated, there is no reason to suppose that I must obey the laws. I am reasonably certain that most people violate the laws numerous times in life. Your use of the term "must" is rather unfortunate.

For the remainder, the portions in bold were originally posted by me.

You state:

"A collectively disobeyed law is not a law."

This is literally a contradiction, so I imagine you mean it metaphorically? Surely, you are not going to say that, because speed limits are collectively disobeyed, there are no speed limits? Your position seems as absurd as anything one could imagine.

You also seem to confuse a loss of respect for the law with the state having NO power to control individuals. Clearly, the state does not have absolute power, but that is very far from saying it has no power at all. We can have many violations of the law without then having anarchy.

You appear to be fond of the fallacy known as Bifurcation:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism...ml#bifurcation


You show here how you do not consistently use the term "courage". According to what you have said in the past, people who violate the laws are the cowards, not those who follow it. Thus, going along with slavery would be consistent, according to your claims, with being courageous. Those pesky slaves who escaped from slavery (thus violating the law) in ancient Rome were, by your standards, "cowards", unless they managed to leave the Empire (as if that would be realistically possible in any but a very few cases).


I see that you not only entertain absurd ideas, but also racist/nationalistic ones. It may interest you to know that at no time did even the majority of Germans belong to the Nazi party, much less would it be accurate to say that all Germans were Nazis. Your equation of "German" with "Nazi" is extremely racist.

Additionally, Hitler employed many illegal means to obtain power in Germany; he did not simply win in a democratically run election; he used violence (as well as the usual kinds of propaganda—that is, lies, with different lies for different audiences). This kind of consideration, of course, could easily lead us to a discussion of what, exactly, constitutes legitimate government.

However, one of the points of bringing up the example of a German refusing to fight for Hitler was to illustrate how your use of the term "coward" is exactly the opposite of normal usage in many cases. Most people would regard such a person as "brave", and the ones who went along with the rules, following like sheep, were "cowards". Yet you pretend, while redefining the term "coward", that you are using it as it is commonly used!

You again show an interest in playing with words rather than deal with messy reality. The simple fact is that many violations of the law do not necessarily result in an end to society.

Furthermore, there are many times when violating a law may serve the purpose of altering society, as the sit-ins in the U.S. to allow blacks equal access to restaurants. According to you, it was detrimental to society for people to do these protests; I say, they not only did no harm to society, but they improved society. I suppose you must believe that it would be better if blacks were still "kept in their place"?


So, the U.S., with people violating the laws every day, is a weak society? According to you, the U.S. has no real power. Surely even you don't believe what you say.


This is a great quote from you: "If the law cannot be changed democratically, then it's not worth changing."

If that is true, then it was not worth changing the laws in the U.S. to prohibit slavery, because that was not done democratically, but through violence. And it was not worth allowing blacks equal access to lunch counters, water fountains, or any other form of equality, because they were not achieved through democratic means, but through illegal activity.

Of course, I imagine you will now deny what follows logically from what you say, in order to not appear to be a racist. But that ship has already sailed, with your racist comments about Germany.

You have been taking the most extremely fascist position for which I have ever seen anyone argue. But the most amazing thing is not that someone would argue for it, but that you have found so many who are sympathetic to your claims.


This comment of yours is also rather interesting:

""Just" crimes as in civil disobedience and "just" wars as in revolutions still stem from the idea that "we don't like who runs the country right now, so we're going to kick them out and run it ourselves." "

To consider a specific example, the American Revolution, we can observe that, according to you, George Washington and the other "Founding Fathers" were all cowards, and would have been brave only if they had either gone along with the laws of the land, or left the country. This again shows how you disagree with the majority about the use of the terms "cowardly" and "brave", yet you pretend that you are not using these terms deviantly!


According to you, it is courageous for people to follow their leaders like sheep, but those who attempt to change their societies with any illegal action, are cowards! Your abuse of language is pretty extreme.

Pyrrho

Upon what do you base your claim: "I personally think legal slavery is always a cowardly (irrational) act, though there was a time when it was widely accepted." According to what you have stated previously, anyone who did not endorse slavery who lived in a slave society and did not leave it, was a coward. According to what you have said previously, the only ways to avoid being a coward would be to either agree with the laws or to leave the country. Now you want to say that staying and agreeing is also cowardly, at least in one type of case. Why?

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying, as I certainly am not endorsing slavery. Calling it "cowardly", though, seems a bit odd.


Here you are simply mistaken when you say:

"...any willing violation of the law is a cowardly act in that it undermines the good of society for one's own individual benefit."

People have often violated the law NOT for their own benefit, but for the benefit of others. Think of the people who hid Jewish people in their attics in Germany during WWII, or the whites who participated in sit-ins in the U.S. to help black people get the right to eat at restaurants. (Let me also add that when blacks participated in sit-ins, they typically did not do it for themselves alone, but for others as well. But since it also has a possible selfish advantage as part of the motive, I chose to use the example of whites in my sentence before these parenthetical remarks.) Many illegal actions are NOT selfish, but altruistic. No wonder your characterization of who is a coward and who is not is all messed up, when you are so wrong about the motives involved.

Pyrrho

You are not paying attention to the argument as given. There was no inference that speeding was right. The point is, that his (or her) standards entail results that he (or she) may not wish to own.

Part of the discussion is about his (or her) deviant usage of the term "coward", while claiming to use it as it is normally used. That, however, is clearly a false claim.

Pyrrho

Breaking a few laws does not encourage the downfall of a society.

You assume that there is a real choice. In most cases, this is unrealistic.

It has often led to improvements in the law. Yet you regard working for improvements with non-violent, though illegal, demonstrations as a bad thing.

Again, this is in virtually all cases unrealistic.

Nonviolent protests, that are often illegal, are not "force". You equate doing something illegal with using "force", which is simply wrong.

This is nonsense. Do you always cooperate with others when they want you to do something? When you fail to cooperate, do you then kill each other?

You again repeat the claim that it is irrational to do anything illegal. But, again, you fail to provide any reason for believing you.

The simple fact is, many illegal actions have led to an improvement in society. (Of course, I do not deny that many illegal actions have done the opposite, but I am not claiming that one should always violate the law, whereas you are claiming that one should always follow the law, or leave.) It would be irrational to NOT do illegal things when those illegal things are known to be effective for bringing about an improvement in society. If everyone attempted to follow your advice (aside from the fact that they would really have nowhere to go), the world would be a much worse place than if they violated laws in order to bring about improvements.

You also have never explained what to do about "christ-on-a-stick"'s dilemma regarding what is to be done when those in charge do not follow the law in making new laws. Specifically, what are we to do about laws that violate the Constitution? Do we follow the Constitution, or do we follow the lesser laws? For my part, I prefer the Constitution to anything those Yahoos currently in Washington have passed in recent years. What do you say to one who exercises Constitutional rights by violating lesser laws? You see, the whole matter is a lot messier than you seem to want it to be. Real life is messy, not 'black and white', as you would have it.

long winded fool

Straw man. I never made such a claim. The only ways to avoid being a coward in this example are to obey the laws or leave the country. Your representation of my argument seems to be based on agreement with the laws. Not endorsing a particular law is completely different than actively disobeying it. You can rationally disagree with laws prohibiting the sale of drugs and still report drug trafficking to the authorities. Hence my claim that "snitching" is never wrong in a society that you are a voluntary member of.

Altruistic breaking of the law is a contradiction in the case of voluntary membership in a society. Why would you live in a society in which, in order to be altruistic, you must break the laws of the society? This is not very altruistic! Again, only unwilling members of a society can break the laws without being cowards. If you agree with the laws of society enough to pay taxes, you are acting in a cowardly manner if you break the rules. (Incidentally, if you don't pay taxes but still voluntarily enjoy the benefits of the society, you are what is often called a social parasite. Another selfish and cowardly thought process.)

You appear to be fond of the fallacy known as Bifurcation.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that there are other logical possibilities than just 'obey the laws or live somewhere else,' but you must show another logical possibility. "Obey only the laws that you agree with" is not logical, and I think I have refuted all the other possibilities we could think of, which was the whole point of the argument. Are there others we haven't examined?

You also have never explained what to do about "christ-on-a-stick"'s dilemma regarding what is to be done when those in charge do not follow the law in making new laws. Specifically, what are we to do about laws that violate the Constitution? Do we follow the Constitution, or do we follow the lesser laws? For my part, I prefer the Constitution to anything those Yahoos currently in Washington have passed in recent years. What do you say to one who exercises Constitutional rights by violating lesser laws? You see, the whole matter is a lot messier than you seem to want it to be. Real life is messy, not 'black and white', as you would have it.

I didn't see this dilemma, but it seems to me that it's still ultimately black and white. You live in a society with certain laws. Those laws change. You no longer agree with the laws. You either obey them or you leave. Or, and this is probably closer to what you meant, a law is passed which contradicts a law still supposedly in effect. Which law ought you to obey? Good dilemma! I think this is a question for even those who disagree with my argument. Roe vs. Wade logically conflicts with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.* In this country and in this example, it is true that we tend to go with the more recent laws and apply their terminology and nuances retrospectively to countermand previous laws, but is this logical? The truth is, unfortunately, any conflicting laws logically cancel each other out. How can you obey one law that says green means go, and another that says red means go? You can't. Both laws have become meaningless and will remain so until one is repealed. My argument would say the same thing that your argument would say. (If you are using logic, that is.) Conflicting laws cannot logically be obeyed and lose power as laws. Though this is obviously not an accurate reflection of human behavior in a society, (abortion is still legal and human rights are still universally equal and inalienable,) I think that this is merely a sad commentary on human behavior and cultural thinking rather than a refutation of the logic of my argument. Though capable of reason, humans are not a rational species.

You are betrayed by your own example, and prove that you have not thought seriously about this matter. The "Mexican people who simply stroll across the desert and climb over into The United States", who you mention with evident approval, are, in fact, a nice example of how wrong you are. Every second of every day that they live in the U.S., they are breaking the law. By breaking the law so continuously, they cannot possibly be, by your proposed standards, good citizens of their adopted homeland. By your proposed standards, they must either leave, or turn themselves in immediately for violating the law, or they are "cowards".

Why are they breaking a law? There is no law that says people of Mexican descent can't live in the US. My example didn't presume that all Mexican migrants are not citizens of the United States. Most are. But you are correct in assuming that those who aren't are breaking the law, and that this is a cowardly thing to do. Why would you assume that I was speaking of only law-breaking Mexicans when my argument was about the importance of obeying all laws?

"A collectively disobeyed law is not a law." This is true by definition. In order for a proposition to be law it must be recognized and obeyed by some members of society. If everyone disobeys a law, it is obviously no longer a law in the effective sense. There are those comical, obsolete "laws" still on the books that no one obeys. (Or everyone collectively disobeys, if you prefer.) Are these still laws? Is it still legal to shoot a party of seven or more Native Americans in Montana? This is not a law because no one, not even the authorities, obey it, even though it is still on the books as a law, (as far as I know.) Only if a law is recognized and obeyed by members of society, even if it's only those members of society who enforce it, can it actually be considered law. If I still get pulled over for speeding, then the speed limit is not collectively disobeyed and it is still a law.

But you were absolutely right when you said real life is messy and it is not black and white, (assuming you meant real life according to flawed human perception.) Logic is always black and white however, or else it is not logical. We can try to be logical, or we can go in circles and intellectually stagnate in our "gray areas" that many of us so desperately cling to. If gray areas provide temporary pleasure and personal comfort and logic presents temporary pain and individual insecurity, most humans will choose the safe sounding gray areas of subjective emotion and imagination instead of the often uncomfortable black and white of actual reality, (apart from flawed human perception.) By doing so, they are trusting their subjective, instinctual emotions over objective, critical thinking. Isn't this why most of us would say that fundies tend to drive atheists crazy? Don't infidels often accuse theists of ignoring logic in favor of emotion and hiding from their insecurities? In my experience, most atheists are just as guilty of subjective emotional belief stemming from instinctual fear as most theists.


*I've proven this on another thread in MF&P, (Slippery slope for abortion argument, terminate when?) so if you disagree we can discuss there and keep this thread on topic. (or as close to on topic as possible, )

Pyrrho

My apologies for my slight misstatement of your position. However, according to what you have stated, if one remains in a country voluntarily, one must, overall, agree with the laws, and none of them can be such that they are too distasteful (otherwise one would leave). One must like them enough to be willing to follow them.

You still, however, fail to answer the question posed: Why do you believe that agreeing with slavery makes one a "coward"?


One may not be able to leave, or one might regard a particular country as the best one available, without regarding it as perfect. By committing civil disobedience, one may help bring the laws more in line with what is best. There is nothing illogical about effective action to bring about desired change. You are just engaging in verbal quibbling when you choose to call taking such actions "illogical". It is illogical to not take appropriate action to bring about what one desires.


What is actually possible is always logically possible. (The inverse of the previous sentence is, of course, false, since there are things that are logically possible without being actually possible; in other words, the set of all things that are actually possible is a proper subset of the set of all things that are logically possible.) Since it is actually possible for people to live in a society without following all of the rules, it is logically possible for them to do this. Your abuse of logic does not change any of this.

So here are the logical possibilities, if one lives in a society:

1) one can leave;
2) one can stay and follow all of the laws (though this may or may not be actually possible, it is logically possible);
3) one can stay and follow some of the laws, but not all of them;
4) one can stay and follow none of the laws (though this may or may not be actually possible, it is logically possible).

In the real world, 3 is by far the most common, with 1 at a distant second. Whether 2 or 4 ever occur is debatable.


Contradictory laws are obviously not a problem for those who say that one need not obey all of the laws. Your ad hoc claim that contradictory laws are not laws is not satisfactory. Basically, you evade laws you don't like by claiming that they are not really laws. If you are going to do such things, with any pretense of reason, you need to carefully define your use of the term "law".


Now you are demonstrating how slippery you are, and rather than honestly deal with matters, you pretend that the original meaning was somehow unclear. Simply strolling across the border is illegal. One must have permission to enter the country, and one does not get that by simply strolling across the border.

The original context was involving the real difficulties of entering into another country, and you responded with your flippant remark that one can simply stroll across the border, despite the obvious fact that that violates your proposed principles.

It is no wonder that others have abandoned the thread and decided that it is not worthwhile to argue with you.


You obviously need to define your terms when you use them so deviantly. "Collective action" commonly means action taken by a number of people acting as a group. There is absolutely nothing in that that implies that absolutely everyone must do it in order for the action to be "collective action".


Logic does not preclude the possibility of something being gray. If we look at the following sentences:

1) The cat is black.
2) The cat is white.
3) The cat is black or the cat is white.
4) The cat is black or the cat is not black.

Sentence 3 does not include all possibilities; 4, however, does (provided that we have a precise meaning for being black). The cat may very well be gray, or any other color, as far as logic is concerned.

There is no reason to believe that one is morally obligated to obey all laws. This, however, is a serious problem for your position. That one is legally obligated to follow the law is a mere tautology, devoid of any content beyond explaining the definitions of the terms involved. Of course, being legally obligated to follow the law applies whether or not one agrees with the law, and whether or not one is able to leave the country.

So, unless you can show that one is morally obligated to obey the law, your argument is moot.


This is rather amusing, since you appear to regard the "slippery slope" argument as a valid form of reasoning, when, in fact, it is the name of a logical fallacy (I suggest you do a little search of the internet, using your favorite search engine, for the phrase "slippery slope" and the word "fallacy").

As another suggestion, I recommend that you obtain (and use) a standard dictionary for your choice of words, and whenever you deviate from standard usage, you explicitly define your terms, so that someone might understand your meaning. Otherwise, it will soon become clear to those who argue with you that they are simply wasting their time.

long winded fool

I don't think that my personal opinion of slavery is relative to this argument, but I think that assuming you are superior to another human being based on your race stems from a deep-rooted fear of inadequacy. I think agreeing with the enslavement of humans who you look down upon is a sign of insecurity. Insecurity is the equivalent of cowardice when it rules your actions. Therefore, allowing insecurity to make you behave illogically is cowardice. Slavery, in my opinion, falls under this category.

One may not be able to leave, or one might regard a particular country as the best one available, without regarding it as perfect. By committing civil disobedience, one may help bring the laws more in line with what is best. There is nothing illogical about effective action to bring about desired change. You are just engaging in verbal quibbling when you choose to call taking such actions "illogical". It is illogical to not take appropriate action to bring about what one desires.

I agree. It is cowardly not to take appropriate action to change laws you do not agree with. (Protests. Letters to senators etc.) It is also cowardly to take inappropriate action to change laws you do not agree with. (Bombing abortion clinics. etc.) It is inappropriate to disobey laws you do not agree with if you wish to be a member of the society which has made the laws. Therefore it is cowardly to disobey laws you do not agree with if you desire to live in the society which has made the laws.

What is actually possible is always logically possible. (The inverse of the previous sentence is, of course, false, since there are things that are logically possible without being actually possible; in other words, the set of all things that are actually possible is a proper subset of the set of all things that are logically possible.) Since it is actually possible for people to live in a society without following all of the rules, it is logically possible for them to do this. Your abuse of logic does not change any of this.

So here are the logical possibilities, if one lives in a society:

1) one can leave;
2) one can stay and follow all of the laws (though this may or may not be actually possible, it is logically possible);
3) one can stay and follow some of the laws, but not all of them;
4) one can stay and follow none of the laws (though this may or may not be actually possible, it is logically possible).

In the real world, 3 is by far the most common, with 1 at a distant second. Whether 2 or 4 ever occur is debatable.

These are all logically possible, yes. It is logically possible to learn algebra by taking swimming lessons too. Because something is logically possible doesn't mean that it is logical to use it to accomplish a certain goal. It is not logical to break laws with the motive of bettering society, though it is logically possible for a human being to engage in this behavior.

Contradictory laws are obviously not a problem for those who say that one need not obey all of the laws. Your ad hoc claim that contradictory laws are not laws is not satisfactory. Basically, you evade laws you don't like by claiming that they are not really laws. If you are going to do such things, with any pretense of reason, you need to carefully define your use of the term "law".

Very true. Contradictory laws are not a problem for those who pick and choose which laws they wish to obey. They are only a problem for those who desire to better their society and who recognize the value of laws which apply to all members equally. Those who do not recognize the value of laws in a society are simply mistaken in their use of logic to examine the issue.

Now you are demonstrating how slippery you are, and rather than honestly deal with matters, you pretend that the original meaning was somehow unclear. Simply strolling across the border is illegal. One must have permission to enter the country, and one does not get that by simply strolling across the border.

The original context was involving the real difficulties of entering into another country, and you responded with your flippant remark that one can simply stroll across the border, despite the obvious fact that that violates your proposed principles.

It is no wonder that others have abandoned the thread and decided that it is not worthwhile to argue with you.

I'm sorry if I used a bad example. I'm willing to retract it. I don't think disproving my example disproves my argument. The difficulty of leaving a society is irrelevant. If it can be done, it should be. If it cannot, then you are obviously a prisoner. There is no gray area in my argument. There are no exceptions to the rule as far as I can see. If you can't leave and disagree with the laws, you don't have to obey them. If you can leave and disagree with the laws, you are honor-bound obey them until you leave. To do otherwise undermines the law which those who choose to live in the society require for order. It is morally wrong to forcibly take over someone else's society and apply your own set of laws over theirs.

You obviously need to define your terms when you use them so deviantly. "Collective action" commonly means action taken by a number of people acting as a group. There is absolutely nothing in that that implies that absolutely everyone must do it in order for the action to be "collective action".

Now you're just being contrary. So then by your definition, we as a society also collectively engage in heroine usage because a number of people acting as a group engage in this behavior. We collectively disobey speeding laws in the same way that we collectively use heroine and collectively drink and drive. You are proving nothing here. I don't claim that all people obey or disobey laws. I'm saying that it is irrational not to, unless you are a prisoner, and that the motive for doing this irrational thing is fear/insecurity.

Logic does not preclude the possibility of something being gray. If we look at the following sentences:

1) The cat is black.
2) The cat is white.
3) The cat is black or the cat is white.
4) The cat is black or the cat is not black.

Sentence 3 does not include all possibilities; 4, however, does (provided that we have a precise meaning for being black). The cat may very well be gray, or any other color, as far as logic is concerned.

I wasn't talking about colors... Assuming that you understand this:

It is impossible for there to be a gray area in any of your examples. In sentence 4, the cat cannot be anything but black or not black. There is no "gray area" here. It is either one or the other. (Obviously all colors are included, but I'm certainly not speaking of colors when I say "gray area." Gray area= a topic that is not clearly one thing or the other.) If one desires to live in a society, then it is logical to assume that one desires for that society to be in existence. From there you can assume that one would rather not do something that is detrimental to its existence. If laws which apply to all members of society are required for a society to remain in existence, then disobeying laws would be detrimental to the societies' continued existence. Obviously disobeying the speed limit alone is not going to throw the society into anarchy and cause it's collapse. Neither is just stealing one candy bar going to put K-Mart out of business. If you like not having your money stolen from you, it is cowardly and illogical to steal it from someone else. The same principle applies here.

There is no reason to believe that one is morally obligated to obey all laws. This, however, is a serious problem for your position. That one is legally obligated to follow the law is a mere tautology, devoid of any content beyond explaining the definitions of the terms involved. Of course, being legally obligated to follow the law applies whether or not one agrees with the law, and whether or not one is able to leave the country.

So, unless you can show that one is morally obligated to obey the law, your argument is moot.


You are wrong. There is reason to believe that one is morally obligated to follow all laws. If one's goal is to live in a society, one ought to follow all the soceity's laws because doing otherwise is detrimental to the society, which is an illogical thought process if you desire the society's existence. Saying that disobeying one or two laws is not detrimental to society is like saying stealing one or two candy bars is not detrimental to the K-Mart franchise. If everyone thought this way, it would be very detrimental. Why should we allow you to be an exception to the rule? Why is it wrong to call your actions cowardly? Just because you like snickers but don't like to spend money? Or just because you like to go faster than the posted speed limit? If everyone stole whatever they want, you must admit that this would cause problems. Likewise if everyone disobeyed whatever laws they wanted, this would also cause problems. It is not rational to allow some self-righteous and ignorant people the freedom to disobey some laws without negatively labelling this behavior. (I call criminal behavior cowardly, but as long as the label is something negative and something to be looked down upon, it works to keep the self-absorbed and short-sighted from ruining the society for the rest.)

This is rather amusing, since you appear to regard the "slippery slope" argument as a valid form of reasoning, when, in fact, it is the name of a logical fallacy (I suggest you do a little search of the internet, using your favorite search engine, for the phrase "slippery slope" and the word "fallacy").

It wasn't my thread, I just responded to it.

As another suggestion, I recommend that you obtain (and use) a standard dictionary for your choice of words, and whenever you deviate from standard usage, you explicitly define your terms, so that someone might understand your meaning. Otherwise, it will soon become clear to those who argue with you that they are simply wasting their time.

Law=a rule of conduct designed to establish order in a society.
Gray area=a topic that is not clearly one thing or another.
Cowardice=acting solely out of personal fear without regard to logic or reason. (Since selfishness is based on personal fear, I naturally attribute this motive to cowardice as well. Some people might not, though. This might be why you don't consider acting out of selfishness as cowardly behavior.)