Utah Politics/Region

Eric Jensen eric at emstraffic.com
Fri Feb 4 12:27:08 MST 2005


Definately a wall, especially since you are both right in some ways.  At 
least I think so anyway.  Art isn't being specific on what laws are and 
aren't just, only the idea of enforcing morals of any kind is unjust.  
But at the same time, even the general since of just and unjust is 
relative.  Not that it matters too much, human nature will take care of 
this and continue down the current path.

Eric

Josh Coates wrote:

>>I suppose we could fall into the pit of moral relativism..
>>    
>>
>
>art, i dont think you get it - **we're already in that pit!**
>
>the reason we don't have slavery is because society changed it's mind about
>what was 'just', and so they changed the law.  social justice isnt
>absolute - societies have always changed their minds, and changed laws - and
>they will keep doing it that way.  again, it doesnt make it 'right' or
>'just' - that's the way it works.
>
>we've hit a wall here, so i guess the thread is done - unless we want to
>start a new one about braveheart.
>
>btw - ryan byrd, this is hilarious:
>
>  
>
>>>"There is no evidence of any "Prima Nocte" laws in feudal Europe, EVEN IN
>>>      
>>>
>FRANCE."
>[all caps mine]
>
>LOL.
>
>Josh Coates
>http://www.jcoates.org
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: plug-bounces at plug.org [mailto:plug-bounces at plug.org]On Behalf Of
>Art Pollard
>Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 11:49 AM
>To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List; Provo Linux Users Group
>Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Utah Politics/Region
>
>
>At 09:19 AM 2/4/2005, Derek Carter wrote:
>  
>
>>Ryan Byrd wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>clarification:
>>>
>>>There is no evidence of any "Prima Nocte" laws in feudal Europe, even
>>>in France. It is an invention, designed to produce controversy, of our
>>>beloved Hollywood (though allusions appear in Mozart's opera, Le Nozze
>>>di Figaro.)
>>>      
>>>
>
>Actually, there is some evidence that it was a common law in
>Europe.  Though not at the time of William Wallace but one or two hundred
>years later.
>
>But the point I was making still applies.  Perhaps a better example would
>be that of American slavery which was perfectly legal and ratified by the
>Supreme Court (see the Dredd Scott case) which ruled that slaves were
>property.
>
>Just because a law is on the books does not mean that it is a law that
>should be obeyed or honored by society.  I suppose we could fall into the
>pit of moral relativism but if we stayed in that pit, there is likelihood
>that there would still be slaves in the South, Bogg's extermination order
>might still be standing, and it would still be permissible to slaughter
>American indians.
>
>I think that any of us would argue that the laws that permitted our
>forefathers to enslave the blacks, kill the Mormons and native Americans
>were just laws.  Just as there were laws 100-200 years ago that let others
>enslave and kill unjustly, there are laws today that let one group to take
>life liberty and property from one group or another unjustly.
>
>Because you can get enough of your friends together to pass a law does not
>make it just or that it should be obeyed or enforced.
>
>-Art
>
>
>--
>Art Pollard
>http://www.lextek.com/
>Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines.
>.===================================.
>| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
>|      Don't Fear the Penguin.      |
>|  IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net   |
>`==================================='
>
>.===================================.
>| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
>|      Don't Fear the Penguin.      |
>|  IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net   |
>`==================================='
>
>  
>




More information about the PLUG mailing list