Too Many Laws

There are too many twisted and convoluted laws in the world.  In my opinion it could all be condensed into three.

1.) don't kill/injure unless for survival (survival: self-defense, or hunting for food etc...)
2.) don't steal
3.) don't rape

if you can come up with an actual crime that isn't covered by those three rules, then please let me know and I'll find a way to cover it.

note: some issues are subjective based on culture and area of the world, and thus, are subject to interpretation.

Not all people have the same moral compass as you. There are certain things you might consider stealing that others will not, for example. Laws need clarification, and that's one reason why there's so many.

The other reason is to maintain order. If there were no traffic or parking laws, for example, Pittsburgh would be a deathtrap. People would be driving on  the sidewalks and parking in the middle of the street.

well I meant general and overall.
there are far too many laws that are backwards, pointless, and shouldn't exist.

granted, area-specific laws would be needed, you do make a good point there.

I didn't think -all- offenses could be condensed to those three, but a -lot- of what is on the books seems to fall under those three.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/berkshire/7389476.stm


Personally i think that news story is just...


Guy has a rape fetish, accidentally kills girl (It dosnt say if she was raped )

Guy gets 26 years in jail.


About 3-5 years back, (cant find the story, forgot the name)

Killed a 19yr would be model, then rapes her dead body.. guy gets 15,

Laws are understandable, untill you look at the jail sentances they come with.


I also have a problem, with the fact that they are (In the UK at least) banning pronography that dipicts the woman/man in a state of pain or panic, being raped.

I see no reason for this as people will just preform it with there partners >_>

I'm...not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand....

play-acting is one thing, actual rape is another
(if that's what you were stabbing at?)

He's saying it's weird that an accidental death gets 11 more years than a murder/rape.

Because the guy had a fetish. America hates weirdos. Like furfags. We HATE furfags.

I'm...not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand....

play-acting is one thing, actual rape is another
(if that's what you were stabbing at?)

I ment it's not just what the law forbids you to, it's the fact that they change what the law gives you in jail time as they see fit

I totally agree, and agreed when Carlin said it like 20 years ago. He condensed a little farther though.

1. Don't kill
2. Don't steal (rape is a form of theft)

I also would much rather live in the middle of the woods, doing what I can to survive, but it just doesn't happen these days.

I remember back when I was growing up, we lived on this hill and at the top of the hill weer these powerlines encased in a huge forest. Basically, we were near the top of the hill, but it was nothing but forest the next mile up to the summit, and then forever back down the other side. I used to go up there and mess around all the time; riding bikes, roasting marshmallows, shit like that. These days all those cool places are posted and it's illegal to go in, which is fucking retarded. What's wrong with running around in a forest when you're a kid? None of the residents own that forest, it's all government property, but the government is like "no kids allowed."

So in that respect, yeah, too many laws.

I just changed sides lol.

Even the laws you stated need clarification though.

For instance, "don't kill" - Does that apply only to humans? to primates? to mammals? abortion? - What are the limits to that law?
What about rape? Does that apply also to animals, etc...
What is involved in stealing? Vandalism? Intellectual property?

And like arlen says, there are a lot of laws meant to keep order, such as parking and stuff.

The fact is, to any given individual each of those statements has a different meaning. To a member of PETA the "Do Not Kill" commandment applies also to animals, so the law needs to be very specific as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. I think the reason there are so many laws are because morality is not a universal principle, as in the understanding of morality is different for each individual. The fact is that despite your statement of those three principles, I still have no idea how those laws address less straightforward instances of what I would consider to be criminal actions. If I were to ask you case by case what was allowed and not allowed under those principles, then the list would quickly grow to the number of laws there are now.

I think that the specificity of the law is important not so much in the principle, but in administration - in effecting the law.

So yeah, pretty much what arlen said before he was taken by the devil.

EDIT::

Also, Even those three imperatives could be condensed further into "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" lol. If Jesus couldn't reduce the number of laws in the world after roughly 2000 years of influence, chances are we can't even if we tried.

I'm going to take this whole thing a step farther and say that we shouldn't be living the way we're living. We shouldn't have computers, cars, or anything like that. We should all live in log cabins, and our biggest concern should be how we're going to hunt today's dinner.

Oh so natural. I say no. The primary attribute of humanity is our intelligence. If we were to reduce that to having a negligible impact we would be acting against nature. I'm not a fan of a lot of scientific developments (atom bomb; mass production; etc...), but I think to deny all scientific progress (and assumedly philosophical and artistic) would be unnatural. Not that nature or the preservation of nature is by necessity a good thing - it is only what I assume to be the thrust of your argument, and so it is what I chose to address. If your argument relies more on the impending doom of the planet due to scientific and industrial practices / global warming / globalization, then I would put forth the argument that scientific development, at its current rate of progression, will develop a way to either save or escape the planet before the end of the human race comes. If not, then I would fall back on my own preference of a lifestyle supplemented by the technological/philosophical/artistic/religious progress the human race has made, even under the threat of extinction.

Oh so natural. I say no. The primary attribute of humanity is our intelligence. If we were to reduce that to having a negligible impact we would be acting against nature. I'm not a fan of a lot of scientific developments (atom bomb; mass production; etc...), but I think to deny all scientific progress (and assumedly philosophical and artistic) would be unnatural. Not that nature or the preservation of nature is by necessity a good thing - it is only what I assume to be the thrust of your argument, and so it is what I chose to address. If your argument relies more on the impending doom of the planet due to scientific and industrial practices / global warming / globalization, then I would put forth the argument that scientific development, at its current rate of progression, will develop a way to either save or escape the planet before the end of the human race comes. If not, then I would fall back on my own preference of a lifestyle supplemented by the technological/philosophical/artistic/religious progress the human race has made, even under the threat of extinction.

Nope, just going on the fact that by living with our exceedingly growing technology, we are dulling our own instincts. So much so that if some great cataclysm did occur, most people wouldn't have the basic skills needed to survive. I agree that all progress isn't against nature, but most of it is. However, I disagree that humans' prime attribute is our intelligence. I believe that our ability to delude ourselves makes us much more human. In fact, there are much more of us who are deluded than intelligent.

that quote is going in my sig.

Even the laws you stated need clarification though.
For instance, "don't kill" - Does that apply only to humans? to primates? to mammals? abortion? - What are the limits to that law?
What about rape? Does that apply also to animals, etc...
What is involved in stealing? Vandalism? Intellectual property?

dont kill means human or animal.  That's why it says "unless for survival" because that takes hunting into account
theft is theft, be it intellectual property, personal property, public property, what have you.
rape applies to anything with a vagina or an asshole.

You would need to make further distinctions. If food is a valid reason for killing animals, is it also a valid reason for killing humans? Further, your argument has made the professions of cattle farming and butchery a crime, as neither kill animals for food but rather for profit. If this is the case, then I have serious issues with your three laws already. In any case, it doesn't matter - the reason those three (or two) laws aren't enough are because it leaves almost every instance of crime ambiguous or a matter of interpretation, and everybody will interpret them differently. Your clarification of any specific instance of crime is really just making more laws.


@Holk
I would argue that delusion and intelligence are interrelated - it is impossible to be deluded without intelligence. Delusion is an instance of intelligence. And, I cannot prove it, but in my experience delusion is a necessary product
of intelligence. Everyone who is intelligent entertains some delusion, myself included.

As for basic instinct - yeah, most people would not survive for that reason. But the world is overpopulated anyway lol. Seriously though, I don't regard the extinction of the human race as something particularly bad and it is certainly inevitable no matter what we do, unless we develop the means of space travel and send all humans to different galaxies, and that's excessive. Anyway, I think I would probably prefer the eventual extinction of the human race then the human race being permanently (until the sun no longer provides enough heat) stuck in log huts. :/

You would need to make further distinctions. If food is a valid reason for killing animals, is it also a valid reason for killing humans?

in some cultures cannibalism is necessary for survival.  In others, it's immoral.  So I'd have to interpret it differently based on cultural differences

note: some issues are subjective based on culture and area of the world, and thus, are subject to interpretation.

edit: cannibalism is what I was thinking of when I wrote that ^

Further, your argument has made the professions of cattle farming and butchery a crime, as neither kill animals for food but rather for profit.

They need the money to survive, and others need the food to survive.  So they're doing it for mutual survival.

I am the philosopher for the latter, the morally twisted, so to speak. I believe your perfect three laws are garbage. Humans are born evil, we shouldn't deny that. #1, If we weren't supposed to murder, why are we so good at it? #2, humans are naturally selfish, it is inhumane to be naturally respectful of property, I think if you want something, TAKE IT. Same goes for #3 people won't give sex to you, TAKE IT!. I'm not saying we have to be evil, but law is forcing benevolence on people, we deserve a choice. Humans are the unwanted bastard children of the earth, we are the single most evil creatures to walk this planet.                         -Matthew Aro- Founder of Aroism.

TWO YEAR OLD THREAD

2 years old.. do you really think anyone cares anymore?  This discussion was over and done...

Is it just me or do we get a lot of new people who join but never fill in their profile, followed by them pulling up some pointless old dead topic and making a semi-intelligent yet stupid post before disappearing forever? I don't think they're bots.