Cyclone Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I'll repeat what I said, and then point out what I didn't say. The law should be changed because it's outdated and ridiculous. What I didn't say, that you responded to "The law should be changed because this guy won't comply with it"... Do you see the massive difference in the two statements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Yes. But, as we say in the biz, "Leges sunt servanda". Which means "Laws are to be obeyed." From which it follows that disagreement with a law- or alleging that it is outdated or ridiculous- is irrelevant. Laws need not be changed merely because of how they are perceived nor just because some people do not care to comply. Theft is not unusual, yet you do not suggest making theft lawful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Er, why should someone's non-compliance with a law necessitate a change in the law? No-one's saying it should. Don't know where you've pulled that from. Of course laws shouldn't be changed because one person doesn't comply. It's a stupid argument, and one that no-one here has made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 No-one's saying it should. Don't know where you've pulled that from. Of course laws shouldn't be changed because one person doesn't comply. It's a stupid argument, and one that no-one here has made. Yet, equally stupidly, the argument was advanced that The law should be changed because it's outdated and ridiculous. As evidence, we are presented with one deliberate law-breaker. The paucity of such evidence seems to prove my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Yes. But, as we say in the biz, "Leges sunt servanda". Which means "Laws are to be obeyed." To me, this implies that they should not be questioned; which is particularly insidious and evil. A person should always judge for themselves, what is right and wrong. Laws are one group of people, making up rules of behaviour, and dictating that we all follow (or, all people, living within a particular jurisdiction), under threat of punishment. They're about control, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Yes. But, as we say in the biz, "Leges sunt servanda". Which means "Laws are to be obeyed." From which it follows that disagreement with a law- or alleging that it is outdated or ridiculous- is irrelevant. Laws need not be changed merely because of how they are perceived nor just because some people do not care to comply. Theft is not unusual, yet you do not suggest making theft lawful. Have you been on the sherry? If you had bothered to read the threa then you will see its more a discussion about the morality behind the law. nobody is disputing what the current law is. A law is a collective rule of a society, so if it no longer reflects the views of that society then its not fit for purpose. Its a perfectly valid discussion to have about whether the law regarding piblic nudity is a fair one or fits with the needs of the people it applies to. If it does not then then there are methods to get those laws changed. Changging laws is perfectly acceptable if you get enough support. It was less than a hundred years ago that all women got the right to vote. ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 15:42 ---------- Yet, equally stupidly, the argument was advanced that The law should be changed because it's outdated and ridiculous. As evidence, we are presented with one deliberate law-breaker. The paucity of such evidence seems to prove my point. Outdated laws are changed. Abortion, divorce and laws in every sphere. Thats why you have new legislation and acts are repealed. If the majority of people want the law changed on nudity, then they have a good chance of getting it changed. the discussion was about the morality and peoples opinion about public nudity. All perfectly valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Didn't they used to have laws in Germany once; relating to the identification / registration of certain ethnic groups? I wonder if "Leges sunt servanda" applies to those who helped saved the Jews from persecution (or worse) in Nazi Germany? ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 15:46 ---------- Oddly, Googling "Leges sunt servanda", only turns up 2 pages of search results... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Have i missed something but he's never been imprisoned for being naked, he's been imprisoned for breaching ASBO's. All the public order offences of causing distress by waving your todger at some one aren't criminal offences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghozer Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 The law of the land says it's wrong for him to ramble naked . I don't want to see anyone naked if I am going for a walk . It would be anarchy if we all decided to just obey the laws we agreed with. Public nudity isn't actually illegal in England, it's more of a matter of public decency, than actually breaking the law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Yes. But, as we say in the biz, "Leges sunt servanda". Which means "Laws are to be obeyed." From which it follows that disagreement with a law- or alleging that it is outdated or ridiculous- is irrelevant. Laws need not be changed merely because of how they are perceived nor just because some people do not care to comply. Theft is not unusual, yet you do not suggest making theft lawful. We're talking about the law being wrong aren't we? The counter argument to "law x is wrong and should be changed" is not "but that is the law". That's just a statement of how things are right now, not an argument to keep them the same. ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 16:06 ---------- Yet, equally stupidly, the argument was advanced that The law should be changed because it's outdated and ridiculous. As evidence, we are presented with one deliberate law-breaker. The paucity of such evidence seems to prove my point. Was that given as evidence? Firstly you refuted a statement that hadn't been made. And now you're refuting evidence that wasn't offered... ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 16:08 ---------- Have i missed something but he's never been imprisoned for being naked, he's been imprisoned for breaching ASBO's. All the public order offences of causing distress by waving your todger at some one aren't criminal offences. He appears to mainly have been jailed for contempt of court and breaches of the peace. ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 16:09 ---------- For other laws that were more recently changed, how about the one that made gay sex illegal? The law does not define what is moral, it's the other way around (and that's based on the collective moral judgement of society). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now