It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AMPTAH
originally posted by: Grambler
This is the sort of mentality that justifies genocide.
How do we know that genocide wasn't for good reasons?
As long as someone stronger than you doesn't punish you for genocide, you have done nothing wrong.
What a terrible ideology.
President George Bush ordered war in Iraq that resulted in the death of 200,000 iraqies. Just to go after one madman, called Saddam. Did anybody arrest George Bush for that genocide? As long as nobody arrests Bush, takes him to a court, and convicts him, George Bush did nothing wrong.
That's how the system works.
One day, the International Courts might decide to arrest Bush, and put him on trial. But, today, he is a free man, because he obeyed the law.
Hitler obeyed the law, until the International Court decided that he and all his kin were crooked, and started putting Nazis on trial.
So, yes, it's a bit about power. The one who has the power to decide what is right and what is wrong, decides whether you broke the law or not.
In every case, some "court" decides this. We weakling ordinary common folk, don't get to decide if the things we do are right or wrong. We can only accuse others, and feel self-righteous about our own personal opinions.
originally posted by: Grambler
So if a person chooses to rape someone, and doesnt get caught, they have done nothing wrong?
After all, you do not know what the reason for this crime was.
No I am sorry. You can peddle this drivel with others, but I am not going to buy this post modern crap.
originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: seasonal
Do you want ICE to go after gangs or do you want ICE to go after illegal immigrants?
originally posted by: AMPTAH
originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: AMPTAH
If someone is in fear because they are harboring illegals, then they are also breaking the law.
That's the thing. They are not breaking the law.
Not until someone "accuses" them of breaking the law.
The only entity in the nation that can decide who is breaking the law is the courts.
Everyone else is just able to "accuse" you, because of their own personal "belief."
You are innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law.
So, as long as no one accuses you, you can never be guilty of breaking any law.
Man made laws are not absolutes, standing independent of people. They are contracts "between" people in society. So, another human has to "interpret" what you are doing as right or wrong, according to the law.
The Church believes it is right to give undocumented safe harbor, because it's the charitable thing to do, to help a fellow human being in need, who is requesting that help. So, everybody has their own view on what is "right".
At the end of the day, until ICE arrests some of these guys, drags them into court, and the judge declares them guilty, they haven't broken any law.
So, the trick is to stay out of sight of those who might interpret their actions as law breaking.
That's what all Americans do.
Nobody saw when you crossed the street illegally, so you didn't get a "jay walking" ticket. I'm sure nobody in America ever turned himself or herself into the police and declared "I just jay walked" so I'm doing the right thing, and coming in to report myself, to get that ticket.
People break all sorts of laws (as would be determined, in the eyes of others) all the time, out of sight from other people.
Many people don't even know all the laws that they are breaking, because nobody bothered to point it out to them.
You can live your entire life, breaking all sorts of laws, and never even know it yourself, because nobody accused you, so you think you're squeaky clean, and you are, until someone says no, and even then, they have to prove it in court, for it to be established as a fact.
That's why the innocent run, when they see police. They know they didn't do anything wrong, but they don't know what the police will come up with, and invent, that might then "stick" to their record.
originally posted by: caf1550
The Church isn't the law and it doesn't interpret the law, that same church also thought it was ok to hide priests who abused kids....
Im pretty sure you know when and if you break a law any time in your life, its pretty much common sense.
Example, if you are knowingly harboring illegal immigrants in your house you are knowingly breaking the law, if you knowingly harbor a murder in your house you will be charged with "aiding and abetting" again common sense.
originally posted by: AMPTAH
originally posted by: Grambler
So if a person chooses to rape someone, and doesnt get caught, they have done nothing wrong?
You got it. Exactly.
The victim has to come forward, and make that accusation.
Otherwise, it's just consent. That's what "he" thought. And "she" didn't do or say anything to contradict his belief that's this was ok.
After all, you do not know what the reason for this crime was.
What crime?
Who says there was a crime? Where is the witness to the crime?
No I am sorry. You can peddle this drivel with others, but I am not going to buy this post modern crap.
Can you sit on a jury, if you already know that a crime has been committed?
You want to believe that others are guilty, before anyone has accused them of doing wrong. Why?
Well, the Church is interpreting and following a higher law. A law that the Church thinks "superceeds" the laws of man.
But, with man's laws, things are all "contextual". The interpretation of the laws written by man are heavily dependent on circumstance, environment, the conditions prevailing at the time actions were taken, who was involved in the deeds, the motivation of all the players, a lot of psychological conditioning, prevailing beliefs and habits of the population which change over time, what is wrong yesterday is right today, changing attitudes, re-interpretation of old statutes in new ways, redefinition of key terms like "marriage". The man made laws are always in "flux", always changing, never constant, so I really don't have a clue what the laws mean. There are volumes and volumes of "the law". None of it is in my head, since I wasn't born with the knowledge of man's laws, and never went to law school. And even lawyers argue and disagree on the meaning and interpretation of the laws that they wrote themselves. How could I possibly know whether I broke the law or not? The law itself is written in a kind of "legalese" that only trained lawyers understand. That's why it is recommended you get a qualified lawyer to defend you in court, because the average person doesn't know enough about the law to defend himself.
There is no way, the average person can be sure he broke any law, or didn't break any law. He needs lawyers and a court to decide this, and tell him what it is he did.
This isn't common sense to me. I don't know any illegal immigrants, I don't even know what makes a person "illegal." To be illegal, you must first break the law. And like I said, only the courts can decide this.
originally posted by: Grambler
Rape is a ok, so long as you are not found guilty.
originally posted by: AMPTAH
originally posted by: Grambler
Rape is a ok, so long as you are not found guilty.
If nobody accuses you, is it rape?
This is a serious question. I had a male friend in college, who said to me once that his girl friend liked to be "force-ably taken", it turned her on.
Obviously, she never reported him.
Did he rape her?
originally posted by: caf1550
Im sorry but murder is still illegal in all 50 states and every functioning country throughout the world,
If the average person was say harboring people he knew to be in this country illegally, then I'm pretty sure that the average person knows
You have never heard of illegal immigration before....astounding.
originally posted by: Grambler
Probably not. But that is a different question enitrely.
their is objective truth, and you are against that.
If your friend had reason to believe she was giving consent, it wasn't rape.
But if he lied to you and he knew it wasn't consensual, but she never reported him, you would not consider that rape.
Rape is wrong period..
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AMPTAH
Well of course there are tons of mitigating circumstances. But to argue that it is only rape in the extreme that their is an accuser and a person is found guilty is wrong.
originally posted by: AMPTAH
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AMPTAH
Well of course there are tons of mitigating circumstances. But to argue that it is only rape in the extreme that their is an accuser and a person is found guilty is wrong.
But, there is no other way. This is a man made law, subject to human interpretation. Without an accuser and a conviction of guilty, how could there be any rape?
In whose "mind" is it still rape?
He doesn't think it's rape, she likes it, and doesn't accuse him of rape. Some third party individual witness' the action from a distance, say through a telescope, and files the complaint that he witnessed what seemed to be a rape. Who is right?
All have opinions.
Which person's opinion do we take as our "objective truth" that a rape did or did not occur.
You seem to have the answer, help me understand how to think like you.
originally posted by: Grambler
I have already said, if the person knows he is raping, then he is raping. You seem to think that even if the person thinks he has committed rape, unless he is accused or convicted, it was not rape.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. -- KJV, Exodus 20:16
And I know as a post modernist,