(June 22, 2015 at 9:10 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:(June 22, 2015 at 2:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am not asking you to agree with me. Just to understand what I am saying. Do you still not understand, or are you just saying you don't agree? What you just said above seems to indicate that you do not understand.
Let me try to explain it in the form of a question:
So, back to the American justice metaphor.
Murder is a crime. It is not lawful. It is not legal. It is a crime, period. This is American law.
If the insane person who murdered 10 shoppers at the mall got an innocent for reason of insanity verdict, does that mean that murder ceases to be a crime? Does the fact that some murderers get the innocent for reason of insanity verdict mean that murder stops being a crime?
Since when are crime and morality equal? Just because something is a crime does not mean it's immoral. Just because something is immoral does not mean it's a crime.
Using criminal law to explain morality is a fools game.
I was showing the concept of how an act can remain the same objectively, while the people who commit these acts can have different degrees of culpability.
Not trying to get you to agree, just wanna make sure you understand the concept.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
