You’re trying (and failing rather miserably) to obfuscate with an irrelevant semantic distinction.
Again:
The laws of mathematics, properly applied, confer the power to keep one’s information private.
The existence of this power confers the right to use it (by your own argument).
Ergo, the right to privacy is guaranteed by nature. QED. PTtKUWtC.
No, it’s because I think it would be better for the victim in the long run to submit to temporary suffering and live the rest of their life in comfort and wealth after suing the police department for everything it’s worth, than it would be for their assailant to murder them for fighting back.
So you insist.
The existence of that power confers the ability to use it. Not the right. Nor does it confer immunity from other means of force capable of preventing it. Any living human being possesses the power to steal a six-pack from the 7-Eleven; this does not confer a right to do so, nor does it trump the shopkeep’s power to detain you or to employ the police to do so on his behalf.
False, as demonstrated above. PTtKUWtC.
This is not consistent with the “might makes right” statement you made before. Your “might makes right” philosophy would suggest that the enslaved should obey their masters, even for rape, and people should not resist cop-rapists, because to do otherwise would be to fail to contribute to the good order of society.
And how is this valid for an enslaved woman? And when the rapist is a cop, what if she can grab his gun and shoot him (or similarly successfully resist)?
Yep. Nothing wrong with slavery, genocide, or murder. :rolleyes: Disgusting. Completely disgusting.
It is not in the interest of society that cops be rapists. To that end, it is essential that cops that are racists be exposed and punished by whatever means are available to their victims. However, in terms of self-interest, it is better for the victim whose rapist is a cop to submit in the moment and have their victory later, than to resist and wind up dead for their trouble.
It is not. If you’re legally enslaved, you’re pretty much fucked. Which, for the record, is why I do not endorse slavery.
Then she would be guilty of manslaughter, and much worse off than if she had momentarily relented and taken the department to court later.
I don’t recall ever saying that I liked any of those things. You seem to be having trouble comprehending the difference between approving of something and acknowledging its lawfulness.
Then it sounds like automatically complying with the instructions of all authority is not the appropriate action in all cases.
Then why did you suggest that it’s wrong for an enslaved person to try and free themselves?
No she wouldn’t. Killing a cop who is trying to rape you is self-defense, not manslaughter.
You’ve said that it would be wrong for a soldier to disobey an order to participate in genocide. And that it would be wrong for a slave to disobey their master. This goes beyond just saying these actions are lawful.
Non sequitur.
Because such an act would be unlawful.
Maybe.
Wrong Again. (Well, that one’s short enough… but will probably be needed often enough that I might as well make it “WA” from now on.)
Geez, if you could have reduced your entire philosophy to two words all along, why didn’t you do it before? Are you like Roger Rabbit, waiting until it’s funny? Because we’ve already been laughing (at you, not with you) for some time.
I don’t follow you.
Has she not slaughtered a man?
No. In the situation posited, she has removed a piece of vermin.
I think you are suggesting that there is no difference between what is “legal” and what is “right”, and no difference between what is “illegal” and what is “wrong”. Is this so?
No, definitely.
Mostly.
Indeed.
[QUOTE=Isaac Asimov]
“What is your definition of justice?”
“Justice, Elijah, is that which exists when all the laws are enforced.”
Fastolfe nodded. “A good definition, Mr. Baley, for a robot… A human being can recognize the fact that, on the basis of an abstract moral code, some laws may be bad ones and their enforcement unjust. What do you say, R. Daneel?”
“An unjust law,” said R. Daneel evenly, “is a contradiction in terms.”
[/QUOTE]
That they are “lawful” only refers to their relationship with the relevant legal code of the jurisdiction. By saying it is “wrong” for a slave to disobey their master, try to free themselves, or resist a rape, you are making a judgment about the morality of these actions.
That’s what the words “right” and “wrong” mean in this context.
What are the exceptions?