I pointed out that Christians, unlike atheists, have a concrete, objective basis for their morals. Christians wishing to know the morality of an act appeal to their canonical text -- the Bible.
Do they now? So what do Christian morals say about working on Saturdays, eating shellfish, wearing mixed fiber clothing, owning slaves, rape, or sex before marriage? Their concrete canonical texts is very specific about the morality of those things.
An atheist appealing to morals is appealing to ... what exactly? His intuitions? His gut feelings? That's the lulzy part.
A very ancient atheist took the time to figure out morals from scratch, and wrote them down in a religious text. Christians just take the easy route, and use those written morals as the basis of their own morals, with some tweaks here and there once they realize that not everything in the bible is right. Atheists today who reject the bible, simply follow the same steps that the old atheist did, and derive their own morals from scratch again, sort of like testing a scientific theory you don't quite trust. It's like someone testing whether a rock and a cork fall at the same rate, writing down that they do, and then christians just taking those words in faith, while nonbelievers doing the experiment themselves and reaching the same conclusions.
So Nietzsche and Machiavelli were two outliers who believed it was perfectly moral to steal, lie, and murder, and did those things often?
On the off-chance your ignorance is not willful, i will point out that it is irrelevant how much lying, stealing & murdering these two individuals did. Suffice it to say such things exist, & moral codes exist that accommodate them.
I find some of such ad hoc moral codes curios, in particular: "Because f8ck U, that's why!" Elegant logic, no?
Hey, you were the one who said their morals were contrary to the general "respect other's property and life" morals. I guess they were either liars, or hypocrites.
So are you then claiming that committing a crime is breaking a contract?
No. I'll use pictograms:
(break contract) -> (crime)
(crime) ->((break contract) V (some other shit)).
In words: Breaking a contract is a crime, but the statement is not a biconditional -- a crime may be other things, not just breaking a contract.
Yeah, that's weird, because breaking a contract isn't a crime :p At most it's a civil dispute. You don't go to jail for breaking your Verizon 2 year plan and refusing to pay the fee, and you don't get arrested for moving out despite having a few months left in your lease. Worst case is you'll have your wages garnished, or get a ding on your credit score.
Sounds like you have some issues with understanding how things are iRL, too
You brought this up in the context of me pointing out that the "agreement" or situation between government and citizen is not actually a contract, but is something else.
I brought it up because in your particular case -- you being an immigrant -- the situation involved a contract.
Your parents *explicitly* agreed to be governed by the laws of US of A to become US citizens, and agreed in your stead (In their capacity as your legal guardians). In other words, you, of all people, have no reason to baww.
Yes,
my parents. Remember I asked if it was legal/moral/ethical/whatever for your dad to buy a shitty investment property, and settle you with the debt? (Hint: it's not) You danced around that question like a drunk stripper, never actually bothering to answer it, or maybe not even understanding why I asked it in the first place. Plus there's that "contract" thing again. It's not a contract. It's a promise to abide by rules.
Police is the executive branch of the US justice system. Please learn to law.
OK, and what does this executive branch have to do with negotiating, establishing, fulfilling, and terminating a contract between a citizen and a state? Teach me on wize one. Surely you wouldn't have brought up police into a discussion about citizens having a contractual obligation to the state which they may or may not have been forced into, if said police wasn't relevant to the topic.
Police are responsible for enforcing the terms of the contract. You claim that you are not obligated to abide by a contract entered into on your behalf by your parents. Committing a crime in front of a cop is the most practical & scientific way to explore the legal validity of that belief. Said crime will trigger an arrest & introduce you to the judiciary branch of our legal system, where you may argue your case to your heart's content.
But, again, there was no proposal, no agreement,
and most importantly no consideration and no termination terms. Which doesn't make it a contract. It's just a promise to follow some rules. I tried to explain that in my kidnapping you, strapping an explosive collar, and forcing you to work for me example.
In such a situation I have set up laws: Do not leave the house, Make sure to clean every day. I wrote the laws down on a piece of paper for you to see. I am the cop that enforces those laws. Leaving the house or refusing to clean are crimes, punishable by up to and including death. It's a microcosm of the situation you are describing. Yet no sane person would possibly describe that situation as you and I having a "contract." Feel free to not reply to anything else until this last part is settled (agree and learn something, or point out where I went wrong). I certainly won't bother discussing so-called contracts if you won't answer questions, won't debate, and won't even use the proper definitions of words.
