/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20030374]

Besides Nietzsche and the French moralists, what are some other writers that wrote at length about morality?

[Anonymous No.20030433]

wtf is Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.20030437]

>>20030433
Stop this

[Anonymous No.20030468]

>be lawfag
>study the intellectually most demanding subject in academia
>read more than philosophy and literature majors
>go through well over a decade of expensove schooling
>end as either a corporate drone or repesenting Tyrone in court, and he is definetly guilty
>he throws shit at you because he is convicted

[Anonymous No.20030487]

Hume, but you have to read all about the faculties of the mind and ward off chimeras like a priori causation to understand it

[Anonymous No.20030517]

>>20030374
you know your pic is literally how the law is written, it just gets ignored because it would make the law pointless and was probably only meant to add prestige to the "law" and never intended to be followed that way. sort of like how life is called an unalienable right but the government always has and always will kill its own citizens

[Anonymous No.20030527]

>>20030517
The problem is there are too many laws, even lawyers are getting fed up with it.
>le hate speech law
Means nothing and has no place wothin the system of criminal law

[Anonymous No.20030538]

>>20030517
That is not true, the part about "knowingly" breaking the law means the action itself, knowing that you're doing it. Ignorance of the law has always been by default not an excuse, and has only in very rare and benign situations been accepted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

[Anonymous No.20030550]

>>20030527
>>20030538

im just saying, one of the basic official rules on if someone can be punished for breaking a law is that they had to have known there is a law. along with there had to have been a law and they had to be able to understand the law. insanity please uses the last one to wiggle out of punishment

i had a professor give us one of the only, if not only, example of someone successfully winning a case on the grounds that they didnt know the law. and it wasnt even a nigger if you can believe that

[Anonymous No.20030561]

>>20030550
>one of the basic official rules on if someone can be punished for breaking a law is that they had to have known there is a law
this is not true

[Anonymous No.20030590]

>>20030561
its is true. laws are bullshit and elites change them on a whim to suit them though so dont get all in a huff about it. they exist only for the niggercattle

[Anonymous No.20030657]

>>20030590
Yeah, but it's not. Read the article I sent you, it goes back to Aristotle.

Also, there are not "basic official rules" on what can be in laws apart from the US Constitution, which doesn't touch on these sorts of things almost at all.

[Anonymous No.20030676]

>>20030561
This would be correct if the law can be inferred from basic moral principles or was broadly stated such that all members of society can be assumed to know them if they've met certain criteria, but 99% of "the laws" in a Liberal state are mind-numbingly opaque bullshit whose enforcers, at every level, can't even begin to explain why the individual law in question even exists, let alone tell you when it was first made into a law.
>b-b-but m-muh harvard pseudo-intellectual rhetorician once sai-
"Ten years of getting assraped by niggers for filing form PEEPEE-95C instead of POOPOO-69B" cannot in any sense be declared moral or ethical, simple as.

[Anonymous No.20030707]

>>20030657
>>20030538
your retarded wiki article has literally nothing to do with actual us or even european law. youre arguing what should be rather than what is

the us uses different guidelines and ultimately its all semantics and bullshit and """interpretations""" do a 180 between one case and the next. yes, technically youre supposed to have known there was a law before you can be punished for it but for 99.9999999% of cases they just rule that you should have know or any reasonable person would have known and just ignore it. it does exist though and people have won cases on it

imagine how big of a jew you have to be too look at "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and think that means you can ban people from owning guns. its all bullshit and no one has any principles anymore

[Anonymous No.20031020]

>>20030550
Not true, the only real requirement is that the law was reasonable in the circumstances and that there was fair notice, meaning it's not a secret or difficult to comprehend law.

[Anonymous No.20031024]

>>20030707
>"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and think that means you can ban people from owning guns
At that time guns were muzzle loaded and it took a skilled gunman 30 seconds to 1 minute to reload his gun for a second shot. If anything any gun which holds more than one bullet should be outlawed and any gun which can be reloaded faster than 1 minute should be outlawed. There's no evidence that at the time when the law was written the lawmakers ever thought a gun could hold 120 rounds, fire them all in 30 seconds and be reloaded with 120 rounds within 5 seconds.

[Anonymous No.20031043]

>>20031024
>you don't have the right to defend yourself
>but you do have the right to have your children kidnapped and mutilated
No wonder people laugh at you lmfao

[Anonymous No.20031047]

>>20030707
> technically youre supposed to have known there was a law before you can be punished for it
this is not written anywhere, there is no "technically" about it you dumb child

[Anonymous No.20031059]

>>20031024
If the founders had any view to limit the amount of bullets that would be fired, they would have written that into the law. They specified "arms" not "weapons" as the discernible limiting factor: an arm is something you can carry in your arm.
Furthermore, this is not how laws are passed...through judicial reinterpration. If you think there should be limits on bullets or types of guns, lobby your friends and neighbours so that your politicians change the laws in the legislature.

[Anonymous No.20031060]

>>20031024
at that time people owned cannons and ships. the first american navy, ships cannons and all, were borrowed from private citizens

you would already know this and more if you ever gave the topic actual though instead of just repeating phrases you saw on tv to pretend youre smart

regardless that doesnt effect the law anyway. it doesnt say they wont be infringed unless they get really cool

[Anonymous No.20031066]

>>20031059
>If you think there should be limits on bullets or types of guns, lobby your friends and neighbours so that your politicians change the laws in the legislature.
That's exactly how we got these laws, you fucking retard. Judges didn't make them, legislatures did. Judges simply chose not to stop them.

[Anonymous No.20031069]

>>20031059
arms means a weapon you utter dipshit

[Anonymous No.20031074]

>>20031066
The second amendment hasn't been struck down. I'm talking to the guy who wants limits on the second amendment, meaning they would have to amend the constitution.

[Anonymous No.20031078]

>>20031060
You would also know that this law is a response to the British storming into people's houses. You can't expect a citizen to have a canon or a ship in their house now can you? Your point is nonsequitur.

[Anonymous No.20031081]

>>20031069
...that can be carried.

[Anonymous No.20031082]

>>20031074
It hasn't been struck down, it has just been ignored. Feel free to seethe about it all you want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

[Anonymous No.20031084]

>>20031074
There's precedent for my argument. That's how non-land-owners, women, and black people got the right to vote.

[Anonymous No.20031086]

>>20031082
It has been ignored in many jurisdictions, yes. I don't disagree with that. I am pro-2A in every sense.

[Anonymous No.20031087]

>>20031081
yeah like nuclear arms

[Anonymous No.20031088]

>>20031074
there already are limits (infringements) on the second amendment meaning the second amendment is not in effect

>>20031078
the law is meant to fight against governments and anything else you want

regardless, that doesnt effect the law anyway. it doesnt say they wont be infringed unless you cant ruck 20 miles with it

[Anonymous No.20031091]

>>20031081
So then why are you trying to refute my point by mentioning canons and ships?

[Anonymous No.20031092]

>>20031086
I know you are, faggot. You're getting cucked by the government and all you can do is incoherently cry about it.

[Anonymous No.20031093]

>>20031084
Women got the vote through amendment and the supreme court ruled that non-land-owners and black people are protected under other amendments.

[Anonymous No.20031100]

>>20031088
You're just literally mad that your guns can be taken away at any moment because that law makes no sense anymore in the present day. Keep seething.

[Anonymous No.20031104]

>>20031093
Yes. Now how do you not understand that there is precedent to have an ammendment which reinterprete the second ammendment? You seem to think you are winning by agreeing with me.

[Anonymous No.20031110]

>>20031100
You're seething so hard that you're spinning in circles and can't tell who is agreeing with you and who is calling you a faggot. Get cucked, peasant.

[Anonymous No.20031117]

>>20031104
Why would they bother to go through the process when it's clear they can do what they want and get away with it anyway? Slaves have such silly notions about the world.

[Anonymous No.20031124]

>>20031100
youre a dishonest and cowardly person who hides his impotence by pretending to agree with tyrannical decisions. youll support anything as long as the government enforces it ie masks and mandatory injections for jobs

[Anonymous No.20031125]

>>20031087
Fair point. But I'd call that a misnomer. I don't think arms and weapons are perfectly synonymous. I think weapons is a more general term than arms. And I can't find the link but I'm certain it was from Scalia that I first heard this point made.
>>20031092
Yes, even more so here in Canada. You have no idea.
>>20031104
An amendment is a much more difficult and signicant piece of legislation than a bylaw, statute, or state law. It is much harder to achieve and applies to more people. That's my only point. I feel like you're implying that because lesser laws have violated the constitution that those constitutional clauses are somehow nullified.

[Anonymous No.20031135]

>>20031091
That wasn't me.

[Anonymous No.20031149]

>>20031091
they were obviously fine with citizens owning cannons so how do you imagine that the right to arms magically doesnt include cannons and war machines like a cannon equipped ship?

[Anonymous No.20031178]

>>20031149
They didn't have citizens shooting their canons from the harbor into the city. Nor at other boats in the harbor.

[Anonymous No.20031183]

Was that a troll who got tired or a legitimate retard who cried himself to sleep when he got called out for being a dumb faggot?

[Anonymous No.20031186]

i just realized im on /lit/ and not /fit/. no wonder so many of you nigger loving faggots in this thread just blindly support the government fucking you without lube

[Anonymous No.20031192]

>>20031186
Only one guy here supported the government, the rest were just calling (you) a retard for being ignorant of basic facts.

[Anonymous No.20031193]

>>20031178
And we don't either, what's your point?

[Anonymous No.20031215]

>>20031192
what basic facts? what are you even talking about? youre just shouting at random people and puffing out your chest lol. /lit/ insecurity on full display. you wont even state your argument in your dumb "i win" posts because you dont want people to challenge them

[Anonymous No.20031228]

>>20031178
they literally had citizens turning traitor and joining enemy armies during their big fancy war of independence. how nigger brained can you get anon?

[Anonymous No.20031239]

>>20031178
Yes they did. Those people were called Loyalists and the Framers STILL let citizens, including Loyalties who remained in the U.S., bare arms after the Revolutionary War.

[Anonymous No.20031247]

It takes a very Jewish temperament to be interested in law

[Anonymous No.20031255]

>>20031215
I'm talking about the conversation with that retard/you regarding ignorance as an excuse. No part of the constitution says that you have to be aware of a law to be convicted by it, it has always been the norm for it matter and there are only a handful of exceptions.

[Anonymous No.20031260]

>>20031247
i have a family member whos a lawyer. i can confirm. puts up a big front about being magnanimous but is extremely condescending, petty, and hateful in private. basically just a women. its also why i know that anon who said even lawyers are tired of all these random laws is bullshit. they would outlaw water if they could

[Anonymous No.20031282]

>>20031260
Is he a litigator or transaction?

[Anonymous No.20031306]

>>20031282
i dont know, ive never asked him about it since i find him being a lawyer extremely distasteful and always try to ignore it. its like having an uncle be a gay porn actor that isnt ricardo or aniki

[Anonymous No.20031405]

>>20031255
>>20031192
because youre being a slimy jew about it. you yourself admit that it happens as does your wiki link. i myself also pointed out that it never really comes up in court and is simply ignored. nowadays a lot of people get reduced sentences or no punishment at all because they are """refugees""" and its deemed they didnt know the local laws very well.

to say that there have been very few cases where it was successfully argued that you had to have knowledge of the law in order to be punished is the same as saying that you have to have knowledge of the law in order to be punished. no one ever won a defense because mercury is the first planet, because thats not a legal defense. this is. good luck winning a case on it though

[Anonymous No.20031499]

>>20030374
Try Immanuel Kant's duty ethics.

[Anonymous No.20031551]

>>20031405
I'd respond to that but it was just a neurotic meltdown that you committed to text format

[Anonymous No.20031562]

>>20031551
i accept your concession

[Anonymous No.20031569]

>>20031562
You already gave me yours by making this huge stink about the constitution and failing to point to the part of it that says you can't punish people who are ignorant of laws (as there isn't one).

[Anonymous No.20031572]

>>20031569
stop replying to me. i have accepted your concession

[Anonymous No.20031584]

>>20031572
By violating your will with this reply I finally and irrevocably demand, recieve by force, and accept your concession. There will be no encore, and your mother will die in her sleep tonight.

[Anonymous No.20031597]

>>20031584
i accepted your concession first, all your concessions are just a fever dream larp