File: 1538960278340.png (483.39 KB, 1280x957, 1280:957, fs_princess.png) ImgOps Google
Enforcement of rules or forcing submission by/to respectable institutions is the most important thing, a moral duty that must supersede all else. Sometimes I am good about seeing rules enforced exactly, but I waver by mood, the details of the enforcements, and I dare say, even my relationship with the potential subject of punishment. How do other ponies maintain a static posture as a good pony that always glories in enforcements?51 posts and 32 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>843234>Look at: "All content that is illegal under the law of the United States is expressly and absolutely prohibited on Ponyville.us;">Now, I suppose it does not forbid advocating criminal behavior, but it certainly forbids any civil disobedience in posts on this site.
Lol, you left out the part that "illegal content" basically means child porn and that this provision is primarily a CYA for the site.
And furthermore it doesn't even forbid all civil disobedience. E.g., if I were to post information classified SECRET here on the site, I'd be thrown in prison, but the site might be able to continue to host it lawfully. See the Pentagon Papers
case.>>843234>I suppose a rule might be to sweep every night. Then the rule can be seen as a means to an end, but were the employee to clean in some other way, even if the result were superior, they would still be justly punished for not following the rules.
People who think like that are the reason why the government is so damned wasteful and ineffective. You end up spending tens of billions of dollars on fighter jets that can't fly and that have worse cybersecurity than a typical home router.
File: 1539139545350.jpeg (18.21 KB, 300x300, 1:1, 1199535__safe_twilight sp….jpeg) ImgOps Google
There will never be a time when the potential need for civil disobedience or any other form of rebellion will ever be immutably satisfied. There is no such thing as an incorruptible authority, as I stated, morals transcend
authorities and authority must be made to be subject to those morals, they cannot
be the source of those morals if those morals are to hold any weight.
And as for the current moment in time, there is plenty
of reason to engage in civil disobedience when there are forces in the various level in government seeking to cement their power through voter disenfranchisement, and crony capitalist seeking to guide economic policy in their favor via both skewed economic regulations and ill conceived deregulation.>>843234>they would still be justly punished for not following the rules.
justly how? Morally? Hardly, please justify it.
The reason they might be punished at all (maybe not justly) is that the point of following the rules there is so that the system as originally planed can function the way it was designed. Even if the employee had a better way of doing their job and fulfilling their role than the way the employer or supervisor commanded, disobeying that command might disrupt how other's do their job. Disobeying the command complicates the logistics of the job, which is why the employee would be reprimanded, for essentially disrupting other's employees work. >So if there are...necessities...they won't matter to subjects.
This is a logically unjustified presumption. Of course
the end(s) matter to the subjects, one's own personal ends are the primary motivation for obedience to an authority, whether or not it's because of one's belief in the need for a just society, the need to earn what one needs to survive or maybe something as egocentric as the need to avoid punishment.>Rules subservient to a higher goal would be more like guidelines, I think, and that seems to me to be another system -- not really an authority system, or at least not the one I usually think about when there are rules.
Well, that is
what all systems of rules are! They are not ends in to, and of themselves, but means to bring about or maintain certain states. The only justification for any authority figure is in their ability to make judgements about the means
to bring that end about, they cannot justifiably have any authority for the sake of defining what those means are. For instance, we have traffic laws for the sake of allowing multiple people to travel by car in an orderly and coordinated way rather than in a dangerous and haphazardly way. If the authority declares that "red means stop and you must brake at the light until it turns green" they are not declaring that stopping at a stoplight is the moral thing to do.
Morals can't have any weight if they can be changed on a whim. An authoritarian meta-ethic is logically incoherent, morals cannot be absolute and derive from the commands of an authority who can reverse those commands at a later time. Morals cannot have any meaningful weight if the only
reason something is good or bad is because an authority declared it as such and not because of any quality intrinsic to the thing declared as such, or else good and evil ultimately become arbitrary. >And racism is judgements of all members of a race
Racism is prejudice and discrimination of people based on race. It's not about judging an entire race. The government was (and arguably still is) racist because of what unjustified assumptions their policies would make of all individuals based solely on their race. >Human authorities had to put Dr. King in jail. That probably means something improper happened.
If you mean it was improper to jail Dr. King than I agree. If you don't mean that, then this is utterly absurd.
Dr. King and his group were challenging unjust
authority with the only real means they had at their disposal, given their positions as minorities in a political system where the majority agreed they deserved less rights, less access to opportunities and less access to resources simply because of the color of their skin. The authority in this case fulfilled the will of the majority (and in someway had molded the will of that majority). Segregation based on race was wrong, it's unjust and it only serves to hurt one group of people to maintain benefit to others. >Dr. King's ambition was good, but you won't get me to advocate criminal behavior (for the humans).
So ... would you advocate criminal behavior for yourself, since you don't consider yourself human?
You know flower. I think your attempt to understand other people is fundamentally logically flawed. For a long time you have said that you conclude that humans need authorities to be happy, and in this thread you seem to point to the history of people always choosing to have authorities rule over them again and again as evidence of some natural need for humans to be subject to authorities....
... And yet you are overlooking the millenas long history of human rebellion against it's own authority. If one half of this history is evidence of something instrinsic to human nature, why is this other half not factored into this? What should it tell you about human nature than humans will rebel against their own authorities, and they will dismantle them, as they have done time and time again throughout their own written history?
File: 1539174153695.jpg (271.08 KB, 1138x1024, 569:512, fs_standing.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>843313>Hardly, please justify it.
The sweeping issue, granted, is probably trivial. But graver matters of a failure to follow procedure might end in termination. A company can make a person leave since they are the property owner and the government will enforce this right, thus the powerful authority and justice (based on my view, anyway).>This is a logically unjustified presumption.
I suppose a business owner can create rules that are only guidelines. There's more freedom there. But government doesn't seem to work that way, or at least I don't trust that if you understood a higher purpose to government, that would be enough in all cases. I think the rules themselves matter more. Perhaps you've had a different experience of it.>then this is utterly absurd.
Humans seem pretty smart. Why would they make their government do absurd things? Why would they tolerate it? An absurd government should be deleted.>why is this other half not factored into this?
That is a good question. You're not going to like the answer, but I can't make everyone happy. I'd go as far as saying the human system seems setup to make sure you make someone upset. Government/law/etc. is either justice or it is not, either a healthy or unhealthy institution. Now, you don't have to take it all-or-nothing, but then I have to judge what parts are good for humans (or find someone who will), and I'm not sure I fully understand what it's like to be human, so that's not something I'll be able to do accurately. Siding with the majority is an attempt to upset the fewest (and not get my fur singed by opposing the powerful as a bonus).>advocate criminal behavior for yourself
Most don't notice that bit, but yes. People have difficulty understanding me, and it just seems unlikely that lawmakers far away, who have never even met me know exactly what I need to do. I'm not naturally rebellious, but I am intellectually open to the possibility. Civil disobedience...for my kind. Humans, at least the ones that feel the need to use government to keep folks obedient, will have no need, but we are different.
File: 1539206337762.jpg (234.77 KB, 1676x1676, 1:1, ponywearMy-Little-Pony-Gre….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>843535>property owner can make a person leave
Actually this is absolutely untrue under the laws of the United States. We are talking about publicly-accessible spaces such as retail establishments or public works? These are governed by federal law from a rights perspective, explicitly forbidding the refusal of access or services to anyone based on any protected class designation, and from State laws for refusing service to anyone who is obeying the applicable laws of the location. For example, if a grocery store decides to simply throw a shopper out of the store without cause, they will in fact be in both criminal and civil violation of several statutes and judicial doctrines. The signs proprietors post that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" are in fact a statement of intent to violate those laws and can be used to established same for criminal or enhanced civil liability for taking any such action to deprive any individual of their civil rights / business rights at the subject premises.
A good question is why. The answer is that while this country endeavors to serve the majority, it also at its fundamental founding level strives to protect the rights and privileges of ALL of its citizens. While that implementation was deeply flawed at the time, its application has evolved over time to approach the founding principles in particular through the abolishment of slavery, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (modified by several subsequent legislations) and the judicial doctrine of Brown v Bd. of Education
establishing that racially segregated facilities are inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional, among many other laws and doctrines that have been developed over time to better serve the ideals set down by the Founders.>why would a government do absurd things? should be deleted
The Founders recognized, in particular in that they just broke away frm their own King by use of force, both the need to delete its future subversion (through the Second Amendment guaranteeing the right of the citizens to keep the government true to their needs by being armed potentially against its police powers) and prevent its subversion/corruption by providing checks and balances such as judicial review of legislation, impeachment of the executive representative, staggered election terms of varied length, and separation of powers. While again its implementation has been deeply flawed from the very beginning, and its application has frequently created absurdity, the fact that such opportunities exist to try and FIX the government without needing to actually DELETE it are built into it in the first place and are largely responsible for its endurance to this point.>special treatment for Flowerkind
It is here that I am skeptical of your intentions in this ongoing attitude regarding humans and authorities...while humans often wish to set themselves apart from seemingly absurd authority, in truth you as Flowerkind are still subject to human law and consequences until such time as you complete diligence to remove yourself from the "social contract" you were born into here.
In fact, that you are able to express your position here is an example of exercise of your rights under that authority, thereby executing your participation in and consent to be bound by the terms of the social contract that bestow those rights upon you...hence also its responsibilities.
Therefore regardless of how Flowerkind may be distinct from humans, you are in fact as subject to human authority as a lost pony is. If you define the morality of humans by their governing authority, then you do also define the morality of a Flower by the same standards. You cannot escape in this way.
File: 1539212468106.png (184.95 KB, 757x1024, 757:1024, fs_dragon.png) ImgOps Google
>>843746>you are in fact as subject to human authority
In a physical sense, sure. In a moral sense, I'm not so sure, and that's what matters more.
The human world should be moral for the humans because there's no kind, as far as I can tell, forcing them to hurt their own.
File: 1539213652059.jpeg (1.27 MB, 1600x1200, 4:3, 896974.jpeg) ImgOps Google
It's a good code. Don't knock it.>>842097
It is very selfish. Glorification and demonization distort the truth and make one's perception of reality drift from reality as it is. It places the utility of a thing above the thing in itself in an epistemological heirarchy when the two shouldn't be heirarchical at all. It creates a false sense of certainty that when challenged can cause a person to go into crisis.>>842226
In so much as the authorities are authorities.
File: 1539218468159.jpeg (235.06 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, fs_money.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>843268>People who think like that are the reason why the government is so damned wasteful and ineffective.
Justice is seldom cheap.
File: 1539219062237.jpg (129.46 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1440099002600.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I was talking about DoD, not DoJ or the judiciary.
File: 1539219528130.jpg (8.58 KB, 259x194, 259:194, pinkyUS.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
If some who are physically bound by authority are exempt from moral obligation, then why is it fair for some to not be exempt?
Is fairness not the fundamental underlying morality that authorities must embue? If they do not, then they have no moral authority over anyone.>should
Should does not mean does
. If Flowerkind is exempt from the morality of the human authorities, then how does a Flower have standing to advise on what human authorities should do?
File: 1539220359896.png (881.39 KB, 768x1024, 3:4, fs_dd.png) ImgOps Google
>>843835>then why is it fair for some to not be exempt?
I respect humans know what they are doing with their kind -- some kind of moral fiber links them and makes enforcement justice. Otherwise, what's the point of all the structure?>is fairness not the fundamental underlying morality that authorities must embue?
If that's required for justice, sure. I'm not going to tell the humans they have to be fair, but they can be.>how does a Flower have standing to advise on what human authorities should do?
I only see my authority in cases that involve my kind where I feel the human ways are not completely appropriate. Otherwise, I am to be fully respectful of human enforcements, just as is required of helpful, good humans.>>843832
DoD has their military justice as well. Follow the rules or get punished (sometimes).
File: 1539225703482.png (22.65 KB, 507x171, 169:57, 1539222433996.png) ImgOps Google
I love that skirt.
File: 1539283323001.png (1.07 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20180927-085530.png) ImgOps Google
What does Flowerkind mean?
I'm confused again.
File: 1539283997597.png (1.03 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100156.png) ImgOps Google
I mean in reference to this thread.
File: 1539284260725.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google
I think just people similar to Flower, who doesn't consider themselves human.
File: 1539286654493.png (1.15 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100250.png) ImgOps Google
I guess I would fall within that category then.
File: 1539286784402.gif (1.65 MB, 1000x720, 25:18, you spin me right round ba….gif) ImgOps Google
>How do other ponies maintain a static posture as a good pony that always glories in enforcements?
They don't. That's why they should give ME all of their power. I will bring justice across the land.
File: 1539292941744.png (745.88 KB, 1920x804, 160:67, pinkskystar.png) ImgOps Google
I'd like to think I'm in the same category of thing as a Flower but these authority rants are not really endearing...it's funny though, even a lost pony can't be sure if she's serious or goading.
File: 1539293684470.png (1.14 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20181002-100244.png) ImgOps Google
I'm not entirely sure what these threads are about. Why'd you remove your name though?
File: 1539294582490.gif (2.5 MB, 800x449, 800:449, rules.gif) ImgOps Google
That's exactly what someone at Stage 4 would
say ~ ;P
File: 1539299193254.jpeg (803.97 KB, 843x1024, 843:1024, ts_books.jpeg) ImgOps Google
You'll have some fighting to do, but if you win, then you will be the human authority and all you do will be justice.>>844439>these authority rants are not really endearing
Justice is kindness. Kindness brings happiness. Humans will like their kindness, even if it brings pain and makes them upset. It has to be so.>>844448
They are about respect.
I'm not sure why this thread seems like such a foreign idea to people. Isn't this what civilization is based on? Governments and order. Enforcement of law. Power hierarchies. I don't think I'm wrong, but people won't tell me I'm right either. Something is off. I don't think the problem is me (although present company >>844458
disagrees), but I'll probably have to figure out how to fix it, or at least describe it.
File: 1539301105637.jpg (48.08 KB, 625x351, 625:351, thatwordmeans.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Nice palindrome quads.
a lost pony doesn't remember why. there was some kind of reason, probably sulking or something.>>844567>kindness
File: 1539301787345.png (848.92 KB, 1000x900, 10:9, 1449472273872.png) ImgOps Google
>>842070>Enforcement of rules or forcing submission by/to respectable institutions is the most important thing, a moral duty that must supersede all else. >>844567>I'm not sure why this thread seems like such a foreign idea to people.
Maybe because most of us here aren't fascists? Because we realize that all governments are imperfect? Because there are first principles of morality that are independent of demands of people in power? Because the Nazi government of Deutschland during WW2 was considered a "respectable institution" at the time?
File: 1539301964461.jpg (107.04 KB, 707x1000, 707:1000, this shit is bananas, b a ….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>844567>then you will be the human authority and all you do will be justice.
You can say it will be some clean justice.
File: 1539302754136.jpg (452.13 KB, 1275x829, 1275:829, fs_Fair.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Law and the systems of government are either just or they are not. If they are not just, their enforcement is unjust, which means police are nothing but bullies. Bullies aren't to be supported, so the government must be destroyed since it hurts humans. I sense that if I tried to destroy government, I would be seen as evil by the humans. And I'm not going to try to help the humans only to be seen as evil, so they get government and if government's going to stay, it had better be respectable justice. Not bullying.
File: 1539303345220.jpg (77.15 KB, 640x480, 4:3, doge-022.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>844626>Law and the systems of government are either just or they are not.
Wrong. There is continuum of degree of justness.
File: 1539313622300.jpg (442.47 KB, 1248x870, 208:145, Screenshot_20180927-085453.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
You aren't very clear about your motives.
What's the end goal here?
File: 1539344978370.png (530.62 KB, 1280x821, 1280:821, fs_bun.png) ImgOps Google
Hello, Kikuto! Hope you've been well. Been awhile since we've talked.
File: 1539360131720.jpg (132.88 KB, 561x526, 561:526, Screenshot_20180927-085344.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
At it's core, justice is nothing more than justified revenge. Keep that in mind.
File: 1539361143302.gif (2.33 MB, 480x270, 16:9, tenor (3).gif) ImgOps Google
A couple more things:
Faith is generally bad. Faith is the practice of believing something to be true in spite of the odds that it is not. This mostly leads to self-inflicted ignorance. It's better to have hope for something to be true but be willing to accept the fact that it may not.
Secondly, actions are not inherently good nor evil. Actions are neutral. What makes an action good or evil is purely dependant on the motive and intent of that action. Because of this, no law or rule will be flawless because laws can only dictate which actions are allowed and which ones are not. It has no way of dictating intent.
>>845096>>845096>laws can only dictate which actions are allowed and which ones are not. It has no way of dictating intent.
Nani? Criminal laws are generally interpreted as having a mens rea
File: 1539362120570.gif (597.19 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, tumblr_p846j22SIZ1rlrlkqo1….gif) ImgOps Google
Laws themselves cannot dictate intent. We establish intent through trial once a law is broken. There are no trials in a place like this though.
Example: If you hit and kill someone with your car, you will be arrested and put on trial to determine if you did it on purpose or on accident. But the action of killing someone with a car is still an offense, regardless of intent. Intent in this case only determines the sentence.
File: 1539362432012.png (32.26 KB, 476x476, 1:1, 131032__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google
>>845099>Criminal laws are generally interpreted as having a mens rea requirement.>mens rea
Is this the patriarchy?
File: 1539362473068.png (537.27 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, tumblr_p7jhx0wpuN1wili6eo4….png) ImgOps Google
Latin was very sexist.
File: 1539362680495.jpg (61.6 KB, 586x414, 293:207, Screenshot_20181012-094253.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Actually I'm kidding. Latin just had no idea what the fuck it was doing.>Mens>Feminine
File: 1539385228125.jpg (124.73 KB, 800x600, 4:3, chikorita__by_mentoslia.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Same to you. Looks like you got some heated argument flying around.
File: 1539385426860.png (179.53 KB, 844x1024, 211:256, fs_e.png) ImgOps Google
Not sure that effect things much as I'm not to say humans can't be vengeful, but I grant that.>>845096>>845099
Yes, there's some of that. Killing by accident vs. killing in a fit of rage vs. killing according to plan have different labels and punishments. On the other hand, not intending to break a law isn't a good enough defense, so judging based on intent only goes so far.>>845096>Faith is generally bad.
It has been the fabric of communities larger than a few dozen individuals. Although maybe that's bad, too...
File: 1539389570152.png (231.26 KB, 528x297, 16:9, tumblr_static_tumblr_stati….png) ImgOps Google
>>845296>It has been the fabric of communities larger than a few dozen individuals.
The primary problem with faith is that faith is not a hope for truth, it is a replacement for truth, but it is a fabricated replacement.
File: 1539412453366.jpg (27.45 KB, 334x444, 167:222, lucy403.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Faith is not a replacement for Truth. It is a hazard of the activity of Faith, we might say, that it is antithetical to having a descriptive representation of causality (reason) as a desideratum; however, even this view, that Faith is the negative opposite of Reason, is a narrow one. In the first place, we must understand the character of Reason, which is seen in the development of languages which are suitable to prescribed referents. This means that, ultimately, the origin and whatever meaning we attach to the devices of Reason are, in principle, beyond the scope of Reason itself, although language can and does become self-referent (leading to issues with mind-recursiveness, which many attempts at "language philosophy" have tried to settle). Thus, in a natural sense, we cannot expect Truth to take a propositional form, or even a propositional correspondence, which we might eke out from Reason alone, though Reason clearly has some kind of bearing on other forms of perception.
In the second place, to understand Faith, we must see that Reason, being essentially descriptive, does not engender action
of its own accord. This problem was recognized significantly during the Enlightenment, but reaches back further to ancient understanding which is manifest in the arts of so-called "divination". We may ask, What is the point at which we have enough data to make a decision? If we were to pursue a perfect fallibilism, such as that espoused by Mill (who was a devout Humean), we should say never
. If we went into an ice cream shop with ten-thousand flavors, or even just two, and we had to pick, we would never get a scoop. The "immediate action" (that is, action lacking medium
) represented by choosing a flavor is what Faith is really like. It may be doctrinal and highly structured--we might say operating within a larger scope of totality--because there is a reciprocal relationship between Reason and Faith; but one is not closer, nor further to Truth than the other.
File: 1539436048906.png (227.07 KB, 904x1024, 113:128, fs_flowers3.png) ImgOps Google
I don't know. I don't know that I read people very well through the internet, and on this platform no one can unfriend and block me. So who knows what's heated and what's not?>>845311
Yes, I think so. In domains of faith there is no doubt, without doubt, no growth.>>845626
If I understand, you're saying no one has figured out how to "science" morality.
File: 1539443965762.png (314.1 KB, 1280x1786, 640:893, tumblr_oxlinjgPj91ufyollo5….png) ImgOps Google
I guess that's a better way of phrasing it. I'm more interested in making sure standards are universal, applied to everyone, in the case of authority.
Even if I think a law is stupid, in that regard, because I know people're going to end up punished for that law regardless, I'd enforce it, so as to prevent it being unfair.
There are some exceptions, of course, but, by that point, you'd be looking at a resignation if not open revolution, anyway.