what's your most controversial belief?

submitted by [deleted] from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't think it's a case of "We like you", so much as it is trying to understand and interpret the Letter of the law and the Spirit of the law. The letter of the law can cover things that we generally agree are abhorrent, it can't always cover all the specific nuance of a situation where we all agree it might be abhorrent, but it's also reasonable. We understand the spirit of the law and enforce that as much as the letter, right? That's why we have judges to offer gaol time rather than just having a single, standard duration for X crime - because we understand that one killing isn't identical to the next, one theft isn't the same as another and one person speeding might be more understandable than the next.

In that way, while we all shake hands and say: "Killing your fellow man is wrong" we also quietly nod at each other and silently understand that this means: "Unless..." The same is true with rules on age. We set that hard line and say: "You can't drink until you're 18.", but then we quietly roll our eyes at each other and say: "But, you know, if it's just you and your mate in your own house, not causing any problems and not flaunting that law in public, no harm, no foul."

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

In that way, while we all shake hands and say: "Killing your fellow man is wrong" we also quietly nod at each other and silently understand that this means: "Unless...."

...we like you.

"You can't drink until you're 18.", but

...we like you.

That's what I'm always trying to say and everyone refuses to believe: our legal system isn't a collection of laws. It's a system where the people in power ask "do we like you" and if they don't, they ask the general public "do you like them," and if they don't, that person goes to prison.

Which means no one in this society actually has legal protections. If you're popular, you can do pretty much whatever you want; they'll decide that none of the 20 million laws apply to you. If you're unpopular, you'll go to prison; they'll decide that 10 of the 20 million laws apply to you.

Nothing else really matters.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No, that's not true. It might Feel like that, I'm sure, but while I'm certain... Certain because I've seen them... There are events where the ruling goes in favour of the most likeable person, Mitigating Circumstances aren't a measure of who is cutest or has the nicest smile. It's about measuring if or not the events were reasonable and a person of sound mind would have found themselves doing the same thing.

If you want to try and get by on "We like you", I recommend a Jury. Unlike a judge, they are more inclined to lean towards a person who just seems more charming. Most judges are far too jaded and cynical to give a shit if you have a dazzling smile.

Because everyone involved in the process is human, there's really no doubt that some people will slip between the gaps due to how just dang lovely they are. That can't be helped. Machines would have the opposite problem - not enough understanding of the human condition to excuse reasonable people acting reasonably, but still breaking the law.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

^ fake posts from bots trying to justify lowering age of consent

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Me? I've been here for ages. I know there's a lot of spam right now, but it should be pretty obvious from my history that I wasn't created by Ed a few days ago.

Meanwhile, I'm not arguing about lowering the age of consent on anything. In fact, for most of this, I was saying that, as a society, we kinda just agree on an age and draw the line there, regardless of how much we understand there's more nuance to life than that, because we need to make a line somewhere, else we could argue over the semantics forever. I was putting up questions for u/Hematomato to answer to expand on his thoughts about age classifications and rules. I'm not even really sure his point was to lower the age of consent either, exactly. More about how unreasonable it is to assume everyone who is 17 is equivalent to a literal child.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

No you're new

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In the universal sense, where I'm not billions of years old? Or in the fabric softener on freshly mowed AstroTurf sense?

[–]Jiminy 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

In universal sense

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh! Yeah, well, I'm fuck'n infantile then. Pass me my pacifier.