Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Laws exist to allow society to punish bad acts. If laws prevented criminal acts then "Thou shall not steal" would have ended theft.
Outlawing something does not prevent someone from doing or possessing it, it only allows society to punish that person.
Preventing said person from doing or possessing something bad for society in the first place is the responsibility of society; first to indoctrinate the individual on the societal norms they are expected to uphold and second to warn society if an individual poses a danger to said society. It is in the second stage that legislation takes effect allowing society to deal with a wrongdoer.
Now implementing new laws to prevent something that old laws failed to prevent is well... whats the definition of insanity? Doing something over and over again expecting a different result. It does not seem sufficient for some to have for example murder outlawed they must outlaw everything remotely connected to the act, or conversely one single item connected to it. Such thinking does not address the problem of what caused the murder to occur in the first place.
|
Okay, so you are now backing away from your original concept that opposition to X is responsible for the cause of X. This is a good thing, because that statement was completely indefensible. I suspect that you started to see that after you posted it.