And most countries with a sense of free-speech try to(pretend to, would ideally, take your pick depending on your view of how successful free-speech is) respect the law biding citizen's freedom to hold whatever views they want even if they are ridiculous.
I feel like unless you are trying to troll, it is best to avoid all analogies that compare current events to what would be deemed by many as 'historical evil doers'.
I meant only to attack the unsoundness of the argument being presented.
Just because entities comply with "laws", which may have been created (and are modifiable) by the very same entities, does not provide any type of moral, or otherwise, justification that the entities' actions are reasonable, acceptable, exemplary, or other.
In fact, some Nazi's actually tried to argue something exactly analogous to what the sentence argued: that complying with the law can be used as axiomatic justification for any behavior.
I can see that line of thought being a fine one to voice, however I am curious how you expected others to infer all of it simply from your comparison of casinos to nazis. As when I read it my initial reaction was simply that you were calling casinos nazis, and if I were to ignore this reply I would still see it as the most logical way to interpret the post.
There are multiple symmetries (or near symmetries) in the construction of the post and the argument itself.
There are plenty of casios, and many of them comply with the law.
There are plenty of Nazis , and many of them comply with the law.
Basically, if you believe the first sentence is legitimate, I have shown you a second sentence that is of equally legitimate construction. It is grammatically correct and has real semantic meaning. In fact, it is a true statement, just as the first statement (probably) is.
The fact that the second statement is true and is as legitimate as the first might strike a reader and cause them to think more about it.
Nazis rose to power by crafting law and used it to drive people to do things they wouldn't have otherwise. When some of those people were caught and tried for their actions, some of them argued that they did nothing wrong because they were merely complying with the law.
The sentences in comparison make the (implicit) argument that 'complying with the law' is somehow relevant to the exculpation of the actions of the entity in question. Many consider this to be absurd.
All you did was swap out one word for another from the sentence, which to me when reading it says 'these two words are equivalent.' The sentence is so vague on its own so as to be true for basically any noun which represents an individual, group, or organization that you substitute in for casinos. Hell it is even true for animals 'There are plenty of cows, and many of them comply with the law'.
How you expected anyone to jump to the conclusion you were talking about the manner in which Nazis rose to power and their eventual punishment or lack there of as being the analogous part is beyond me. Especially since you kept your sentence in the present tense leading me to believe it was about modern day people who hold the beliefs of the Nazi party.
The sentence is so vague on its own so as to be true for basically any noun which represents an individual, group, or organization that you substitute in for casinos.
Exactly. The statement is irrelevant. Its use as the foundational axiom in the defense of casino's behavior is absurd.
Everything else (striking similarity to Nazi arguments) is bonus.
Their point is still valid regardless of which group of people engaging in something that is now deemed immoral and illegal but which was legally tolerated back then. The 'it isn't illegal' defense isn't worth much to anyone who uses a moral system not dependent upon the law.
Comments
There are plenty of Nazis, and many of them comply with the law.
And most countries with a sense of free-speech try to(pretend to, would ideally, take your pick depending on your view of how successful free-speech is) respect the law biding citizen's freedom to hold whatever views they want even if they are ridiculous.
I feel like unless you are trying to troll, it is best to avoid all analogies that compare current events to what would be deemed by many as 'historical evil doers'.
I meant only to attack the unsoundness of the argument being presented.
Just because entities comply with "laws", which may have been created (and are modifiable) by the very same entities, does not provide any type of moral, or otherwise, justification that the entities' actions are reasonable, acceptable, exemplary, or other.
In fact, some Nazi's actually tried to argue something exactly analogous to what the sentence argued: that complying with the law can be used as axiomatic justification for any behavior.
I only state that such logic is fallacious.
I can see that line of thought being a fine one to voice, however I am curious how you expected others to infer all of it simply from your comparison of casinos to nazis. As when I read it my initial reaction was simply that you were calling casinos nazis, and if I were to ignore this reply I would still see it as the most logical way to interpret the post.
There are multiple symmetries (or near symmetries) in the construction of the post and the argument itself.
Basically, if you believe the first sentence is legitimate, I have shown you a second sentence that is of equally legitimate construction. It is grammatically correct and has real semantic meaning. In fact, it is a true statement, just as the first statement (probably) is.
The fact that the second statement is true and is as legitimate as the first might strike a reader and cause them to think more about it.
Nazis rose to power by crafting law and used it to drive people to do things they wouldn't have otherwise. When some of those people were caught and tried for their actions, some of them argued that they did nothing wrong because they were merely complying with the law.
The sentences in comparison make the (implicit) argument that 'complying with the law' is somehow relevant to the exculpation of the actions of the entity in question. Many consider this to be absurd.
All you did was swap out one word for another from the sentence, which to me when reading it says 'these two words are equivalent.' The sentence is so vague on its own so as to be true for basically any noun which represents an individual, group, or organization that you substitute in for casinos. Hell it is even true for animals 'There are plenty of cows, and many of them comply with the law'.
How you expected anyone to jump to the conclusion you were talking about the manner in which Nazis rose to power and their eventual punishment or lack there of as being the analogous part is beyond me. Especially since you kept your sentence in the present tense leading me to believe it was about modern day people who hold the beliefs of the Nazi party.
Exactly. The statement is irrelevant. Its use as the foundational axiom in the defense of casino's behavior is absurd.
Everything else (striking similarity to Nazi arguments) is bonus.
Their point is still valid regardless of which group of people engaging in something that is now deemed immoral and illegal but which was legally tolerated back then. The 'it isn't illegal' defense isn't worth much to anyone who uses a moral system not dependent upon the law.