-6
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2026
-6 points (36.4% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
9533 readers
547 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
many are to interpretation dependent. maga could totally say they are following the rules and its you who are not and that is why its all above the low. also the law is the rules we agree to. the constitution is basically the law above law which is far more specific and the high court is easily disregarding enforcing/protecting it from the executive violating it as a matter of policy. also the legislative branch is not acting and lends words of encouragement to it all. well one party anyway.
Yes, everyone can interpret these rules through their own common sense. That is a feature, not a bug. The rules are not about what you cannot do, but about what you can do. No court is needed for that: common sense and justice are the court.
yeah so everything is fine. its the same as throwing out the law. the serial killers own sense of morality is such that these people had to die. they were after all possessed. i will kill you if your common sense says different than mine.
It's not throwing out the law. It's protecting those who are against the law on the side of justice.
Justice is more important than law
I think justice is the ideal of law, and it is more important in that respect. I think a theoretical perfect law would be identical to a comprehensive, self-evident definition of justice. However, I think it's wise to presume that any law falls short of that ideal, and your "rules" are, technically, still laws.
They're kind of superlaws* to other laws, sort of the way the US Constitution is a superlaw to US federal law, which is itself a superlaw relative to state laws: the sublaws are still enforced, but when a sublaw contradicts a superlaw, the superlaw prevails. But, declaring themselves to be above the law doesn't make them not laws, it just makes them the top layer over all other laws.
I think it's important to never confuse laws with justice, because they never 100% line up. People tend to commit atrocities when they make that mistake.
* sublaw and superlaw are my own terms for this relationship. IDK if there's an official term for the relationship between hierarchical bodies of law
like the serial killer. also religious rules. after all believing in god is common sense. well the right god. and those who feel its common sense not to just don't have commone sense or the right personal code of morality. honestly im getting away from the point. anyone can break the so yes. it is throwing out the law.
If somebody does something bad, they forfeit their freedom and must rectify.
so law is enforced and their freedom curtailed despite their sense of justice and common sense. What the heck is the point of this whole post then? lets have a list of feel good rules that don't matter in how we do things?
This would be different than the current system. Justice over arbitrary law. fairness over unfairness and freedom over oppression.
how so if it makes no difference in being arrested? basically it sounds more like a religious thing at that point and I would take the seven tenets over these.
Those rules are directly based on 7 tenets of the satanic temple.
What do you mean?
yeah so as a religion fine. you can have the common sense thing and such. but in an actual legal system it would not work. and what I mean by making no difference is that you will be arrested based on law regardless of these rules as you outlined before in the thread. so they make no difference. so yeah. feel good religion. personal philosophy. all good. part of legal system. not specific enough.
This doesn't need to be specific, because you can use common sense. This is a serious proposal.
You can say that an officer who arrests you is taking away your freedom and therefore forfeits their freedom.
yeah see. so it basically works like no law. the officer and non officer will be attempting to arrest each other. also known as fighting. you may see it as serious but you just don't seem to get that law has to be specific. some of our biggest issues in the modern age are laws not being specific enough and being interpreted badly. and again that is with stuff written pretty specifically.
Normal laws have to be interpreted literally, but here you interpret them according to common sense
ugh. we are at an impasse here. I can't really explain the problem better about consistancy and laws being specific. one mans common sense is anothers nonsense.