But society “officially” agreeing is morality, not law. What he has done and is doing is wrong and deserves punishment for that, not strictly because “it’s illegal”. The difference is demanding consequences vs relying on someone else to administer them.
I am not saying he’s innocent in any way shape or form. I’m just saying that his actions being “illegal” has little meaning if the system can’t or won’t enforce the consequences.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
Well it kinda is. If something is illegal but you can’t be punished for it, what does it mean really?
FishFace@piefed.social 18 hours ago
It means society has agreed officially that it should be punished, and you’re getting away with it.
You’re talking about the direct, practical implications, and sure, there it’s no different. But there’s more to life than that.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 hours ago
But society “officially” agreeing is morality, not law. What he has done and is doing is wrong and deserves punishment for that, not strictly because “it’s illegal”. The difference is demanding consequences vs relying on someone else to administer them.
FishFace@piefed.social 17 hours ago
No, society agreeing is morality (well, depends on your conception of morality). Officially agreeing is the difference between that concept and law.
baines@piefed.social 18 hours ago
yea we don’t care about the semantics when people are being shot with impunity
trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
you don’t, but that doesn’t mean it won’t turn out to be important later. Assuming fascism won’t last forever it can matter for the trials to come.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 hours ago
I am not saying he’s innocent in any way shape or form. I’m just saying that his actions being “illegal” has little meaning if the system can’t or won’t enforce the consequences.
FishFace@piefed.social 17 hours ago
Then you’re throwing away a whole load of favour for absolutely no reason whatsoever except that it gives you a feeling of self-righteousness.