[andrepd]

I'm sure that Jack the ripper thought those murder laws very stupid indeed and that he very much disagreed with the arguments against murdering prostitutes. According to your argument, would it be fine for him to kill, seeing as "laws are nothing but opinions backed by guns"?

[Lawtonfogle]

>Would it be fine?

According to what/whom?

The law: no, that was illegal.

Reality: reality never stopped Jack.

To the victims or their loved ones: no, but it wouldn't have been fine even had it be legal back then. The law had nothing to do with if they thought it was fine or not.

To me: I wasn't there back then, my opinion back then didn't exist either way.

To put it simply, that what Jack did was wrong has nothing to do with it being illegal.

[planfaster]

> Jack the ripper thought

It's not about what someone thinks. It's about arguments and principles that can be applied universally.

> he very much disagreed

It's not about disagreeing with arguments. It's about refuting arguments to show them wrong.

I am less sure than you are that Jack the Ripper has ever produced refutations to the universalized principled arguments against the initiation of force that so many have written about through the ages.

According to my argument, it would be fine to use lethal force against Jack the Ripper initiating violence, since it is morally OK to use violence for self-defense (according to universal arguments, meaning that all participants can abide by this principle without contradictions arising).

Without wanting to sound condescending, the difference between what I am saying and what you think I said is that you think I am considering the ego of the persons involved. What Jack the Ripper's ego "thinks" and "agrees with" is irrelevant. What is relevant is facts that don't involve the ego - namely, did Jack the Ripper produce a universalized principled argument to justify his actions? The answer, so far as I know, is no.

It's not about what an ego thinks, it's about whether an argument exists.

[bweitzman]

Well here's a universalized principled argument against piracy:

Given that a content creator is only able to sustainably (i.e. without going broke) create content provided that they have an income, and given that creating content takes enough time that it is infeasible to both create content and earn income from another source at the same time, then a content creator must be able to earn income from their content if they are going to create it sustainably.

Given that consumers want content from content creators whose content they have enjoyed in the past, and given that a content creator must be able to earn income from their content if they are going to create it sustainably, content creators should be able to earn income from their content

Given that when a person pirates (or otherwise obtains for free) content the content creator earns no income from their content if everybody were to pirate content, content creators would earn no income from their content

Given that if everybody were to pirate content, content creators would earn no income from their content and given that content creators should be able to earn income from their content then not everybody should pirate content

Given that if not everybody should perform an action then nobody should perform the action, and if not everybody should pirate content then nobody should pirate content.

[andrepd]

>It's not about what an ego thinks, it's about whether an argument exists.

I find it extremely ironic that you are making that point. What you are doing is precisely declaring a law about a complex and controversial issue to be invalid because there is an "universal and absolute argument" (aka, you think so) against that law. That's not how things work. Why would the things Jack the ripper thinks and agrees with be irrelevant and yours be "universalized arguments" that everyone must accept?

EDIT:

>According to my argument, it would be fine to use lethal force against Jack the Ripper initiating violence

Precisely. According to your argument. Not a universal truth.