All laws written by humans are a common belief system and “inherently unprovable”. There is no proof why the constitution of the United States would be better or worse than the constitution of France. There is no proof why international law would be right or wrong. Try explaining the Geneva convention to the emperors of the past… All of these are based on shared values and entirely dependent on the human subjects, not some objective fact.
You are constructing a justification for bigotry, by saying that it is acceptable to exclude one group of people based on your generalizations against them. I tried to show you that it is arbitrary as all bigotry is.
Most laws are based in reducing human suffering, including religious text. Don’t use chemical weapons? Yeah, cool. Gurgling on your own intestines sounds like a pretty sweet thing to not have to worry about. Most of the 10 commandments are little more than “don’t be a dick of a human”. But religion has a way of taking it too far and instead start increasing suffering. Waging wars because the land is “rightfully” theirs. Honour killings because they love the wrong person. Enriching themselves at the cost of others, justifying it by saying god is rewarding them for their loyalty.
LGBTQ+, feminism, BLM and so on are there to reduce suffering and grant humans the rights they deserve. If a queer judge is biased towards not making their fellow queer people suffer more, then I don’t see a problem with that. If a judge has a bias towards continuing genocide, then yeah, there’s an issue.
All laws written by humans are a common belief system and “inherently unprovable”. There is no proof why the constitution of the United States would be better or worse than the constitution of France. There is no proof why international law would be right or wrong. Try explaining the Geneva convention to the emperors of the past… All of these are based on shared values and entirely dependent on the human subjects, not some objective fact.
You are constructing a justification for bigotry, by saying that it is acceptable to exclude one group of people based on your generalizations against them. I tried to show you that it is arbitrary as all bigotry is.
What shite is this, are you comparing a social contract to diefying mythology and imposing your view on others?
This reads like the worst LLM joined a cult.
Most laws are based in reducing human suffering, including religious text. Don’t use chemical weapons? Yeah, cool. Gurgling on your own intestines sounds like a pretty sweet thing to not have to worry about. Most of the 10 commandments are little more than “don’t be a dick of a human”. But religion has a way of taking it too far and instead start increasing suffering. Waging wars because the land is “rightfully” theirs. Honour killings because they love the wrong person. Enriching themselves at the cost of others, justifying it by saying god is rewarding them for their loyalty.
LGBTQ+, feminism, BLM and so on are there to reduce suffering and grant humans the rights they deserve. If a queer judge is biased towards not making their fellow queer people suffer more, then I don’t see a problem with that. If a judge has a bias towards continuing genocide, then yeah, there’s an issue.