Legal then vs now
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (75)
sorted by:
Only segregation was legal. The other two were allowed. There was no formal law that allowed for the Holocaust or slavery. They were simply no law preventing them either...
Which means it's legal.
No it does not. Legality is dictated by law. Where there is no law it becomes a legal gray area. Not to mention the purpose of this post claims laws don't guide human decency and morality and that's disingenuous. Often times that's why the law comes into existence.
My point is, you can't call the law "immoral" or "unjust" if there was no law governing a practice.
If it's not illegal and under a legal"gray area" it can be morally abhorrent and still break no laws.
Ambiguity makes it technically legal
Though the examples given in the post probably warrant a different wording then"legal"
You really should look for and Read, never mind, I'll give you the link so you don't have to do much more than click them, but please do learn from these....
LAW OF NATIONS, a read along....
BETTER LINK> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmyWQf-3YD8&list=PL3qXG-bb952xAmLS9Z6gOGV-lb7v550UH
My apologies, but Learning the Law of Nations is not a thing that can simply be summarized. I'll remove the First Link, so people can do a read along on tthe better link...
Because the post is claiming the law is "unjust" and "immoral" where there was no law governing two of those practices.
The post and point its trying to make is very disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. You can't claim immorality on lack of law. That is a failure on us as humans for allowing such horrible things.