Para sayo okay lang.
wag mo na ipilit ang perfect bossing, there will always be collateral damage if we do something, kahit pa walang drug war tulad ngayon, don't tell me wala ring drug-related deaths
The thing is, the laws principle is objective and his is subjective.
are you sure the law is objective? you mean whatever is banned here is also banned everywhere?
I confidently say yes, specially if it is a law that is related to crimes. Specifically the legal process on handling a crime.
so you mean if walang death penalty ang Pinas, you think it should be enforced everywhere?
Objective means it is not merely a personal perspective or feeling. It's controversial to insert death penalty in the topics of objectivity. There's no clear answer to that. But one thing is clear, using your own prinsipyo and using it as a tool for EJK which he admit that it is his responsibility is not acceptable morally and legally.
so now you want death penalty excluded from what you call as "law"?
It is a law and it is objective for that specific country that allows it. Again, that is a controversial topic.
What if e rape, patayin baboyin ka rin ng adik o isa sa pamilya mo. Bakit yung mga biniktima ng mga adik ? Pag adik patayin
Wala ngang tumindig sa mga inocente na pinapatay ng mga adik. Patawa ka.
the fact na nag decide ang isang country to allow it is already a subjectivity bossing, it is a decision, when you say objectivity it does not depend on a decision but it exist permanently and independently with no respect to decisions or discretions
There is no such thing as absolutely objectivity. Every country have a law and it is objective for the reasons that they have different cultures and beliefs from us. You can't just judge their perceive objectivity by inserting your beliefs. Try to live in that country, experience their culture, study their beliefs and then conclude on why they have come up with that perception that is different from yours. If we follow your definition of objectivity then all laws must be subjective. There is no such principle that exist independently, all principles are the product of human intelligence. Your definition of objectivity is "absurd". Again, there is no such thing as absolute objectivity.
Exactly my point, that's why you better stop mentioning objectivity when it is nowhere to be found
wala kasing presidente na gusto buhagin ang war in drugs kahit sa ibang bansa nde nila kaya pero si duterte nanindigan kahit pa sya ang kabayaran ng mga ginawa nya nag sacrifice sya nde lang pang sarile nya ang inuna tulad ng mga nakaraan na presidente.. alam nyo naman cguro na napakaraming ginahasa at pinatay tapos pag nakawan ng dahil sa drugs ..may madadamay talaga pero ang resulta ang tinitignan tumahimik at nag karon ng takot ang mga adik higit sa lahat napaka sarap lumabas sa gabi dati dahil walang naka ambang panganib
So, you mean we are just following someone's personal opinion or emotion? So, if pinasuhan ka then you're proven guilty by the court that follows our laws. That means, you are in prison because of someone's opinion or emotion that leads to the creation of that law. That makes sense
magkaiba ang law mismo kesa dun sa how a the courts judge cases bossing, they are judging based on evidence kaya it is the evidence that is objective and not the law itselfSo, you mean we are just following someone's personal opinion or emotion? So, if pinasuhan ka then you're proven guilty by the court that follows our laws. That means, you are in prison because of someone's opinion or emotion that leads to the creation of that law. That makes sense
Well, the court can't judge such evidences if there's no law. How would they interpret such evidences if there are no laws involved?
they judge cases based on the evidences according to law bossing, it is still the evidences which are objective here, they exist independently of any discretion as opposed to the law which existence and features totally depend on the law-making body's discretion
PH