What do you believe is moral?

[Anon136]

Here's something I've been thinking about:

It seems quite understandable to me why people would choose to argue in favor of (personal) freedom and a free society (whatever that might mean). Even if their visions of how such a thing might work or be achieved can be perceived as naive, idealistic or flat out impossible by some.

What I don't understand are people who would choose to argue against a free society. Are they convinced they have figured out that it definitely can't work? Why?...

What if there's no such thing as freedom? What if it's just propaganda? "You should _____ (go fight this war, etc) to prevent ______ (Hell/terrorism/lack of freedoms) and increase your freedoms!" If oil-war propaganda seems obvious, then what about anti-govt propaganda?:

"You should _____ (reject governments and democracy, etc) to prevent ______ (Hell/coercion/taxes/lack of freedoms) and increase your freedoms!"

Uh, to me it seems that freedom has a circular, dualistic definition -- it's the lack of bad stuff, or relatively more good stuff, as claimed by the people talking about it... In other words, it's bullshit. And, in the context of criticising alternative politics like An-Cap and whatnot, I don't think anyone's opposing freedom in any way, they're just saying it wouldn't be as good as you think.

this is the defintion that google gives and i think its pretty good: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. I mean you are free to define any word you like any way you like but i think this is much closer to what most people mean when they use the word than "the lack of bad stuff, or relatively more good stuff, as claimed by the people talking about it"

I was generalising. "Good stuff" and "bad stuff" are pretty much just place-holders for what you just said.
More good stuff:
"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants..."
Less bad stuff:
"...without hindrance or restraint."

What hindrance or restraint, one might ask? Whatever might cause less:
"power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants" of course! And what would that be? "Less freedom".

And round and round in circles the definition goes!

I understand. You've got a pretty good point.

[ErisDiscordia]

Illusory goals are always handy.  What use is the notion of paradise to anyone on earth?  Yet many claim that organised religion has been used to keep the riffraff from plucking chickens, sharpening pitchforks & tarring torches  Placate the plebes with false hopes & distract them with false goals.  Shangri La!  Heaven!  Freedomz! Nirvana!

Oh now I get it! We're being controlled and kept in place by propaganda convincing us that we can be free! Thanks for explaining this to me.

[crumbs]

crumbs do you have a moral code that you live by? are there things that you think are immoral?

I think so.  "Moral" is not the first word that pops up in my head -- more like "wrong" or "bad" or "eww."  "Moral" is just makes me think prim/preachy/uptight church ladies.  I don't think i ever used it IRL other than in conversations like this one.  Your post got lost in all of the wall-o-text posts

[crumbs]

Illusory goals are always handy.  What use is the notion of paradise to anyone on earth?  Yet many claim that organised religion has been used to keep the riffraff from plucking chickens, sharpening pitchforks & tarring torches  Placate the plebes with false hopes & distract them with false goals.  Shangri La!  Heaven!  Freedomz! Nirvana!

Oh now I get it! We're being controlled and kept in place by propaganda convincing us that we can be free! Thanks for explaining this to me.

Just a hypothetical, ErisDiscordia, ^DON'T^LOOK UP^ and All lies! not even true.  
See how well subliminal suggestion works?  You thought you were ^just^forget^it  and while you were distracted i've seecritly brainwashed you.  Now you think that you never ever believed a word of my stupid rant about freedomz.  The mind is more powerful than you can imagine!

[FirstAscent]

this is the defintion that google gives and i think its pretty good: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. I mean you are free to define any word you like any way you like but i think this is much closer to what most people mean when they use the word than "the lack of bad stuff, or relatively more good stuff, as claimed by the people talking about it"

That's a great definition. Just highly undesirable.

Imagine: Your fellow neighbors have the power or right to murder, rape, maim, blackmail, steal, speak, or think as they wish without hindrance or restraint.

[Anon136]

crumbs do you have a moral code that you live by? are there things that you think are immoral?

I think so.  "Moral" is not the first word that pops up in my head -- more like "wrong" or "bad" or "eww."  "Moral" is just makes me think prim/preachy/uptight church ladies.  I don't think i ever used it IRL other than in conversations like this one.  Your post got lost in all of the wall-o-text posts

understood. my moral code stems solely from my own intuition as well though i dont have any qualms about calling it morality. when someone says wrong in a context like this i just assume it to mean immoral so it works, i just prefer morality because its more specific. wrong tends to deal more with the objective, like does two plus two equal three. where as moral and immoral deals explicitly in the realm of subjectivity.

[FirstAscent]

crumbs do you have a moral code that you live by? are there things that you think are immoral?

I think so.  "Moral" is not the first word that pops up in my head -- more like "wrong" or "bad" or "eww."  "Moral" is just makes me think prim/preachy/uptight church ladies.  I don't think i ever used it IRL other than in conversations like this one.  Your post got lost in all of the wall-o-text posts

understood. my moral code stems solely from my own intuition as well though i dont have any qualms about calling it morality. when someone says wrong in a context like this i just assume it to mean immoral so it works, i just prefer morality because its more specific. wrong tends to deal more with the objective, like does two plus two equal three. where as moral and immoral deals explicitly in the realm of subjectivity.

Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.

Intuition plus ignorance on a subject is a dangerous combination.

[Spendulus]

crumbs do you have a moral code that you live by? are there things that you think are immoral?

I think so.  "Moral" is not the first word that pops up in my head -- more like "wrong" or "bad" or "eww."  "Moral" is just makes me think prim/preachy/uptight church ladies.  I don't think i ever used it IRL other than in conversations like this one.  Your post got lost in all of the wall-o-text posts

understood. my moral code stems solely from my own intuition as well though i dont have any qualms about calling it morality. when someone says wrong in a context like this i just assume it to mean immoral so it works, i just prefer morality because its more specific. wrong tends to deal more with the objective, like does two plus two equal three. where as moral and immoral deals explicitly in the realm of subjectivity.

Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.

Intuition plus ignorance on a subject is a dangerous combination.

I tend to follow the rule that if a politician says he wants to take my money for some environmental issues, he's a fucking liar.  And if some anonymous person on the Internet tries to lecture me about environmental morality, he's a fucking idiot.

Now, is that intuition?

I guess I have no idea if it is or not.

[FirstAscent]

crumbs do you have a moral code that you live by? are there things that you think are immoral?

I think so.  "Moral" is not the first word that pops up in my head -- more like "wrong" or "bad" or "eww."  "Moral" is just makes me think prim/preachy/uptight church ladies.  I don't think i ever used it IRL other than in conversations like this one.  Your post got lost in all of the wall-o-text posts

understood. my moral code stems solely from my own intuition as well though i dont have any qualms about calling it morality. when someone says wrong in a context like this i just assume it to mean immoral so it works, i just prefer morality because its more specific. wrong tends to deal more with the objective, like does two plus two equal three. where as moral and immoral deals explicitly in the realm of subjectivity.

Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.

Intuition plus ignorance on a subject is a dangerous combination.

I tend to follow the rule that if a politician says he wants to take my money for some environmental issues, he's a fucking liar.  And if some anonymous person on the Internet tries to lecture me about environmental morality, he's a fucking idiot.

Now, is that intuition?

Sounds like willful ignorance to me.

I guess I have no idea if it is or not.

I clarified it for you.

[Rassah]

Since you claim to be an atheist, you come off particularly lulzy when you resort to morality in debate.
Religious people have canonical texts -- the Qur'an, the Bible, etc., to offer immutable truths -- irrefutable foundations on which to build their ethical codes. If asked "why is lending for profit immoral," a Muslim will reply: "Because it is abhorrent to God, my holy book tells me so."  You?  You have nothing but gut feelings to base your morality on.

This is a debate I have quite often in religious circles. They claim, wrongly, that morals come from god. Some others on this forum even claim that morals come from government laws. They are wrong, because their religious and legal texts are simply written versions of the innate morals and ethics we all have. We as a species are genetically predisposed to recognize items and territory we own, and to form close societies who's members we help in order to help our tribe survive and out-reproduce competing tribes. Some people just decided to take those innate objective morals, such as respect other people's stuff (including life) and help those in need, wrote them into books, and claimed that they came from some higher source.
I do try to use the word "ethical" instead of "moral" as much as I could, since that's probably more precise, but having been a religious catholic in the past, sometimes I revert to using moral for whatever reason.

You say taxation is immoral, i say Christ was explicitly fine with it, though he didn't mince words when it came to commerce, calling the merchants & money changers trading in the temple "a den of thieves."

Jesus didn't have issues with merchants, just money changers.

#1 is false, and since the entire argument is predicated on it, the whole thing's junk.

The difference between the muggers & the government is simple:  There are no contracts or predefined agreements between the victim & the muggers, while there is between you and the US government:  It's called the body of law & the combined tax codes.  

Define contract. Are you using the legal definition, or just the whatever you think it means definition?

[Rassah]

"You should _____ (go fight this war, etc) to prevent ______ (Hell/terrorism/lack of freedoms) and increase your freedoms!"

"You should _____ (reject governments and democracy, etc) to prevent ______ (Hell/coercion/taxes/lack of freedoms) and increase your freedoms!"

Uh, to me it seems that freedom has a circular, dualistic definition

I'm not sure why that is circular. Both of those examples are basically "You should fight against whoever it is trying to oppress you and take your property/rights. Just because some people are dumb and easily coerced into fighting for things that have nothing to do with them personally doesn't change the fact that freedom is simply being able to do what you want and keep what you own, and fighting for it is simply keeping others from infringing on that.

[Rassah]

Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.

Why are environmental issues immoral/unethical?

[FirstAscent]

Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.

Why are environmental issues immoral/unethical?

This is in response to the deleterious effects of ignorance, a byproduct of people who have strong opinions of morality combined with ignorance and an unwillingness to research and educate themselves. Someone who claims the high moral ground about their right to do what they will, land usage wise, are collectively destructive to society and its future when they operate with the belief that their decisions, based on their ideas of morals exempt them from further study and understanding.

[Rassah]

Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.

Why are environmental issues immoral/unethical?

This is in response to the deleterious effects of ignorance, a byproduct of people who have strong opinions of morality combined with ignorance and an unwillingness to research and educate themselves.

If a moral/ethical person is ignorant, you can just teach them that their actions are directly affecting someone else's property, be it the water they drink or the air they breathe. The ethical person who respects property rights would change their actions to mitigate damage, or at least be made aware of consequences. If the person remains ignorant, how is that any different from a shoplifter or a vandal? If it's not, we have ways of dealing with people who damage other's property. So, is the real issue the ethics of environmental issues (you are damaging property), or trying to convince people that their actions are damaging property? (like the issue of global warming deniers)? And if it's the later, then how will having a majority not be convinced help government pass environmental laws against the wishes of that majority?

I guess my long convoluted point is that, it's not the government enforcement that we need to focus on (since the government won't even have the laws to enforce), it's the message and the explanation of property damage.

[crumbs]

Since you claim to be an atheist, you come off particularly lulzy when you resort to morality in debate.
Religious people have canonical texts -- the Qur'an, the Bible, etc., to offer immutable truths -- irrefutable foundations on which to build their ethical codes. If asked "why is lending for profit immoral," a Muslim will reply: "Because it is abhorrent to God, my holy book tells me so."  You?  You have nothing but gut feelings to base your morality on.

This is a debate I have quite often in religious circles. They claim, wrongly, that morals come from god. Some others on this forum even claim that morals come from government laws. They are wrong, because their religious and legal texts are simply written versions of the innate morals and ethics we all have. We as a species are genetically predisposed to recognize items and territory we own, and to form close societies who's members we help in order to help our tribe survive and out-reproduce competing tribes. Some people just decided to take those innate objective morals, such as respect other people's stuff (including life) and help those in need, wrote them into books, and claimed that they came from some higher source.

There's really nothing to debate.  A Christian believes the Bible is divinely inspired, the canonical text of Christianity.  He believes it to be true by definition, this belief is axiomatic to Christianity.  Christians may create a derivative set of secular guidelines -- their moral code -- based on the Bible.  This set of ethics is both derivative and subservient to the higher law -- God's law.  About the only debatable part is the derivation itself -- how well the Biblical text was interpreted, but that's a pretty boring debate  If you do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, you're not alone, though that's an entirely different topic, as long as the Christian believes it to be.

You say taxation is immoral, i say Christ was explicitly fine with it, though he didn't mince words when it came to commerce, calling the merchants & money changers trading in the temple "a den of thieves."

Jesus didn't have issues with merchants, just money changers.

Why quibble over the details of a book you think is bull anyways?  Hint:  Moneychangers do not sell doves.  Learn to Bible.

#1 is false, and since the entire argument is predicated on it, the whole thing's junk.

The difference between the muggers & the government is simple:  There are no contracts or predefined agreements between the victim & the muggers, while there is between you and the US government:  It's called the body of law & the combined tax codes.  

Define contract. Are you using the legal definition, or just the whatever you think it means definition?

In your particular case, i define it as the oath you and/or your parents had to take to become citizens of US of A.  A very hardcore & legally-binding contract, and one which many people would love to be able to enter into.  Anything else i could clear up?

[FirstAscent]

Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.

Why are environmental issues immoral/unethical?

This is in response to the deleterious effects of ignorance, a byproduct of people who have strong opinions of morality combined with ignorance and an unwillingness to research and educate themselves.

If a moral/ethical person is ignorant, you can just teach them that their actions are directly affecting someone else's property, be it the water they drink or the air they breathe. The ethical person who respects property rights would change their actions to mitigate damage, or at least be made aware of consequences. If the person remains ignorant, how is that any different from a shoplifter or a vandal? If it's not, we have ways of dealing with people who damage other's property. So, is the real issue the ethics of environmental issues (you are damaging property), or trying to convince people that their actions are damaging property? (like the issue of global warming deniers)? And if it's the later, then how will having a majority not be convinced help government pass environmental laws against the wishes of that majority?

I guess my long convoluted point is that, it's not the government enforcement that we need to focus on (since the government won't even have the laws to enforce), it's the message and the explanation of property damage.

You act as if I haven't been trying to educate anon, yet he refuses to listen. Furthermore, scroll back a little and look at the words of Spendulus.

[Rassah]

Since you claim to be an atheist, you come off particularly lulzy when you resort to morality in debate.

This is a debate I have quite often in religious circles. They claim, wrongly, that morals come from god. Some others on this forum even claim that morals come from government laws. They are wrong, because their religious and legal texts are simply written versions of the innate morals and ethics we all have.

There's really nothing to debate.  About the only debatable part is the derivation itself

Which is the crux of my point - that morality and ethics are rooted in innate objective values - even the ones that get written into religious and legal books my moral/ethical people. What specifically do you find lulzy? Do you think that ethics and morals are all made up, and are all subjective?

Why quibble over the details of a book you think is bull anyways?  Hint:  Moneychangers do not sell doves.  Learn to Bible.

Hint: merchants do not sell or exchange money. Learn to bible.

Define contract. Are you using the legal definition, or just the whatever you think it means definition?

In your particular case, i define it as the oath you and/or your parents had to take to become citizens of US of A.  A very hardcore & legally-binding contract, and one which many people would love to be able to enter into.  Anything else i could clear up?

Yeah, an oath is not any kind of contract, and especially not a legally binding one. A contract requires an offer, consideration (i.e. both parties bringing something of value), and acceptance. I was not offered citizenship, and neither were people born here. There is no consideration on the citizen's part. They are required to give up value, without the government being required to give value in return. And there was no acceptance stage by any citizens. It was forced and pretty much accepted as a given. The other important part of a contract is termination. Your service provider is legally obligated to keep providing you service as long as you pay, but you can stop paying, and they can't keep forcing you to take their services and charge you for it. Even if there is a fee to terminate the contract, once you pay it, the contract is terminated. Likewise, in a trade contract, you can pay to buy the item you agreed to, but you can not be forced to keep buying more items. Without termination, a "contract" is actually indentured servitude or extortion. (P.S. Learn to Business) So, if my citizenship is a contract, it wasn't I was offered or that I accepted (I was underage), there is no consideration, since I am obligated to pay regardless if I use the service I am paying for, and, most importantly, there is no termination that would allow me to either pay for whatever I'm still due for and not buy any more services, or even pre-pay some huge amount to buy all the services in advance, and never have to pay again. In the contrary, the more I am able to pay for the service to try to get out of it, the more I am charged (higher taxes on more wealth).

So, call it whatever the hell you want, but don't call it a contract. It doesn't fit the legal or the ethical definition. At most it is forced obedience at the threat of a gun, for sitting on property some entity arbitrarily claimed as their own.

[crumbs]

Since you claim to be an atheist, you come off particularly lulzy when you resort to morality in debate.

This is a debate I have quite often in religious circles. They claim, wrongly, that morals come from god. Some others on this forum even claim that morals come from government laws. They are wrong, because their religious and legal texts are simply written versions of the innate morals and ethics we all have.

There's really nothing to debate.  About the only debatable part is the derivation itself

Which is the crux of my point - that morality and ethics are rooted in innate objective values - even the ones that get written into religious and legal books my moral/ethical people. What specifically do you find lulzy? Do you think that ethics and morals are all made up, and are all subjective?

"Rooted in innate, objective values" is particularly lulzworthy.  you may *think* that the Bible codifies human gut feelings & superstitions, but that's not what Christians believe -- Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God.  So if the Bible is what the Christians believe it to be, it is *explicitly not derived from the secular realm.*  If it is written "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" -- it is what Christian mores are based on.  You may disagree, but you'd have to base your morals on a *different set of innate & objective values*.  So if the values vary, perhaps they're not so innate or objective?

Why quibble over the details of a book you think is bull anyways?  Hint:  Moneychangers do not sell doves.  Learn to Bible.

Hint: merchants do not sell or exchange money. Learn to bible.

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves..."  KJB

Define contract. Are you using the legal definition, or just the whatever you think it means definition?

In your particular case, i define it as the oath you and/or your parents had to take to become citizens of US of A.  A very hardcore & legally-binding contract, and one which many people would love to be able to enter into.  Anything else i could clear up?

Yeah, an oath is not any kind of contract, and especially not a legally binding one.

It is legally binding.  Stop it with the silly biz 101 definitions.  If you want to find out *how* legally binding it is, go and break some lawz in front of a cop.  That's the truly scientific, empirical method.  Come back & tell me how it went, this is getting tedious.  

k?

[Rassah]

Which is the crux of my point - that morality and ethics are rooted in innate objective values - even the ones that get written into religious and legal books my moral/ethical people. What specifically do you find lulzy? Do you think that ethics and morals are all made up, and are all subjective?

"Rooted in innate, objective values" is particularly lulzworthy.  you may *think* that the Bible codifies human gut feelings & superstitions, but that's not what Christians believe -- Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God.  So if the Bible is what the Christians believe it to be, it is *explicitly not derived from the secular realm.*  If it is written "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" -- it is what Christian mores are based on.  You may disagree, but you'd have to base your morals on a *different set of innate & objective values*.  So if the values vary, perhaps they're not so innate or objective?

   *sigh* It doesn't matter what christians believe. The bible was written by people. The only thing that matters is where the ethics and morals in the bible came from. Sure, there are weird eccentricities that have more to do with the times during  which the writers have lived, but read every religious text and the law of every country, and you'll find a set of ethics that are universal to everything. Things like don't take other people's stuff, don't lie and steal, don't murder, and help those who need it. It doesn't even matter if the cultures had prior interactions, or only existed on opposite sides of the planet. That tells me that there are innate, objective values, with some cultures dressing them up with extra frills and bullshit for various reasons (usually control).

Define contract. Are you using the legal definition, or just the whatever you think it means definition?

In your particular case, i define it as the oath you and/or your parents had to take to become citizens of US of A.  A very hardcore & legally-binding contract, and one which many people would love to be able to enter into.  Anything else i could clear up?

Yeah, an oath is not any kind of contract, and especially not a legally binding one.

It is legally binding.  Stop it with the silly biz 101 definitions.  If you want to find out *how* legally binding it is, go and break some lawz in front of a cop.  That's the truly scientific, empirical method.  Come back & tell me how it went, this is getting tedious.  

k?

Stop conflating crimes defined by objective morals and codified in books (laws) with contracts or oaths attempted to be passed as contracts (so-called "social contracts" and citizenship). The two are not even remotely related. If they were, had I been an illegal immigrant, then in your example the cop would have no obligation to do anything since I have no "legally binding contract" with this country. I'm not questioning whether the government things my participation and submission is legally binding. Just don't call it a contract, because it's not. If I were to kidnap you, put an explosive collar around your neck that will blow up if you leave the house, and wrote down a "law" on a piece of paper that said that you are obligated to stay in the house and to clean it once a week, that would also be "legally binding" on you, enforced in much the same way as government law (threat of force, and in case of USSR/China ban on crossing borders). But no one would consider you being in a contract with me.

[crumbs]

Which is the crux of my point - that morality and ethics are rooted in innate objective values - even the ones that get written into religious and legal books my moral/ethical people. What specifically do you find lulzy? Do you think that ethics and morals are all made up, and are all subjective?

"Rooted in innate, objective values" is particularly lulzworthy.  you may *think* that the Bible codifies human gut feelings & superstitions, but that's not what Christians believe -- Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God.  So if the Bible is what the Christians believe it to be, it is *explicitly not derived from the secular realm.*  If it is written "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" -- it is what Christian mores are based on.  You may disagree, but you'd have to base your morals on a *different set of innate & objective values*.  So if the values vary, perhaps they're not so innate or objective?

   *sigh* It doesn't matter what christians believe. The bible was written by people.

A Christian would say that's utter garbage.  "It is divinely inspired," he'd say, "the people writing it were merely conduits for God, no more its authors than a pen or keyboard."  Before having theological discussions, why not brush up on the topic?

The only thing that matters is where the ethics and morals in the bible came from. Sure, there are weird eccentricities that have more to do with the times during  which the writers have lived, but read every religious text and the law of every country, and you'll find a set of ethics that are universal to everything. Things like don't take other people's stuff, don't lie and steal, don't murder, and help those who need it. It doesn't even matter if the cultures had prior interactions, or only existed on opposite sides of the planet. That tells me that there are innate, objective values, with some cultures dressing them up with extra frills and bullshit for various reasons (usually control).

What are you saying?  That all moral codes are identical?  That save for some "weird eccentricities," stripped of "extra frills," everything's the same?  Just what is the escence, and what are "extra frills"?
You don't find it odd that rednecks think it's their moral duty to kill fags & fags think murder is the only moral thing to do with the rednecks?  You don't see any difference?  It just tells you that there are inane, objective values?  Sorry, but this really is degenerating into silliness.

Define contract. Are you using the legal definition, or just the whatever you think it means definition?

In your particular case, i define it as the oath you and/or your parents had to take to become citizens of US of A.  A very hardcore & legally-binding contract, and one which many people would love to be able to enter into.  Anything else i could clear up?

Yeah, an oath is not any kind of contract, and especially not a legally binding one.

It is legally binding.  Stop it with the silly biz 101 definitions.  If you want to find out *how* legally binding it is, go and break some lawz in front of a cop.  That's the truly scientific, empirical method.  Come back & tell me how it went, this is getting tedious.  

k?

Stop conflating crimes defined by objective morals and codified in books (laws) with contracts or oaths attempted to be passed as contracts (so-called "social contracts" and citizenship). The two are not even remotely related. If they were, had I been an illegal immigrant, then in your example the cop would have no obligation to do anything since I have no "legally binding contract" with this country.

Had you been an illegal immigrant, there would be no contract, you'd be thrown out of the country, not made to pay taxes.  

I'm not questioning whether the government things my participation and submission is legally binding. Just don't call it a contract, because it's not.

Orly?

If I were to kidnap you, put an explosive collar around your neck that will blow up if you leave the house, and wrote down a "law" on a piece of paper that said that you are obligated to stay in the house and to clean it once a week, that would also be "legally binding" on you, enforced in much the same way as government law (threat of force, and in case of USSR/China ban on crossing borders). But no one would consider you being in a contract with me.

U should take me up on my offer, and collect some empirical data -- go and break some lawz in front of a cop.  Then you can try your astute & incisive reasoning on him, and see if he's easier to convince than i am.  If that doesn't go over well, you can try the same song & dance in front of a judge, a jury -- sheet, bro -- drag it all the way to the Supreme Court.  I'll be right here, and i'll publicly acknowledge my derpiness if things work out in your favor.  Make sure to use your cleverific "definition of contract" defence (make sure to use the word "conflate" -- it's a winrar!). k?