The point is Z to illustrate the self-contradictory and illogic your views, in other words to refute your crap.
And you think you are "refuting my crap" do you?
LOL
Take that one -which you just made it up. Black culture is not the main culture of the the United States, so according to you it doesn't matter what they do, only white culture matters and they get to set the norms of behavior. That's dumb for obvious reasons. It is irrelevent how many people are within a culture, it is still a culture.
I said it doesn't matter what a sub culture does? It does if that sub culture breaks the law...and if they don't violate the law then they should be allowed to exist.
Most sub cultures are reactionary in nature to the primary culture, and often engage in criminal behavior because they deviate for the norm and mores in some respect...some lawful, some unlawful.
The KKK is a subculture who have a history of violence and criminal activity.
So a sub culture deviates, but they don't consider themselves deviants at all. The primary culture labels them deviants because they hold the primary culture as absolutely right, and if you are not in agreement with them you are a deviant. This is all relative morality, comparative morality, which generally is used to justify one's own moral position.
That's stupid, again for obvious reasons, mainly being laws will be made on the basis of a people's culture and are a reflection of it.
The laws reflect the values and morals of the primary culture, but the sub cultures do not agree with the dominant values, so they reject those values. Does this mean they are immoral? No, it means they are different and sometimes their morality drives them to act in illegal ways.
The law doesn't differentiate between the primary or sub cultures, it is blind to the culture aspect, but there is no denying the sub cultures often produce more criminal behavior that is reflective of the sub culture, which is standing in opposition to the primary culture.
You seem to be very confused about the concept of morality which is changing all the time over the course of time, and laws which often change only after the moral compass moves on the primary culture.
But if their culture opposes the law since they think the law is wrong, then why pass judgment? -according to your own self-contradictory statements
If a culture opposes the law, and they act in an unlawful manner, they will suffer the consequences of the law.
The law is the bottom line in every situation, and the decision to hold every person to the strict aspects of the law. We have a sub culture in America, the wealthy and famous, who routinely escape the punishment by the law because of their status as compared to a poor black man who does the same things...
If RM has a better lawyer because he can afford it he might not go to jail where a poor black man doing the same thing with a crappy public defender goes to jail.
The law is the same in both cases, but the application of the law varies in accordance with the financial ability to hire the best council, etc.
But that wasn't the point, the point is that laws are an aspect of culture, which are judged and evolve. If you can't bring yourself to condemn slavery simply because someone's law permits it, then you are a self-serving hypocrite becuase you rant about all sorts of shit on this forum.
Laws are an aspect of the dominant culture, not the sub cultures. The sub cultures often reject the primary culture and are punished accordingly.
It's not moral absoluteness, it's the evolving sense of decency. If you have no sense of decency and judge things like sex with ten year olds, then the culture and law never changes. Cultures and subcultures are judged all the time or they would not evolve.
So you are saying "we" are more evolved than them, and some other country who has abolished the death penalty looks at the US and claims they are morally superior...
Laws are not the absolute standards of morality as you have presented. They evolve along with cultures, so your measuring stick of 'well it's in the law' is nonsense.
I have not said laws are the absolute standards of morality as the laws are mutable.
That which is mutable and changes is of course not absolute, it is relative. So the moral absoluteists around here are without any absolute foundation. Just moralists from a relative perspective.
Americans say killing is wrong, but collateral damage is right.
It is silly, but of course Americans rationalize killing in the name of righteous all the time, just like the Muslims do...
