Tagged: ,

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #310
    russell rayne
    Participant

    greetings cara and greg; i shall be at the link 11:00 am pacific standard time usa; i hope this becomes a weekly practice; peacebewithallove.

    #324
    Delphine Noelke
    Participant

    Hello Cara

    I, was meditating about your speeding ticket example, whether it is or not in alginement with yourself to pay depending on the situation. However, i, feel there is a big timeline problem as the purpose of preventing wo/men from speeding is to prevent accidents that have not yet taken place. So if i, tell you you did something wrong although you where just speeding, which does not cause harm unless you have an accident, i, would charge you for harm you could have possibly done in the future but that has not taken place yet. This is not possible as i, can only ask you to take responsability for what is happening right now in the present. So to me it is never possible to be held liable for harm you did not effectively cause and which is based on „something could have happened (or not) in the future.

    „See“ you tomorrow,
    Delphine

    #326
    Cara tissandier
    Participant

    Very true Delphine, thank you for sharing x

    #330
    Greg Vogel
    Participant

    Thanks Delphine for sharing your perspective! Maybe there’s a middle ground where both you and Cara are right on the speeding situation? i am not sure what that looks like exactly, but both scenarios seems to contain something true in them. If i live in a neighborhood, and a wo/man is recklessly driving double the speed limit with my kids playing in the yard, i would have an issue with that even though no one was hurt. however, if the speeder did not cause harm it would be difficult to penalize them (and therefore cause them harm) for a potential future incident that never happened. How do we find a middle ground here? Would be great if Greg or Jon offered their opinion. 🙂

    #333
    Delphine Noelke
    Participant

    i totally understand you wanting the lady to stop speeding. i have the impression that law for mankind forces you to accept much more behaviours as you can only act as soon as harm was done (although we certainly need to understand what can be labelled harm). Speeding in a neighbourhood where kids play outside is not in alignment with responsible behaviour as parents are living in constant fear something could happen, so maybe we can say that it is not a good behaviour just because you cannot be hold liable for something ? I guess the question also is why is someone speeding, because of stress or pressure at work for instance ? In that case we all together need to transform the society we live, sort of stop feeding the cause for such a behaviour. And in that sense it is work in progress as Jon and Greg said so well the other evening 🙂 (sorry for the grammar mistakes, but i cannot change my text anymore, i am unable to go back by clicking in the text, so i hope you got my idea anyway^^)

    #334
    Cara tissandier
    Participant

    A loving way may be to issue a warning to the driver, noticing them that reckless driving can cause harm. Charges could be applied after three notices and then more severe consequences. Harm may not be caused but reckless behaviour is not loving so remedy is perhaps needed because if the principle of law is to love then any unloving act is unlawful. I think it was Jon that said failing to be a man or woman brings dishonour upon them.

    #772

    i; revna peace, do say; that, i would welcome some zoom sessions after the call each week, or; at least, on a regular basis; to meet you all and discus

    #1005763
    Leslie Hathaway
    Participant

    Hi Greg,
    i’m in the current class and just ended up looking at this forum and saw this comment. i’m in mountain time as well. Northwest New Mexico

    #1005764
    Leslie Hathaway
    Participant

    Fear is harm.

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.