There is no Z. But if we were to insist, then Z=X, regardless of how Z perceives himself. The question is, if Z thinks he is Y, how would Y conduct hi...
And that is our enquiry. It doesn't ignore the law (one can't ignore a stick across the back), it just refuses to accept it as law (because it fails t...
That always crossed my mind every time I saw a little crucifix around the neck of a political pundit on T.V. Of course it's easy to hide behind the al...
LOL! I'm not bent out of shape. I'm trying to help. I'm struggling with this shit but I'm most definitely not emotional about it. It's an intellectual...
:100: As has been said, integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking. If one were to do it otherwise, then it might be done as "leadershi...
That was all added after my last post. I respond here by simply reiterating what I said in response to the OP: It really brings to mind the term "inse...
Hence the extreme. The title of the thread is "Aggression motivated by inference." You appear to be starting with aggression, while I am starting with...
In the search I'm engaged in, this would be the case. I don't expect you to go read my post in thread on pronouns, but there I address my disinclinati...
When you use the word "masquerading" you are indeed focusing on the correctness or incorrectness of the terms. I don't believe weakness or stupidity a...
I use weak and stupid as a short hand for the opposite of strong and wise. If there are other, more palatable terms, then sub those in, apply them to ...
As I read that, one word keeps coming to mind: insecurity. Insecurity is understandable; relatable; human. I've tried to run this to ground by going t...
No. I thought exactly the same then as I do now. That is why I left. I loved law school, because it was all theoretical and aspirational and foundatio...
Operative word is "were." It is not site that is short on space. I'm just short on the desire to go fetch your reading for you or regurgitate it here....
True story: My partner was arguing before a tribal judge (he was a lay judge, as often happens). The judge had the robe and all the trappings, but he ...
Again, I don't know how many of you people actually read a thread, but that horse has been beat to death. Asked and answered. There are many, but I'm ...
Only laws based on reason. If I rule by fiat, that is no reason, and is therefor no law. No, you would not. You'd be using reason in support of your l...
It is if there is reason. Your example is flip and references no reason for any selection. That makes it arbitrary and capricious and subject to the l...
LOL! You may find this surprising, but I agree with everything you just said. I guess our only disagreement lies in the distinction between what is (y...
I don't think anything can rescue positivism. Reference to the body of the law as a whole, or the spirit, or whatever you want to call it, is referenc...
Saw this on social media this morning. Nails it: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-int...
Someone has to be the gatekeeper. In a private for profit organization like Faux News, they aren't going to let the opposition have a fair shake becau...
That sounds reasonable to me. One word that covers all principles is "reason." Reason was used to arrive at the law, regardless of the type of, but st...
No one said laws don't exist, but if your gut tells you one should and it doesn't, I hope you bring that up. Maybe you'll have a case of first impress...
It tries. Sometimes it succeeds. Often it must be tweeked and refined as it keeps running head long into Natural Law. Like the example above: 1. X can...
How so? I don't know where you live, but I qualified it to the U.S. If you are an American Citizen and you know of someone else who enacted the Declar...
Our (U.S.) Founding Fathers hold much sway. Sure, the courts try to stay within the four corners of an organic document or statute, but whenever there...
I think we (Hanover and I) are in accord. So far, I've not seen much daylight between us. There are some spots where we could make an argument but a l...
Historically, there is consensus. The simple dictionary definition need not be appealed to, though it is clearly there. Then there is the debates of o...
No, we can use the definitions found in the dictionary, as set forth by Hanover, above. I was trying to find the substance of Ciceronianus the White's...
No one ever said they were. They are Natural Law, not mere law. I'm not sure if you've been following this thread, but we have been using the term "la...
That analogy breaks down because the meal is the sum of it's parts. Whereas the law is not the sum of Natural Law. It is a mere pretender to it. To st...
First, you assume too much. Second, it's not about expectation. Natural Law has nothing to do with expectation. If someone smacks you upside the head ...
This thread went down that rabbit hole at the beginning. I could not believe the OP would be saying nothing more than X=X (i.e. the law is the law is ...
And that is why some people don't recognize the law. It's not their law. The idea that zealous advocacy confined by law, will somehow produce a legal ...
All which you describe (from feeling to reason; from individual to community) precedes the reduction of it to writing, and it constitutes Natural Law ...
To the extent the stick was used, they weren't. To the extent the stick was not required, agreement came by persuasion which is based on reason. Study...
Ever since it tried to get along without the stick. Life's a lot easier when people go along with you because they agree with you. You know, reason. B...
You are failing to parse what you and I both have been parsing all along: A distinction between Natural Law and law. I even tried "law law" when I tho...
Comments