letterman pwns o'reilly...

[Foo]

canis you're just completely confusing your terms - or deliberately switching between them as soon as one gets shaky.

Same kind of logic Krakass uses in a lot of his posts, you just keep re-rationalising things in slightly different terms each time to make it seem as though your point hasn't been refuted.

[menkent]

canis' basic argument seems to be "it's not against the rules unless you get caught and punished"

somewhere tom delay just got a stiffy and ayn rand came all over herself.

[plained]

gosh oh golly noone sayd why dave doen get into it with this guy so ... hey no reason

[prince1000]

damn i thought this thread was gonna be more midnightQ4 making stuff up and defending o'reilly...

[SplishSplash]

I wouldn't really say "owned" O'Reilly spouts his usual crap and Letterman replies with "60% of what you say is crap."

That's not owning. That's name-calling.

O'Reilly is a lot more tame on other shows than his own, specifically so he won't get owned.

[Canis]

canis you're just completely confusing your terms - or deliberately switching between them as soon as one gets shaky.

Same kind of logic Krakass uses in a lot of his posts, you just keep re-rationalising things in slightly different terms each time to make it seem as though your point hasn't been refuted.

Not in the least, or if it appears that way its unintentional.

It seems someone cannot form an argument without such attacks. Folks just resort to "you're just confused man", or "bwahahah you're stupid" instead of trying to clarify issues.

[Canis]

How can you make such a statement? Yes it sure does say that: "A rule (or whole body of rules) recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority" is exactly what I'm talking about. It requires a controlling agency that has established authority over those who the law is meant for, hence an agency that can administer control over and enforce such laws. Its a body that's active in upholding the laws.

Common law as they describe is the same thing, only specifically the active enforcement of the laws, but still requires the controlling unit.

In the case of the UN, their lack of control and their lack of authority gives them little credibility in establishing "international law"

Notice the OR there Canis.

"A rule (or whole body of rules) recognized as binding OR enforced by a controlling authority"

OR.

Just being recognized as binding makes it a law. Such as the United States government signing and ratifying international laws into US law.

And right in the Constitution, it says that any law ratified by the government becomes legally binding as a United States law as well.

You are using Bush-esque wordsmithing to say that a law we have signed, ratified and accepted is not really a law, simply because we don't want to follow it and noone can stop us.

I guess to clarify I'm arguing on the practicality of "law" and what differs it from morality, or any other set of rules. I do not agree with the notion that legal and common law is the same as any expected rule of conduct.

That "or" up there is still predicated by the notion of a controlling agency, and if one does not have control then that "or" argument is moot. My point has been regardless of where its written or by whom its written, law is not valid unless its enforcable. Maybe "valid" is poor word choice on my part as it treds on whether or not someone can even conceptualize "law", but I am talking about the purpose. If there was no lake around there'd be no point in conceptualizing a boat. It's a cool idea, but it will get you nowhere. In a similar way, there's no point in conceptualizing law if there's no way to enforce it and maintain it. Sure, its a nice idea, but there's no point to it. Before "law" in this sense, being established by a controlling party, rules and regulations based on expected conduct can be established for personal interests (dont trod on my space and I wont trod on yours, etc), however these are not "law". These are just expectations for mutual existance.

There is no wordsmithing going on here, I admit the positions are not very clear to folks, and I'm trying to figure out how to show my position in ways folks will at least recognzie. Its a shame you have to label this as Bush-esque instead of being a little more open.

[Canis]

canis' basic argument seems to be "it's not against the rules unless you get caught and punished"

somewhere tom delay just got a stiffy and ayn rand came all over herself.

My argument includes that for the practice of law; the practicality, if you will. However, its only a side issue that stems from what I'm talking about.

Let me get accross that I do not like that it is this way, and I wish it was the way others have mentioned, where conceptualizing "law" somehow gives it validity and credibility, but its just not the case in the practice of law. Bush uses this to get his way in the international arena, and he's succeeding. I do not agree with that and wish it wasnt so, but it is what's happening. I'm basing my view and my argument on what is occuring in practice, not what idealistically should occur.

A party can establish itself as having control and authority, but this is only if folks view them as such. If I do not recognize the governing party as applicable to me then there is no way I feel the laws they claim are something I'm compelled to obey. In a given society, where heirarchical systems are established by nature, control and authority is assumed and recognized in the population (ie: small town getting together and electing officials). In that scenario the town is the one with the control, as they will take it upon themselves to enforce the values they agree upon. The actions weigh heavily into morality, as folks develop laws based on their best interest, and how they'd like to be treated, etc. However, the establishment of these ideas as law implies one has the authority and the means of enforcing them.

[menkent]

you're making a sort of half-assed, objectivist argument that the only valid form of government is fascism.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

:icon19:

[Canis]

you're making a sort of half-assed, objectivist argument that the only valid form of government is fascism.

No, in a naive way, a look at what I'm saying from a rather narrow viewpoint would come to that as a sole conclusion. Taken applicably though, I'm going on reasons of putting law into practice, which requires there to be consequence for breaking the law (fines, credit marks, things of value taken away, whatever...some way of controlling the law and enacting it). You go through a stop-sign you get a fine. Anyone can claim law being "you cannot go through a stopsign", but until there are consequences for going through that stopsign there is no binding power to that law, and even by definition it is not a law. Granted our laws are escalatively enforced through convenience (ie: fine first, then arrest if the fine isnt paid, etc.). It a shame you're seeing my argument as only pertaining to military action, but if you will only view it as such, then I cant stop you.

In the international arena, there are two methods open for control: military power and economic power. Countries can ally together and evoke control, but even in alliances there are odds which frustrate the common goal. This one of the problems with the UN, and its charter, and its applicability in the international arena. It means nothing to the US if a bunch of countries get together and claim law and illegality in action. It means absolutely nothing unless those countries can do something about it. If they cannot do anything about it, the "law" they claim is meaningless to the actions taken by the US, and it will pass in history. The international arena is lawless by default, and evoking law as the UN has only comes from the notion of an alliance to back that law. Sadly the UN has proven such alliances arent very effective, and the law wich that "controlling agency" establishes is not effective, and therefore not valid. I would like to avoid absolutes as I just described, but I'm using them for the sake of argument. In reality its not quite as rigid.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

canis is a war criminal

[Canis]

Indeed, I am....I'm a bad, bad person.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Indeed, I am....I'm a bad, bad person.

well bad at logic anyway

[Canis]

Indeed, I am....I'm a bad, bad person.

well bad at logic anyway

....you're a joke. I'd say unbelievable, but its come to be expected.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Indeed, I am....I'm a bad, bad person.

well bad at logic anyway

....you're a joke. I'd say unbelievable, but its come to be expected.

so in your eyes you've been sensible in this thread whereas I haven't?

how many people reading this thread would agree with you on that?

[Canis]

I'm not worried about who agrees with me. I'm not differing myself based on sensibility. I think many of the arguments here have been sensible, despite my not agreeing with them. What I think about them is far different than what I voice in your direction, which is based off your personal attacks on me over the years.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

well i admit my tough love approach hasn't made you any smarter. that's for sure.

anyhow

[R00k]

I guess to clarify I'm arguing on the practicality of "law" and what differs it from morality, or any other set of rules. I do not agree with the notion that legal and common law is the same as any expected rule of conduct.

Who cares? That's not what the discussion is about. This discussion was fired right back up from the Vietnam argument.

You first said that our actions in Vietnam weren't illegal, because noone could prove that our sole and only purpose was killing innocents.

Now you're saying our actions in Vietnam weren't illegal, because there is no one to stop us.

After that, you said you don't agree with things being this way -- but Bush is using the exact same reasoning you are in order to pull off his single-minded agenda (by your own admission), so obviously you agree with the justifications he is using -- you just don't approve of them, even though you reached the exact same conclusions in your own mind that he did. Basically your argument is viciously circular and has no merit at all that I can see.

And here is something for you to think about; by your logic, all it takes for something to be illegal, is for people like you to actually ADMIT that it is illegal, and call for people to be held accountable for their actions. So how will you have it?

That "or" up there is still predicated by the notion of a controlling agency, and if one does not have control then that "or" argument is moot.

Selectively ignoring parts of your own arguments now.

And you still don't understand what Foo was talking about?

[Canis]

My consistent argument has been that the legality (clarified later as practical legality -- the relevant legality) has to do with the enforcibility of the "laws" that folks establish, based on the premise for the reason why we have this notion of "law".

I argued that in this sense vietnam isnt illegal. Its immoral and horrible, but not illegal, yes. I wish it were, but without a controlling body to intervene and prevent such actions it is not illegal. The idea of international law is an ideal (one I wish was enforcible like true common law in a given society), and it therefore has little weight in the international arena. Great! Regardless of details, if one can find illegality in the war in vietnam by researching the UN charter, the UN having no effect in stopping such action makes that claim of illegality irrelevant. Without enforcement, such claims become whining and bitching to the perpetrator who then has to deal with appeasing and applying self-righteous argument to support his actions and diminish the negative feedback, if that's in his interest. That's a "Bush-ism" as you describe it Rook. Recognizing that this occurs is not.

Why is it that folks assume despite my saying otherwise, that I'm advocating this as something I like? I dont like this at all, but am supporting that this is the case despite my wishes it were otherwise. This is the way it is, as is seen by example after example in the international arena.

In that quote I wasnt being selective at all. I'm taking the whole definiton into context instead of splitting it up. Saying or seeing that I'm selectively ignoring my argument is just showing you're not understanding my point.

My logic doesnt fall on the admission of illegality in order for it to be so; rather, my argument claims quite simply (something folks here seem to either choose not to see -- selective ignorance, anyone? -- or just dont see) that illegality has no merit beyond being condemnative unless someone can enforce it. It has no validity unless it can be enforced.

[Canis]

I guess to clarify I'm arguing on the practicality of "law" and what differs it from morality, or any other set of rules. I do not agree with the notion that legal and common law is the same as any expected rule of conduct.

Who cares? That's not what the discussion is about. This discussion was fired right back up from the Vietnam argument.

You first said that our actions in Vietnam weren't illegal, because noone could prove that our sole and only purpose was killing innocents.

Now you're saying our actions in Vietnam weren't illegal, because there is no one to stop us.

One is a more specific view of the other. In trying to avoid getting lost in specifics I've just labeled all claimed illegalities in the war in vietnam as "claims of illegality". The starvation claim and it being a sole purpose is one of them. I argued on a second stance that I dont believe it was their sole purpose to attack civilians, but thats different than the argument on the notion of legality/illegality in the international arena. They bridge on the basis of "what are folks going to do about it?" but that's tangential to the argument at hand.

There are multiple ideas being argued and discussed here. I know its tough to keep them separate at times, I have a hard time myself periodically. Lets not confuse issues even more by melding these various arguments together.

[R00k]

My consistent argument has been that the legality (clarified later as practical legality -- the relevant legality) has to do with the enforcibility of the "laws" that folks establish, based on the premise for the reason why we have this notion of "law".

I argued that in this sense vietnam isnt illegal. Its immoral and horrible, but not illegal, yes. I wish it were, but without a controlling body to intervene and prevent such actions it is not illegal. The idea of international law is an ideal (one I wish was enforcible like true common law in a given society), and it therefore has little weight in the international arena. Great! Regardless of details, if one can find illegality in the war in vietnam by researching the UN charter, the UN having no effect in stopping such action makes that claim of illegality irrelevant. Without enforcement, such claims become whining and bitching to the perpetrator who then has to deal with appeasing and applying self-righteous argument to support his actions and diminish the negative feedback, if that's in his interest. That's a "Bush-ism" as you describe it Rook. Recognizing that this occurs is not.

Why is it that folks assume despite my saying otherwise, that I'm advocating this as something I like? I dont like this at all, but am supporting that this is the case despite my wishes it were otherwise. This is the way it is, as is seen by example after example in the international arena.

In that quote I wasnt being selective at all. I'm taking the whole definiton into context instead of splitting it up. Saying or seeing that I'm selectively ignoring my argument is just showing you're not understanding my point.

My logic doesnt fall on the admission of illegality in order for it to be so; rather, my argument claims quite simply (something folks here seem to either choose not to see -- selective ignorance, anyone? -- or just dont see) that illegality has no merit beyond being condemnative unless someone can enforce it. It has no validity unless it can be enforced.

If the COMMUNITY agrees it's legal, then it is enforced by the COMMUNITY.

Which comes right down to your elected representatives being the cause of the problem you so lament.

But instead of saying that you believe it is illegal, and thereby holding them to account, you unleash the logic that "that's just the way it is, sorry suckers."

If I may, I believe this is what you are trying to say:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' … 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

[MKJ]

and also

[R00k]

I guess to clarify I'm arguing on the practicality of "law" and what differs it from morality, or any other set of rules. I do not agree with the notion that legal and common law is the same as any expected rule of conduct.

Who cares? That's not what the discussion is about. This discussion was fired right back up from the Vietnam argument.

You first said that our actions in Vietnam weren't illegal, because noone could prove that our sole and only purpose was killing innocents.

Now you're saying our actions in Vietnam weren't illegal, because there is no one to stop us.

One is a more specific view of the other. In trying to avoid getting lost in specifics I've just labeled all claimed illegalities in the war in vietnam as "claims of illegality". The starvation claim and it being a sole purpose is one of them. I argued on a second stance that I dont believe it was their sole purpose to attack civilians, but thats different than the argument on the notion of legality/illegality in the international arena. They bridge on the basis of "what are folks going to do about it?" but that's tangential to the argument at hand.

There are multiple ideas being argued and discussed here. I know its tough to keep them separate at times, I have a hard time myself periodically. Lets not confuse issues even more by melding these various arguments together.

Listen, I understand what you are trying to say - about the practical application of law.

My point is that it's a useless statement. Every one of us is painfully aware of how things are already working out with the UN and international law - we see it every day. What exactly are you trying to tell us that we don't already know?

After all, we were asking for your opinion; you basically answered "that's the way things are." If that's the best you can do when it comes to things like genocide and civilian eradication, then it's pretty hard to believe you really disagree with the situation very strongly - if at all.

[seremtan]

well i admit my tough love approach hasn't made you any smarter. that's for sure.

anyhow

i see what you did there