Matt Lauer destroys Bush in an interview

[Canis]

Sure it would. The practicality of the law just hangs in wait for the enforcement of it to be realized, for any crime. Thus I'd say the practicality of any law relies heavily on the enforcement of it.

[R00k]

So by the same token, if one murderer escapes justice, then the murder statutes are not practical law, until the next time a murder is committed and that felon is brought to justice.

[Canis]

I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm just saying that when you said you disagree that a law is a law, you reminded me of both Bush and Cheney. Cheney said almost the same thing in an interview with Chris Matthews Sunday, and Bush said something similar in an interview yesterday.

Your philosophy regarding law is definitely in the Bush camp, where they make their own reality by basing their actions on what they believe reality to be, and then expecting the rest of society to conform to that.

My philosophy about it doesnt reflect what I believe is right, yet that bridge seems to have been formed in folks' arguments against my views. I dont expect conformation to these views as some inevitable future. I think these views should be seen as facts that should be worked against in a persistent effort to prevent anarchic efforts from gaining any ground. In that way I'd hope for a persistent effort towards order and productivity.

The "bush camp" is taking advantage of this situation I've been describing, and I am against such actions. However, I see it as an inevitable strive of anyone of influence, especially those in politics.

This "situation" of "practical law" you are describing is nothing more than a group of people breaking the law.

What you describe here:

I think these views should be seen as facts that should be worked against in a persistent effort to prevent anarchic efforts from gaining any ground. In that way I'd hope for a persistent effort towards order and productivity.

Is called "enforcing the law."


If all you are saying, is that Bush and Co. are breaking the law, and that the law needs to be enforced against them, then why is it so hard for you to simply say so?


On the contrary, what you are saying is that they are not technically doing anything illegal, because if they are getting away with it, then it must not be a real law.

At this point the word "illegal" doesnt cut it, just like the word "terrorism" has had its meaning thrashed to hell. In my view it all comes down to what actually happens, not what people think should happen. Hence, I've shifted my argument towards "practicality" instead of broad "illegality" which, in past discussions, we've found can be no different than the claim of "immorality".

In my views it is unfortunate but true that until someone is convicted and the practicality of law is put into practice through enforcement, the "legality" of something means absolute zilch. Cries and claims of something being legal are a mere projection of hope towards such enforcement and establishment of the practicality of law. However, until this happens, they're mere words, and people spout them all over the place. I do, you do, and the hippies protesting do. Still, we all know that such efforts do not have much of an influence on the enforcement, and therefore the practicality, of these concepts that we call "law".

[Canis]

So by the same token, if one murderer escapes justice, then the murder statutes are not practical law, until the next time a murder is committed and that felon is brought to justice.

Correct, however there is a matter of how the person evaded the law as well as the applicability to everyone. We have an active enforcement of murder statutes, so if someone just slips by that enforcement, he got lucky, but its not about the pracicality of the law at that point, but rather about the praciticality of the enforcement measures. If he had been caught, he'd surely have been convicted and the practicality of the law would hold.

However, if one murderer gets freed, say, on a technicality such as OJ Simpson, then with respect to all things relative to him and him alone, the statutes failed. However, that doesnt give the green light to everyone else who's bent on murdering someone. The active enforcement of the laws will still be there to uphold them for anyone else who tries to break them.

However, if the enforcement stops becoming active, then there is nothing to uphold the statutes and the green light comes on for anyone with an anarchic mindset. Legality suddenly gets perforated and falls to bits.

[Hannibal]

At this point the word "illegal" doesnt cut it, just like the word "terrorism" has had its meaning thrashed to hell. In my view it all comes down to what actually happens, not what people think should happen. Hence, I've shifted my argument towards "practicality" instead of broad "illegality" which, in past discussions, we've found can be no different than the claim of "immorality".

However, until this happens, they're mere words, and people spout them all over the place. I do, you do, and the hippies protesting do. Still, we all know that such efforts do not have much of an influence on the enforcement, and therefore the practicality, of these concepts that we call "law".

Vuja De:

http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... 8&start=70

I still for the life of me can't figure out what your motivation is for this whole line of reasoning. 'Mere words'? Laws are written with words, but I'm not sure what the 'mere' gets you. There is nothing wrong with shouting "HEY MUTHAFUCK, THAT'S ILLEGAL" when:

1) a statute exists that establishes your claim
2) the MUTHAFUK in question is your own government

The hope of the (rational) hippies, protesters, and cunts of all stripes is that through repeatedly pointing out these transgressions, the 'folk' will be educated/angered enough to demand an accounting (i.e. enforcement). It may not happen of course, but there's nothing bizarre or contemptible about giving it a shot.

[Canis]

At this point the word "illegal" doesnt cut it, just like the word "terrorism" has had its meaning thrashed to hell. In my view it all comes down to what actually happens, not what people think should happen. Hence, I've shifted my argument towards "practicality" instead of broad "illegality" which, in past discussions, we've found can be no different than the claim of "immorality".

However, until this happens, they're mere words, and people spout them all over the place. I do, you do, and the hippies protesting do. Still, we all know that such efforts do not have much of an influence on the enforcement, and therefore the practicality, of these concepts that we call "law".

Vuja De:

http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... 8&start=70

I still for the life of me can't figure out what your motivation is for this whole line of reasoning. 'Mere words'? Laws are written with words, but I'm not sure what the 'mere' gets you. There is nothing wrong with shouting "HEY MUTHAFUCK, THAT'S ILLEGAL" when:

1) a statute exists that establishes your claim
2) the MUTHAFUK in question is your own government

The hope of the (rational) hippies, protesters, and cunts of all stripes is that through repeatedly pointing out these transgressions, the 'folk' will be educated/angered enough to demand an accounting (i.e. enforcement). It may not happen of course, but there's nothing bizarre or contemptible about giving it a shot.

I think its wise to be aware of the governments' actions and contradictions for the reasons you mention, but I do distinguish between claims and practice. One is what "should" be done, and the other is what actually IS done. Should just doesnt cut it. There are many people who "should have" been arrested or condemned, or what have you. Granted there is the possibility that such claims will lead to investigation and enforcement results, but nevertheless these two are separate from each other. Also, most of the time such claims lead nowhere. Folks cry out and protest, and the government just moves along, especially in cases where the governing body is more detached and is less local, as is the case with the US government.

[Hannibal]

I think its wise to be aware of the governments' actions and contradictions for the reasons you mention, but I do distinguish between claims and practice. One is what "should" be done, and the other is what actually IS done. Should just doesnt cut it. There are many people who "should have" been arrested or condemned, or what have you. Granted there is the possibility that such claims will lead to investigation and enforcement results, but nevertheless these two are separate from each other. Also, most of the time such claims lead nowhere. Folks cry out and protest, and the government just moves along, especially in cases where the governing body is more detached and is less local, as is the case with the US government.

Canis, "should" has to cut it otherwise we are simply not dealing with laws anymore. The "should" of law signals its irreducibly normative character. All laws ARE "shoulds" in one form or another.

I know you are trying to say something about the practical side of laws and their enforcement, and what it all might mean in an international context....but you can't simply toss out the conceptual, foundational stuff as you do this.

[Canis]

I think its wise to be aware of the governments' actions and contradictions for the reasons you mention, but I do distinguish between claims and practice. One is what "should" be done, and the other is what actually IS done. Should just doesnt cut it. There are many people who "should have" been arrested or condemned, or what have you. Granted there is the possibility that such claims will lead to investigation and enforcement results, but nevertheless these two are separate from each other. Also, most of the time such claims lead nowhere. Folks cry out and protest, and the government just moves along, especially in cases where the governing body is more detached and is less local, as is the case with the US government.

Canis, "should" has to cut it otherwise we are simply not dealing with laws anymore. The "should" of law signals its irreducibly normative character. All laws ARE "shoulds" in one form or another.

I know you are trying to say something about the practical side of laws and their enforcement, and what it all might mean in an international context....but you can't simply toss out the conceptual, foundational stuff as you do this.

Well that's been my argument all along. I've been arguing the applicable relevance of it. Otherwise its all just a matter of what synonym you choose to label these ideas we have that we call "law", and there are many to choose from: statute, law, moral, rule, resolution, bill, etc. In my argument, I do disagree with the idea that "Should has to cut it" as you mention, when in practice it doesnt without enforcement measures.

[R00k]

So your argument is, essentially, that people should chant "Make the law practical," or maybe "Enforce the law," instead of "This is illegal?"

Or maybe that they shouldn't speak out at all?

What's the score here? You bring up this distinction any time someone says "this is illegal," trying to dissuade people from using that term - do you propose something be used in its place?

I mean seriously - the fact that the law is not being enforced is inherently implied from the start; it is completely understood by the speaker, because otherwise there would be no reason to point out that it is illegal to begin with.

So what is the practical application of your practically illegal term? Not the definition again - I thoroughly understand that part.

[CaseDogg]

matt was just being glib.

[Canis]

So your argument is, essentially, that people should chant "Make the law practical," or maybe "Enforce the law," instead of "This is illegal?"

Or maybe that they shouldn't speak out at all?

What's the score here? You bring up this distinction any time someone says "this is illegal," trying to dissuade people from using that term - do you propose something be used in its place?

I mean seriously - the fact that the law is not being enforced is inherently implied from the start; it is completely understood by the speaker, because otherwise there would be no reason to point out that it is illegal to begin with.

So what is the practical application of your practically illegal term? Not the definition again - I thoroughly understand that part.

Where are you taking this? I dont care what people say or think in their frustrations with the government. That's besides the argument here.

I'm not combatting the term "illegal", but rather the context of it, and what I see is a misuse of it. It's got its place when there are clear means to enforce the law in question.

I dont see law not being enforced as being inherent to its definition, at all. I see that in what we'd call morality and abiding by morals, but once you impose limits on someone as a dictated "law" then you'd better be prepared to back up that limit with consequence if said limit is broken, so enforcement IS implied.

My application of the term is to keep true the context of where we can claim legality, and moreover, where we can impose control over our claims of legality, thereby providing substantial credibility to any claim of legality on our part. This is important, otherwise we'll end up with "legality" as a broken term just like the word "terrorist" has become broken. Everyone's a fucking terrorist these days by some off-sided definition or another.

[Hannibal]

---------------------- :icon23: :icon23: :icon23: :icon23:

[busetibi]

busetti honestly how often are you privileged with consensual sex?

looking at your post count, a hell of a lot more than you

[busetibi]

His sister usually works out of town.

something cant work if i dont have it.

hows the camel selling going?

[busetibi]

seems like its not only Americans who like torture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wirq10.xml
this cant be true, Iraqi's hurting fellow Iraqi's,
wait a minute........

The brutal excesses of Saddam Hussein's regime were relived yesterday as Iraq's new government announced that it had hanged 27 prisoners convicted of terror and criminal charges.

great, so nothing has essentially changed in that department in iraq. that can only mean one thing

MISSHUN UCCUMPLISHED!!!111

everything changes but remains the same :icon26:

3 sets of "rulers" and they're still getting fucked over

[Ryoki]

Some serious debating in this thread.

[feedback]

busetti honestly how often are you privileged with consensual sex?

looking at your post count, a hell of a lot more than you

I'll take your answer very rarely? I have you pinned one of those college republican types who didn't have sex until he was 25, but I'm just going on your personality and the things you say. :icon10: Minute man, too? I bet you're a 1-position peter.

[busetibi]

I'll take your answer very rarely? I have you pinned one of those college

i take it english is not your first language.


so, you base your hypothesis on my personality and sexual experiences on what is said on a 7 yr old bb?

[Kracus' Smarter Brother]

If it's codified it's law. Enforcement is a different issue entirely. But I don't expect you'll ever understand that.

remarkably prescient

[R00k]

So your argument is, essentially, that people should chant "Make the law practical," or maybe "Enforce the law," instead of "This is illegal?"

Or maybe that they shouldn't speak out at all?

What's the score here? You bring up this distinction any time someone says "this is illegal," trying to dissuade people from using that term - do you propose something be used in its place?

I mean seriously - the fact that the law is not being enforced is inherently implied from the start; it is completely understood by the speaker, because otherwise there would be no reason to point out that it is illegal to begin with.

So what is the practical application of your practically illegal term? Not the definition again - I thoroughly understand that part.

Where are you taking this? I dont care what people say or think in their frustrations with the government. That's besides the argument here.

I'm not combatting the term "illegal", but rather the context of it, and what I see is a misuse of it. It's got its place when there are clear means to enforce the law in question.

I dont see law not being enforced as being inherent to its definition, at all. I see that in what we'd call morality and abiding by morals, but once you impose limits on someone as a dictated "law" then you'd better be prepared to back up that limit with consequence if said limit is broken, so enforcement IS implied.

My application of the term is to keep true the context of where we can claim legality, and moreover, where we can impose control over our claims of legality, thereby providing substantial credibility to any claim of legality on our part. This is important, otherwise we'll end up with "legality" as a broken term just like the word "terrorist" has become broken. Everyone's a fucking terrorist these days by some off-sided definition or another.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH?

[Canis]

Completely. Thought I understood your point as well, but maybe you need to clarify a little. Your argument seems to be kinda up in the air.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

g suss

[R00k]

I'm not making an argument. I'm asking you to clarify yours and you are not answering any of my questions.

What's the score here? You bring up this distinction any time someone says "this is illegal," trying to dissuade people from using that term - do you propose something be used in its place?

I mean seriously - the fact that the law is not being enforced is inherently implied from the start; it is completely understood by the speaker, because otherwise there would be no reason to point out that it is illegal to begin with.

So what is the practical application of your practically illegal term? Not the definition again - I thoroughly understand that part.

Brief timeline:
A) Someone says what Bush is doing is illegal
B) You say that word can't be used - what Bush is doing can't be called illegal, because the law is not being enforced.
C) Obviously the law is not being enforced -- otherwise, there would be absolutely no reason to point out the fact that the activity is illegal in the first place.

The whole point of making something illegal, is so that a person can stand up and say "That is illegal and needs to be prosecuted."

Your point that, since it isn't being prosecuted it can't be called illegal, is a logical fallacy. It has to be called illegal BEFORE it can be prosecuted - not the other way around.

Enforcement of a law cannot come until someone acts contrary to that law, and said act is thus claimed to be illegal. Not until that claim is made, is there any grounds to enforce the statute.

So to qualify an illegal act as a "practically legal" act, until the offender is prosecuted (which is what you are logically suggesting) - defeats the entire purpose of the word illegal to begin with.

You can make the distinction that some law or other is rarely enforced, and that would be a completely valid point. But you are attempting to say the word "illegal" is no longer valid in the way it was being used in this thread, simply because it has not been enforced.

But the whole inherent purpose of saying that said act is illegal, is to call for enforcement.

Your argument is implying that a person should not call for enforcement of a law, because said law is not being enforced.

Can you not see that connection between your argument, and the way the word illegal is being used here?

[seremtan]

lol, you're preaching to the retarded here. i think we've had this discussion once before

[4days]

aye, i remember that. page after page of canis bloody loren ipsum'ing his way through an argument until it fizzled out