Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

[loomer]

You stand on the shoulders of giants and ignorantly think your little sand castle is a towering edifice. Either put up a means of interpetation that is 100% foolproof and validates your claims, or shut the fuck up. I've grown tired of you making ridiculous claims without the ability to actually defend them through anything other than splitting hairs in the most absurd ways over literal definitions - on issues that better and wiser men have already discussed at length, but on which you refuse to educate yourself.

Here's a few for you. What's a law, what's a rule, what's a norm? What are the principles of legal positivism? Do you agree with formalism, or do you prefer realism? Kelsen or Hart?

[Broomstick]

Where is eminent domain in the Constitution?

Holy fuck, have you even bothered to read the document? Amendment 5 you ignoramus. It's even been mentioned upthread.

Come back when you've actually read what you're crowing about.

[Carinthium]

loomer- Given my philosophical starting points, what rational basis do I have to take into account the authority of other writers in my views on legal interpretation? If I did, I would be a hypocrite for taking into account something other than the literal words.

Secondly, of course, dropping names is not an argument.

Broomstick- Forgive me for not inferring a reference to emininent domain when the section itself has NO REFERENCES TO EMINENT DOMAIN. Again, LITERAL inteprretation.

[loomer]

Eminent domain, the literal interpretation:
"High in station, celebrated, or lofty territory/field/region/owned land." See the problem with only going with literal interpretations stripped of context?

[Carinthium]

Kind of irrelevant that, as the words "emininent domain" do not feature anywhere in the Constitution.

[loomer]

Are you seriously that thick? Jesus christ. I'm pointing out how the literal definition of the words itself doesn't mean eminent domain as a legal concept (just be glad I'm not going deconstructionist on you). You don't have to know how to actually read a legal document to understand that

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation...

refers to eminent fucking domain, so long as you have two working brain cells to rub together. If you're looking solely for literal interpretation and the words eminent domain did come up, you would be forced to conclude that it referred to A Celebrated Region, not the legal concept. That's my goddamn point.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick- Forgive me for not inferring a reference to emininent domain when the section itself has NO REFERENCES TO EMINENT DOMAIN. Again, LITERAL inteprretation.

No, I won't "forgive" you, you willfully ignorant donkey-fucker. If you don't understand the words I use look them up in a fucking dictionary. A lot of definitions of eminent domain out there specifically reference the fifth amendment.

Seriously, I think the mods should spank your skanky ass for the bullshit you're dumping recently. This is the second thread I've seen where you pull this shit. All it comes down to is "I'll change the meanings until I get what I want". Wishing hard doesn't change reality, microdick.

[Carinthium]

The problem I have had here is that it makes a mockery of comprehendibility in law to have a law in which there are implicit concepts in it to understand it.

How I am supposed to be the sort of utter fucktard who would actually force people to obey a law they can't even understand fully? If I did that I'd be an apologist for tyranny, which is unacceptable. Hence, I try to find a way around it.

(See other thread for a partial backdown on some of these points, though)

--------------------------

Just to point out, however:

-loomer, the Dictionary pretty clearly made a mistake in this instance. It should have had a definition of eminent domain in it referring to the concept of (roughly, I haven't thought this through) the reserve power of confiscation of land.

-Broomstick, that would be assuming eminent domain exists in the Constitution based on sources made AFTER the Constitution. Wouldn't that be rather contradictory to my posistion?

[loomer]

Except you aren't finding a way around it. Provide a way to do so that actually works, and then you can talk, but right now all you're doing is splitting hairs, refusing to consider the opinions of other jurists (here's a thought for you: I didn't ask if you preferred Kelsen or Hart to namedrop. Understanding the rule of recognition and the grundnorm is incredibly helpful when formulating a new basis for law in which every man can understand it, especially the matter of how you might transition from the current system (cluttered as it is with relics of the past) and into the new.)

And you know, there's these people you can call to clarify the law called lawyers.

EDIT:

Seriously? The dictionary is wrong is your response, Mr. Literal Dictionary Meaning? Are you fucking kidding me?

[Carinthium]

You are making an implicit assumption here- that ethical theories have to answer to pragmatic considerations. If that is so, then ethics is pointless.

The problem with lawyers is firstly that they charge, so some people can't afford them, and secondly that even a lawyer does not understand the law. Why? Because of factors such as:

-Judicial law-changing (common law or otherwise)
-Uncertainties about how to interpret the law
-Sheer complexity of the law

EDIT: Dictionaries contradict each other. I specifically mentioned earlier the theory that what should be followed is a theoretical "Perfect Dictionary". I'm hesistant to contradict actual dictionaries, but in this case there was an obvious mistake.

[loomer]

Yes, these implicit assumptions are called reality. Please, Moses, step down from the mountain and deliver unto us THE WAY THAT WORKS LIKE I'VE BEEN DEMANDING.

[Carinthium]

So you're saying that ethics are useless and that all should bow down to the assumptions of the Pragmatic Code? By doing that you are implicitly assuming consequentialism over deontology, a rather large leap. How, may I ask, do you justify it?

[Metahive]

OK, people, you do know that Carny is the guy who thinks that international politics run just like in a game of Total War, right? Why do you expect his grasp on lawmaking to be any better?

[loomer]

So you're saying that ethics are useless and that all should bow down to the assumptions of the Pragmatic Code? By doing that you are implicitly assuming consequentialism over deontology, a rather large leap. How, may I ask, do you justify it?

Answer my fucking question.

[K. A. Pital]

Just FYI, I'm keeping an eye on this and I would flush this to HoS the instant this debate becomes worthless (which it is close to) due to Carinthium being an obstinate idiot. His refernce to a "perfect dictionary" is nigh insane, actually, but I'll give this thread another day and see what happens - depending on the outcome HoS or SLaM will be the destination.

[Carinthium]

Metahive- I never said that I thought politics run like a game of Total War. What evidence do you have to back that claim up, anyway?

loomer- You're the one who should answer mine. You're making an assumption that all philosophy must answer to the set of nebulous assumptions known as pragmatism. How do you justify that?

Stas Bush- "Perfect dictionary" was an abstraction, obviously. Since dictionaries disagree with each other, what choice did I have?

[loomer]

No, Carinthium. I, and others, have repeatedly asked you to provide a properly elucidated solution that doesn't rely on untenable bullshit like perfect dictionaries, literal interpretation (using only your meanings), and logical contortions. It's time for you to fucking do so.

[Carinthium]

What doesn't work about my new posistion? Pretty much nothing.

[Metahive]

Metahive- I never said that I thought politics run like a game of Total War. What evidence do you have to back that claim up, anyway?

Try this.

BTW, are you really either that stupid or that daft that you think I meant you literally likened real life to Total War? No, I meant of course your childish oversimplification of diplomacy to be like the one done in a game of Total War!
You know, I guess it's no wonder you go on and on about "literal" meaning since it seems that the abstraction circuits within your brain are defective. This of course is why your attempt at constitutional scholarship is DOA.

[Carinthium]

Supporting mass conscription does not mean claiming politics is like a game of Total War. I never said there wouldn't be an economic cost- I'm just saying that for the U.S's status as a Great Power it would be worth it.

[loomer]

What doesn't work about my new posistion? Pretty much nothing.

You mean aside from the fact that you haven't actually advanced a position in this thread other than hair-splitting reliant on your own information? Or the part where your position seems to think there can ever be absolute certainty in law, which is an impossibility (except for the extreme end where everyone accused of a crime is summarily jailed or executed.)? Or how about the part where you still claim you can have literal meanings without any context at all, even though language itself is context? These letters are just chicken scratch without the epistemological underpinnings that give them context!

[Broomstick]

The problem I have had here is that it makes a mockery of comprehendibility in law to have a law in which there are implicit concepts in it to understand it.

So, do you have a similar problem with the rest of human culture and civilization?

How I am supposed to be the sort of utter fucktard who would actually force people to obey a law they can't even understand fully? If I did that I'd be an apologist for tyranny, which is unacceptable. Hence, I try to find a way around it.

Oddly enough, the vast majority of the rest of us manage to comprehend the law sufficiently to avoid breaking it. Thus, I conclude the problem is with YOU.

[Metahive]

O wait, I meant actually this one.

Do you have anything to say about your inability to handle abstractions? It's kind of a big point since the principle of abstraction was a milestone in the development of law.

[K. A. Pital]

What doesn't work about my new posistion? Pretty much nothing.

Avoid using concepts like "perfect dictionary" and you'll stay here as a party in the debate. Use this bullshit once more and I'll flush this immediately.

Since dictionaries disagree with each other, what choice did I have?

When your position relies on a nonexistent abstraction when referring to a human-constructed system designed to communicate (language), you can see that your position is untenable. Then you admit it or cry and run. Or try to reassess your position and avoid using bullshit concepts.

If you continue to articulate what you believe, and you believe what you believe is right, I won't tolerate this any further.

[Carinthium]

loomer:
My new posistion is, after thought, that it is unjust to have any law that people cannot understand properly and if that means it is unjust to have law at all then so be it. There, I've put it in this thread.

If there can't be absolute certainty in law, so be it- a law without said certainty is unjust anyway.

Literal meanings can exist with only a very limited amount of context- a language and a broad era. I didn't say no context, but very little context (although there was confusion due to differing definitions of 'context').

Broomstick:

So, do you have a similar problem with the rest of human culture and civilization?

Only law, for the reasons I have stated.

Oddly enough, the vast majority of the rest of us manage to comprehend the law sufficiently to avoid breaking it. Thus, I conclude the problem is with YOU.

It doesn't matter if it's unlikely that a person will run into legal problems- the point is that they do. I could name plenty of examples of people convicted due to legal ambiguities through a quick Wikipedia check alone.

Metahive:
A- Any of those things could have been done had the Americans not had political problems impeding them. In such an event, the other obstacles would go away as they did for ancient Empires which did similiar things.

Do you have anything to say about your inability to handle abstractions? It's kind of a big point since the principle of abstraction was a milestone in the development of law.

B- I don't know what you mean by the principle of abstraction here, but I'm guessing it won't be hard to answer- I've already made the necessary ethical points about a moral right to understand a law before being made to follow it.

When your position relies on a nonexistent abstraction when referring to a human-constructed system designed to communicate (language), you can see that your position is untenable. Then you admit it or cry and run. Or try to reassess your position and avoid using bullshit concepts.

If you continue to articulate what you believe, and you believe what you believe is right, I won't tolerate this any further.

Strictly speaking law is a nonexistent abstraction. Yet it exists for practical purposes. Similiar with all the legal principles talked about in this thread.