I'm just experimenting. I hate the word "blog" and am fascinated with how the net seems to nurture *everyone's* vanity.
dedicated to Evil Stormbringer and Wheeloffire
Published on January 17, 2007 By Philocthetes In Off-Topic
Evil did me right by starting his own thread on the "what's a thief" question. But a few posts later in that Grammar nazi sprawl thread, QuietlyObserving says "If we are to be a society founded on the Rule of Law, it would be prudent to maintain a healthy respect for language and the meaning of words, lest we slip into a dictatorship of unelected Judges."

This gives me a painfully beautiful opportunity to start a sister thread to Evil's, and ask you all to sink your fangs, fingers, etc., into the basic question "How does a law rule without a human to interpret and/or execute it?"

That's my latest hasty attempt at a longstanding interest in the gov't-of-law-and-not-men notion that's very popular here in the US. I've also known a few linguists and flirted with other philosphies enough to be taken aback by anyone who has too much certainty about the meaning of a particular word or phrase.

Unless you're a minor with parents who don't want you seeing PG-13 movies (I know we have some sharp youth out there, just want to respect your folks), I suggest finding and playing fword.wav before you finish a reply here.
Comments (Page 1)
44 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Jan 17, 2007
p.s. FortyTwo, I hope to see you here. I've long pretended I don't like Douglas Adams as much as I really do. The Hollywood thing wasn't nearly as bad as I'd thought it would be, when I finally broke down and watched it.
on Jan 17, 2007
All praise Deep Thought!!!
on Jan 17, 2007
yea but deep thought couldn't answer a simple question
on Jan 17, 2007
"How does a law rule without a human to interpret and/or execute it?"

This sounds a lot like "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?".

To me this kind of discussion is little more than mental masturbation. After struggling so hard to try and actually accomplish something these "thought problems" leave me limp, so to speak.

I do understand that this is merely an opening gambit to spawn an interesting conversation, and I can appreciate conversation for conversations sake, but isn't there something productive that could be accomplished instead.

I'm not trying to denigrate anyone here, I do indeed respect those that favor these kinds of conversations. I'm just trying to provoke productive thought as opposed to random thought.
on Jan 17, 2007
in a perfect patern a little caos is good



wish i could spell
on Jan 17, 2007
No wrong, Deep Thought answered the question, its the question people dont understand.

Back to topic.

In my opinion, law doesnt rule, its not a thing or a living being that can exert its own will. All the law is, is something written down and understood(hopefully) by the majority of the populous, its what makes us function as a society. Sure rigidity is not a good thing, but without law life would be quite brutis and short. So to answer your question, i dont think that law can function without someone to support it, and thats why it is oftenly changed.
on Jan 17, 2007
normal is whatever the majority agrees it is
on Jan 17, 2007
How does a law rule without a human to interpret and/or execute it?"


What is breathing if there are no living things to breathe?

on Jan 17, 2007
Exactly.
on Jan 17, 2007
What is breathing if there are no living things to breathe?


You breathe living things? I breathe air.
on Jan 17, 2007
You breathe living things? I breathe air


You breathe living things as well.

Germs are living things, and you breathe them in and out all the time.

Some of them even make you sick, or spread your sickness.



Oh, wait...

Do Kryo's even get sick?
on Jan 17, 2007
O... he got you there Kryo.
on Jan 17, 2007
What is breathing if there are no living things to breathe?

A concept.


What is a concept if there is no intelligence to conceive?

on Jan 17, 2007
A foolish belief?
on Jan 17, 2007
A foolish belief?

A foolish belief would be a conviction of the truth of some statement, or the reality of some being or phenomenon, especially when based on examination of evidence - which is lacking in sense, judgment, or discretion.

So, no, I don't think so. The formation of a belief still requires some amount of intelligence. Even if the belief itself is foolish.

44 Pages1 2 3  Last