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 29)
44 PagesFirst 27 28 29 30 31  Last
on Feb 02, 2007
The fact is, what one person judges to be equal isnt always the 'right' equality.

I mean if i was to insult someone well enough, they would most likely punch me. Is that staying with the 'an eye for an eye' theory. In my opinion it doesnt, although it was probably deserved it was not equal since one form of harm doesnt equate to another.
on Feb 02, 2007
The fact is, what one person judges to be equal isnt always the 'right' equality.

I mean if i was to insult someone well enough, they would most likely punch me. Is that staying with the 'an eye for an eye' theory. In my opinion it doesnt, although it was probably deserved it was not equal since one form of harm doesnt equate to another.


true but you will probable stop teasing them
on Feb 03, 2007
Or i could retaliate and come back with a punch of my own, the situation just gets worse
on Feb 03, 2007
you could come back with a punch of your own but either way you stop teasing
on Feb 03, 2007
But the concept of an eye for an eye is in no way barbaric.



I look at it as simply action and consequence. You hit me, the consequence is that i hit you. But i do not look at it as revenge, my motivation is purely educational!

As for escalating the fight, well that never bodes well. If i win the fight then i feel bad because i beat somone up, if i loose the fight then i feel bad from my injured pride. Either way physical injuries and police tend to be an added inconvenience.

Gone are the days when you could have a fist fight with somone and shake hands at the end,,,, no police!
on Feb 03, 2007
But officer, I was NOT fighting...

I was merely educating.


LOL

You could always try it. They might let you off for originality, if nothing else.
on Feb 03, 2007
Yes, and so are gone the days of duels, which i am very greatful for.
on Feb 04, 2007
Yes, and so are gone the days of duels, which i am very greatful for.


Ah yes, duels... But i do not think dueling was ever somthing for the common man. Besides, they should have stuck to lances! At least most of the time it wasn't fatal, just very dangerous - lots of fun!
on Feb 04, 2007
But i do not think dueling was ever somthing for the common man.


In the formal sense of dueling with gentleman's rules, you're correct. But don't you think the ancient traditions of calling someone out for a fight that could turn deadly are what y'all are really discussing?

Pistol and sword duels and jousting are all upper-class traditions born in periods where new weapons tech was very expensive. Just because peons couldn't aford the aristo toys didn't mean they shunned the idea of formal or semi-formal fights over "matters of honor."

As a progressive son of the old South, I have to agree with TGE's gratitude that we don't damage and kill each other so often over honor, but I sometimes think we've done a "baby with the bathwater" thing by largely abandoning honor itself. If I had to pick just one reason (and I hate doing that) for my retreat from the college civics classroom, it would be the widespread cheating by students (you know who you are ) combined with sham efforts on the part of colleges to try really doing anything about "academic dishonesty."
on Feb 04, 2007
But don't you think the ancient traditions of calling someone out for a fight that could turn deadly are what y'all are really discussing?


no, also i very much doubt that 'calling somone out' can be called an ancient tradition without first attaching a place and a time period.
on Feb 04, 2007
As a progressive son of the old South, I have to agree with TGE's gratitude that we don't damage and kill each other so often over honor, but I sometimes think we've done a "baby with the bathwater" thing by largely abandoning honor itself


It is not just honour we have abandoned. We have also abandoned right and wrong! Why? right and wrong is no longer a chioce for people, the 'good samaratin' is irrelevant - If you see a person beaten and dying today, it is a criminal offence not to report it. right and wrong have been replaced with the choice of obeying the law or dissobeying the law.
on Feb 04, 2007
yes but dueling could be replaced today with multiplayer war game
on Feb 04, 2007
yes but dueling could be replaced today with multiplayer war game


no way, they had games in the past too you know! games are games, and won't compare to a real fight.... at least not until Matrix style technology is developed! OOOhw damb, wouldn't that be seriously fun???
on Feb 04, 2007
at least not until Matrix style technology is developed!


You've got a fight over terms here. IMO, if the game requires you to plug in physically (biologically?) and risk that you can lose whatever passes for personal continuity, then it isn't a game, it's "real."
on Feb 04, 2007
IMO, if the game requires you to plug in physically (biologically?) and risk that you can lose whatever passes for personal continuity, then it isn't a game, it's "real."


Well put the 'safeties' on then. Some people need the danger though... i wonder why that is? why do some people crave danger? to feel alive?
44 PagesFirst 27 28 29 30 31  Last