How absolute are your positions?

[Jay59]

The bold is not an absolute.

Goals and results often vary.

The Const is still open to interpretation by SCOTUS.

By all courts. I have heard attorneys refer to it as a guideline more than actual law.

Hmm. In "all human experience?" I'm pretty sure any communities under Mafia, drug cartel, or gang control would disagree with that. Now, and in past millennia, similar "organizations" have had power...over the "state" law enforcement and over communities.

This is Anthropology 101. The 800-pound gorilla sits where he wants. Our legal system is an attempt to soften that basic concept

Those are not really absolutes either. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean much if an officer kneels on your neck until you die before you even make it to trial or if Obama orders a drone strike on you. Equal treatment under the law has been shown to be an ideal not an absolute with the disparities in sentencing for things Marijuana use.

Theory varies from practice. In theory, they are absolute.

At bottom, the one true absolute is the power of life and death of the individual. The philosophy that this should be a law and not a person is called the Rule of Law.

 

[Master Debator]

Theory varies from practice. In theory, they are absolute.

At bottom, the one true absolute is the power of life and death of the individual. The philosophy that this should be a law and not a person is called the Rule of Law.

What?

 

[Jay59]

What?

I'll keep it simple. Law is based on force.

 

[Master Debator]

I'll keep it simple. Law is based on force.

Sure... but what does that have to do with your argument that the law is based on absolutes? The force of law isn't absolute. In fact our Constitution is about the limits of the government and the law.

 

[grip]

Lol, it needs to kill 20% of the world population.ok, now I know what is required.

200 million globally have caught it, not the whole world of 8 billion. If the variants start killing or making the young and healthy severely ill, with a 10%+ mortality rate (20 million dead), then the health system would be overrun and the Feds would likely attempt a mandate. It would take a serious fear of dying for people to drop their political nonsense and comply in high percentages.

 

[grip]

I'll keep it simple. Law is based on force.

That's why the phrase "enforcing the law."

 

[mrjurrs]

Do you agree?




View attachment 67347784




I certainly do. Making something mandatory or banned by law is a relatively extreme measure, that should only be done from great necessity, after careful consideration and debate.

Seems overly simplistic to me. Everything arcs from black to white with infinite shades of gray.

 

[noonereal]

200 million globally have caught it, not the whole world of 8 billion. If the variants start killing or making the young and healthy severely ill, with a 10%+ mortality rate (20 million dead), then the health system would be overrun and the Feds would likely attempt a mandate. It would take a serious fear of dying for people to drop their political nonsense and comply in high percentages.

Your perspective is inane.

peace

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Before I take extreme positions, I consider how well I know the subject. And even then, I'm always open to being wrong.

I'm not sure that making something like a vaccination mandatory is even realistically feasible. Only businesses and organizations have the ability to enforce compliance with safety procedures.

Do you support or oppose making vaccinations mandatory for all medically eligible people in America solely based on morals and ethics, not how well such a mandate could be enforced? Would feasibility be your only reason not to support an absolute stance?

 

[Mach]

No right is absolute.
No law is made according to an absolute.
Laws are made according to ethics, not absolutes.
Everyone should have that fundamental understanding of legislation in a democracy. No one should abandon that understanding in order to push an agenda.

And to define this framework of yours you build it on four absolute statements? That's contradictory.

The reality is that reasoning does include some absolutes. Typically they are called axioms or self-evident truths, but they are absolutes.
Existence is, A is A, we can reason, etc., all absolutes that these things are built on. You can deny them but you agree with them in denying them...sort of thing.

But yeah, other stuff is usually just personal opinions. And opinions can be well justified or not, but are not typically absolutes.

 

[mrjurrs]

I certainly do. There're very few things I'd make mandatory or ban. But then again, I'm more of a live and let live type of guy. I don't care what others do as long as what they're doing isn't harming or putting others in danger.

How do you react to people doing things that do harm or endanger others? What's the saying, "...good men to do nothing..."?

 

[ecofarm]

And to define this framework of yours you build it on four absolute statements? That's contradictory.

Childish bs.

Laws are based on ethical debates, a quest for greater good, a balancing of rights. Pretending laws are based on absolutes so as to demonize the other is stupid. It's flat dodging the ethical debate to demonize.

 

[Mach]

Childish bs.Laws are based on ethical debates, a quest for greater good, a balancing of rights. Pretending rights are based on absolutes so as to demonize the other is stupid.

Your post was childish B.S.? OK. Why do you bristle at such clear and concise correction.

 

[ecofarm]

Your post was childish B.S.? OK. Why do you bristle at such clear and concise correction.

My claims about the law are correct. You can't PeeWee Herman reality with "I know you are but what am I".

Laws are based on ethics, not absolutes. There's no debate there.

The only reason the OP claims laws are based on absolutes is because he worked backwards from a conclusion about others.

 

[grip]

Do you support or oppose making vaccinations mandatory for all medically eligible people in America solely based on morals and ethics, not how well such a mandate could be enforced? Would feasibility be your only reason not to support an absolute stance?

I don't deal in absolutes due to circumstances creating exceptions. People morally have a right to be involved in their medical care, that stops becoming a right when their refusal is unreasonably endangering the greater good. But you cannot remove the feasibility issue because it's a reality that has to be factored in.

 

[Mach]

Do you agree?
I certainly do. Making something mandatory or banned by law is a relatively extreme measure, that should only be done from great necessity, after careful consideration and debate.

How extreme is a mandate really though. We routinely create laws that have little or no real enforcement behind them (where no one checks them and at worst its like a fine), and we have some laws that have extreme enforcement in practice (murder of a prominent figure).
Can you envision a mandate for something like a vaccine but with low enforcement? In this way, you may end up with more people getting it, resulting in a healthier population, lower burden on hospitals, etc., and the people who are apoplectic can just ignore it anyway? This is as opposed to creating a mandate with serious reprecussions if you didn't vaccinate, for example. Huge spectrum of how "extreme" a mandate really is or isn't.

 

[Lursa]

Goals and results often vary.


By all courts. I have heard attorneys refer to it as a guideline more than actual law.


This is Anthropology 101. The 800-pound gorilla sits where he wants. Our legal system is an attempt to soften that basic concept


Theory varies from practice. In theory, they are absolute.

At bottom, the one true absolute is the power of life and death of the individual. The philosophy that this should be a law and not a person is called the Rule of Law.

Thanks, you just retracted your statement about them being absolutes. That's honest and appreciated.

 

[Jay59]

Sure... but what does that have to do with your argument that the law is based on absolutes? The force of law isn't absolute. In fact our Constitution is about the limits of the government and the law.

What is your question? That Law is based on force is as absolute as anything gets. We have social conventions we try to treat as absolute, like equality and accountability, but force is always the base.

That's why the phrase "enforcing the law."

Humans are animals. We like to pretend otherwise, but it is only a pretense.

Thanks, you just retracted your statement about them being absolutes. That's honest and appreciated.

Not exactly. They are absolutes in the American form of Rule of Law.

Generally speaking, violence is the only absolute. It and the potential for violence is the basis of all law, everywhere, at any time. It is the absolute that law is based upon.

 

[Lursa]

Not exactly. They are absolutes in the American form of Rule of Law.

No, I already gave you one example. The "reasonable man" standard. There are others.

Sentencing is another non-absolute.

Generally speaking, violence is the only absolute. It and the potential for violence is the basis of all law, everywhere, at any time. It is the absolute that law is based upon.

Not even that. Change can occur merely by retreat, boycott, migration, abstension, passive resistance, etc. Perhaps the real absolute is the numbers behind the method? But probably even that is mitigated by other factors.

Using violence, you can kill 'everyone' but still not achieve the goal.

 

[grip]

Humans are animals. We like to pretend otherwise, but it is only a pretense.

The law cannot control people, it basically establishes and enforces rules for society to live by.
The letter of the law is what the law states (absolute), the spirit of the law is a social and moral consensus of the interpretation of the letter (open).

 

[Jay59]

The law cannot control people, it basically establishes and enforces rules for society to live by.

The law does control people. Not completely, true, but in many ways.

The letter of the law is what the law states (absolute), the spirit of the law is a social and moral consensus of the interpretation of the letter (open).

Now you are getting into things that require better definition.

No, I already gave you one example. The "reasonable man" standard. There are others. Sentencing is another non-absolute.

You are overmaking an agreed point.

Not even that. Change can occur merely by retreat, boycott, migration, abstension, passive resistance, etc. Perhaps the real absolute is the numbers behind the method? But probably even that is mitigated by other factors.

Violence is always the underpinning. We call it the police power for good reason.

Using violence, you can kill 'everyone' but still not achieve the goal.

No one ever claimed the system worked perfectly. That the government has the right and the power to use violence is the absolute. Results are another issue.

 

[Geoist]

No, I would not agree.

Not surprised you wouldn't.

 

[Mach]

The law does control people. Not completely, true, but in many ways.

Its entire purpose is to shape people's behavior. Do we call that control?

control: to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate: command:

Looks accurate. It doesn't say "with perfect compliance" or "mind control", that would be someone adding things to the definition that aren't there.

Regulates us might be less triggering for some.

 

[Master Debator]

What is your question? That Law is based on force is as absolute as anything gets.

That's a statement not an absolute. I guess my question would be whether or not you knew the difference?

We have social conventions we try to treat as absolute, like equality and accountability, but force is always the base.

We don't treat any of those things like absolutes. Affirmative Action, Qualified Immunity, and the fact that every citizen also has the right to use force to defend themselves say otherwise.

 

[grip]

The law does control people. Not completely, true, but in many ways.


Now you are getting into things that require better definition.

I don't want to get into all the definitions of the law's purpose. Its intent is absolute but its application is not. Even the laws of physics have changed over time. That's why I never make a promise or swear by anything because I can't control all the circumstances. In reality, an absolute is more of an idea.