Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic  Okay, If you must insist. You said “to come to a conclusion in regards to a problem which must be resolved is more reflective upon the times and the people than the value of the solution, which is made explicit by its actual impact” A classic nonsensical claim reflective of your poor reasoning skills, because you try to separate the solution of consensus and the subjective measurement of success that you conveniently create by your own self-serving statement. |
Perhaps I should elucidate my point a bit more to avoid further misinterpretations. The conclusions made upon the empirically valid impact of the implemented law shall shape its future depending on the view of the majority at the time when it is deemed fit to alter it. The people who shall change the law will either a)Be the same population, and as such decided that the impact was more negative than positive, or b)A different population with different emphasis on different values; otherwise the law would not need changing. Of course it is all subjective, that is implicit in context! There is no inferred measurement of success in my statement, that was a projection of
yours, Im not sure what this says of your reasoning skills by your mode of measure. My statement was indeed not a self serving one as your sinde remarks are. I simply presented my view on the subject that was being discussed and made a few remarks about your unessisary commentary in redard to the other posters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic On the topic of the consideration process (grey shading), it is cognitively consistent that any process that involves the evolutionary procedure of further refinement of any Public Policy Mandate (i.e. Abortion laws) cannot circumvent the CURRENT legal constraints which can only be viewed (black or white) with the detail of described LAW, until the new legal parameters are adopted. The term black or white is clearly reflective of the inherent rigidity of enforced LAW, while the term of grey shading is clearly reflective of the non-legal binding consideration process. Any attempt to provide an alternate process that is based in reality would be patently INSANE. |
I believe that my suggestion was entirely ideologically within legal parameters, it pertaining to the typical situations which change the legal parameters, e.g. majority rule, and what shifts majority opinion. The law is the law of course and I at no point was advocating any for m of civil disobedience nor was I advocating any implementation of laws by states undermining the constitutional law (which is no longer nearly as valid as it once was, being reduced to shades of grey by the fairly recent adoption of interpretational tendencies by the supreame court judges) I simply observed that the law does not equate to the view of the people who compromised to allow for it,but rather it is a settlement by both sides, black and white as it were, form an acceptable moral grey. It is always this way, law is compromise. That is all I said. All the rest was you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic Lastly, you said “I think we both know what that equates to: emotional validation of assumed truths”. Please provide one SINGLE measurable example that reflects the process of validation WITHOUT the ensuing empirically measurable component of emotion, regardless if it encompasses the detailing of personal morality, or describing the constraints of mathematical axioms. It would be exponentially more productive if you could consider the implications of your statements and claims, before the subsequent vetting process discredits them. I must say, based on the quality of the other posts that I responded to, your composition is clearly the least articulate. |
All truths are assumed, however, not emotionally validated, this statement was more directed at your undue attacks which are not pertinent to the discussion for they would be self evident if your argument was sufficently valid. Your reducto ad absurdum tactic is an intersting choice, however, it invariably takes my statement out of context and imbeds a slew of assumptions into it. You should learn that pedanticism is not a substitute for substance in an argument, you can do nothing but waste time by bringing in irrelevent facts which only tie in to the argument via your imbedded presumptions. I suppose you need everything spelled out very carefully in order to avoid confusion.
Now, if you have anymore questions about my evaluation of the pertinent arguments, I will answer them. I think that philosophy of law is a valid object for consideration since it is most definitely applicable to this issue. I will be nothing but civil if your intents are sincere. Does anyone have anything to add as far as the philosophy of law which might pertain to this topic? What might come of certain legal compromises such as various restrictions?