So despite there being a bunch of commentary in that thread on your laws. No explication is necessary?
Unless I can write in another language you could actually understand, then yes.
So no definitions, distinctions of any kind, of any terms used by you are necessary to make your laws generally understandable to people who speak English?
Is that an implied argument from ignorance? (ie. if one can not do better than either no better can be done or it's somehow wrong to criticize?) Not to mention that I've already made the argument that law is likely necessarily complex. I doubt if I have much reason to embark on creating a different legal system.
If you have no reason to embark on a constructive legal system, why is it you're willing to argue about it so much?
I'll assume for the moment you mean "embark on constructing a legal system" (As I don't know how to "embark on a system"). So, in your world the only person who can offer a counter-argument on a subject is someone who is willing to construct said thing from scratch? Huh. Go figure. So for background where I live, someone can say "Hey, that paragraph in this document is redundant" without being expect to re-write the whole thing or "You should have used tail-recursion" without having to rewrite the whole program. I could go on. Who knew places like yours existed?
If you've got something to offer, then offer. I know of a lot of people who like to argue, but do nothing in the way of suggesting improvements.
Depends on how you look at it. From here all I've been doing is suggesting improvements. You provided a weak argument for preferring a particular characteristic of a legal system. I improved it...by showing you that it should be thrown away.
Yes, I see that you console yourself with the idea that my consideration that your argument is bad is the result of some deliberate position on my part. Have you considered that your belief that your argument is correct is the direct result of spending too much time talking with people who are unwilling or unable to criticize it properly?
I accept criticism fine and I need no consolation. I feel great, thanks.
And interestingly enough...not what was said. I didn't say that you have a problem accepting criticism but that you think your ideas a sound because you have problems finding enough of it and in high-enough quality (other than me - which you are now engaged in some game of "avoid making a point")
You are being deliberately pedantic.
You're not in any position to know that I'm being deliberate and you've not brought any evidence to the table that I'm being pedantic.
I do believe my positions and hypotheses are sound.
...and that's the problem. I mentioned that earlier.
It appears you think you know how to criticize properly, as if there was such a thing.
More like I think I know something about it. For example I think first you need to establish definitions so that people involved are working from a common understanding of your terms. You seemingly have little need for that. So it at least seems like that's at least one thing I have up on whatever feedback you are getting.
Highly questionable. I could find plenty of your arguments to have baseless theories, but I'm not interested in pointing them out.
Sorry for interjecting but is English not your primary language or something? I assume you mean you think my arguments are baseless or illogical. Well, feel free to demonstrate your point. I'd love to hear that.
Colour me confused. So are you admitting you made a bad argument here? You could have said that ages ago.
Yes you are confused. So we do agree on some things. I'm not admitting to bad aguments
So you're admitting to not following the conversation. Ok!
*sigh* Look it's simple. Your argument was bad. The number of laws/loopholes:
i) Is not defined well enough to be useful
ii) In the various definitions posited by you it is incorrect.
I wonder if your argument would be so "off-handed" if someone hadn't called you on it?
Not true, no and no. Calling anything out, doesn't make you or anybody else right (or wrong).
Then you should be able to answer my earlier question about how we are counting laws.
You assume a lot.
Only what you've given me to assume. I've provided a few provisional definitions which I've given you plenty of opportunity to correct or extend.
I like how you used the word simple as if it were any less or more simple than what I said. Back at ya! Nice try.
Hmmm...you are sure working hard to find something to whine about. I doubt I was making a reference like that. If you think something I said is not easy than please point out the specific thing. I've certainly done that with you.
...a false accusation. Sure. However it doesn't speak much for your intellectual integrity.
I'm not remotely worried. Pure rhetorical hyperbole.
Well either I am pedantic - in which case you should offer some argument to that effect or I'm not. In which case you will not be capable of arguing that (successfully).
There's nothing hyperbolic here.
I understand a few things. However I don't necessarily understand your argument - unless of course it's simply wrong. By giving you the opportunity to redefine your terms I'm being considerably more polite than say...to pick a zealot at random...say bitcoin2cash. His response to your approach is something like "you got nothing".
And yet they're not too far from the truth...
That you have nothing? Are you just setting yourself up to be zinged now?
Thanks Atlas. How about another topic? Do you find it interesting how the same "you get it or you don't" rationale works equally well when arguing both correct and incorrect things?
"You either get that aliens are going to destroy the world in 2012 or you don't!" The mild implication that there's something wrong with "not getting it" is great manipulation too.
Yes how about that other topic (other than garrulous argumentation)? I don't recall talking about any aliens. Who's the manipulator now?
You of course. I'm using the statement about aliens as an example of the kind of argument that can be put forth using the same technique you used. You implied (and in a few cases stated) that there is something wrong with me if I don't understand your argument.
Depends on what you mean. A circular argument or definition is one in which it depends on the term itself for definition. i.e. Whales are whales. Other than dealing with religious people I rarely find myself in a place where someone has to make a circular definition so early on. Why not just say: "Hey I simply assert this for no good reason?"
Simply can't help yourself can you? My assertions are solid. Your arguments are for naught. They in no way undercut the concepts and premises I bring to the table.
Perhaps I need to be more figurative? I think the point I'm making here is that your table is currently empty. Feel free to "bring something to it".
Not interested in making more examples than I've already compiled. I've thought them thru just fine (let's see you do better). I invite you to sit down and write a set of laws. We'll compare notes.
Argument from ignorance once again.
Aww... Don't wanna play? You're ignorantly arguing for argument sake.
Sounds like you don't understand the term but since you won't define terms...
Well, you do keep implying that it's my fault that your words don't make sense. Isn't "You get it or you don't" is a implicit argument that I have to make sense of your words and that you are not responsible for making sense of them to others.
Nope, not implying that my words don't make sense (they do). To be crystal clear, you have a language problem. You pretend to not get it and feign just enough ignorance so you can argue. Is that clear enough for you? What part of the word responsible don't you get?
More like I simply do not pretend to know what you are thinking and I consider that language to be far more complex than what exists in my head. Pretty much everything else is logic. You've already demonstrated pretty clearly that you are using some non-standard definitions of terms pretty central to the discussion (e.g. law) and you've already made some arguments by special definition. It sure seems reasonable to assume that we need to define things a bit better.
I daresay, you could never be a very good anthropologist, private investigator, or anything that doesn't lay down, to perfection, exactly what everybody means. This doesn't in any way imply I'm speaking in riddles or suggesting you solve a "mystery novel". Apparently, this is overly taxing your mental capacity. Take a class on praxeology. I pity you.
You'll have to explain what you mean by perfection. Not only have I, in this discussion demonstrated an understanding of the term colloqually but I've also demonstrated that it's not necessarily for everything. My example about law was about approximating functions. Perhaps you just don't have the background in math but approximating functions aren't perfect. They're approximations....and of course since you're already eliminated yourself from the potential causes for these problems...I guess you're just left reaching.
I'd love to spend some time reading Wittgenstein but apparently I get distracted by sophomoric argumentation easily. Considering what Wittgenstein was attempting to do for language what Bertrand Russel was attempting to do for math (and was subsequently foiled by Godel). I think it's a great use of your time.
Yes, you do get distracted by argumentation; yours to be exact. You're making sophomoric assumptions about arguments over assumptions. At least Wittgenstein had something to offer.
Not really, most of this talk is entirely focused on a couple of seemingly crappy arguments you made.
