At 04:51 PM 10/18/2001 +0100, "Steve Nichols" <email@example.com> wrote:
>Do you have a personal grudge against Courts or the Police?
Straw man -- irrelevant. I haven't expressed any such.
>You certainly aren't managing to keep your rational balance
>amongst all this anti "Law" tirade.
The above seems like an argumentum ad hominem tirade.
> Your idea of personal agreements regards property transactions is
>a complete non-starter. What about all the parties not aware of
>the agreement? Also, how do you enforce the agreement without
>a wider code of behaviour?
Straw man. I've never said there shouldn't be a "wider code of
> I don't believe in "Natural Law" in any divine sense, but a belief
>that there are "Laws" is pretty undeniable ... every country
>has them and they are written down. If you want to play chess,
>how can you meaningfully engage with other players if you define
>the Laws of Chess exactly how you choose?
Straw man. Distortion. Can't you tell the difference between the
rules by which games are played and the pretended "laws" of
political liars and cheaters.
> Animal society have social norms, enforced by violence or
>threat, but they don't have writing or objective language. Are you
>in favour of monkey-troupe type societies when you basically
>do whatever you can get away with, including killing the young
>of rival males?
Straw man. Irrelevant.
> I would hope that posthuman 'codes/ laws' are a big modification
>of those devised by primitive human societies, but I wouldn't want
>to replace Law with Lawlessness, which seems to be your aim.
Straw man. I've never expressed above. I invite you to question
the notion of "law" (so-called) in your head. See "Clear-Your-Mind
>Oh yeh, and this e-group is subject to Yahoo! terms of service
>(rules). Surely I am entitled, like them, to ask adherence to
>my company's requests, for e-groups that choose to avail themselves
>of belonging to this 'club.' If you break club rules/ laws the Yahoo!
>could (directly & legally) kick you out of the club? You accepted
>the rules as a pre-condition of joining ... so what is wrong with Laws
>of this type?
Fraudulent argument. I agreed to Yahoo! RULES. Period.
> Sure there is a problem with (human) POLITICIANS, but this is
>a separate issue entirely from the Legislative process. They would
>probably be grasping ego-maniacs even in our monkey-troupe
I invite you to consider that there might be a much deeper problem
from which practically all humans suffer, namely certain deep
concepts/notions such as "law" which underpin human politics.
See "Clear-Your-Mind Reports"
Until you clear these primitive concepts/notions from your mind
you most likely will remain incapable of Posthuman Politics.
> My advice .. read King Asoka. www.multisell.com/philosophy.htm
>and learn about Bentham , JS Mills and others regarding
>when it is OK to break an unjust Law. I want better Laws and a
>better process, not the removal of Law with no viable replacement.
Straw man. I've never suggested the "removal of Law." I have
suggested that you remove the silly notion of "law" (so-called)
from your head.
My advice to you is to learn about Bentham, starting with 'Bentham's
Theory of Fictions' by C.K. Ogden, from which I quote:
* "Out of one foolish word may start a thousand daggers."
* "Behold here one of the artifices of lawyers. They refuse to administer
justice to you unless you join with them in their fictions; and then their
cry is, see how necessary fiction is to justice! Necessary indeed; but
too necessary; but how came it so, and who made it so?
As well might the father of a family make it a rule never to let his children
have their breakfast till they had uttered, each of them, a certain number
of lies, curses, and profane oaths; and then exclaim, "You see, my dear
children, how necessary, lying, cursing, and swearing are to human
* "Look to the letter, you find nonsense -- look beyond the letter,
you find nothing."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:14 MDT