After Hours

Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


There's no right of revolution in a democracy

By NickNielsen ·
Tags: Off Topic

As it happens, I agree with him. I've been trying to articulate this for years, but never quite succeeded.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Again, Ansu shows the same colors . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to I would guess. . . .

..... and they ain't pretty.

Some points:

I discussed your FIRST sentence. You didn't rebut anything I said, but rather continued your business as usual.

I took a fair amount of time to best explain a little about me and where I was coming from - an extension of an olive branch, in a way.

I tried to be thoughtful. I tried to be civil. And you responded by being evasive to everything I said and by calling me a pompous ***. It's no different than every reply you've ever left.

The only reason I gave it a try this time is because Santee suggested there might be something about you that I'm overlooking. Well, Santee might see it, but I sure don't. At least not as evidenced by your most recent message.

Fine by me. I tried. But I'll now go back to neither reading nor replying to your messages. Not everyone can play Chess, I suppose.

Collapse -


by santeewelding In reply to I would guess. . . .

Speaking at a Chicago law school, Justice Sonia Sotomayor related what outgoing Justice David H. Souter told her about life on the court, saying the key to a pleasant life on the court was realizing that every justice was acting in good faith (from the NYT).

Collapse -

That was good advice by Justice Souter. I wonder, however . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to I would guess. . . .

..... what part of good faith he thinks pompous *** falls under.

Collapse -


by santeewelding In reply to I would guess. . . .

There's the other use of the word, "faith", the kind that can get us all killed.

Collapse -


by AnsuGisalas In reply to I would guess. . . .

I'm afraid you read me like you'd read yourself. I am not you, I am as different a person as you are.
Did it occur to you that my first was not the foundation of the latter?
And that saying so turned your piece into hitting me across my face with that olive branch? And still I offered that you may not be the pompous *** your initial dismissal had suggested (and to which I protested, not wishing to simply make that suggestion my truth). [EDIT: I realize that the offer was ambiguous, I intended it like a carte blanche to ignore that request. I do find that audible flatulence is the best response to pompousness... I tried to extend to you the benefit of the doubt. The way it was supposed to go was: First I had commanded you unconditionally to pull my finger, then I made it conditional - to apply only if the case was that you were being a pompous *** - and letting you be the unopposed authority on the matter. I thought the latter was a fitting reciprocation to your olive branch, but I guess I should have made it clearer]

I work in different ways than you.
It's true that I don't come at you with facts.
I don't need them : I'm not trying to prove you wrong.
I'm only trying to show you flaws in your stances, not fatal ones, but the tiny ones that make a person eventually settle for what they want to believe.
The facts are for when a common protocol has been established, and we've a way to go before that point.
I don't play golf. I learned to play chess from my grandma, but my style of play never went beyond alternating between brainwaves and brainfarts... and ever so rarely a brainwave disguised as a brainfart.
So, no, I'm never going to show you an Aristotelian argument that will collapse your view of the world.
Why would I do a mean thing like that?

But I can show you where your footwork may betray you.

Collapse -

Not quite... most law is not enumerated in constitutional documents

by DelbertPGH In reply to I find it troubling . . . ...

The great bulk of the law that governs us is common law... what we as citizens and our courts of record over hundreds of years have come to take as customary. E.g., marriage as an institution is not established in a constitution; it has no founding document whatever. Regardless, we all understand that marriage is governed by law.

Napoleon confronted a fragmented France that had hundreds of separate traditions of common law; to unify the state, he codified everthing. Great legal traditions, primarily evolutions of feudalism, were abolished at a stroke by the code. French lawyers look back through court interpretation and back to the set of books that laid out everything that was lawful in Napoleon's empire, and rarely further than that. English, and American, lawyers look back through court precedents and social custom, for hundreds upon hundreds of years, as necessary, to isolate governing legal principles.

Collapse -


by AnsuGisalas In reply to Not quite... most law is ...

is philosophy - gutted, dehydrated with practical natron, anointed with sacred authoritative oils, wrapped tight in straps of white textual linen - and then entombed for eternity.
That's the association your piece evoked for me - thanks!

Collapse -

it's alive

by DelbertPGH In reply to Law

Law always adapts to meet changes and new needs, if politics permits the courts the latitude. New law is created by legislatures, but courts and society steadily put new life into old law.

Collapse -

Yeah... I know.

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Law

Maybe it's more fitting to have the constitution be the resurrected mummy, and the laws be the minion hordes - but now I'm taking it way further than it can bear

Collapse -


by AnsuGisalas In reply to Delbert

is not what I'd have expected from you... asking for less brevity, that is.
That said, I don't think anybody is saying that the unfortunate inhabitants of pockets of wild west should all tread the path of Gandhi, making armor of their unprotected flesh.
If you live in a place where man-eating predators prowl, being armed is justifiable.
It may stave off the tyranny of the common beasts, but it won't stop the tyranny of armies. Just look at the insurrectionists around Afghanistan.

Related Discussions

Related Forums