Posts by UglyTruth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I guess if there's alternative history and science, there's alternative legal theory.
Which theory is the better one, the one that fits the facts, or the one which results in fictions like the NZ state's position on sovereignty and the common law?
-
Is this a Maori sovereignty argument?
It's related, but it's based on English law rather than assertion of Maori custom or rangatiratanga. One of the critical points is that the NZ state was established as "civil government", which divorces it from the common law necessary for the Westminster system to function effectively.
-
Yes, I believe that the laws passed by the NZ parliament are the laws of the land, and every court, judge, lawyer, and police officer in the land will back me up on that one.
You are mistaken.
Lex terræ: /léks téhriy/. The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to "due process of law". In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)
http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/CommonLaw/LexTerre
As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.
-
Yup, it's my story. I get to define these aliens how I like.
So, you don't really mean aliens, you mean human-like beings that you can't show any evidence for, right?
Again, Occam's Razor says that my explanation is more probable because it makes fewer assumptions than yours does.You've now backtracked from "aliens that have taken over my brain" to "aliens that exist".
Your "money quote" is circular reasoning: you are assuming that the Constitution Act was effective in order to argue that NZ legislation is effective.
The legislation is not effective because there is more to sovereignty than political supremacy, and the NZ parliament doesn't meet the criteria.
This point is illustrated by them using a blatantly false definition of sovereignty to give the impression that they are actually sovereign. -
The state has the right in this country to entirely redefine the law.
No, it doesn't. Effective legislation is a function of sovereignty, and the NZ parliament is not sovereign.
http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/Sovereignty
http://www.actsinjunction.info/nzsov.htmlNo, I told you the purpose. The aliens are making fun of you.
The thing about aliens is that they're alien. You are ascribing human qualities to the unknown, which is why I said there was no purpose.
-
Sensible state. Why acknowledge the source of something that might not even exist?
Because in the context of common law it has been acknowledged to exist - the state is not telling the truth when it asserts otherwise. If you tell people that common law and case law are equivalent terms whens you are aware of the facts then you are lying, regardless of whether you are an atheist or not.
Denying aliens have taken over your brain and turned you loose as an amusing joke follows the same logic. Do you deny that has happened? If so, why?
Because of Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is that reality is an ordered system, your hypothetical example has no purpose and is therefore less probable than the explanation of the purpose as being the disclosure of politically inconvenient truths.
-
Once you get into the details of what constitutes a divine being and how one would qualify as such it's usually pretty easy to say very firmly "I believe that cannot exist".
Straw man. Stating a belief is different to an assertion of fact.
So any definition of "divine being" that requires either, I'm happy to say I'm certain such a thing cannot exist.
Another straw man: you are limiting the scope of your opinion.
-
Hard News: Privacy and the Public Interest, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Ah, the old etymological fallacy.
No, it's more about ambiguity in language. For the sake of argument let's call the early definition a true oath, and a promise that does not call deity to witness, but is still called an oath, a hollow oath. Someone who makes a hollow oath is implicitly claiming the benefit of a true oath when they call their hollow oath an oath without qualification (according to the doctrine of contra proferentum in contracts).
In the case of the state's description of common law, calling blatant misrepresentation of fact an issue of etymology is a spurious argument. It's the same underlying issue here, the attempted redefinition of language as a means to promote atheism.
Ambiguity in language is essential to the legal bait and switch used by the civil state, for example the case against Kim Dotcom. In Dotcom's case the ambiguous term was "copyright violation", where the US meaning depends on the US doctrine of fair use, but the NZ meaning does not, since the US doctrine of fair use is not part of NZ law. The end result of this bait and switch is that evidence is presented which appears to be true, but is actually false within the context of the forum of dispute.
Interestingly enough, the US doctrine of fair use is itself an atheistic doctrine, since it effectively deems acts that are not wrongful by conscience (i.e rightful at equity) as being wrongful acts.
-
Yes, I certainly can.
No, you definitely can't.
The atheism of the civil law is widespread, and will in some cases misrepresent the facts, eg Merriam Webster, (the US opposed the theism of the common law from the time of the founding fathers), and Oxford, which was an early adopter of the civil law in England.
Merriam Webster definition:
"a formal and serious promise to tell the truth or to do something"
Oxford definition:
"A solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one’s future action or behaviour"
Note how the pro-civil law definitions differ from the early definitions:
oath (n.)
Old English að "oath, judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in witness of truth or a promise," from Proto-Germanic *aithaz (cognates: Old Norse eiðr, Swedish ed, Old Saxon, Old Frisian eth, Middle Dutch eet, Dutch eed, German eid, Gothic aiþs "oath"), from PIE *oi-to- "an oath" (cognates: Old Irish oeth "oath"). Common to Celtic and Germanic, possibly a loan-word from one to the other, but the history is obscure. In reference to careless invocations of divinity, from late 12c.
http://www.etymonline.comAnd as posted before:
Jurare est Deum in testum vocare, et est actus divini cultus. To swear is to call God to witness, and is an act of religion. 3 Co. Inst. 165. Vide 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3180, note; 1 Benth. Rat. of Jud. Ev. 376, 371, note.
http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/CommonLaw/Maxims
Further misrepresentation of the facts about theism in the law is documented here:
http://www.actsinjunction.info/corruption.html -
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
I'd prefer a rational theist to an irrational atheist.
Denying that a divine being exists is pretty irrational, considering that the denial implies omniscience on the part of the denier.