Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to WH,
I thought the argument that morality needs a universal reference point to have absolute meaning (ie, meaning that is not reducible to physical, psychological or social factors) was well understood. This has been discussed throughout the history of philosophy and can be found, for example, in the work of the sophists and the relativists and in the existentialism of Nietzsche and Sartre.
It may be understood, but it's still only an argument. Doesn't mean they're right or wrong.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to tussock,
Hell with that. Get off your ass and vote left. The people who stayed home last election because they thought National would win could’ve put Labour into office quite comfortably. Don’t be one of them this time.
Damn fucking straight!
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Sacha,
Accessing a computer system without authorisation is illegal under NZ law.
Ah but Ugly Truth (or George, as I like to think of him) works from Judaic law, you see, and that doesn't mention email so it can't be unlawful ;-)
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to B Jones,
I don’t know what you’re arguing.
You and me both. I thought he started out arguing with Ben that ethics and morality are only possible if your laws are based on religious admonition (which he calls "natural law"), but every time you try to pin him down on something, he shifts the goalposts. I'm out, and if he wants to claim that as "victory" I couldn't care less.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
As B Jones says, "You can’t go back into the mists of time to find out what the law really is. It changes"
You are refusing to accept that.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to B Jones,
Last edited 8 September 2014 by “UT”?
I think we've established that that is Ugly Truth's own site, as he was planning to fix the broken links, though that may have been on the other thread.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to B Jones,
even if their enforcement is toothless. Which to me makes it law.
Without enforcement, there is no law, only pious warblings from the sidelines.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
So why don’t you read the wiki and then tell me what I’m missing?
What you're missing is that your definition is incorrect, in that common law is the decisions of judges in courts interpreting appropriate statutes. These may trace back, in some cases, to Alfred's liber judicialis but, as you note, it is lost and so we'll never know. How you drag Judaic law into that is well beyond my comprehension, but only serves to further your argument's invalidity.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to B Jones,
fundamental human rights.
Ah, now there we're talking about natural justice, rather than natural law. Any lawyer will tell you there is a world of difference between justice and law.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
I’m disappointed we haven’t seen anything at all yet. I was starting to think that there’s no need to get a legal injunction when management in your pockets will suffice just as well.
That's probably because none of the media outlets want to give the judge a reason to rule against them. By holding off until a decision is given, they show restraint, which they hope will be to their credit.