posted
Prominent, vitriolic anti-gay activists are no more 'always' or 'all' being outed than cute white middle/upper class girls are 'always' and 'the only ones' getting kidnapped.
Is it embarrassing that reports of anti-gay activists being outed are not uncommon? Well, yes, actually. Awkward!
It's even more embarrassing to let one's agenda determine what is true and reasonable in such a transparent way, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, that would be an interesting exercise. Take a list of vocal anti-gay activists, take the number that have been caught having gay affairs divide by the total number of them having affairs, and compare with the ratio of gay/all affairs for the general population.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, are you claiming that this is all reporting bias? Do you have evidence of that? ETA: And I don't think that anyone is saying "always" or "only". I certainly am not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope (to kmbboots), I'm just objecting specifically to steven's 'all the most' and 'it's becoming more and more true'.
(How does something become 'more and more true', btw?)
Now, personally I wouldn't be at all surprised if the most vocal anti-gay activists did have a higher ratio of closeted homosexuality than is the norm (though goodness knows, determining the rate of closeted homosexuality is...pretty tricky!). But that's not quite the same thing as what was said.
quote:Scott, all the most vocal and public anti-gay activists are being forced out of the closed by their own out-of-control desires.
It's becoming more and more true that the only people who have real problems with gay folks are, themselves, gay.
posted
I don't think you'd need to estimate the number of closeted activists or anything.
Just compare the ratio of types of affairs discovered involving vocal anti-gay politicans and the ratio among Republican politicians that haven't taken public stances on the issue (or if thats too small, use the whole pool of politicians).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, a wise policy generally, kmbboots. Anyway, I didn't mean to imply I was rejecting a widely-held position or anything.
Mucus, what I meant was that I think it would be difficult to accurately measure the rate of closeted homosexuality, well, anywhere-at least be confident in the statistic. Finding the rate of public outings is another thing, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Rakeesh, are you claiming that this is all reporting bias? Do you have evidence of that?
How many articles do you see saying "so and so, an outspoken opponent of SSM, is still perfectly straight and in loving relationship with his wife, with whom he maintains a healthy and normal sex life"?
We have the same sort of problem here in Japan. The Marines stationed here, or staying temporarily (as I am) are generally *extremely* well behaved in comparison to average American or Japanese males of their age. 99% of them will never do anything even remotely anti-social. But as soon as one of them goes out in town and starts a fight, or drives drunk, or God forbid rapes or murders someone, it makes the front lines of the local papers and gets talked about on the news. It's often just one idiot out of 30,000+ here, but from reading the papers and watching TV you get the impression that Marines are a bunch of bloodthirsty baby killers out to start fights and rape every woman they see. And if you already have an anti-American viewpoint, every incident you hear about will only help confirm it.
Likewise, every news story of another anti-SSM minister being outed will make international headlines, and you'll *notice* it. You're not going to pay attention to the thousands of perfectly straight ones.
This is all especially interesting, because we're posting on the forum of a very prominent opponent of same sex marriage. I don't know if he's read this thread, but I hope he doesn't mind if I guess at his own motives (very simplified for the sake of brevity): he's demonstrated in his writings a profound love of marriage and family. Almost all his characters marry and start families at some point, and he views this as being a vital part of human life and maturity. Likewise, he views a strong family as being the fundamental element of a strong society, a strong civilization. Partly because of his religion, partly because of his understanding of sociology, he views SSM as being a threat to the institution of marriage - in his opinion, it weakens it and cheapens it, and therefore weakens our ability to be civilized. This is again, and I think mostly due to his religious beliefs, because he views homosexuality as an aberration, a defect, a perversion that keeps a person from contributing to society at his fullest potential, keeps him from "growing up" so to speak.
That's a very simplified guess as to what his motives are, and were he to post here and say I got it wrong, I would defer at once to whatever he believes his own motivation is. But you'll notice, at least in my hypothetical scenario, that not a single one of his motivations has anything to do with his own personal sexuality. It has everything to do with how he thinks homosexuality impacts our civilization.
Likewise, I think every person will have his own reasons, and I think a lot of them would probably surprise us.
This is a bit off topic, but did you check out my links earlier in the thread about Shane Claiborne? I'd be very interested to know what you think, seeing as I think you and he would have similar religious views.
quote:ETA: And I don't think that anyone is saying "always" or "only". I certainly am not.
It appears to be steven's position.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: We have the same sort of problem here in Japan. The Marines stationed here, or staying temporarily (as I am) are generally *extremely* well behaved in comparison to average American or Japanese males of their age.
It's all relative.
The murder rate in Japan is less than 1 per 100,000. The murder rate in the US is 5 per 100,000. Take into the account the issues involved with stationing plenty of unattached young males in a foreign society, and the Japanese are fully justified in looking on the increased murder and sexual assault rates with alarm.
quote:But you'll notice, at least in my hypothetical scenario, that not a single one of his motivations has anything to do with his own personal sexuality.
Of course it should be noted that he's in favour of jailing prominent homosexuals in order to set an example for other people entertaining the thought of coming out of the closet. http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
It's not hard to counter your hypothetical scenario with one in which OSC proposed this because he deeply understands how best to motivate people to stay in the closet Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am willing to acknowledge a trend - and again it comes down to being baffled as to why people are so obsessed with what others do in their bedrooms* - but I think it dangerous and potentially harmful to speculate on the orientation of any particular person whether those speculations are true or not.
*The obsessed ones. Not the "when pressed feel obliged to come down on the whatever their religion says" folks.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That, and other articles (speaking to Mucus) is after all a generation old, literally. I haven't heard that he's rejected that kind of thinking since then, but then I also haven't heard that he's still speaking in the same themes and rhetoric. When this topic comes up, I often wonder what the essay would read if the date on it was 2011 instead of 1990. I'm not sure if it would be substantially different, and given his NOMA affiliations (as a whole group they strike me as remarkably spiteful, bigoted, and dishonest) I suspect it wouldn't be-but I like to hope so.
All of this is an old tune around here re: Card and sexuality, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath: Let me restate my feelings on the matter so we can all be on the same page. Before I do that I'll acknowledge that my initial post on the subject was very casual and not specifically worded, and could very much lead you to think that I had a much stronger and universally damning opinion than I actually do. After Scott's objections, my second attempt was closer...
Here goes try three:
I feel it is very common to have either aesthetic or sexual attraction to the same members of one's gender, but at such small quantities that it is very difficult to know the difference between the two. If one did believe that homosexuality is a sin, then if that feeling was present, it might feel like an urge to sin. With more acceptance of homosexuality and SSM in our culture, this feeling of uncomfortableness, if present, may be part of the reason why someone would be against the legality of SSM, while still the majority of the reason(s) are morality/religion based. I do not hold that if this uncomfortably is present that it makes people "gay" or "hypocrites", as I feel this attraction to be quite common and not a driving attractive force such as one might feel for members of the opposite gender which would define them as "straight". More like there can be more then one reason why people think what they think, and this could be one of those reasons, be it small or large.
As a comparison, if one's religion called for no drunkenness, one might still feel an (understandable and common) urge to engage in social drinking, without drinking to excess, but this allure of what would be a normal and harmless behavior (a beer or two with friends, or admiring the physicality of someone of the same gender) might lead them to fear that they would be tempted to sin and might cause them to seek stricter rules regarding drinking.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel it is very common to have either aesthetic or sexual attraction to the same members of one's gender, but at such small quantities that it is very difficult to know the difference between the two. If one did believe that homosexuality is a sin, then if that feeling was present, it might feel like an urge to sin. With more acceptance of homosexuality and SSM in our culture, this feeling of uncomfortableness, if present, may be part of the reason why someone would be against the legality of SSM, while still the majority of the reason(s) are morality/religion based.
this tends to make a lot of sense, actually, as far as we can determine from biology and neurology.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ...I think it dangerous and potentially harmful to speculate on the orientation of any particular person whether those speculations are true or not...
Drinking coffee is potentially harmful too...billions of people do it every day, though.
Seriously, as gossip goes, this kind of speculation has a very high entertainment-to-harm ratio.
Besides which, I'm from the rural South, where gossip is still the main form of entertainment. I try not to engage in baseless speculation, but...gossip is entertaining.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have always been quite religious and I am deeply offended by the notion of a god that would be so cruel and unjust as to want us to deny gay people the same opportunity for love and happiness that straight people have.
In your worldview, what is sin?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak
I have never understood this version of the saying and always used the one from Dune: "If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets."
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have always been quite religious and I am deeply offended by the notion of a god that would be so cruel and unjust as to want us to deny gay people the same opportunity for love and happiness that straight people have.
In your worldview, what is sin?
Sin is hurting ourselves or others unnecessarily thus damaging our relationship with God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: When I'm eating horse, or crow;), I like to pretend I'm eating steak but it never works very well. Taste bein' a hard sense to trick.
Steven, heh, how hard do you try?
Try to what? See how wrong you are?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Besides which, I'm from the rural South, where gossip is still the main form of entertainment. I try not to engage in baseless speculation, but...gossip is entertaining.
posted
Engage in baseless speculation. I mean, it's known you do a good piece of that `round here, so I was just wondering what your baseline is when you're not trying not to. (Step up your witty retort game past grade school, bud.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Besides which, I'm from the rural South, where gossip is still the main form of entertainment. I try not to engage in baseless speculation, but...gossip is entertaining.
To tell a rural Southerner not to gossip is like telling a Frenchman not to drink wine. It's practically culturally mandated.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Besides which, I'm from the rural South, where gossip is still the main form of entertainment. I try not to engage in baseless speculation, but...gossip is entertaining.
To tell a rural Southerner not to gossip is like telling a Frenchman not to drink wine. It's practically culturally mandated.
That's fine, I was just answering the question you asked Rakeesh.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I feel it is very common to have either aesthetic or sexual attraction to the same members of one's gender, but at such small quantities that it is very difficult to know the difference between the two. If one did believe that homosexuality is a sin, then if that feeling was present, it might feel like an urge to sin. With more acceptance of homosexuality and SSM in our culture, this feeling of uncomfortableness, if present, may be part of the reason why someone would be against the legality of SSM, while still the majority of the reason(s) are morality/religion based.
(I appreciate you taking the time to reword your argument.) This is certainly very possible. The biggest problem I see with it is this: if this discomfort with their own feelings is caused by their strong religious beliefs, then logically the religious beliefs have to predicate the discomfort. In other words, in your scenario one must already strongly believe that homosexuality is a sin and should not be tolerated by our culture to feel uncomfortable with their own feelings. So the discomfort cannot be a prime cause. (of course, in reality there are many different reasons why a straight man might feel uncomfortable with homosexual thoughts, most of them having nothing to do with religion)
Now that discomfort could strengthen, intensify, and add personal emotional meaning to one's anti ssm beliefs, but it couldn't be a cause of those beliefs, because it already requires a primary cause (religious beliefs) in order for that particular discomfort to manifest itself.
If I understand you correctly, we don't have any disagreement there.
I want to restate that I dislike the idea of speculating about one's personal beliefs and motivations. I'd rather believe what they actually say about themselves and argue against their beliefs than psychoanalyze their intentions. Why? Because even (or especially) if I'm right in my analysis, what does it get me? It gets me one pissed off dude, who will no longer be interested in the valid (and more demonstrable) arguments I have against his stated religious motivations.
quote:I do not hold that if this uncomfortably is present that it makes people "gay" or "hypocrites"
This seems to be a point of contention, and I think the reason for this is because we have wildly different ideas as to what the word "gay" means. In this argument, I use it interchangeably "homosexual", and I define "homosexual" by the standard dictionary definition. (— n 1. a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex) I usually soften it with the modifier "partially" to indicate that they're mostly heterosexual, but due to these desires you postulate, at least partially gay.
You continue to contest this, and I believe it's because you define "gay" to mean something much different. I think it'd help if we can come to some sort of understanding on this.
quote:as I feel this attraction to be quite common and not a driving attractive force such as one might feel for members of the opposite gender which would define them as "straight". More like there can be more then one reason why people think what they think, and this could be one of those reasons, be it small or large.
Earlier in your post, you said people might conflate their aesthetic appreciation for their own sex with sexual attraction. To me, that sort of confusion seems to be a very adolescent issue - an adult generally has enough sexual experience to understand what he finds sexually desirous and what he simply finds admirable without much confusion. Otherwise, you'd find these anti-ssm Christians going crazy trying to shut down art museums because of all the beautiful depictions of male nudes in art. (*insert inevitable story of some crazy group doing exactly that here*)
How common do you believe this sort of attraction to be?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on nothing but talking to people and being alive for three decades (parts of that first one are kinda blurry)...very common.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: ]It's all relative.
The murder rate in Japan is less than 1 per 100,000. The murder rate in the US is 5 per 100,000. Take into the account the issues involved with stationing plenty of unattached young males in a foreign society, and the Japanese are fully justified in looking on the increased murder and sexual assault rates with alarm.
As far as I know (I did a brief cursory search online), there haven't been any murders in the past 20 years or so. There have been three rape cases, including a very bad one involving a 14 year old girl in 2008. Most of the problems relate to Marines getting drunk and pushing locals around, or getting overly friendly with the local women.
I agree they have reason to dislike us, though. It's often explained to us as "how would you feel if the Japanese defeated the U.S. in WWII, invaded your hometown, and were still occupying it? And if their average height was 6' 8" and they were all far more muscular than you and aggressive? How would you feel if a bunch of them came into a bar you were hanging out in and started pushing you around?" Not very pleased, obviously.
quote:It's not hard to counter your hypothetical scenario with one in which OSC proposed this because he deeply understands how best to motivate people to stay in the closet
The one key difference, though, is my hypothesis is made up of all the reasons Card has actually established in all his articles against homosexuality, as well as an understanding of his beliefs (at least as described in his books), and therefore has some weight to it. The scenario you describe would be purely conjecture. I of course think his views regarding ssm are flawed, I don't see why that has to mean he's a closeted homosexual.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I agree they have reason to dislike us, though. It's often explained to us as "how would you feel if the Japanese defeated the U.S. in WWII, invaded your hometown, and were still occupying it? And if their average height was 6' 8" and they were all far more muscular than you and aggressive? How would you feel if a bunch of them came into a bar you were hanging out in and started pushing you around?" Not very pleased, obviously.
I don't imagine we have a decent chance of comprehending how they feel. It's not a binary situation. They attacked us. They lost the war after that happened. There's all sorts of layers of shame, and regret, and fealty and fear involved with that- the Japanese national character was changed drastically in the middle of the last century.
They never had a chance of having such a profound effect on us, even if they had won- and keep in mind, "winning" in that scenario was better defined as "not losing." The United States, and Americans by culture and history, have never faced such a conflict in all its existence- not even during the Cold War- there has never been another country that could possibly hope to subdue our own.
So, I wouldn't say we can make many meaningful conclusions about how others feel when they've been conquered, and rather than being made to pay in toil for what they've been a part of, have instead been allowed to rebuild and prosper in a way they have never before experienced.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it's an poor analogy, but it's frequently used by the command here, and does it's job of reminding us to see ourselves from their perspective. The sort of brawls that you could get into back in Hawaii, the consequence of which is getting your ass beat by a 300 lb Samoan and walking around with a black eye for a few days, can easily turn into an international incident here. The height and weight disparity only make it easier to view us as the aggressor in any situation.
I'm on Okinawa, where between the 1st of April and 22nd of June, 1945, an estimated 150,000 civilians were killed in the allied invasion - one third of the indigenous population. We didn't go in with the deliberate intention of killing civilians, but we certainly didn't avoid indiscriminate bombing and shelling.
A lot of these Japanese were killed by their own soldiers when they tried to flee to safety behind American lines, a lot of them committed suicide (with grenades given to them by the Japanese soldiers) rather than surrender, true, but to this day you'll never see that in their textbooks. I recently visited a local history museum - run by the Japanese, not the military - where they portray us as imperial conquerors and oppressive fascists. Pictures of troops arresting communist leaders in the 1950s are labeled "U.S. soldiers silencing local politicians."
There's a great deal of tension here still, tension that you won't really find in, say, Germany. But in Germany, children are taught about the holocaust and about how horrible the Nazi regime really was. The Japanese are still very reluctant to admit or education their children about the shameful things they themselves have done.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand, the US occupation did purge Communist politicians. Somewhat of a broader trend, the US not being particularly nice to Communist politicians even on the US mainland.
One thing to put out there though, from what I understand some Okinawans are pretty apathetic toward the rest of Japan as well. The reasoning being that they were independent until occupied by the Japanese after, say (as a point of reference), the British occupied Hong Kong. They assimilated much more, but still a significant number supposedly feel that they were doubly screwed, used as cannon fodder, and then saddled with an American occupation in addition to a Japanese one. There are Okinawan museums that depict Japanese troops in non-flattering ways too.
posted
There's difference between the natives and the ethnic Japanese. The natives, as far as I've seen, seem to dislike the Japanese as much as the Americans - probably because to this day they're treated as second class citizens. I know there are some places where there are still large groups of natives - some who even speak their own language still - but the large majority of people around here are Japanese.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: From what I understand, the US occupation did purge Communist politicians. Somewhat of a broader trend, the US not being particularly nice to Communist politicians even on the US mainland.
It's actually slightly more complicated than that--for the first several years of occupation, the U.S. actively supported the Japanese Communists, who had been imprisoned under the former regime. After all, they were some of the few politicians who definitively could be said not to have been involved in the war. They generally saw Communism as a positive force in Japanese culture; see, for example, Kurosawa's No Regrets for Our Youth, which the U.S. censors were happy to release during this period.
Then the Cold War heated up, and the U.S. did a very abrupt about-face, throwing people out of office and in cases back in prison--and letting back into power many of the people they had previously removed.
I highly recommend Dower's Embracing Defeat if anyone's looking for a book on post-war Japan.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Today, racism is so utterly unfashionable in most of white society that evil people have to find other "causes" to exploit in order to gain supremacy. Evil people have not decreased in number or changed their methods; they simply use different excuses for seeking to oppress whole classes of people in the name of some supposedly noble cause.
You could just about cut it with a knife...
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Today, racism is so utterly unfashionable in most of white society that evil people have to find other "causes" to exploit in order to gain supremacy. Evil people have not decreased in number or changed their methods; they simply use different excuses for seeking to oppress whole classes of people in the name of some supposedly noble cause.
You could just about cut it with a knife...
what
but
quote:Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
look at him go man, it's ..
well, back to work before I get too bewildered
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still wonder if he has been as overtly anti-homosexual as in that essay, or even homophobic as in that essay more recently than in that essay. I thought carefully about using that term, and it really does seem to apply: why else wish to periodically jail homosexuals for engaging in homosexual behavior if not because its influence, and thus they themselves, are feared?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I myself am a believer that we should enforce all the laws on the books rigorously, but unlike OSC I am hugely against those unfortunate left over legal persecutions of a by gone era, and I am also for reforming our laws so that no little nazi chestnuts are still on the books.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that laws will often outlast their acceptance in the general population is one pretty good reason they shouldn't simply all be enforced rigorously. There's room for discretion in a republic.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree in principal, not in execution. To leave outdated and harmful laws "on the books" but simply not enforce them is twofold folly. Firstly they are law, and can be enforced. That OSC is calling for oppressive and discriminatory laws to be executed only shows that point.
Secondly, laws are the skeleton of our country, the strength on which all else builds upon, and to weaken our structure by allowing it to not be resolute but instead require our government representatives to forswear their oaths to uphold our laws and instead use their own judgment on what should and should not be enforced is self defeating and a bad system.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the legislative process is the digestive system. A process by which delicious nutritious food enters, is converted into just enough power that we don't starve, but the vast majority of that delicious food is turned into unpleasant smelling refuse beariing no resemblence to what went in.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think citizens are the strength of a country.
Citizens are not the rigid backbone that we base our system on...yes, a county's strength can be measured by its citizens, but it can also be measured by its infrastructure, military, GDP, food produced, etc, ad nausium. That's not my point though. Laws are what we base our system of government on.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone_Wolf, how would you go about the process of getting old laws off the books?
Off the top of my head: systematic review by elected officials, where questionable laws are brought to the people, on which ever level the laws exist (local, state, federal), with the option of judicial review of constitutionality.
Make our representatives work for their money...yes, the special elections would cost the country, but having a "tight ship" is a worthwhile expense I say.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this day and age of online connectivity I think we should completely do away with representatives and their voting rights. What we should instead do is have representatives who present legislation, and those bills are presented to the entire nation on some sort of legislative social network, and everybody has a vote for national issues, and one vote for their state's issues.
Everybody would vote on all the items on the daily feed, and thus we'd be a true modern democracy.
It would be beautiful.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I agree in principal, not in execution. To leave outdated and harmful laws "on the books" but simply not enforce them is twofold folly. Firstly they are law, and can be enforced. That OSC is calling for oppressive and discriminatory laws to be executed only shows that point.
Secondly, laws are the skeleton of our country, the strength on which all else builds upon, and to weaken our structure by allowing it to not be resolute but instead require our government representatives to forswear their oaths to uphold our laws and instead use their own judgment on what should and should not be enforced is self defeating and a bad system.
The law is constantly interacting with and being redefined by the needs of the society that wrote the law. To interpret the law is to use one's *own* judgement. The law is a device for focusing and expressing the judgement of society.
OSC is right in the sense of how the law *can* be used. Just wrong about how to use it. You are wrong about how the law works. Law is human. It is meaningless outside of its application through learned and sound judgement.
The law is constructed in such a way as to allow that at any point in the process, society can reassess and if necessary, disregard old statutes as they longer apply, or no longer apply constructively. You see, human judgement is the broom of the system. There isn't a bookkeeper fast enough to keep up with what we need from the law.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
