Letters to the Editor
-
@ Margalis
Who said I was being adversarial?
Anti-reductivist, maybe. And what have you got against argument? Does Hegel frighten you? You are still wrong.
The reason theories aren't laws is because they can not be proven definitively. That is to say, you can not prove something unless you have governed rules that say some things are possible and others are not.
Again, Russell proved this with a great joke. At a mathematics convention, he said that "if 2+2=5, I can prove anything." Someone yelled out, "Prove that you're the Pope!" Russell pondered this and then finally said "2+2=5, so 4=5. subtract 3, then 1=2. Extend it and 1+1=1. I am one, the Pope is one, therefore the Pope and I are one. I am the Pope." The convention sat in silent awe for 10 minutes.
http://web.mit.edu/mdburro/www/mof/proof.html
-
LWM
Don't be taken in by their tough guy, man against the world rhetoric, authoritarians are the biggest collectivists on the planet.
How can one be an authoritarian without either a leader to follow or followers to lead?
-
That's what I said...
Don't be taken in by their tough guy, man against the world rhetoric, authoritarians are the biggest collectivists on the planet.
How can one be an authoritarian without either a leader to follow or followers to lead?
To Ayn Rand.
-
LWM
The reason theories aren't laws is because they can not be proven definitively. That is to say, you can not prove something unless you have governed rules that say some things are possible and others are not.
But what if your rules are wrong in the first place?
Many things that were once considered totally impossible are mundane today.
In fact Clarke even has a law about it:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
-
Thank you, Glenn
It is often that so many of us learn the ways of our laws and courts only after we are its victims, and then it is often too late. On decisions of far less significance, I personally have suffered from my own lack of such knowledge, learning only in arrears that I entered a courtroom totally unarmed before those who were quite fully armed.
I have learned much of late about our laws and how they operate in real time in our courts. From time to time, I now find myself as a legal advocate to others who otherwise could have no advocacy. I earn nothing for this, cannot earn anything for this, and indeed do not want to earn anything for this. My sole compensation has been a personal and private sense of pride whenever I help obtain some other a better legal outcome than they otherwise could have obtained. I don't often "win" entirely for them, but I seldon come away without at least some better outcome. I understand at those monemts of "victory" why people like you decide to dedicate their careers to the law, even as you currently do in mostly only explaining it to us. We quickly come to understand when it is ourselves and our loved ones at risk how very honorable a profession the law is.
Thank you again for adding to my understanding of the law. I am sure that one day I will get to use some of what you have taught me in this column in my own advocacies for others. No, you won't get paid for it, and neither will I. But know that others who have never even heard your name will benefit from what you are doing here. To me, and I hope for you, that will be sufficient compensation.
-
I think I was fourteen
When I read _Atlas Shrugged_..
I wasn't impressed enough to read more Rand and haven't bothered to read any since.
Needless to say I'm a trifle hazy on the details.
-
-- Retired Military Patriot
"I think it will be MCCain and Romney fighting it out, although Huckabee is far from out of it."
I have a feeling that Huckabee put a stopper on the bottle of his own candidacy this weekend with his remarks about amending our Constitution to conform to the Bible.
That might fly in the Bible Belt but elsewhere, it's a third rail issue.
IMO
-
Jebbie
This bible-belt denizen fervently prays that you are right.
;-)
-
Jebbie
I wouldn't be so sure.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
(CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.
-
-- Aycharaych
I don't believe evolution/creationism is a realistic measure of how American's would react to a totally theocratic administration initiative involving amending the constitution and in anycase, without seeing the wording of the poll you present, along with demographical information, I'm not prepared to even accept it (the poll) as definitive on the subject.
If I were to guess, and this is merely a guess, I'd say most Americans (by far) probably believe in a combination of evolution and creationism.
-
Hmmm......
Seems Captain Ed "moderates" his comments. And all I did was suggest that a few there should at least make a go at the LSAT before they tried to pass themselves off as lawyers. At least I admit I am not.
-
Cap'n Ed
Cap'n Ed updated his original article:
http://captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016628.php
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald dissects my argument, and points out that "tort" is incorrect (among other points in his argument). I respect Glenn, but I'll wait for the appeal. In the meantime, be sure to read his response.
UPDATE II: Looks like the Nevada Supreme Court agrees with me, and not Glenn Greenwald. I'll accept apologies from the people who posted personal insults.
Cap'n Ed posted a new article:
http://captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016644.php
January 15, 2008
Nevada Supreme Court: NBC Can Choose Its Debate ParticipantsMuch to the consternation of the people who flooded my comment thread with vitriol, the Nevada Supreme Court has reversed the lower court that tried to force NBC to include Dennis Kucinich in tonight's debate. As I argued, they not only found that the judge had violated NBC's free speech rights, they also found that the court had no jurisdiction [...]
[...] Oh, and when a court violates the First Amendment and its jurisdictional restraints to impose a result for the purpose of "fairness", that's exactly what we consider judicial activism.
- - Posted by Ed Morrissey on January 15, 2008 7:57 PM
Morrissey sees himself as a stalwart defender of due process.
Determining the extent to which Morrissey himself follows journalistic due process is left as an exercise for the reader.