Subject:
|
Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:58:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1655 times
|
| |
|
|
All of what I say below is plowed ground, stuff I and others have said
before, so those that pay attention are invited to skip this entire post.
They already know this stuff.
Scott, though, might want to pay attention, for once. I won't hold my breath
based on his track record, but if we can at least get him to stop repeating
himself, that's a minor win.
Scott keeps dredging
(http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8697
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8203
...and maybe I missed a few others, he is nothing if not persistent)
the below included tired post up, again and again and again, like he's
somehow scored some sort of victory by finding one of his less well thought
out posts that I didn't stoop to answer at the time...
But the answer to the "questions" he poses are right there in front of his
posing them. Let's humor him and examine, shall we?
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> news:G5pyGI.Dss@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > I'm not going to do your homework for you again. If you are interested in
> > > my point - go find it.
> >
> > You have never done it for me in the past, so "again" is an
> > incorrect usage.
>
> Well, there was that time you were curious about my doctortate.
(note for the curious, Scott never DID say exactly what his doctorate was
in, not that it matters except to demonstrate the weasel nature in practice)
> > The US has a constitution, which trumps individual laws. Laws have to
> > theoretically be voted on separately, not just put in place by ministers
> > subject to votes of confidence.
(note the use of "theoretically" here)
> > The UK has no constitution, and laws can be put in place by ministerial
> > fiat subject only to losing a vote of confidence. (some are passed
> > explicitly, yes, but some are not)
>
> Not my point Larry.
But it was mine, and it was the point that Scott needs to refute to win the
argument about theoretical rights protection... But he didn't refute it
because he can't. The UK *doesn't have a constitution* and laws *can* be put
in place by ministerial fiat. Sometimes they are good laws, and sometimes
they aren't We saw a big example of that fiat power a few days back relating
to the "day after pill".
No, Scott can't refute the fact that the UK doesn't have a constitution, and
Scott can't avoid the implications of the lack of it. So he raised the EU as
a protector of rights instead.
> However, you are still wrong. Much of my rights are now
> enshrined within EU legislation. Therefore, they can not be changed without
> renegotiating the treaty with the rest of the EU - this would most probably
> require a referendum. Basically, if the state infringes my rights,
> ultimately they have to answer to the EU.
What Scott forgets is that the EU is a recent invention, that sovereignity
hasn't been granted by member states to the EU, and that the EU doesn't have
any enforcement mechanism unless member states vote unanimously. Not much of
a defense against having your property confiscated if you have to get 18
other governments to vote in your favor, is it? I'm not sure I could bribe
that many legislators if my cash was confiscated...
The EU is a defender of rights for those that don't think critically about
how the EU would have to go about defending those rights. But not for anyone
else.
My point remains unchallenged. The US has a constitution. The UK doesn't. A
state *with* a constitution, especially one like ours which has enumerated
rights and a clause reserving all powers not expressly granted to the
people, has a theoretical stronger protection of rights than a state without
one.
The UK has no constitution and never has.
In the next paragraph, Scott makes some tangential points about the practice
within the US of many not particularly good things. And insofar as we are
talking about practice, not theory, I'm in agreement.
The US, in practice, does many things that I do not approve of, many things,
in fact, that are in clear violation of the letter and spirit of the
constitution. You see me rail about them all the time. Anyone think that I
think the US is perfect?
Yes, practice is not perfect. That's *practice*, not theory, and to
reiterate, I dispute no unsavoury US practices as long as I'm able to point
out, practice for practice, that the UK is worse or has been at some point.
Not hard to do, but beside the point in question. (at least I know what's
beside the point and what isn't...)
Practice may be imperfect in the US, but at least it's possible to challenge
practices against a fixed framework. The Supreme Court has an overweening
document to refer to. The highest courts in the UK have no such basic
principles to start from. They make decisions based only on thin air and
sometimes on precedent. There is no denying that sometimes they make great
decisions. Some of them Scott and I agree on, even (take the recent siamese
twins case...). But there is no framework, no government on principle,
merely one of laws that can come and go as governments ebb and flow.
> The point I was making about rights concerned political freedoms. For
> example - here in the UK one could always choose to be, say, a communist.
> Can you say the same of the US? Or did you not have rather unsavoury "witch
> hunts"? I even here that in some parts of the US, widely accepted theories
> such as evolution are not taught to your younger generations - they are not
> given the freedom to choose? While we are talking about education, when did
> the US get rid of segregation in the education system? Despite that, I'm
> pretty sure you'd say parents should be able to dictate what is taught in a
> school, or even select the colour of little Johnnie's class mates?
Let's review. In the above para, Scott tries to refute theory by citing
places where the practice may have come up short. So what? Nobody was
arguing the point that the practice isn't perfect. There is no utopia.
> > And therefore... therefore, my uncritical friend, theoretically the US has
> > stronger protection of basic rights.
Again, note the use of "theoretically". Scott, unable to refute this point,
next stoops to snide remarks about then current events instead of addressing
it, or, perish the thought, admitting he's wrong.
> Indeed, I have seen the power of your constitution only this week. In the
> UK, I doubt that could ever happen. Gore's equivelent would simply have
> taken his case to the EU.
And would still be there, bribing away. Fortunately, as hindsight shows, our
constitution performed admirably, as it usually does, and we have a smooth
transition
> And therefore, my uncritical friend, theoretically the UK has
> stronger protection of basic rights.
Note that while Scott *says* theoretically, he provided no support for this
assertion; no reasoning from principle, no supported premises, no
conclusions, merely description of practice, followed by an unsuppported
assertion.
But then he's ...
not clear on the difference between description and argument,
not clear on how to draw a conclusion from assertions,
not clear on the difference between theory and practice,
and views asking "why" questions as equivalent to carrying on an adult
conversation.
Just like my nephew. But my nephew's cuter. And my nephew *may* grow up to
be a critical thinker someday.
THIS is the vaunted post he keeps dredging up. IWere I he, I would be a bit
bashful at bringing it up, as it highlights the challenges he has very well.
> Refute that, or shut up.
Refuted. Now perhaps this particular hoary chestnut can be put to rest.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Balance snipped. Out of curiousity, Larry, do you think anyone other than you or Scott really cares about any of this? If it is all plowed ground, why post it all again? Is it so necessary for you to feel good about your debating technique (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Wrong again. See: (URL) (...) Very interesting, but none of that answered my point: "In many ways, our rights are stronger than your own" I note that I was talking about actuality - not theory. But, again, you chose to squirm. Despite that, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G5pyGI.Dss@lugnet.com... (...) my (...) usage. Well, there was that time you were curious about my doctortate. (...) fiat (...) Not my point Larry. However, you are still wrong. Much (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
