Subject:
|
Re: Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:53:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1846 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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)
Wrong again. See:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7400
>
> > > 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.
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, I'll play your little game. For the record, I
think, I have posed this question 4 times, I assume Larry has cherry picked
the context which suits him best - a bit cowardly really:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7337
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7626
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8203
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8697
Despite that, I'll play his little game.
>
> (note the use of "theoretically" here)
Indeed:
FROM:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=theory*1%2B0
theoretically adverb
Theoretically (=According to the facts),
Let’s look at the facts concerning your freedom of expression
For – You have a piece of paper which says you have freedom of expression
Against – Individuals where persecuted by your country as they were
_thought_ to have political beliefs which did not conform to the norm in the
past.
I’ll let you draw your own conclusion based on the facts.
>
> > > 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.
Yes, but it helps when you stick to the 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.
Perhaps scott does not want to refute the fact that the UK doesn't have a
constitution.
> > 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,
Yes. Indeed. So my rights are tailored to meet the 21st century and its
technology – not that of the 1700's
> 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?
Can your constitution not be amended by a majority vote in a similar way?
> 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.
That is your view. I have real rights - not theoretical ones.
>
> 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.
Theoretical? What use is that?
>
> The UK has no constitution and never has.
Indeed. But we do have a bill of rights. What is the basis of you
constitution - the very same text.
>
> 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.
What is the point of all your rights if you can not exercise them? Perhaps
you can have them printed onto a bumper sticker?
>
> 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.
Why don't you take up arms against your oppressors?
> 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.
"or has been at some point" - that is a weasel statement if ever I heard one.
> 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.
That's right, our system is based on application and experience - not theory.
> 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.
Yet, in the ways I have shown, I am freer than you.
>
> > 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.
You keep a gun in your house to defend your rights - and yet you make bland
statements concerning restrictions on your freedom of expression or thought
- how admirable your morals are.
> 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.
Show me what theoretical right you have that I could not have access to and
I will admit concede that I am 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
That is right, your politically appointed judges made a political
appointment which suited those who politically appointed them.
>
> > 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,
I am not clear on what you think it means.
> not clear on how to draw a conclusion from assertions,
Really?
> not clear on the difference between theory and practice,
You are not clear on what is more important. Engels did:
“An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory”
> 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.
Because you keep avoiding it.
> IWere I he, I would be a bit
> bashful at bringing it up, as it highlights the challenges he has very well.
You could never be me Larry. In fact, it is a great compliment to me that
you do not what to be me.
>
> > Refute that, or shut up.
>
> Refuted. Now perhaps this particular hoary chestnut can be put to rest.
Perhaps it was a "hoary chestnut" to you, but time will tell if it has been
put to rest.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
| 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, 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
|
|
|
|
