Vegetarian Discussion: What Is Legal Positivism?

What Is Legal Positivism?
Posts: 21

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2010-11-21 14:25:15 EST
It is not what Don Crache - stupid fucking communist thief -
misinterprets it to be.

Here's what Wikipedia, a useful starting point, says:

Legal positivism states that there is no /inherent/ or /necessary/
connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or
morality. Therefore, in legal positivism, the law is seen as being
conceptually separate (though of course not separated in practice)
from moral and ethical values, and it simply sees the law as being
posited by lawmakers, who are humans.

Although a positivist's view of law is that it is ultimately a
matter of human custom or convention, this does *not* entail or
presuppose that positivists endorse laws of any particular content,
or the view that valid law is always to be obeyed by citizens or
applied by judges. The positivist argument is solely about the
nature of law as a human institution. [emphasis by '*' added]


So, when the fuckwit Crache writes,

Plimpton is a legal postivist who must, by logical necessity, agree
that back then, Jim Crow and the Nuremburg Codes were perfectly fine

he is clearly talking bullshit. No, there is no logical necessity that
I or anyone else who recognizes that the Nuremburg [sic] Code or Jim
Crow laws were in fact laws views them as "perfectly fine" "back then."
They were (in one case, are) the law; recognizing them as law in no
way logically implies a belief they are just law. Crache is spouting
bullshit, once again.

More evidence of stupid fuckwitted *ILLITERATE* Crache's staggering
stupidity: It's Nuremberg, not "Nuremburg". Even worse, the Nuremberg
Code was *NOT* a creation of the Nazis that justified any part of their
barbarism, as Crache plainly believes it to have been. Crache has no
idea what the Nuremberg Code is. He doesn't even know that it is still
in use, and in *FACT* was a reaction /against/ the Nazi regime. The
Nuremberg Code is a set of ethical principles governing the use of
humans in medical experiments, and it is incorporated into American
federal and state law. Crache has no fucking clue what the Nuremberg
Code is. He wrongly thinks it to be Nazi law, and it was not.

Crache doesn't know what legal positivism is. Crache doesn't know anything.

Don Kresch
2010-11-21 14:33:14 EST
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:25:15 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not>
scrawled in blood:

>It is what Don Kresch says

> Legal positivism states that there is no /inherent/ or /necessary/
> connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or
> morality.

And that's what George believes.

Plimpton is illiterate. He's a dabbler. He's a fuckwit. He's a
communist. He's a mystic. He's a thief.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.

George Plimpton
2010-11-21 14:40:51 EST
On 11/21/2010 11:33 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:25:15 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>> It is what not Don Kresch says
>
>> Legal positivism states that there is no /inherent/ or /necessary/
>> connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or
>> morality.
>
> And that's what George believes.

Up to a point, yes. But that does not mean I believe the law is
inherently just simply because it's the law. That's the baseless
accusation you're trying to make in accusing people of being "legal
positivists", and it is not an implication of legal positivism. You
don't know what it means.

You don't know what the Nuremberg (not "Nuremburg") Code is, either.

DopeyDonnie Crache has *NEVER* studied any of these topics in a formal
setting under the supervision of experts. He has admitted it. He has
admitted he hasn't studied them, period.





--
...and that's just how it is.

Don Kresch
2010-11-21 14:42:42 EST
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:40:51 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not>
scrawled in blood:

>On 11/21/2010 11:33 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:25:15 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>> It is what not Don Kresch says
>>
>>> Legal positivism states that there is no /inherent/ or /necessary/
>>> connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or
>>> morality.
>>
>> And that's what George believes.
>
>Up to a point, yes.

No, you believe that whatever the law is is right.

Poor little dabbler Plimpton; you've never studied anything.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.

George Plimpton
2010-11-21 14:44:46 EST
On 11/21/2010 11:42 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:40:51 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 11/21/2010 11:33 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:25:15 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>>> It is what not Don Kresch says
>>>
>>>> Legal positivism states that there is no /inherent/ or /necessary/
>>>> connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or
>>>> morality.
>>>
>>> And that's what George believes.
>>
>> Up to a point, yes.
>
> No, you believe that whatever the law is is right.

1. False.

2. That's not what legal positivism is.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, period. Legal
positivism is *NOT* a belief that whatever the law is is right. In
fact, such a belief is the *antithesis* of legal positivism. If someone
believes that whatever the law is is right, then he believes there *IS*
an inherent connection between the validity conditions of the law, and
ethics.

You contradicted yourself. You revealed your ignorance, and you spouted
bullshit.



--
...and that's just how it is.

Don Kresch
2010-11-21 14:49:01 EST
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:44:46 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not>
scrawled in blood:

>On 11/21/2010 11:42 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:40:51 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>> On 11/21/2010 11:33 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:25:15 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
>>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>>
>>>>> It is what Don Kresch knows
>>>>
>>>>> Legal positivism states that there is no /inherent/ or /necessary/
>>>>> connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or
>>>>> morality.
>>>>
>>>> And that's what George believes.
>>>
>>> Up to a point, yes.
>>
>> No, you believe that whatever the law is is right.
>
>1. False.

True.

>
>2. That's not what legal positivism is.

It is.

You're a poseur. You're a dabbler. You're a communist. You're
a mystic. You're a fuckwit. You've contradicted yourself. You've lied.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.

George Plimpton
2010-11-21 14:52:13 EST
On 11/21/2010 11:49 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:44:46 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 11/21/2010 11:42 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:40:51 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>>> On 11/21/2010 11:33 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:25:15 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
>>>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is what Don Kresch knows
>>>>>
>>>>>> Legal positivism states that there is no /inherent/ or /necessary/
>>>>>> connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or
>>>>>> morality.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's what George believes.
>>>>
>>>> Up to a point, yes.
>>>
>>> No, you believe that whatever the law is is right.
>>
>> 1. False.
>
> True.

False.


>> 2. That's not what legal positivism is.
>
> It is.


It isn't. You can't offer any support for your claim that it is.

I have offered support for my claim that your interpretation is wrong:

Legal positivism is the thesis that the existence and content of law
depends on social facts and not on its merits.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/

You have offered no support for your bullshit belief that legal
positivism implies belief that the law is just. You can't - you don't
have any, and that's not what the doctrine holds.

Plimpton shits in Crache's mouth *again*.


--
...and that's just how it is.

George Plimpton
2010-11-21 15:33:10 EST
On 11/21/2010 11:49 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:44:46 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 11/21/2010 11:42 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:40:51 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>>> On 11/21/2010 11:33 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:25:15 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
>>>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is what Don Kresch knows
>>>>>
>>>>>> Legal positivism states that there is no /inherent/ or /necessary/
>>>>>> connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or
>>>>>> morality.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's what George believes.
>>>>
>>>> Up to a point, yes. But that does not mean I believe the law is inherently just simply because it's the law. That's the baseless accusation you're trying to make in accusing people of being "legal positivists", and it is not an implication of legal positivism. You don't know what it means.
>>>
>>> No, you believe that whatever the law is is right.
>>
>> 1. False.
>
> True.

Nope; false. I never have held that belief. There are lots of laws
that I believe are unjust.


>> 2. That's not what legal positivism is.
>
> It is.

It isn't, dabbler. You don't know what the term means. Every site I
could find says it isn't.

The positivist thesis does not say that law's merits are
unintelligible, unimportant, or peripheral to the philosophy of law.
It says that they do not determine whether laws or legal systems
exist. Whether a society has a legal system depends on the presence
of certain structures of governance, not on the extent to which it
satisfies ideals of justice, democracy, or the rule of law. What
laws are in force in that system depends on what social standards
its officials recognize as authoritative; for example, legislative
enactments, judicial decisions, or social customs. The fact that a
policy would be just, wise, efficient, or prudent is never
sufficient reason for thinking that it is actually the law, and the
fact that it is unjust, unwise, inefficient or imprudent is never
sufficient reason for doubting it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/


You've demonstrated your ignorance. You just don't know.


--
...and that's just how it is.

Raven1
2010-11-21 23:01:46 EST
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:25:15 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not>
wrote:

<snip>

Will you and Kresch please just get a room already? You're both idiots
(albeit he's far stupider and more odious), but really, no one else on
alt.atheism could possibly give a flying fuck about your juvenile
pissing match over Randroid doctrine. Fuck off.

George Plimpton
2010-11-21 23:04:27 EST
On 11/21/2010 8:01 PM, raven1 wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:25:15 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Will you and Kresch please just get a room already?

Fuck off.

--
...and that's just how it is.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron