Comment: Short-sighted Refraction

(See in situ)


Short-sighted Refraction

I think I will "point you to reading" on the issue of the right to justice first, being that it is the first right guaranteed by the US Constitution. ". . . in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The preamble sets the context of the document. The existence of the republic in our case hinges on the establishment of justice, else it has no purpose. If there wasn't a need for justice, there would be no government. This, in all of the muddying and blind retracing, looking for the higher-ground advantage in your debate style, has been the point that your head has never been wrapped around. I never once stated that anything currently deployed by the system was inadequate - in fact, that was your initial argument. What you have attempted to do is "show me" just how flimsy these legal algorithms are by dialectic muddying, but I can assure you that I did not need your help in gaining that type of enlightenment.

Again, what my analogies set out to accomplish was not to explain the current system as it stands (as I explicitly stated the argument concerning "karate" - which mused through your leading - had no legal relevance, seemingly to no effect). The crisis concerning financial loss due to pyramid-schemes is already addressed by the current legal system - we all know they are illegal. But - not because I believe you lack the capacity to understand, but because this is debate for debate's sake - what you have missed is the context. The illegality of the pyramid-scheme exists because it is known to cause financial harm, but this is a minimalist example of a broader concept. Many legal schemes still exist, and many "consenting" participants still embrace them to similar effects. Is the difference one of actual circumstance, then, or one of mob-acceptance?

But I am not surprised - your line of questioning was never explicitly stated within an absolute paradigm, floundering from a bookish legality to an idealistic anarchy at will. Are we debating a literal meaning or a conventional meaning within social-standards? If you set out to determine the underlying truth in language, you should first set out to understand its mechanics - not grammar, but psychological function. In every example I gave you, that was the difference I was illustrating, not (again, as I explicitly stated) the legal merit as it would stand in a courtroom. But I do not blame you for your style of rhetoric - I blame the cultural system you are drawing your arguments from.

What you and I can't seem to agree upon - and rightly, given its nature - is what exactly defines that justice. It is as relative and subjective as the cause of debate itself, for no other reason, which is such an interesting study neither one of us seems to want to stop. I don't believe I ever stated that you missed the boat where the legal system of checks already in place are concerned - please feel free to retrace anything I have said to you (in this thread or otherwise) if I am contradicting myself, though I am certain I am not.