81–90 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there precedent from federal laws on marijuana not being enforced? Has that gone to the Supreme Court?
Not an apples to apples comparison. Marijuana laws are about States making(edit typo) laws to legalize something the federal government has laws against. That can be settled if it goes to the supreme court. This situation is about the federal government not following the laws it sets for itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there precedent from federal laws on marijuana not being enforced? Has that gone to the Supreme Court?
Not an apples to apples comparison. Marijuana laws are about States making(edit typo) laws to legalize something the federal government has laws against. That can be settled if it goes to the supreme court. This situation is about the federal government not following the laws it sets for itself.
The previous comment does not make a comparison. It questioned if anyone has pursued the federal government for not following through with cannabis enforcement, contrary to the expectations of the law, and wanted to know more about the outcome if so.
But maybe this is your roundabout way of saying "no"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not an apples to apples comparison. Marijuana laws are about States making(edit typo) laws to legalize something the federal government has laws against. That can be settled if it goes to the supreme court. This situation is about the federal government not following the laws it sets for itself.
> Not an apples to apples comparison. The previous comment does not make a comparison. It questioned if anyone has pursued the federal government for not following through with cannabis enforcement, contrary to the expectations of the law, and wanted to know more about the outcome if so. But maybe this is your roundabout way of saying "no"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would be fair to say that these things are symbols representing people This is built in to the normal context of the topic. When people talk about the constitution in this situations people are not talking about a piece of paper with writing on it. > Like, as in the citizens that voted for him? ... They have not (to this point) established the obligation. Can you layout the existing cases for him being obligated…
> This is built in to the normal context of the topic. If the people involved believe in it and are willing to uphold it. It doesn't mean anything otherwise. You don't become obligated just because someone says so. > Yeah All presidents do that when they take their oath. An oath assumes that the actor will cast judgement upon themself if they violate its intent. That goes out the window if the person doesn't care. Yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not an apples to apples comparison. The previous comment does not make a comparison. It questioned if anyone has pursued the federal government for not following through with cannabis enforcement, contrary to the expectations of the law, and wanted to know more about the outcome if so. But maybe this is your roundabout way of saying "no"?
cma question is part of a conversation. If they wanted as a question independent of that conversation they could preference that that their question is independent of the current topic/conversation. I am going to let them assert that though and not take or assume your interpretation of their question.
If you don't want to participate in the discussion, that's okay, but inventing nonsense to make that statement is, well, curious. I suggest not responding is the best way to communicate that you do not wish to participate, but to each their own, I suppose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is built in to the normal context of the topic. If the people involved believe in it and are willing to uphold it. It doesn't mean anything otherwise. You don't become obligated just because someone says so. > Yeah All presidents do that when they take their oath. An oath assumes that the actor will cast judgement upon themself if they violate its intent. That goes out the window if the person doesn't care. Yo…
I need a political/government theory and/or for the conversation to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, to go forward at this point.
While you have put in every effort to skirt around the theory, my take is that you must reject it. Your replies would not fit otherwise. On the basis of that that assumption,
- You are now obligated to make me lunch. I have asserted that you must do it.
But what does that mean? We both know you aren't actually going to do it. You aren't going to feel remorse when you don't do it. You will suffer no consequences if you don't do it. What, exactly, is trying to be communicated with the word "obligation"?
Per the dictionary, one must be compelled into an obligation. It is being compelled that adds sufficient information to justify the use of the word in that context. But where does it find information under your pet definition?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I need a political/government theory and/or for the conversation to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, to go forward at this point.
A political theory has been presented several times now: Asserting "You must " does not create an obligation. While you have put in every effort to skirt around the theory, my take is that you must reject it. Your replies would not fit otherwise. On the basis of that that assumption, - You are now obligated to make me lunch. I have asserted that you must do it. But what does that mean? We both know you aren't actuall…
You can call this a political/government theory, but it does not move the conversation forward. How does a government work under this theory? What makes a legitimate government, when is rebellion the morally correct choice, what is the right to rule, etc under this theory. You do not need to layout everything at once but you would need to lay out enough to connect it to the and to my comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560855
And the conversation needs to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, at least for me to go forward it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A political theory has been presented several times now: Asserting "You must " does not create an obligation. While you have put in every effort to skirt around the theory, my take is that you must reject it. Your replies would not fit otherwise. On the basis of that that assumption, - You are now obligated to make me lunch. I have asserted that you must do it. But what does that mean? We both know you aren't actuall…
> A political theory has been presented several times now: Asserting "You must " does not create an obligation. You can call this a political/government theory, but it does not move the conversation forward. How does a government work under this theory? What makes a legitimate government, when is rebellion the morally correct choice, what is the right to rule, etc under this theory. You do not need to layout everythi…
It sometimes doesn't. Governments have failed many times throughout history.
But assuming a typical state of government affairs: Obligation. An obligation to oneself, to one's peers, and perhaps even to force. One is normally compelled to see government work – because they want it to, or, at very least, are afraid of the consequences if it doesn't.
None of that seems to apply in this case, though. So, again, if you remove the concept of being compelled, what is "obligation" trying to communicate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
cma question is part of a conversation. If they wanted as a question independent of that conversation they could preference that that their question is independent of the current topic/conversation. I am going to let them assert that though and not take or assume your interpretation of their question.
The question follows the discussion taking place. The specific subject was broached, but has been lacking in details. It would be inappropriate to state that it is independent of the topic. It is clearly not. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, that's okay, but inventing nonsense to make that statement is, well, curious. I suggest not responding is the best way to communicate that you do not wish to p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question follows the discussion taking place. The specific subject was broached, but has been lacking in details. It would be inappropriate to state that it is independent of the topic. It is clearly not. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, that's okay, but inventing nonsense to make that statement is, well, curious. I suggest not responding is the best way to communicate that you do not wish to p…
cma's question was to me, after my comment, not to you. You are inserting your interruption into that. You argued that cma's question had a very particular interruption, sort of speaking for them, let them speak for themselves, or at least I am not interested in dissecting their comment's meaning with you. edit or maybe a better way to put it is that I can not have a conversation with you when you seem to be trying t…
I clearly replied to your comment, not cma's.
> You are inserting your interruption into that.
There are no interruptions in a threaded discussion. cma can reply to your comment in parallel. I do appreciate you bringing your misunderstandings to light, though.
> let them speak for themselves
He can if he so wishes.
> or at least I am not interested in dissecting their comment's meaning with you.
Oh?
- "cma's question was to me"
On an open public forum all comments are written for all users by default. Only through dissecting meaning with me would you be able to determine this to be the case. Why lie?