Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Admittedly she's politer to some people than others :P I was thinking of when she's just left her house and her interaction with the Vanilla she keeps scaring.

(Side note: Is anyone else getting weird formatting problems from this post? Half of it has indented and it's making everything look weird.  :wacko:)

 

I am getting the odd formatting too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to take this the most objective modern definition would lead me to Hobbes' Leviathan. Going by his definition both the unequal standing between Epics and normals as well as the fact that the rule of an Epics despot isn't based on the support of his subjects means that there generally is no legitimate scource of law in the Fractured States.

 

Furthermore the role of law is purely protection from humanities darker sides to create a enviorment that people don't have to fear their others. As such there is no difference between a loophole and the law actively making an exception for cases like self defense. The law doesn't allow self defense it just doesn't apply the generall punishment such actions would carry to it.

 

The concept of law predated Hobbes's theories though.  I always took his writings more as what he thought the law should be in a more ideal world than the one he lived in.  While it is true that we have moved towards Hobbes's ideals since his time, I think the definition of law is more relative.  Many governments of the passed were created and maintained through fear of the powerful and the subjugation of the weak, and they all had the power to rule by legislation.  Steelheart's model certainly doesn't meet Hobbes's social contract model, but that doesn't mean his model doesn't have legal authority.  To me, Steelheart has the power to enact and enforce laws, and people recognize this power and abide by his laws.  There are many flaws with his system, especially when viewed through an ethical lense, but that doesn't mean it's not legal in nature.  

 

Again, the protection of humanity from it's dark side might be the ideal purpose of law, but I don't think it is the only purpose.  The definition of one's 'dark side' itself is relative, since what I define as dark might be different from what you define as dark, and both of us are certainly different from the definitions that Steelheart defines as dark.  When the Canadian government legislates to change electoral districts to split opposition votes, is that in the interest of protecting people from their darker sides, or in the interest of maintaining power?  While many laws can be seen as being protective in intent, even if they have effects that are not protective (I think Canadian Immigration Law is a prime example, but that's just me), surely there are some laws that are purely bureaucratic and arbitrary in nature, that are only remotely related to the protection of humanity, if at all.  The protection of humanity from it's darker side should be the primary ambit of the law, but I feel that is more a goal that is striven for, and not always met.  

 

I would agree with your characterization of exception, but I still think a loophole is different from a legislative gap.  With a loophole or exception, you have a blanket law, and then another legal provision limiting the application of that law to specific circumstances.  The area is still regulated.  If there is no law, then the area is not regulated at all.  A 'lawful excuse' to me means an excuse created by law, not an excuse because of the absence of law.  To me, an exception or loophole in a legal provision would fit this definition, but a gap because of the absence of legislation would not.  

 

Does the fact that I find this fun make me a huge nerd?  I know that's not a bad thing here, but sometimes I feel like even when I'm hating the workload, I'm still enjoying school too much.  

 

EDIT:  Yeah, it stretched out the reply box for me.  Not sure what in the post caused it though.  Usually this happens when people post images that are too large, but I don't see that happening here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the fact that I find this fun make me a huge nerd?  I know that's not a bad thing here, but sometimes I feel like even when I'm hating the workload, I'm still enjoying school too much.  

 

I find reading your response fun...soo...yeah.

 

This is the kind of discussions I have irl with my law school friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly she's politer to some people than others :P I was thinking of when she's just left her house and her interaction with the Vanilla she keeps scaring.

(Side note: Is anyone else getting weird formatting problems from this post? Half of it has indented and it's making everything look weird.  :wacko:)

It's less that she's more or less polite and more that she doesn't know how to be polite in some situations, kind of like a visit in a foreign land.

 

Something to do with the spoiler bracket not closing I think. Well given his newfound ability to break the forum I suggest we all keep Edge happy from now on. :P

Feed me all your upvotes, pitiful mortals. :lol:

 

The concept of law predated Hobbes's theories though.  I always took his writings more as what he thought the law should be in a more ideal world than the one he lived in.  While it is true that we have moved towards Hobbes's ideals since his time, I think the definition of law is more relative.  Many governments of the passed were created and maintained through fear of the powerful and the subjugation of the weak, and they all had the power to rule by legislation.  Steelheart's model certainly doesn't meet Hobbes's social contract model, but that doesn't mean his model doesn't have legal authority.  To me, Steelheart has the power to enact and enforce laws, and people recognize this power and abide by his laws.  There are many flaws with his system, especially when viewed through an ethical lense, but that doesn't mean it's not legal in nature.  

 

Again, the protection of humanity from it's dark side might be the ideal purpose of law, but I don't think it is the only purpose.  The definition of one's 'dark side' itself is relative, since what I define as dark might be different from what you define as dark, and both of us are certainly different from the definitions that Steelheart defines as dark.  When the Canadian government legislates to change electoral districts to split opposition votes, is that in the interest of protecting people from their darker sides, or in the interest of maintaining power?  While many laws can be seen as being protective in intent, even if they have effects that are not protective (I think Canadian Immigration Law is a prime example, but that's just me), surely there are some laws that are purely bureaucratic and arbitrary in nature, that are only remotely related to the protection of humanity, if at all.  The protection of humanity from it's darker side should be the primary ambit of the law, but I feel that is more a goal that is striven for, and not always met.  

 

I would agree with your characterization of exception, but I still think a loophole is different from a legislative gap.  With a loophole or exception, you have a blanket law, and then another legal provision limiting the application of that law to specific circumstances.  The area is still regulated.  If there is no law, then the area is not regulated at all.  A 'lawful excuse' to me means an excuse created by law, not an excuse because of the absence of law.  To me, an exception or loophole in a legal provision would fit this definition, but a gap because of the absence of legislation would not.  

 

Does the fact that I find this fun make me a huge nerd?  I know that's not a bad thing here, but sometimes I feel like even when I'm hating the workload, I'm still enjoying school too much.  

 

EDIT:  Yeah, it stretched out the reply box for me.  Not sure what in the post caused it though.  Usually this happens when people post images that are too large, but I don't see that happening here.  

Meaning we are essentially down to it being a concept with no hard definition by lack of it not having a actual representation in this world and we can interpret it however we want or do you propse a definition we can acurately apply to the situation?

 

I would still say that the law doesn't give "excuses" tecnically there is no difference bewteen killing someone where there is no law and doing it here for self-defense, apart that here there would be an investigation to make sure it was actually self-defense. Either you have broken the law or you have not. (which of course is another matter than the morality of the matter but that hasn't anything to do with the topic at hand.)

Now, I can see were your argument about something being regulated. I suppose this also comes down to definition. With completely lawless areas like the wasteland I can see how you would say that it doesn't apply, however in a system like Steelheart era Newcago (assuming we accept Steelheart as the law) I would count her weakness as triggerable.

 

Right, you're a law student, aren't you. In that case, no it's not only not a problem but a good thing. ;)

 

Kobold, Twi, what are we actually going to do in the office now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TAKE ONE NOW, O MIGHTY DANCER OF EDGES 

 

Depends. I think Arsenal wanted Autumn to stay there in time-out to file a report. 

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

i_am_a_god_by_impala99-d6dfk5j.png

 

Then it's up to Kobold wheter he does some retconing or if Autum has to deal with advances by Shiny Sparkle beforehand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear. What have I created? :o:P

 

:mellow: I….I thought it was a given she'd have to deal with advances from Shiny Sparkle. :P

You have created nothing. I am a force of nature! ALL SHALL KNEEL BEFORE ME!

 

Well yes. :P But currently it's about moving on to good luck kisses, which knowing her could easily end up on first base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up to you then, Twi. Should I edit the post to have Arsenal assign an escort, or does Autumn need to attend Shiny Sparkle's Academy of Kissing? :P

It'd probably be best for her working relationship with Arsenal if she's exempted from that graduation requirement, but if you want to write a post where Arsenal's head literally explodes, I'd be fine with it. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd probably be best for her working relationship with Arsenal if she's exempted from that graduation requirement, but if you want to write a post where Arsenal's head literally explodes, I'd be fine with it. :P

 

Then I guess we should embrace the fanservice.* :P

 

 

And by fanservice, I'm referring to all our fans that desperately want to see Arsenal's head explode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's less that she's more or less polite and more that she doesn't know how to be polite in some situations, kind of like a visit in a foreign land.

 

Feed me all your upvotes, pitiful mortals. :lol:

 

Meaning we are essentially down to it being a concept with no hard definition by lack of it not having a actual representation in this world and we can interpret it however we want or do you propse a definition we can acurately apply to the situation?

 

I would still say that the law doesn't give "excuses" tecnically there is no difference bewteen killing someone where there is no law and doing it here for self-defense, apart that here there would be an investigation to make sure it was actually self-defense. Either you have broken the law or you have not. (which of course is another matter than the morality of the matter but that hasn't anything to do with the topic at hand.)

Now, I can see were your argument about something being regulated. I suppose this also comes down to definition. With completely lawless areas like the wasteland I can see how you would say that it doesn't apply, however in a system like Steelheart era Newcago (assuming we accept Steelheart as the law) I would count her weakness as triggerable.

 

Right, you're a law student, aren't you. In that case, no it's not only not a problem but a good thing. ;)

 

Kobold, Twi, what are we actually going to do in the office now?

 

I think you've convinced me on the Newcago front, and would concede that her weakness is triggerable there.  

 

Let's just say it's good I started watching MLP, so I have something else to talk about that isn't law or this RP thing that no person who doesn't participate can understand.  Wait... people don't get MLP either?  Guess I'm stuck chatting about politics or something lame like that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just say it's good I started watching MLP, so I have something else to talk about that isn't law or this RP thing that no person who doesn't participate can understand.  Wait... people don't get MLP either?  Guess I'm stuck chatting about politics or something lame like that...

 

NO

 

DO NOT DISCUSS POLITICS WITH THE LESSER MORTALS WHO HAVE SHUNNED MLP

 

JOIN US

 

2i92zi9.jpg

img-1898327-1-2181251-mlfw3709-Welcome_t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO

 

DO NOT DISCUSS POLITICS WITH THE LESSER MORTALS WHO HAVE SHUNNED MLP

 

JOIN US

 

2i92zi9.jpg

img-1898327-1-2181251-mlfw3709-Welcome_t

They'll get your soul, no matter what you do. :P

 

One immoral Shiny Sparkle post up. :ph34r:  Twi, assuming Autumn won't choose this point to back of, how are we going to write the scene?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One immoral Shiny Sparkle post up. :ph34r:  Twi, assuming Autumn won't choose this point to back of, how are we going to write the scene?

 

Autumn would be safe in the decision to back off at this point, for what it's worth. There are a lot of armed men there plus Arsenal, all of whom would put a stop to anything Autumn's uncomfortable with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...