(10-13-2016 01:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Kap,

The problem with relying solely on logic and theory: humans don't behave perfectly.

Laws and policies written on emotion and not sound logic are always bad laws and policies. There is zero room for emotions in the law.

Exactly to the contrary: most laws are just formally describing our preferences. There is no "logical" reason to them.

(10-13-2016 04:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-13-2016 01:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Kap,
The problem with relying solely on logic and theory: humans don't behave perfectly.

Laws and policies written on emotion and not sound logic are always bad laws and policies. There is zero room for emotions in the law.

(10-13-2016 04:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Exactly to the contrary: most laws are just formally describing our preferences. There is no "logical" reason to them.

The two statements are not contradictory. Laws and policies based on emotion rather than logic are inevitably bad laws and policies. Most of our laws, and particularly most of our regulations, are formally enacting preferences without regard to logic. Therefore most of our laws and regulations are bad.

Nonsense.

If a majority of people in a society agree that a certain preference is "correct" and should be enforced and/or non-compliance should be cited/penalized, then so be it.

Leave that society, if you don't agree.

200 #152,

I can't say. I haven't written the law.


SCD #154,

No. Again, I don't think you should waste your time coming up with scenarios that clearly don't fit the specific scenario that this law would be intended to serve.


200 #156,

But there's no requirement that we must remove emotion. Humans are emotional, and make emotional decisions all the time.

As to your string of irrelevant/non-applicable scenarios: no to all. The law would not be applicable to those scenarios. If you want to make another law, then that's your fight to fight.

Frankly, the only reason you and others here so desperate to cling to strict logic is because that's what best serves your agenda.

Bison can't use logic. Doubt that it's a Chem Engineer either. Too scared to engage in a debate using its scenario.
Curious how many cats his individual has?

Run out of people to chase out of the coffee shops with this crazy **** so she came here to pollute the board. Or it's just a paid troll. Either way...

(10-12-2016 06:05 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  BTW, you can sue a gun manufacturer. There just isn't a cause of action that will stick.

Exactly.

54 page opinion on Friday in the Sandy Hook families' case dismissal opinion boiled down to this single paragraph:

Quote:Congress, through the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act … has broadly prohibited lawsuits “against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms … for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful use of firearm products … by others when the produced functioned as designed and intended.” … The present case seeks damages for harms … that were caused solely by the criminal misuse of a weapon by [the perpetrator of the Newtown slayings]. Accordingly, this action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided by the PLCAA.

BTW, if the state of Conn, has a frivolous lawsuit statute...

(10-15-2016 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Nonsense.

If a majority of people in a society agree that a certain preference is "correct" and should be enforced and/or non-compliance should be cited/penalized, then so be it.

Leave that society, if you don't agree.

So kinda like gay marriage huh?

(10-15-2016 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Nonsense.

If a majority of people in a society agree that a certain preference is "correct" and should be enforced and/or non-compliance should be cited/penalized, then so be it.

Leave that society, if you don't agree.

We have had plenty of bad and outright heinous laws in our history enacted because 51% of the populace thought it was a good idea. Do I need to make a list?

Just because 51% agree on something does not make their opinion right or moral. I think that is the point of eliminating emotion in the process. Emotion leads quite often to bad and immoral laws.

Still don't know why someone is suppose to pocket a profit off another's tragic death.

(10-16-2016 05:20 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 06:05 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  BTW, you can sue a gun manufacturer. There just isn't a cause of action that will stick.

Exactly.

54 page opinion on Friday in the Sandy Hook families' case dismissal opinion boiled down to this single paragraph:

Quote:Congress, through the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act … has broadly prohibited lawsuits “against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms … for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful use of firearm products … by others when the produced functioned as designed and intended.” … The present case seeks damages for harms … that were caused solely by the criminal misuse of a weapon by [the perpetrator of the Newtown slayings]. Accordingly, this action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided by the PLCAA.

BTW, if the state of Conn, has a frivolous lawsuit statute...

Is that what prompted that whole Vocal Majority hashtag crap? I happened to have the volume down and the local news on, and Gabby Giffords along with 'Tricky Dicky' Blumenthal the fake veteran were promoting that stupid hastag. I wasn't sure, outside of election year politics, what the whole point of that news conference was for. Perhaps it was because of this dismissal.

Yep. They are butthurt that a judge actually did her job correctly.

(10-16-2016 04:43 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Yep. They are butthurt that a judge actually did her job correctly.

I hope, though it's not likely, that the voters here in CT vote that a-hole Blumenthal out of office. He's done nothing but bad things for the state and will continue his negligent behavior if re-elected.