[FRIAM] [EXT] Re: tolerance of intolerance

[glen]

I think that was Jochen that said it, not Russ. But your refutation is either a fallacy of ambiguity or composition. By "the rule of law", we don't mean the rule of any particular law ... like a city statute against walking your alligator down the street or whatever. We mean the entire legislative, executive, and judicial enterprise. Of course, particular slices of the population are exempt from some particular law. E.g. London cabbies used to be allowed to urinate wherever without regard to the typical laws governing such. That doesn't imply that London cabbies are "above the law". I suppose you could say they're above that particular set of laws. But "exempt" isn't synonymous with "above", anyway.

I don't think the SCOTUS ruling on immunity claims the President is above the law, contrary to the implications of the left's rhetoric, only that they're exempt from some/most/all laws when executing the role of their office. It's bad. But it's not bad in the way the rhetoric implies.

On 10/14/24 09:27, Prof David West wrote:
> Sorry Russ, but /"Nobody should be above the law if the rule of law has any meaning in a democratic society,"/ is an absurd idea.
> 
> Assuming the US is a democratic society (in some sense), I would defy you to find any existing law that does not have exceptions that place someone, in some role or in some cirsumstance, "above" that law.
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024, at 8:58 AM, John Kennison wrote:
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 3:02 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>; Russ.Abbott at gmail.com <Russ.Abbott at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance
>>
>> I don’t think that’s fair.   It depends on the opponent and what they represent both in terms of ideology and the sociological phenomenon they are a part of.
>>
>>
>> *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 11:52 AM
>> *To:* Russ.Abbott at gmail.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance
>>
>>
>> A president who murders his opponents would not be better than an evil dictator in an authoritarian state. Putin's opponents like Navalny, Litvinenko and Nemtsov were all brutally poisoned and/or murdered.
>>
>>
>> But you are right, this possibility exists after the recent decision of the supreme court. It seems to be a result of democratic backsliding. Nobody should be above the law if the rule of law has any meaning in a democratic society.
>>
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>>
>> From: Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com <mailto:russ.abbott at gmail.com>>
>>
>> Date: 7/16/24 7:48 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance
>>
>>
>> Why has no one pointed out the possibility that if Trump wins, Biden could take advantage of his newly declared immunity and have him assassinated?
>>
>>
>> -- Russ
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, 6:24 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Yeah. It's one thing to wish it or want it. It's another to think more in Marcus' terms and come up with a more complex strategy not involving stupid 20 year olds and no violence at all. I still hold out hope for my own personal conspiracy theory. Biden becomes the nominee. After the convention fades, the Admnistration announces Biden has gone to the hospital for bone spur surgery. Kamala takes over temporarily and campaigns furiously for Biden-Harris. Biden is re-elected. Biden recovers and gets through the Oath (fingers crossed). Then he goes back to the hospital with some minor thing like a dizzy spell. Kamala takes over again. Biden's condition worsens. First Female President. Biden recovers and becomes America's Grandpa.
>>
>>     Come on Deep State. Make it happen. 8^D
>>
>>     On 7/15/24 17:30, Russ Abbott wrote:
>>     > I wonder what Scott's response would have been to those of us who, in response to the shooting, thought: better luck next time.
>>     > On 7/15/24 17:28, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>     >> It ignores the option of doing things quietly and indirectly.
>>     >> On 7/15/24 16:46, glen wrote:
>>     >>> [Scott's] Prayer
>>     >>> https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117 <https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117>
>>     >>>
>>     >>> I'm currently surrounded by people who believe intolerance is properly not tolerated. Scott's message, here, seems extraordinary Christian, to me. (Real Christian, not the Christianism displayed in things like megachurches and whatnot cf https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/ <https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/>). This faith that "going high" will, in the long run, win out, seems naive to me. The temptation to "hoist the black flag and start slitting throats" isn't merely a thresholded reaction, it's an intuitive grasp of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, tit-for-tat style strategies, and Ashby's LoRV. But I'm open to changing my mind on that. Maybe I'm just too low-brow?
>>     >>>


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ