Suppose you seriously make such an assertion to me. Surely I'd want to ascertain the validity of this theory for myself. There have been innumerable stories of similar legal theories over the years, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me your legal theory". You lead me to your web site and I see no legal theory - just a lot of hair-brained schemes, implausible historical interpretations and wacky conspiracy theories. "I neglected to mention that powerful people have conspired to hide the truth of my political theory from the masses."
I propose we look for a case-law precedent in which your legal theory has been succesful. "Good idea" you say " but the courts have all conspired to hide the truth. The fix is in, and the judges won't allow it".
I propose that we watch what happens when one of your followers tries your legal theory in court. They fail completely. "You see, I told you, now you see how deep and complete this evil conspiracy to hide the truth goes."
I propose that you test your legal theory yourself in court. "I would, but I'm such a saintly guy that I don't want to pursue my own gain..bla.blah.blah. appeal to altruism, bla bla blah".
I propose that you discuss how the world would work if your theory was upheld (how would we pay for stuff, how would we separate the "good/holy" laws from the (bad/corporate) laws). You wax philosophical like some mad 60's beatnik on shrooms.
And so on. You counter every rational legal test with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between a world where your legal theory is technically true, but has been so thoroughly hidden by a vast unfathomable dark conspiracy and a world in which your theory is not actually true, but is just the mad rantings of disturbed people with too much time on their hands? If there's no way to prove or disprove your legal theory, no conceivable experiment that would count for or against it, What does it mean that your legal theory exists? My inability to invalidate your legal theory is not at all the same thing as proving it true.
"Show me your legal theory". You lead me to your web site and I see no legal theory - just a lot of hair-brained schemes, implausible historical interpretations and wacky conspiracy theories. "I neglected to mention that powerful people have conspired to hide the truth of my political theory from the masses."
I propose we look for a case-law precedent in which your legal theory has been succesful. "Good idea" you say " but the courts have all conspired to hide the truth. The fix is in, and the judges won't allow it".
I propose that we watch what happens when one of your followers tries your legal theory in court. They fail completely. "You see, I told you, now you see how deep and complete this evil conspiracy to hide the truth goes."
I propose that you test your legal theory yourself in court. "I would, but I'm such a saintly guy that I don't want to pursue my own gain..bla.blah.blah. appeal to altruism, bla bla blah".
I propose that you discuss how the world would work if your theory was upheld (how would we pay for stuff, how would we separate the "good/holy" laws from the (bad/corporate) laws). You wax philosophical like some mad 60's beatnik on shrooms.
And so on. You counter every rational legal test with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between a world where your legal theory is technically true, but has been so thoroughly hidden by a vast unfathomable dark conspiracy and a world in which your theory is not actually true, but is just the mad rantings of disturbed people with too much time on their hands? If there's no way to prove or disprove your legal theory, no conceivable experiment that would count for or against it, What does it mean that your legal theory exists? My inability to invalidate your legal theory is not at all the same thing as proving it true.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1xXojCP
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire