Philosophy Now Forum

Man, you're determined not to give any information, aren't you? So either you don't know any, or you're ashamed of what you do know, I guess. Which "precedent"? (By the way, "precedents" are, in law, not actually binding; they're at most, a loose indication of prior judgments that may or may not be...

Good. Then you can put me back "on track," simply by explaining what you DO believe is the source and nature of Boris's legitimate authority. Fire away. Precendent, which he has flouted. Man, you're determined not to give any information, aren't you? So either you don't know any, or you're ashamed ...

Heh. :D You don't know what you're talking about, I can see. So I'll help you out. You're trying to say he exceeded the mandate the voters gave him . But if the voters "gave" the mandate, then it means you're a democrat...you don't think authority resides in Boris, or in somebody who appointed him,...

Then how do you know he's exceeded it? Maybe it's "subjective" to him, "relative" to what he wants to do? Or do you have in mind some "specific protocols" you could identify? Duh! If you want to know more , read Hansard. Heh. :D You don't know what you're talking about, I can see. So I'll help you ...

I have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range. What is the range of his "legitimate use of power"? It's subjective, relative and dependant on specific legislative protocols and precedents on particular countries. Then how do you know he's...

Explain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it. Have you not been paying attention? I have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range. What is the range of his "legitimate use of power"? It's subjective, relat...

Heh. :lol: Well, that's the level of your understanding is it? Okay. He daily exceeds the legitimate use of power - I call that tyrrany. Explain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it. Have you not been paying attention? Maybe you live on the wrong side of the pond.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:56 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:10 pm Legitimate Tyrrants:
Boris Johnson

Heh. Well, that's the level of your understanding is it? Okay.

He daily exceeds the legitimate use of power - I call that tyrrany.

Heh. :D That's a liiiiitle broad. Can you give some specific evidence? Fact there was once a time when there were no universals of tyrrany. Ummm... :? Okay, there's not really an easy way to say this, but that's not quite what a "universal" means. You're using the world in a colloquial sense, I see...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:26 pm I would say, "All the difference in the world." And in regard to legitimation, He alone makes legitimation a rational idea.

Is that all you got?

Show me some "evidence" and I'll deal with it. Until then, I feel no particular need to address mere posture-striking or empty rhetoric. The evidence of history. Heh. :D That's a liiiiitle broad. Can you give some specific evidence? You are making a claim, not me. Fact there was once a time when th...

...the evidence I have presented. Show me some "evidence" and I'll deal with it. Until then, I feel no particular need to address mere posture-striking or empty rhetoric. The evidence of history. Where is your justification; none. You are just spouting your "objectivity " bollocks as per usual.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:24 pm No universals means no basis for legitimation, period.

A claim that does not even make sense.
What not try and establish your claim rather than ignore the evidence I have presented.

I think the 64 million dollar question, though, is whether or not a computer is "conscious." No. This is not a question in any way at all. Obviously, there are machines that can "learn" but aren't they ultimately executing algorithms originally designed by a human being to be carried out? In other ...

Legitimation has to be on some universal principle, not on personal preference. Except that there are really no universal principles. Then there would also be no legitimation. There would only be competing power-groups, with none of them any objectively "better" or "more legitimate" than any other....