Interesting. Thanks for that. Collective intentionality may dovetail nicely with my own position.

Yup. I've been listening to/watching Searle lectures from time to time for a while now. Trying to keep the ontology closer to ground level. Dennett helps too!

:cool:

Searle's status functions??? Institutional facts???

People threatening to hang Mike Pence are not enemies of the US either, I suppose...

:roll:

Sedition is not a rebellion against the United States government. A rebellion against the United States is not an insurrection. Sedition is not an insurrection.



I suppose you'd agree with all that?

I'm conflating nothing. Sedition is enough.

Seditious conspiracy is insurrection and rebellion? Then why didn’t they get charged for insurrection and rebellion — NOS4A2

Does not matter. Rebelling against the transfer of power with arms nonetheless is enough.

No sedition. — NOS4A2

Rubbish. Sedition against the United States is both rebellion and insurrection. Trump and many congress members were involved, have and continue to offer aid and comfort to those already found guilty of sedition and seditious conspiracy... ahem... rebellion and insurrection against the United States.

He has not been found guilty of any such thing. — NOS4A2

By anyone who looks.

Look again. Sedition is rebellion against the United States

Trump has been found guilty of offering aid and comfort to people who are guilty of sedition. That disqualifies him from holding public office.

That's a matter of enforcement... nothing else. Some people run stop signs too, and yet the cop doesn't ticket them. It's an offense nonetheless.

Well no... sedition and seditious conspiracy is enough. We have that too!

Attempting to obstruct an official proceeding such as the peaceful transfer of power counts as an offense that disqualifies one. Offering those people aid and comfort also disqualifies one.

Evidently you're unaware of all the cases where some have plead guilty and/or been found guilty of precisely the language in the article. So, check... there are such people. Secondly, there are members in congress who have and continue to offer aid and comfort to those who've been found guilty by the facts in earlier court proceedings...

Trump had and does as well, and that ought be check mate.

The judge doesn't matter at this point.

If they were guilty, by whatever means you find acceptable, what sense would it make for them to have the sole exclusive power to enforce the article?

They wouldn’t have the power because they would be barred from being in Congress. — NOS4A2

If they were members at the time they gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists, they would.

Right. It seems to me that that article applies much much more broadly than is currently being applied. In other words, it is clear that a large number of current elected officials ought be removed from their office, and many of them are currently holding congressional positions.

Holding public office or being on the ballot does not exonerate one from the article.

Holding public office prior to offering aid and comfort to insurrectionists does not exonerate one from the article.

Just as the article prohibited confederate officials after the Civil War, it applies equally to those currently in congress who attempted to obstruct an official proceeding as well as all of those who've given aid and comfort to insurrectionists.

If the power of enforcing the article was exclusively conferred to congress, it would be completely incapable of removing any members guilty of what the article sets out. Given that the very purpose of the article is to prohibit such members, it is clear that that interpretation is wrong.

The purpose of the article is to prohibit insurrectionists and those who give aid and comfort to insurrectionists from holding public office. It makes no sense whatsoever to confer the power to execute/enforce the article to the very people who have given and continue to offer aid and comfort to insurrectionists.

The judge doesn't matter at this point.

If they were guilty, by whatever means you find acceptable, what sense would it make for them to have the sole exclusive power to enforce the article?

On the other hand, the 14th amendment does confer the power to enforce the provisions to Congress, so one can assume correctly that that power belongs with Congress and no one else. — NOS4A2

How would that work if there were members in congress who were guilty of what the article sets out?

If those guilty of what the amendment sets out won an election and were to hold public office and it were up to them to enforce it, it would defeat the very purpose of the amendment. They won't find themselves guilty.

If this congress were responsible for enforcing it as written, they would be forced to conclude that they themselves were disqualified from holding their own positions. Well, a large portion of the republican members anyway.

A congress full of insurrectionists. A congress full of folk who attempted to stop/obstruct an official proceeding. A congress of folk who continue to commit fraud against the American people.

. Are you trying to say that in some form the agreement supersedes the legal requirement for a mortgage? — AmadeusD

No, I'm pointing out that without agreement there can be no mortgage, in the very same way, by the very same means that without obligation there can be no promise. Mortgages require agreement and promises require obligation because in both cases the one consists of the other much like an apple pie requires apples.

Real... neither only in the mind nor mind independent. It's a matter of what ideas consist of.

Tell me how you would go about enforcing a property interest if there's no record anywhere of you having any interest in the property?

Given I deal with this problem for my clients regularly - this should be quite interesting. — AmadeusD

Enforcing it is not the question. It's whether or not the agreement remains intact. The agreement is not physical. The record of it is.

I'm not speaking for Banno, although I suspect he would agree.

Weird. Those words were just used by you for the first time, and yet I'm somehow avoiding something that you've just now expressed.

Odd indeed.

Do you have a question that you've asked that I've not answered clearly enough?

You seem to be trying quite hard to avoid this, which was why I changed the question. — AmadeusD

I've no idea what you're on about. I think that you're misattributing meaning to my posts.

I'm trying very hard to 'dovetail' the substantive to the minimalist version you voice.

:razz:

↪creativesoul Trouble is, "a state of affairs" traps folk into thinking about how things are, nti how they ought be. One of the issues with taking a substantive view of truth. — Banno

Yeah, I'm still working through all this... for me "states of affairs" are just what's happening at some specific time and place. It's a proxy for the term "reality" and the phrase "the way things are", etc.

There's always Hume's guillotine. I see it. However, I think there's a way to render it toothless.

Did I claim anything about what - exactly - establishes a state of affairs?

I, for one, cannot make sense of something being forbidden unless there is some authority figure who has commanded us not to do something. — Michael

We agree on that. Where we disagree is on b earlier. There is no need for such a thing, as I said earlier for the reasons I said earlier, all of which you agreed with. Sometimes, all we need is knowledge of causality to justify admonishing certain behaviours and/or encouraging others.

We could be the authority.

So what does it mean for something to be wrong? How do we verify or falsify (or justify) the claim that something is wrong? You say kicking puppies is wrong, I said kicking puppies is right. How do we determine which of us is correct? — Michael

There's all sorts of different standards/criterions for what exactly counts as being right/wrong. If we are to set the societal norms aside, then our own respective moral belief would need to be argued for.

Right?

So, how do you justify that kicking puppies is acceptable?

Right, so you're arguing for moral relativism. I'm okay with that. — Michael

Not exactly, although like I said... I acknowledge the fact that all codes of conduct are subject to individual particulars.

...if it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden, then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. Those two claims express the same state of affairs.
— creativesoul

Let me shift the question: From where does your confidence in that claim come? No need to justify - I want to know where your confidence in it's "truth" comes from? — AmadeusD

I know what they both mean.

Well... I think that rules come down to individual particulars. I'm sure you'll agree. Different communities hold different rules/moral belief.

So, with enough qualification it may be the case that kicking puppies is forbidden in some communities but not in others.

I'm okay with that.

But what do we do about moral rules? There's no authority to point to. The very concept of there being rules without a rule-giver is nonsense. — Michael

Well, yeah. For the most part. Currently the American legal system is just a gloried form of morality. But why the need for rules here? Kicking puppies is wrong in and of itself.

Premise 2 is stating the rules. You're the one asking me to justify 2. Hence, I asked. I'm not sure why you think it's ambiguous... it's pretty straightforward to me.


You answered. Why do the same standards not apply to codes of conduct? That's what the rules of chess are? If those are good enough for your to justify claims about chess behaviour, then why are the rules governing behaviour in a society/community that forbids kicking puppies not good enough?

I acknowledge that all moality(codes of conduct) are subject to individual particulars. I do not profess moral relativism/subjectivism.