Is there such a thing as natural law? (General)

by Joe Kelley, Monday, January 25, 2010, 17:53 @ clarity

Clarity,

What you have done in the past and what you are doing now is exactly what it is, and it is routine for you.

If I write something like this:
++++++++++
How does a “group” get something? It seems to me that you have glossed over (over looked) a significant measure of reality. Groups’ do not own, or “get” or “pool” or act in any way as if a “group” were one entity. It can be understood that many people who share a common thing are “grouped” into one group for quick and easy (convenient and user friendly) reference, measure, or communication; rather than name each individual in the group, the idea is to name all the people at once, as a group, because they all share the same thing.
As soon as one person doesn’t share the same thing than that one doesn’t belong in the group, and as soon as one person (who was not in the group to begin with) begins sharing the same thing then that one now belongs in the statistical group, the grouping view, the collective measure, etc.
++++++++++

You routinely reply with something like this (in this case: you reply with this exactly):
++++++++
I am never quite certain what it is you are maintaining.
++++++++

What I wrote can be understood by a child, and perhaps a child would also “maintain” a supposed ignorance concerning what is communicate to the child, if the child desired to take that routine method of communicating.

If you write this:
++++++++
that the pool of food that a group gets
++++++++

If you write that, then it is reasonable for me to ask you to clarify what you mean by writing that, since that says that a “group gets” something. How does a group get something?

And so you respond with this:
+++++++++
Haven't I addressed this same issue of groups with you before?
+++++++++

Did you dodge the question then too?

You may see our exchanges as you dancing with some imaginary person, the same imaginary person who speaks to you with my voice, while I know for a fact that I’m not dancing with anyone.

You claim that the “group gets” and I question you on that text that you publish on this public access forum.

Why do you do that, why do you claim that the “group gets”?
Stop dancing and you may actually answer the question asked.

You now write this:
++++++++
group holdings
++++++++

Can that be illustrated? Is that illustrated by a group of firemen holding one of those emergency trampolines – to rescue someone jumping out of a burning building? Are you suggesting that a stock share is a “group” holding? I'm offering guesses concerning your use of the words you use.

Who is this “they” that create these “group goals”? If you have created a goal then you have created a goal, if someone shares the goal that you create, then they share it, when does the goal suddenly become a “group” goal? Is that the moment, that moment when someone shares the goal you create?

When does Mr. Group step in? Whose idea is it to have this goal of creating an entity unto itself? What is the purpose of these legal fictions, these corporate entities, these “groups” with these goals?

Is that a simple enough question (one which a 5 year old could answer, or dodge by first creating the goal of dodging the question and then creating the means by which the question is dodged)?

You wrote this:
+++++++++
group holdings
+++++++++

What do you mean, when you write those things, and why might it be difficult to answer the question being asked, and why would you then create a goal of pretending to have already “danced” (answered the question previously) this dance already?

Why not just answer the question?

What is the purpose of creating this “group” thing (rather than recognizing that a group is a statistical angle of view, where the perceiver merely avoids the cost of naming each individual in the group, where any individual is only in the group if the individual happens to share the common characteristic, element, etc.)?

What is your purpose for creating these “groups” that supposedly hold something (is it the firemen holding the trampoline)?

If one individual leaves the group, failing to participate in the thing that earns placement in the group, does the group stop being what it was and begin being a different group, out with the old, and in with the new?

Group A (consisting of members x through y plus z)

Group B (Group A minus z)

Does Group A vanish and Group B suddenly appears before everyone’s eyes, a death and a new birth? Does someone merely cross one name off the list?

++++++++
It is obvious that a set of people can identify themselves as a group and that it makes perfect sense to talk about the group getting an aggregate amount of food even if the individuals do the getting.
++++++++

It is obvious to me that legal fictions are goals shared by individuals who willfully employ such creations in the work of injuring innocent victims – for profit – and the victims are typically ignorant concerning how the power does manage to flow from them to their victimizers.

What may be obvious to child may be very well hidden from a well trained adult.