Thomas Dalton writes:
I have a right
to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
anyone, but I promise I have it!
Like I say, there's a world outside the legal profession. Just because
something isn't recognised by the law doesn't mean it isn't recognised
So you recognize my right to your house? Cool! Where is it? When can
I get the keys?
Where do you think laws come from? Do you think they
nowhere? They are created by politicians (and sometimes judges) based
on moral values. Those moral values imply certain moral rights whether
they are written down in statute (or case law) or not.
Oh, so you're creating a special Thomas Daltonian definition of the
word "moral rights." Cool!
understand what the term "term of art" means?
Honestly? No, I'd have to look it up. However, I don't need to know
fancy lawyer speak to understand the concept of morality.
So you're under the impression that "term of art" is "fancy lawyer
By the way,
most members of the legal profession are not students of
the philosophy of law. It is your misfortune that, in me, you have
come across someone who is. I'm not disqualified from pointing out
philosophical mistakes merely because I can hang out a shingle.
Well, maybe when you progress a little further in your studies you'll
actually know something about the subject. I'm a mathematician, I am
well trained in logic and reasoned argument.
This underscores your problem, perhaps. Many mathematicians are under
the impression that reasoning from first principles is a substitute
for actually doing the necessary reading and learning. The notion that
one can argue without knowledge of the relevant facts is one that is
common, all by no means universal, among my friends who are
While I may
not be an expert on the relevant facts, I can follow an argument and
see if it makes sense, and yours rarely do.
I can understand why arguments based on reading you have not done and
facts you do not have wouldn't make sense to you. I'll make allowances.