Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-CourtCase - Revision history

Reversedragon: If there is no objective truth, then how can there be a tax fraud investigation?

2026-06-06T09:26:18Z

If there is no objective truth, then how can there be a tax fraud investigation?

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:26, 6 June 2026
Line 36:		Line 36:

	{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=618\|h4= Are murder verdicts subjective? }} / Can people think whatever they want to about a murder case? / Should the moral or legal outcome of an incident of a small number of individuals killing each other be dependent on the consensus of all the witnesses' subjectivities as opposed to facts left behind when leaving each witness' perspective? -> people never think about this when they want to propose theories of reality or nature being a consensus of subjectivities. and I don't know why. it doesn't even require laws or a State to think about. laws don't even exist from the point of view of the killer, so clearly Materialism and law are not the same thing.		{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=618\|h4= Are murder verdicts subjective? }} / Can people think whatever they want to about a murder case? / Should the moral or legal outcome of an incident of a small number of individuals killing each other be dependent on the consensus of all the witnesses' subjectivities as opposed to facts left behind when leaving each witness' perspective? -> people never think about this when they want to propose theories of reality or nature being a consensus of subjectivities. and I don't know why. it doesn't even require laws or a State to think about. laws don't even exist from the point of view of the killer, so clearly Materialism and law are not the same thing.

			{{li\|I=M3/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}If there is no objective truth, then how can there be a tax fraud investigation? -> every statement about how much you owe in taxes or how much you paid is a claim. if claims cannot actually be true or false, then there can't be any such thing as tax fraud.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Can people think whatever they want to about a murder case?

2026-06-02T00:56:53Z

Can people think whatever they want to about a murder case?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:56, 2 June 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/LR\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}~~law~~ (discipline; Liberal-republicanism)		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/LR\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4= law }} (discipline; Liberal-republicanism)

	{{li\|I=Z0/LR\|Q=618}}~~lawyer~~ / attorney (sense) -> so I learned recently that there is a distinction between "lawyer" and "attorney" because there are some people who are lawyers but do other jobs, such as solicitors that do office work. so an attorney is a specific thing. but a barrister is almost the same thing depending on the system, because sometimes the division is between 'solicitor' and 'not solicitor', and the category of barrister exists to distinguish people who {{em\|don't}} do both.<br/>		{{li\|I=Z0/LR\|Q=618\|h4= lawyer }} / attorney (sense) -> so I learned recently that there is a distinction between "lawyer" and "attorney" because there are some people who are lawyers but do other jobs, such as solicitors that do office work. so an attorney is a specific thing. but a barrister is almost the same thing depending on the system, because sometimes the division is between 'solicitor' and 'not solicitor', and the category of barrister exists to distinguish people who {{em\|don't}} do both.<br/>
	I'm weird. why is it I don't really like Liberal-republicanism but I can get absolutely lost in its trivia like what 'attorney' means, fascinated the whole time?		I'm weird. why is it I don't really like Liberal-republicanism but I can get absolutely lost in its trivia like what 'attorney' means, fascinated the whole time?

	{{li\|I=Z0/LR\|Q=618}}~~court trial~~ / court case (incident going through process of being tried, incident whose details will be transcribed; sense)		{{li\|I=Z0/LR\|Q=618\|h4= court trial }} / court case (incident going through process of being tried, incident whose details will be transcribed; sense)

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 15:		Line 15:
	<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">		<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/LR\|Q=618}}court cases and social movements		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/LR\|Q=618\|h4= court cases and social movements }}

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Anti-discrimination laws are not possible when courtrooms are not possible / If courtrooms are not feasible, then anti-discrimination laws are not feasible		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|h4= No courtrooms, no civil rights laws }} / Anti-discrimination laws are not possible when courtrooms are not possible / If courtrooms are not feasible, then anti-discrimination laws are not feasible

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 26:		Line 26:
	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/LR\|Q=618}}court cases and objectivity		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/LR\|Q=618}}court cases and objectivity

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Courtrooms are not possible without objective truth / Judges cannot make decisions without a concept of material accuracy -> I find it a little crazy that people are in such agreement that you can't trust cops, but they'll all trust judges, and they won't trust scientists. at this point in time it seems more likely that people will respond positively to appeals to Phoenix Wright than to appeals to 'the scientific method' or to 'rationality'. as contradictory as that may sound when ~~like,~~ a lot of bourgeois law is Kantian and fundamentally Enlightenment-rationalist, so it's not obvious what the difference is~~.<br/>~~		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618\|h4= No truth, no courtrooms }} / Courtrooms are not possible without objective truth / Judges cannot make decisions without a concept of material accuracy -> I find it a little crazy that people are in such agreement that you can't trust cops, but they'll all trust judges, and they won't trust scientists. at this point in time it seems more likely that people will respond positively to appeals to Phoenix Wright than to appeals to 'the scientific method' or to 'rationality'. as contradictory as that may sound when a lot of bourgeois law is Kantian and fundamentally Enlightenment-rationalist, so it's not obvious what the difference is.
	~~this + ?? = Anti-discrimination laws are not possible when courtrooms are not possible~~.

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=~~618~~}}Materialism aids the prosecutor / It is impossible for Liberal-republicanism to enforce laws without material models of society / ~~Materialism aids The Cops~~ (~~sense~~) / Materialism ~~aids The State~~		{{li\|I=F2/A\|Q=64,35\|Q2=6435\|h4= Materialism aids The Cops }} / Materialism aids The State / Materialism aids The State against anarchists / ({{9k\|RD/Q64,49}}) -> ... cops are not an idea, police departments actually are a physical thing that has been created, and there's no need to invoke some esoteric idea of "reification" to explain that. ... The Cops do not have their own motivations beyond what a particular city usually values as a population, or what the people who called them value. ...<br/>
			so, anyway. you can say with some confidence that Phoenix Wright [= a lawyer] is a weapon of The State. or more specifically, that logic is his weapon. a defensive weapon is still a weapon with its own destructive power. so what then? is this unacceptable? if you were Lenin, you'd say no, because the process of logic or mathematics or Materialism can be used to track the bourgeoisie and keep them out of an emerging workers' state. if you were Stalin, you'd also say no, because Materialism can be used to thwart Trotskyite conspiracies that are unnecessarily trying to destroy the central party and replace it with a different Marxist party. even if you were Trotsky, you'd still say no, because you use Materialism to show how the central party supposedly "became deformed" and how Stalin could not save it. ...<br/>
			Materialism aids the The Cops. but it doesn't destroy society. it is something of a defensive weapon to secure the edges of society against external threats. ... states follow natural divisions between populations where they are {{em\|failing to become friends}} and {{em\|becoming hostile as people}}, and whether there is a state is not something you adopt as an Ideal or that you choose. any more than you can choose whether or not one of the criminals in the Phoenix Wright games kills somebody, that just happens. now I'm going to make a very spicy statement: any group of anarchists that has ever said the word "fascism" believes in a state. the moment you have to repel fascism you have a state! ... really, "The State" and "a state" are not even necessarily different things. once Liberal capitalism ceases to exist they tend to just collapse back into being the same thing, that "The State" exists when two "states" exist in plurality and hostility. ... factional borders are an instrument of freedom that is used to fight hierarchy and domination despite being The State. ...<br/>
			... a group of anarchists [[E:Are apples made of givanium?\|doesn't poof in out of nowhere]]; it's formed out of a particular fraction of a population and so it has an outer border and is countable. (there could be a dynamic like is hypothesized for Trotskyism where anarchism pops up at several centers and then forms bridges in the middle and gets bigger, but that doesn't change things much. the area of anarchism is just bigger instead of smaller.) ... whether anything [a new ally of the anarchists] does to protect the anarchists counts as State activities ... that very moment of decision and protection is the creation of a state, because it's the creation of the border to a countable society. this statement that Materialism "aids The State" is false because anarchists not having a state is physically impossible. anarchists can call themselves anarchists all they want but to pull it off they need to be way more specific than they've ever been about what The State is.

			{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=64,35\|Q2=6435\|h4= Materialism aids the prosecutor }} / It is impossible for Liberal-republicanism to enforce laws without material models of society / ({{9k\|RD/Q64,49}})

			{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=618\|h4= Are murder verdicts subjective? }} / Can people think whatever they want to about a murder case? / Should the moral or legal outcome of an incident of a small number of individuals killing each other be dependent on the consensus of all the witnesses' subjectivities as opposed to facts left behind when leaving each witness' perspective? -> people never think about this when they want to propose theories of reality or nature being a consensus of subjectivities. and I don't know why. it doesn't even require laws or a State to think about. laws don't even exist from the point of view of the killer, so clearly Materialism and law are not the same thing.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Related ==		== Related ==
	~~<!--~~
	<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">		<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/DFy\|Q=64,32\|Q2=6432\|h4= Ace Attorney is copaganda }} / ({{9k\|RD/Q64,49}})

			{{li\|I=S2/DFy\|Q=64,35\|Q2=6435}}[[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30 Ace Attorney\|Phoenix Wright]] aids The State specifically through practicing Materialism, and this is bad because there shouldn't be a State / ({{9k\|RD/Q64,49}})

			{{li\|I=S2/HM/A\|tradition=HM, A\|Q=576\|Q2=576\|h4= Truth has exited domination }} / That which brings freedom from domination is True / It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] / ({{9k\|RD/Q530}})

			{{li\|I=S1/A\|tradition=\|Q=576\|Q2=576}}promotes freedom (truth value) / ({{9k\|RD/Q530}})

			{{li\|I=S2/HM\|tradition=LR, HM, A\|Q=555\|Q2=555\|h4= Reality is subjective consensus }} / Truth is that which can be reached by the biggest possible subjective consensus / ({{9k\|RD/Q53,19 secular animism}})

			{{li\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=\|Q=555\|Q2=555}}promotes non-hierarchical consensus (truth value) / ({{9k\|RD/Q530}})

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
	-->
			== Wavebuilder combinations ==
			<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
			{{WaveBuild\| {{E:Q618/LR\|No truth, no courtrooms}} \| {{E:Q618/LR\|court cases and social movements}} \| {{E:Q618/MX\|No courtrooms, no civil rights laws}} }}
			{{WaveBuild\| {{E:Q618/A\|Reality is subjective consensus}} \| {{E:Q618/PT\|Black defendant with all-White jury}} \| {{E:Q618/MX\|Are murder verdicts subjective?}} }}
			{{WaveBuild\| {{E:Q618/A\|Reality is subjective consensus}} \| {{E:Q618/Zv\|Trotskyite with all-Stalinist jury}} \| {{E:Q618/MX\|Are murder verdicts subjective?}} }}
			<!--{{E:Q618/IV\|?}} --
			--></dl>

	== Ideology codes ==		== Ideology codes ==

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q40,59

2026-06-01T23:23:01Z

copy markup from 9k/Q40,59

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=court trial|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}law (discipline; Liberal-republicanism)

{{li|I=Z0/LR|Q=618}}lawyer / attorney (sense) -> so I learned recently that there is a distinction between "lawyer" and "attorney" because there are some people who are lawyers but do other jobs, such as solicitors that do office work. so an attorney is a specific thing. but a barrister is almost the same thing depending on the system, because sometimes the division is between 'solicitor' and 'not solicitor', and the category of barrister exists to distinguish people who {{em|don't}} do both.<br/>
I'm weird. why is it I don't really like Liberal-republicanism but I can get absolutely lost in its trivia like what 'attorney' means, fascinated the whole time?

{{li|I=Z0/LR|Q=618}}court trial / court case (incident going through process of being tried, incident whose details will be transcribed; sense)

</li></ol>

== Social movements ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}court cases and social movements

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-discrimination laws are not possible when courtrooms are not possible / If courtrooms are not feasible, then anti-discrimination laws are not feasible

</li></ol>

== Objectivity ==
<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}court cases and objectivity

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Courtrooms are not possible without objective truth / Judges cannot make decisions without a concept of material accuracy -> I find it a little crazy that people are in such agreement that you can't trust cops, but they'll all trust judges, and they won't trust scientists. at this point in time it seems more likely that people will respond positively to appeals to Phoenix Wright than to appeals to 'the scientific method' or to 'rationality'. as contradictory as that may sound when like, a lot of bourgeois law is Kantian and fundamentally Enlightenment-rationalist, so it's not obvious what the difference is.<br/>
this + ?? = Anti-discrimination laws are not possible when courtrooms are not possible.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Materialism aids the prosecutor / It is impossible for Liberal-republicanism to enforce laws without material models of society / Materialism aids The Cops (sense) / Materialism aids The State

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideology codes ==

* (none)


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]