New Rule for Politics and Government

[Zenas]

I propose that whenever someone accuses the United States or Canadian governments of impeding their citizens rights, that the poster be required to post the text of the bill so that everyone can read and understand the bill for themselves.

I think that, currently, there is a large reliance on news sources that are, at best, flat wrong about what the alleged law says or means and, at worst, is being dishonest. In either case, the result is the same, unfounded panic and confusion.

We're all relatively smart individuals here. Most are well read and, as a result of our roots in the Confessions and church government, know how to read legislative or legislative-like language. I think we can discern for ourselves what these laws say and whether we have anything we need to be calling our Congressmen and Senators over. We can avoid a lot of wasted time and needless concern.

 

[steven-nemes]

Sounds like too much work.

 

[Answerman]

I thought the mods shut down the P&G forum.

 

[ewenlin]

I thought the mods shut down the P&G forum.

Narh. It's an opt-in forum and thread creation is moderated.

 

[JBaldwin]

The P&G forum is already well-regulated. I don't think it is necessary to put any more restrictions on it unless you are suggesting that we simply close it down.

 

[AThornquist]

But what if the law means different things to me than it does to you? I think all of our interpretations might have a bit of truth.

 

[Zenas]

Well then I think posts that purport to comment on a recently passed law should be disallowed unless accompanied by the law.

What's the merit in a discussion that revolves around a wrong reading of a law or a news source which doesn't state the law properly?

-----Added 10/29/2009 at 01:10:55 EST-----

Sounds like too much work.

It's harder than finding a news article that's wrong about the law, but what worth is a source that's wrong about the law?

Harder is relative, if this is harder than something that is of no worth, is it really harder, or just onerous it its own right?

 

[he beholds]

Well then I think posts that purport to comment on a recently passed law should be disallowed unless accompanied by the law.

What's the merit in a discussion that revolves around a wrong reading of a law or a news source which doesn't state the law properly?

I think less rules are better, for most things in life. I'm an adult, you're an adult, let's just make our own adult decisions. If I post a complaint about a law that is actually not true, you can ignore it or correct me. That would be more helpful than making a vague new rule about one of the forums here.

I personally have not seen an overwhelming amount of threads serving complaints about recently-passed laws on the P&G, anyway.

 

[Zenas]

Well then I think posts that purport to comment on a recently passed law should be disallowed unless accompanied by the law.

What's the merit in a discussion that revolves around a wrong reading of a law or a news source which doesn't state the law properly?

I think less rules are better, for most things in life. I'm an adult, you're an adult, let's just make our own adult decisions. If I post a complaint about a law that is actually not true, you can ignore it or correct me. That would be more helpful than making a vague new rule about one of the forums here.

I personally have not seen an overwhelming amount of threads serving complaints about recently-passed laws on the P&G, anyway.

But then you're spreading concern over something that isn't valid. You're ignoring my point that I think the atmosphere of unfounded concern counter-productive.

-----Added 10/29/2009 at 01:31:18 EST-----

One problem is there are many versions any particular law that are constantly being revised so it should be valid to make general comments about certain types of provisions that are in most versions of any particular bill being debated at the time.

What's the use in debating versions of bills (they are not laws yet) that are un-enacted and non-binding? It only concerns us if it's passed from Committee, at the earliest.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thanks for the suggestion. The mods have seen it. Thread closed.