this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
1507 points (99.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
7667 readers
2757 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's pretty much the fucking definition of a law.
-- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law (look it up elsewhere and the definition is almost word for word the same)
Laws are rules that are worded specifically to match criteria to ensure that the spirit of the law can be maintained and served to protect the public. the interpretation of a law can change once a precedent can be set, but that law is still the rule until it's been amended.
you're being disingenuous and ambiguous in your understanding of law or you're just playing the fool to serve your point.
either way you look like an ass and are too arrogant to be using that much confidence in your conviction.
your are the definition of "confidently incorrect".
Why the hostility?
It seems pretty clear to me that they meant there's no "what is a woman" definition that's shared between all laws of a government.
Each law defines the terms they contain, which can contradict definitions found in other laws.
When one law changes its definition of a term, it doesn't mean other definitions of the term are also changed.
You wrote a whole lot while saying very little.
You're completely missing the point. You can have two laws:
Defines that for the purposes of import tariffs, a tomato is a fruit.
Defines that for the purposes of school lunch funding, a tomato is a vegetable.
Both of these laws can be passed, exist, be upheld and enforced at the same time. People would get confused and say, "but...but...a tomato is a tomato, it can't be both a fruit and a vegetable depending on context! That's not fair!"
Well, I'm sorry, but the law is not required to be internally consistent. No where in the US constitution or the UK's equivalent will you find language that says that all laws must use consistent definitions in all contexts.
I get it, this truth of the law offends people. People with STEM backgrounds are often particularly incensed by it, as it goes so against their way of understanding the world, scientific and mathematical axioms and such. But the law is not a computer code. The law is not a physics equation. It has all sorts of internal contradictions. Definitions are often highly contextual.
Also, quit being such a jackass. You don't need to start throwing around insults just because you disagree with a post.
This is basically why a handful of "STEM" people want smart contracts to take over the legal system.
And there's a reason smart contracts haven't taken off. Because at the end of the day, people want language in their contracts that protects them from flagrant abuse. And that is not possible with smart contracts.
For example, provisions of contracts can be thrown out in court because they're unconscionable or because they violate various doctrines of fairness or proportionality. If I offer a service, I can put a provision in my service contract that a cancellation fee applies if a client cancels early. But that fee has to be reasonable and proportional. I can't say, "if you cancel your contract early, you owe me $10 million USD." Maybe if that fee was for a hundred million dollar construction project? Maybe. But for a simple consumer service like a plumber or an electrician? No court in the world would uphold such a fee. Contracts can't have language in them that, completely out of the context of the contract, just entitles one party to vastly unreasonable and disproportionate benefit.
The law around real contracts has provisions relating to "unconscionable language" or "a reasonable person." These are things that cannot be defined mathematically. They have to be decided by an actual human being assessing the situation.
And this is also why smart contracts haven't taken off. I don't want to lose my house because some hidden provision of a smart contract flips and now my home belongs to some NFT bro. I don't want my retirement savings disappearing in a puff of logic because of some indecipherable code in a smart contract. I want the contracts governing all the important things in my life to be well-trodden, boring, well-established contracts operating in decades of contract law meant to keep people mostly safe. I don't want whatever snake oil some smart contract coder is trying to sell me. Mandatory binding arbitration is bad enough. The last thing we need is smart contracts.
Sure, someone can try and weasel out of it by saying, "don't like it, don't agree to the smart contract!" To that I say stuff it. We don't let people write language into minor contracts that lets them steal the homes out from little old ladies. We have extensive state regulation of contracts because we've learned the hard way that rigidly enforcing contracts with zero thought or consideration of fairness just ends up rewarding the most vile and wicked people in society.
Yes, it's tempting to do away with lawyers and judges and to replace them all with objective mathematical language. But there's a reason that is never going to happen. People do not want to trust their major financial decisions to some inscrutable code that provides them no legal protections.
That's an interesting point! Although I would suspect that for the "STEM people", today's legal system is even more inscrutable and indecipherable. A reasonable person would say that tits are tits, and might more easily notice
than notice which legal definition applies in that particular situation.
You could not have missed the point harder if you replied to another post.