zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. rbanff+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-01-22 12:40:24
It's not sufficient, but it's still necessary.
replies(1): >>ivan_g+K6
2. ivan_g+K6[view] [source] 2025-01-22 13:29:19
>>rbanff+(OP)
Exactly what I was saying.
replies(1): >>tpoach+BJ
◧◩
3. tpoach+BJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 17:08:08
>>ivan_g+K6
You may have been saying this but the parent comment that spurred the discussion was making the explicit assertion that "the rule of law is the only thing holding together [...] everyone's countries, and civilized society in general".

Saying that law is 'the only thing' necessary for the existence of modern society effectively means it is also a sufficient condition. So yes, someone did claim the opposite.

replies(2): >>ivan_g+sX >>butlik+dv1
◧◩◪
4. ivan_g+sX[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 18:17:20
>>tpoach+BJ
I doubt that modern society does fulfill the sufficiency criteria [1], so „the only thing“ can be right, but also it is not the claim that it is enough for survival.

[1] USA regressing to a globally disrespected oligarchy under Trump is a good example.

replies(1): >>rbanff+lt1
◧◩◪◨
5. rbanff+lt1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 21:40:28
>>ivan_g+sX
Not in my wildest dreams I imagined Brazil would give the good example for prosecuting a former president who attempted a coup and that the US would fail to do the same.
◧◩◪
6. butlik+dv1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 21:55:07
>>tpoach+BJ
Why argue more when they agree with you?
[go to top]