zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. ivan_g+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-01-22 13:29:19
Exactly what I was saying.
replies(1): >>tpoach+RC
2. tpoach+RC[view] [source] 2025-01-22 17:08:08
>>ivan_g+(OP)
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+IQ >>butlik+to1
◧◩
3. ivan_g+IQ[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 18:17:20
>>tpoach+RC
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+Bm1
◧◩◪
4. rbanff+Bm1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 21:40:28
>>ivan_g+IQ
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.
◧◩
5. butlik+to1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 21:55:07
>>tpoach+RC
Why argue more when they agree with you?
[go to top]