Positivist Law is positively BAD

Submitted by UNCLE VLADDI (Canada), Jan 17, 2016 at 22:23

Hi Demsci,

I really don't think "positivist" law is a real thing, and it definitely can't be a good thing, because it needs must cover all the almost infinite circumstantial situations of attacking first but for one's own good.

"Positivist Law" uses micro-management to remove all free-will intent from all circumstantial instances!

In most of their decisions, criminals (muslims, liberals) rely on the (not necessarily precedential, but usually 'traditional') opinions of other jurists; it's idolatry, in that they care more about WHO said something, than about WHAT was actually said. They usually adhere to even the worst ravings of the Haneefites, opposing the more consistently and coherently (but then again, still more obviously criminally principled) reasonings of the Shafeeites.

A lot of their more bizarre speculated scenarios might arise because of their superstitious notions that IF something CAN happen, therefore it WILL happen, SO they MUST specifically address it!

Same goes for why they always over-legislate all subsequent if-even-remotely-possible scenario symptoms!

;-)

SHARIA itself is only an "ethical" alibi-excuse list of all the nearly infinite whos, whats, whens, wheres, whys and hows for one's crimes, once one has decided to commit them by breaking the Golden Rule of Law, which basic principle itself simply defines all circumstantial, situational morality as:
"Do Not Attack First!"

;-)

They believe in the fake Golden Rule, ("Do Unto Others as you would have done unto yourself") which enables them to pretend they are entitled to do anything to others which they have done to themselves; i.e: "I'd LOVE to be oppressed and ruled with an iron fist by ME, even if I wasn't me!"

This fake 'golden rule' is really only the same brazen rule of criminal chaos which asserts one is allowed to do things TO one's victims, as long as one can pretend to be doing those things FOR them!

This enables them to make fake, one-sided criminally neglilgent "contracts" to them selves which they can them pretend also apply to other people:

"Trust me, this hurts ME more than it does you!"

They also get to pretend that, when they CHOOSE to take personal "risks" (like, of being caught for their crimes) then their victims owe them the loot in compensation for all the trouble they took stealing it!

Just like how on The Sopranos, the mob always called their crimes "earnings!"

All criminals believe in having rights (like, to our stuff) without concomitant corollary responsibilities (like, for having to pay for or otherwise earn it) and that the ends (their enrichment) justifies the means (screwing over their victims).

And, naturally, they must also justify this criminal stance with victim-blaming slander, always pretending to be the victim:

http://vladdi.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/life-under-the-victimocracy/

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".