4 ms·

Substance over form or De facto vs de jure Pedantic rule-based systems are easy to circumvent with loopholes and lacunas. That’s why we should look at the su

Substance over form or De facto vs de jure Pedantic rule-based systems are easy to circumvent with loopholes and lacunas. That’s why we should look at the substance and not merely a [legal] form Examples: - form: a cryptocurrency, but substance: an unregistered security - “medical alcohol” during dry laws / Prohibition - “medical marijuana” & patients vs drug users - etc. —- Was Third Reich[1] a “sovereign government” or a front for The National Socialist German Workers' Party? Was USSR a “sovereign government” or a front for a Communist Party? Is Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) a “sovereign government” or merely a front for IRGC[2]? And wasn’t Iran/Persia already a “sovereign government” before IRGC staged a coup d'état (aka “revolution”)? —- > "De facto" and "de jure" are Latin terms used to distinguish between what exists in reality and what is legally recognized. "De facto" refers to something that exists in practice or reality, even if not officially established or legally recognized. "De jure" refers to something that is legally recognized or officially established —— 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_...

yibg 1y ago
So China isn't a sovereign government because it's a front for CPP and can be bombed at will...?
- nivertech 1y ago
  If any entity threatens u: u have 3 options: fight back, surrender, or self-destruct In the first case, u have 2 more options: strike pre-emptively, or wait for them to strike & then retaliate It doesn't matter what the entity is, it only matters whether they are enemy or not —— > So China is not a sovereign state because it is a front for the CPP and can be bombed at will...? I don't see the logical connection here. I never wrote that countries controlled by terrorist or authoritarian entities should be bombed at will. I wrote that some countries are highjacked by them, & if they attack or declare their intention to attack u, u may as well do it first
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    The amount of "oh of course we just have to kill them all" I am seeing online in the past day is horrifying.

yibg 1y ago

So China isn't a sovereign government because it's a front for CPP and can be bombed at will...?

nivertech 1y ago
If any entity threatens u: u have 3 options: fight back, surrender, or self-destruct In the first case, u have 2 more options: strike pre-emptively, or wait for them to strike & then retaliate It doesn't matter what the entity is, it only matters whether they are enemy or not —— > So China is not a sovereign state because it is a front for the CPP and can be bombed at will...? I don't see the logical connection here. I never wrote that countries controlled by terrorist or authoritarian entities should be bombed at will. I wrote that some countries are highjacked by them, & if they attack or declare their intention to attack u, u may as well do it first
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  The amount of "oh of course we just have to kill them all" I am seeing online in the past day is horrifying.