Replies

Your examples are "after the fact" or subsequent laws and generally are not congruent with the original passage. There's something nice about unadulterated laws, isn't there.

I'm not sure what we are arguing anymore. I thought the issue was your dislike of laws that "require such and such or else". I think I said all laws in one way or another do that. Even your examples would have laws attached that require such and such or else. That's essentially what a social structure is, for better or worse. I'm still not sure I follow your point as it pertains to this thread.

I'm not sure what we are arguing anymore.
I didn't realize I was supposed to be arguing with you. I thought we were just talking. Do you wish me to commence arguing with you?
I thought the issue was your dislike of laws that "require such and such or else".
I didn't think I was that hard to understand. I guess I'm wrong.
I think I said all laws in one way or another do that.
Your implication was sufficient for cognizance. That is, until you backtracked and changed the goalposts.
Even your examples would have laws attached that require such and such or else.
Subsequent to passage of the original law, I have no doubt that things would be "attached".
That's essentially what a social structure is, for better or worse.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I'm still not sure I follow your point as it pertains to this thread.
As I said, I didn't think I was that hard to understand. I guess I'm wrong.