"Law is pretty meaningless to me, anyway. Just because something is established legally doesn't make it real or true"
"Law is pretty meaningless to me, anyway. Just because something is established legally doesn't make it real or true"
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp![]()
DCNH: Dominant![]()
--> perhaps Normalizing
![]()
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
ENFJ??
IEE
Beta I reckon. Possibly delta
IEE
IMO, the one who said this is basically avaluer.
valuers say follow rules,
valuers make their own rules
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp![]()
DCNH: Dominant![]()
--> perhaps Normalizing
![]()
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Removed at User Request
It's sounds like something an INTj would say. I've heard a few INTjs say similar things.
It really is a more logical view on it. I don't think an ENFj would say that at all.
Hi! I'm an ENFP. :-)
I could have written that quote.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
It was the user Allie who said that on the chatbox. I think there has been a lot of controversy on Allie's type. She used to be ILE and after that she considered herself as ESI. Some said she is LSI, IEI and even I believed she was SEE
.
Allie's age (18) make her difficult to type. Anyway, what she said doesn't sound very gamma or even very
Thus, FMPOV Allie's type remain unknown, as well as implied's type (SLIIMO), subterranean's (IN*j IMO) and others...
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp![]()
DCNH: Dominant![]()
--> perhaps Normalizing
![]()
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Tbh I think many types (Gamma too) could say this.
I agree with the quote btw, but what does "real" or "true" refer to?
It is real that people are enforcing the law, even if its just a concept. Law is not tangible.
idk if this points to any type.
The end is nigh
Not type-related.
I agree with this statement, and have said it myself, almost word for word if not exactly. It could be Ni polr striking, Ti, Fi, or even Ni itself in a fit of charismaticism.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
The first thing I thought was Fi because the quote hints at personal values. The second thing I thought was Ti because it's discussing law. You were talking with her in the chatbox, and I'm pretty sure the topic of discussion came from you. Either way, a discussion involves two people; and what we see here is only one sentence. This is a stupid way to try and type someone.
Laws are real too, just like actual physical peoples. Laws exist, but it's reality is different then that of peoples, it is a informational relation between the organizing entity and the individual.
So in this sense, Nationalities exist and is not simply fantasy, but it is a different characteristic then that of the physical existence of peoples.
Their legal status is different from their physical status.
So British-Canadians or British or Canadians and a number of statements about who was fighting the Americans during the war of 1812 are all "true" statements.
These statements are simply different labels to the "realities" of the peoples in question. Specifically, nationality, the space they occupy, military coat of arms, amongst other interpretations.
You guys were arguing about the different and separate "characteristics" of the realities of the peoples involved in the war without recognizing that both sides were "technically" correct but within different contexts.
Laws, nationality are part of "Reality", it's not some separate plane of existance outside of physical reality. So in a sense, the fallacy was the lack of recognization that there is a reality to Laws. If you want to test this, just break some laws publicly and see what happens.
Now is their a motive to remove British terminology and involvement from the War of 1812. Sure there is, it could be Canadians want to stoke some nationalism or patriotism. There are plenty of motives to do this, but none of that takes away from the reality of the situation and that is the Star Spangled Banner, the National Anthem of the US is about British Ships engaged in a attack on Baltimore in 1814. That is self should indicate that British(physical) involvement in the War of 1812 was somewhat significant. I don't really emphasize the legal existence any more then the physical existence but rather, I object to the de-emphasizing of the legal existence.
Effectively, the argument on one side was that only people from Canada was fighting the War of 1812, we know this to be absolutely false.