[vezzy-fnord]

It seems you revolve around the idea of law being a divine ordinance. That's fine, but also a fringe view. Laws have relevance insofar as the ones subject to it have a consensus, and if there is sufficient interest in the law being enforced. In addition, laws often are dismissed or punitive actions significantly diminished depending on intent, circumstances (political, social or on a case-by-case basis) and perceived justice, the ultimate expression of the latter being nullification which in the U.S. has a notable history. As such, the trite legalism that suggests "the law is the law" as if commanded by a deity and that it must unequivocally be applied to its maximal extent, is the irresponsible and simplistic view.

[hellofunk]

Is your fnord the same user as the other fnord? In any case, feel free to provide further insight here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10405154

[vezzy-fnord]

I'm not the same commentator as fnordfnordfnord. As for your linked question, it's heavily verging on RTFM territory, so I'll let you do that.