Return to Answer

I don't think that "too broad" or "unclear" are appropriate dispositions of such questions. The offshore banking question is the only one of those that I find a bit unclear (what is "offshore banking"? does it refer to having an account in a country other than the one you reside in (my default interpretation); does it refer specifically to patronizing a bank where most depositors are not nationals of the country where the bank is?). Otherwise, each of the questions has a correct answer (no, yes, yes – if there is disagreement on that front then there would seem to be a substantive question). So using one of the existing reasons would be, well, conceptually wrong, in implying a flaw that is not applicable. I would say that the problem is that such questions start from the faulty premise that what is legal vs. illegal is completely arbitrary (not just somewhat arbitrary). I do think there should be a category along the lines of "no dumb questions".

I hope that common sense would tell one the answers to the latter two questions, but I don't think most people have a firm enough grasp of concepts of rights, government and law that they would have a reasoned basis for guessing one way or the other. In fact, I would not be surprised if it turned out that there is a legal basis for a discrimination suit, if for example a print shop charged more to print Presbyterian hymns.

As I think about it, one can give diametrically opposing, perfectly reasonable rhetorical responses to the print shop question: "Why would you think it would be legal?" and "Why would you think it wouldn't be legal?". The former question would seem perfectly valid to the person who wrote the second disjunct in this characterization of "illegal".

Okay: so, what this place probably needs is an elementary tutorial on non-paywall research tools.

At http://law.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic it says "Please look around to see if your question has been asked before"; I would recommend modifying that to include ", or try to use one of these sources to answer your question", so that people might find that excellent thread.

I don't think that "too broad" or "unclear" are appropriate dispositions of such questions. The offshore banking question is the only one of those that I find a bit unclear (what is "offshore banking"? does it refer to having an account in a country other than the one you reside in (my default interpretation); does it refer specifically to patronizing a bank where most depositors are not nationals of the country where the bank is?). Otherwise, each of the questions has a correct answer (no, yes, yes – if there is disagreement on that front then there would seem to be a substantive question). So using one of the existing reasons would be, well, conceptually wrong, in implying a flaw that is not applicable. I would say that the problem is that such questions start from the faulty premise that what is legal vs. illegal is completely arbitrary (not just somewhat arbitrary). I do think there should be a category along the lines of "no dumb questions".

I hope that common sense would tell one the answers to the latter two questions, but I don't think most people have a firm enough grasp of concepts of rights, government and law that they would have a reasoned basis for guessing one way or the other. In fact, I would not be surprised if it turned out that there is a legal basis for a discrimination suit, if for example a print shop charged more to print Presbyterian hymns.

As I think about it, one can give diametrically opposing, perfectly reasonable rhetorical responses to the print shop question: "Why would you think it would be legal?" and "Why would you think it wouldn't be legal?". The former question would seem perfectly valid to the person who wrote the second disjunct in this characterization of "illegal".

Okay: so, what this place probably needs is an elementary tutorial on non-paywall research tools.

At https://law.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic it says "Please look around to see if your question has been asked before"; I would recommend modifying that to include ", or try to use one of these sources to answer your question", so that people might find that excellent thread.

I don't think that "too broad" or "unclear" are appropriate dispositions of such questions. The offshore banking question is the only one of those that I find a bit unclear (what is "offshore banking"? does it refer to having an account in a country other than the one you reside in (my default interpretation); does it refer specifically to patronizing a bank where most depositors are not nationals of the country where the bank is?). Otherwise, each of the questions has a correct answer (no, yes, yes – if there is disagreement on that front then there would seem to be a substantive question). So using one of the existing reasons would be, well, conceptually wrong, in implying a flaw that is not applicable. I would say that the problem is that such questions start from the faulty premise that what is legal vs. illegal is completely arbitrary (not just somewhat arbitrary). I do think there should be a category along the lines of "no dumb questions".

I hope that common sense would tell one the answers to the latter two questions, but I don't think most people have a firm enough grasp of concepts of rights, government and law that they would have a reasoned basis for guessing one way or the other. In fact, I would not be surprised if it turned out that there is a legal basis for a discrimination suit, if for example a print shop charged more to print Presbyterian hymns.

As I think about it, one can give diametrically opposing, perfectly reasonable rhetorical responses to the print shop question: "Why would you think it would be legal?" and "Why would you think it wouldn't be legal?". The former question would seem perfectly valid to the person who wrote the second disjunct in this characterization of "illegal".

Okay: so, what this place probably needs is an elementary tutorial on non-paywall research tools.

At http://law.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic it says "Please look around to see if your question has been asked before"; I would recommend modifying that to include ", or try to use one of these sources to answer your question", so that people might find that excellent thread.

I don't think that "too broad" or "unclear" are appropriate dispositions of such questions. The offshore banking question is the only one of those that I find a bit unclear (what is "offshore banking"? does it refer to having an account in a country other than the one you reside in (my default interpretation); does it refer specifically to patronizing a bank where most depositors are not nationals of the country where the bank is?). Otherwise, each of the questions has a correct answer (no, yes, yes – if there is disagreement on that front then there would seem to be a substantive question). So using one of the existing reasons would be, well, conceptually wrong, in implying a flaw that is not applicable. I would say that the problem is that such questions start from the faulty premise that what is legal vs. illegal is completely arbitrary (not just somewhat arbitrary). I do think there should be a category along the lines of "no dumb questions".

I hope that common sense would tell one the answers to the latter two questions, but I don't think most people have a firm enough grasp of concepts of rights, government and law that they would have a reasoned basis for guessing one way or the other. In fact, I would not be surprised if it turned out that there is a legal basis for a discrimination suit, if for example a print shop charged more to print Presbyterian hymns.

As I think about it, one can give diametrically opposing, perfectly reasonable rhetorical responses to the print shop question: "Why would you think it would be legal?" and "Why would you think it wouldn't be legal?". The former question would seem perfectly valid to the person who wrote the second disjunct in this characterization of "illegal".

Okay: so, what this place probably needs is an elementary tutorial on non-paywall research tools.

At http://law.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic it says "Please look around to see if your question has been asked before"; I would recommend modifying that to include ", or try to use one of these sources to answer your question", so that people might find that excellent thread.

I don't think that "too broad" or "unclear" are appropriate dispositions of such questions. The offshore banking question is the only one of those that I find a bit unclear (what is "offshore banking"? does it refer to having an account in a country other than the one you reside in (my default interpretation); does it refer specifically to patronizing a bank where most depositors are not nationals of the country where the bank is?). Otherwise, each of the questions has a correct answer (no, yes, yes – if there is disagreement on that front then there would seem to be a substantive question). So using one of the existing reasons would be, well, conceptually wrong, in implying a flaw that is not applicable. I would say that the problem is that such questions start from the faulty premise that what is legal vs. illegal is completely arbitrary (not just somewhat arbitrary). I do think there should be a category along the lines of "no dumb questions".

I hope that common sense would tell one the answers to the latter two questions, but I don't think most people have a firm enough grasp of concepts of rights, government and law that they would have a reasoned basis for guessing one way or the other. In fact, I would not be surprised if it turned out that there is a legal basis for a discrimination suit, if for example a print shop charged more to print Presbyterian hymns.

As I think about it, one can give diametrically opposing, perfectly reasonable rhetorical responses to the print shop question: "Why would you think it would be legal?" and "Why would you think it wouldn't be legal?". The former question would seem perfectly valid to the person who wrote the second disjunct in this characterization of "illegal".

Okay: so, what this place probably needs is an elementary tutorial on non-paywall research tools.

I don't think that "too broad" or "unclear" are appropriate dispositions of such questions. The offshore banking question is the only one of those that I find a bit unclear (what is "offshore banking"? does it refer to having an account in a country other than the one you reside in (my default interpretation); does it refer specifically to patronizing a bank where most depositors are not nationals of the country where the bank is?). Otherwise, each of the questions has a correct answer (no, yes, yes – if there is disagreement on that front then there would seem to be a substantive question). So using one of the existing reasons would be, well, conceptually wrong, in implying a flaw that is not applicable. I would say that the problem is that such questions start from the faulty premise that what is legal vs. illegal is completely arbitrary (not just somewhat arbitrary). I do think there should be a category along the lines of "no dumb questions".

I hope that common sense would tell one the answers to the latter two questions, but I don't think most people have a firm enough grasp of concepts of rights, government and law that they would have a reasoned basis for guessing one way or the other. In fact, I would not be surprised if it turned out that there is a legal basis for a discrimination suit, if for example a print shop charged more to print Presbyterian hymns.

As I think about it, one can give diametrically opposing, perfectly reasonable rhetorical responses to the print shop question: "Why would you think it would be legal?" and "Why would you think it wouldn't be legal?". The former question would seem perfectly valid to the person who wrote the second disjunct in this characterization of "illegal".

Okay: so, what this place probably needs is an elementary tutorial on non-paywall research tools.

At http://law.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic it says "Please look around to see if your question has been asked before"; I would recommend modifying that to include ", or try to use one of these sources to answer your question", so that people might find that excellent thread.