This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
I had go at reading the paper "a constructive approach to testing model transformations" to see what i could understand about the absurity constraints. But it is very deep to dive into. The best i see so far is that the model is made up of domain clauses, and absurdity clauses are checks on the models validity through different states/transforms. I will read more and can try to hazard a note for the article if a metamodelling engineer doesn't relieve us. Lisnabreeny (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Now I am trying to understand "absurdity constants", on top of "absurdity constraints" (and I was Alonzo Church's and Patrick Suppes' student, so I am supposed to understand this stuff). PPdd (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the "further information" link to 'strict constructionism' until the sense in which that term is arguably closely-related can be incorporated into the lead of the linked-to article. Otherwise the cross-reference comes off as a political statement. A few sentences later the same POV this resembles had leaked in in the form of the "or original intent" tacked onto "...rather than literal reading of a law". It's usually in light of exactly legislative intent that a court calls a literal reading of the words of a statute absurd. (The example elsewhere in the article of a law against spilling blood in the street being used against a surgeon for opening someone in a sidewalk emergency is a prime example. The literal meaning of 'spilling blood' is said to be absurd not in itself but given the original intention to protect safety.) --MilFlyboy (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You are correct. I had it backwards. PPdd (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In this quote: "The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffenstuff (sic. Pufendorf), that the Bolognian law which enacted ‘that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity’...", both the case being cited and the older case being indirectly quoted obviously refer to the words of Samuel von Pufendorf; I'm not sure where "Puffenstuff" came from in this context. This passage appears on several pages; I've left in the '[sic]' but changed "Puffenstuff" to "Pufendorf" and corrected the link to refer to the political philosopher rather than to the children's television series. - Liber loquax (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)