• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

MindzEye said:
Society of feels it is I guess.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. Wasn't I saying quite the opposite?

Again though... I'm not suggesting that we change it... I wouldn't even know how to make it better. Just saying that I think that lawyers of pedophiles and murderers (who know their clients are guilty) are scum. They can hide behind the "everyone deserves a defense" mantra if they like... but they're still scum.
 
Habspatrol said:
Not sure what you mean. Wasn't I saying quite the opposite?

Again though... I'm not suggesting that we change it... I wouldn't even know how to make it better. Just saying that I think that lawyers of pedophiles and murderers (who know their clients are guilty) are scum. They can hide behind the "everyone deserves a defense" mantra if they like... but they're still scum.
Click to expand...

so how are we supposed to know they are guilty?
 
Habspatrol said:
Not sure what you mean. Wasn't I saying quite the opposite?
Click to expand...

Not at all. You're suggesting that there's nothing moral about getting a murderer off. You're right, but this is because it "feels" wrong to get a murderer off of a murder charge. There's absolutely nothing "moral" about getting a murderer off of a murder charge, it's entirely amoral in a society of laws. The morality in it is having the courage to do hold yourself to doing things you deem to be "morally" unpleasant because it serves a higher purpose. In the example of a lawyer getting a murderer off of his charge, the Lawyer is serving a higher cause (Law, as a social construct/concept/contract) at the expense of his or her personal feels.

That's personal strength beyond what most people can identify with.

Again though... I'm not suggesting that we change it... I wouldn't even know how to make it better. Just saying that I think that lawyers of pedophiles and murderers (who know their clients are guilty) are scum. They can hide behind the "everyone deserves a defense" mantra if they like... but they're still scum.
Click to expand...

There's more of those feels I was talking about.
 
MindzEye said:
Not at all. You're suggesting that there's nothing moral about getting a murderer off. You're right, but this is because it "feels" wrong to get a murderer off of a murder charge. There's absolutely nothing "moral" about getting a murderer off of a murder charge, it's entirely amoral in a society of laws. The morality in it is having the courage to do hold yourself to doing things you deem to be "morally" unpleasant because it serves a higher purpose. In the example of a lawyer getting a murderer off of his charge, the Lawyer is serving a higher cause (Law, as a social construct/concept/contract) at the expense of his or her personal feels.

That's personal strength beyond what most people can identify with.



There's more of those feels I was talking about.
Click to expand...

You sure can talk pretty, but you have this habit of deciding on a world view that we are all supposed to fall in line with and then telling people they are wrong based on your decision.

You can decide it "feels," wrong to let a criminal go free. I understand what you are saying, but your argument is no more valid.

I could argue a lawyer would be serving a higher cause if he broke his oath to protect a large group of people. I'm not even saying I'm going to, but I can. That argument would be that is immoral to allow a known serial killer to get out to start again.

I can create that world than tell you you are wrong for not falling in line with what I have decided,
 
Bleedsblue&white said:
You sure can talk pretty, but you have this habit of deciding on a world view that we are all supposed to fall in line with and then telling people they are wrong based on your decision.

You can decide it "feels," wrong to let a criminal go free. I understand what you are saying, but your argument is no more valid.
Click to expand...

If it's right, it's more valid. The concept of all ideas being of equal value/validity is childish and silly. Everyone has the right to an opinion of course, but that right doesn't extend to your opinion being valid, correct, etc.

I could argue a lawyer would be serving a higher cause if he broke his oath to protect a large group of people. I'm not even saying I'm going to, but I can. That argument would be that is immoral to allow a known serial killer to get out to start again.
Click to expand...

But how is this known before the lawyer defends the killer? We can start searching for more extreme examples to prove this line of logic wrong, but that thought exercise in itself shows the strength of the concept I support.

We've allowed our "feels" to dole out "justice" in the past and that's how we get witch hunts, lynch mobs, etc.

I can create that world than tell you you are wrong for not falling in line with what I have decided,
Click to expand...

Difference is, I guess, that "my" world, is this one. We all have the right to our opinions, but not our own realities. We have to share that shit.
 
Bleedsblue&white said:
And just quickly; laws are arbitrary. We need to remember we've created them, making them naturally fallible, and we change them all the time.
Click to expand...

ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Click to expand...

This is actually the opposite of what laws are. They aren't arbitrary at all. They reflect, at this point in the history of civilization, millennia of systemic growth. Imperfect growth, no doubt, but absolutely systemic .

Judgement based on feels however, are the height or arbitrary.
 
MindzEye said:
This is actually the opposite of what laws are. They aren't arbitrary at all. They reflect, at this point in the history of civilization, millennia of systemic growth. Imperfect growth, no doubt, but absolutely systemic .

Judgement based on feels however, are the height or arbitrary....We've allowed our "feels" to dole out "justice" in the past and that's how we get witch hunts, lynch mobs, etc.
Click to expand...
I whole heartedly agree with that last sentence. When i used arbitrary I was thinking man-made, not the rest of the definition. Laws change. It wasn't too long ago you could hit your wife if the stick wasn't too big, or maybe you wanted to own somebody.

Laws change and people are dumb.
Laws should govern not rule but that seems to always happen.

Doesn't change how i feel about the way you try to force the argument your way.
 
Zeke responded to an Ann Coulter tweet and got a bunch of responses from the crazy right wingers... nice job Zeke... keep retweeting.
 
Doesn't change how i feel about the way you try to force the argument your way.
Click to expand...

By utilizing logic?

Everyone argues from the standpoint of their worldview, if I'm "forcing the argument my way", perhaps it's because I'm right more often than not? I don't utilize falsehoods, tropes, etc. What you're saying is that you don't like that I make quality, forceful arguments so often. If they weren't quality arguments, I wouldn't be able to force it my way, now would I?
 
rolling-stones-tickets.jpg


link
Toronto is left off the list of cities the Rolling Stones summer Zip Code tour will play in North America.


The closest they get is Buffalo, N.Y. on July 11. The only Canadian date is July 15 in Quebec City. Wristbands for Le Festival D’Eté de Québec go on sale at midnight April 11.
Click to expand...
No Stones for T dot O.
 
link
The Canadians went 2-1 in Pool A behind the United States at 3-0. Both countries secured byes to Friday’s semifinals.

Canada finished with a 6-2 win over Finland, while defending champion U.S. downed Russia 9-2 on Tuesday.

With their three preliminary-round games starting at 4 p.m. local time, the Canadian women haven’t had a game day skate.

Head coach Doug Derraugh will keep his team off the ice Wednesday. They didn’t skate Monday either, so Canada hasn’t been on the ice except to play games since the tournament started Saturday.
Click to expand...
As usual in Women's hockey, it's just going to be Canada vs. the U.S. again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top