Nope.
Didn't happen.
Only in the sense that the law is a tradition.
That's a hoot. You wear ignorance like a medal.
It is in the context I'm using it.
Last edited:
Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Which is the crux of the disagreement. You think justice is defined by regulations men invent.
Within the context of the law that's exactly right.
Justice is the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals, to borrow from Merriam Webster.
You're making a larger, philosophical and religious point that isn't what I'm addressing.
Now there are points where we agree and points where we obviously don't, but if your response to every real life situation integral to the legal process here is to declare the laws and treatment invalid then I think everyone gets that with the first post and what else is there for you to really say?
Well ... my father used to say that it takes some folks their whole life to overcome a college education ... I guess that would have included a law degree.
Whereas people without that particular education must frequently overcome their limitations from beyond the grave or by virtue of it.
I can't speak for every discipline, but the point of a legal education isn't to produce a particular opinion or belief, but to produce and then refine a process of consideration, a particular methodological engagement of claim brought under exhaustive analysis.
Mostly, people who don't understand that and assume some agenda driven bit of nonsense are simply people who lack the education and speak not from experience, but bias and suspicion. I don't mean they lack intelligence, only the sort of disciplined approach that would have forced them to recognize and address blind spots in their own method and conclusion.
An interesting and, I think, a revealing post. I respect and appreciate that. This said, I think that the "disciplines" that require rhetorical skills most often leave those not so equipped depending upon a champion that requires remuneration.
Lucky for us our final judge exacts no price other than faith and the fruits thereof.
Nope. When men make regulations that are evil, we are justified in rejecting them as lawful.
Being an expert in the regulations men make has all but eliminated you from being able to talk sensibly about what justice is.
And if the regulations are broken, the outcome will not be justice.
We know. I'm talking justice, which would have seen the murderer executed already. You're arguing about a flag and pretending there is a chance that he is not guilty.
Therefore, something. :idunno:
I'd settle for informative. I'm accustomed to the speculation and there's a great deal of misunderstanding related to my profession and what it is for the individual. When you're in L1 they speak of the "mind of a lawyer" and half the people there roll eyes, I imagine, because it smacks of rite and mystery and we're all there for a reason, don't need the sell or incantation. Then, somewhere in L2 the groundwork they lay meets the discipline and one day you realize it wasn't a spiel, it was a foreshadowing. A well trained lawyer is constantly analyzing angles and conditions and arguments. He's arguing with himself in the quiet of his mind. It's as much a part of who he is as the Rosary is for a good Catholic.
In this society you pay the worker his wages. It doesn't diminish the physician that he's paid or the priest.
Rhetoric, in the end, is the least of it. Lawyers understand the necessity of theater, but it's grounded in a deeper appreciation for the facts and the relatively certain understanding that the opposing counsel has examined the case and will be relating his position from as much strength as he can muster. It mitigates the effectiveness of language as a subjective tool to a degree, however much that remains an expectation.
Often, if you've been in a courtroom during the day to day, you'd be disappointed by the ordinary nature of the language and proceedings. Most cases that try aren't life or death and the language and conduct of the proceedings reflects it. Most of what happens before a judge, by way of, happens quietly and soberly. I can't tell you how often I've hear someone say, "Oh. I thought it would be more like television."
In the larger moments it can be more effective, subject to that same qualification.
Obedience is a sort of coin. Fealty. It will demand something of us, one way or the other.
rainee
New member
TomO;[B said:
I see... Hmm. I have to ask, Tomo, did the British Colonies have a legitimate claim to own all lands once belonging to GB once those colonies declared themselves independent? I think in Florida a Spanish Fort remains, is it Spain's or Florida's?
You know Tomo I do not want to offend you. I terribly agree with you on this. I so terribly agree with this idea that I can try to apply it through times and places, you too?
Paul Hill lived in a general two hundred mile vicinity to me. He strongly disagreed with abortion which had become so prevalent in this country.
But something went wrong I fear in his head.
So he left his own wife and children to live in jail and then be put to death for murder. Because he killed an abortion doctor and another person with him. I believe he said fighting for the right of unborn babies to live was like fighting for slaves to be free. I didn't think he may have meant a lot of killing might go on so they could live.
So please remember this, the north did not know all men were created equal and they demonstrated that repeatedly. If slavery was condemned by the north for the sake of human rights they would surely have made good or at least decent bosses, yes?
But history shows something different.
So a seriously foolish hill IMO would be to look back and see an overly simplistic view of evil. I want all to be freed but I still don't know if a good master is worse than an evil boss.
Wives were considered property back in the day - but what mattered most until that was changed was if husbands were good.
Out west the story goes the train people called in the Chinese workers to pay them in the mouth of the cave they had made in the face of a mountain. When the workers arrived the cave was blown. The train people wanted to go all the way through the mountain and they did.
Tomo are we really going to bring up the dang flag again?
This is just killing me! What is it with TOL and flags??
I don't even know what this means? Please let me be honest, I think that is a deception and I would hope you would not be suckered into it. I would hope they would not be suckered into it as well.
Some people came from England because they suffered all manner of ill unfair treatment. You hardly hear about it anymore because - well because they came here and became something other than victims...
Some immigrants who came here suffered all kinds of mean, cruel, and or unfair treatment. You may hardly hear of it because they too bit down hard and kept going to feel like winners..
Losers don't do those things. They cheat, steal, murder.
Please stop the Liberal hogwash that is by it's very design a trap for people listening to them.
I met a white liberal who traveled around for marches and the stuff often called for when you are for "civil liberties" There was something wrong with him. I think he may have been doing it to make himself important - and worse he may have loved the past suffering of others and how it upset them to dwell on it so he could feel good or great about his pathetic life and meaningless existence.
What makes me special, may I say? God is what makes me special.
He may not give me everything but He loves me and blesses me. Don't you think all people should be able to think like that on a real way instead of being unhappy about now so they work up a lather about years and years ago?
That flag represents something to some. Before these days I never
Thought About It. Now it is impossible to get away from!
You cannot champion the cause of liberty by fighting for the right to make men slaves or keep them in subordination.....No matter what your view of eugenicsmay be.
But can you really champion humans, or their rights, if you can't see them as more than animals? Eugenics, missing links, evolution
Sure you did, Tomo. Thank you. But once those other guys praised you.. Well... :heartburn:I'm not sure I really answered anything here.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/wat...ck-crowd-during-tense-confederate-flag-rally/
This must be more of that charming history and heritage the neo-Confeds keep going on about.
This must be more of that charming history and heritage the neo-Confeds keep going on about.
rainee
New member
The "sides" in that kerfuffle aren't on equal footing in any way, shape, or form. No more than the Oklahoma protestors who greeted Obama with the rebel flag were "merely" protesting.
Then you're talking about something else or how you respond to it, your context. Say "nope" a hundred times, but it won't get you out of a speeding ticket, even if you earnestly believe the state has no right to give it.
Well that's just...mistaken.
Justice, in the demonstrable sense, is a context. What you call broken is just another context. Short of God's certainty any attempt at justice will be...it is just that a man who has a thing to which he has a right should never be deprived of it. And when he is the law of men attempts to put him in as near proximity to that prior state as can be met, but it isn't really justice. Because no matter what the state does it cannot undo the deprivation. It is then, the nearest approximation to the thing we recognize. We serve justice, but we cannot render a ruling that does more than cast its shadow.
No, you're assuming that having that man "dead already" is just. Your comfort in that assumption is one reason I think you're unqualified to dispense actual justice.
A symbol and separate argument. Sure. So were you. Most of us here were, among other considerations.
Rather, I'm not willing to confuse my inclination with knowledge or my desire with justice. That you are is, again, reason to disqualify you as a judge and dispenser of justice.
It's a hard habit to break. I tend to treat people and speak to them the way I'd speak to anyone across the bar, when I'm arguing, unless I'm arguing before a jury. Here's the jury version then:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Stripe has an idea. He has an idea he values so much the prospect of it not being the measuring stick by which this outcome is measured, justice measured is impossible for him to contemplate. He would reject the attempt to displace it outright. I suspect many of us here would do so as well, left to our own devices. And many would differ here or object there as strongly.
But whatever his faith, or yours, or mine, the law is a certainty here, is measured and set out for everyone, equally, regardless of our differences, our beliefs, our earnestly held and even sacred conclusions. The law, the law that defends our very right to those yardsticks and measurements for our own actions and conclusions is itself a measure. And the job of the trier of fact is to apply that measure and standard to the matter at hand.
It is a necessarily uncomfortable duty. I suspect it is one reason we call this process a trial. Because it isn't only a hardship for the accused, but for everyone involved."
Last edited:
Your argument is that the regulations you have are established and enforced. To engage in rational debate, you have to show that your compact is necessarily an absolute standard of truth and justice.
You freely admit that you cannot establish such a thing, so every time you disagree with me, you show that you are not willing to respond to the subject, ie, what is justice.
So you can't provide justice. How about you step aside and let someone who is willing to do so. :up:
That's because you hate the thought of justice. The guy murdered nine people. He should be dead. Justice.
Nope. You've abdicated the position of judge. You can't even call a guy who shot up a church a murderer. You're disqualified from commenting with authority on what constitutes justice.
Great. You might have just convinced someone of something. Therefore, something. :idunno:
rainee
New member
I don't know what you mean when you say they are not on equal footing?
G, if you mean it is similar to the police having to stand there protecting themselves as best they could - both the black and white cops - while mostly angry black protesters tried to hurt them and tear the area to pieces ... Then no, the president representing authority did have to bear it but he did not have to think a white president would have not seen the same scene if what had been said was said then as well.
However, waving a flag is not the same as trying to destroy your world.
rainee
New member
http://41.media.tumblr.com/a7f5d0daff92ba6c69cc865e4a0021c8/tumblr_mxvlbtHNmd1r1rxkpo1_500.jpg
G, here is one of Towns relatives I guess, do you think for one second they are thinking about race?