Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Prove this affirmative statement. You may have faith
|
Faith? No, I
believe based on what I have studied and where 'things' are heading?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
including the parties’ states of mind at various point of the relevant timeline
|
Did I mention that I'm getting rid of insanity plea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
As Lotus has demonstrated, justice, by definition, includes an ethical component i.e. an ability to factor into any final determination the concept of "just results".
|
I've already said we have 'ethics' in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
As articulated by Monksdown, ethics contains a variable not achievable by computers until the singularity has occurred.
|
Monksdown stated it, he didn't prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
If you concede this, then you must also concede the falsity of your original assertion that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing”.
|
No, I don't concede the point. It's just the best current hope hypothesized by people in this field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
If you dispute Monksdown statement, the burden is upon you to prove that “ethics can be defined by a constant”. Otherwise, your belief that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing” is merely an unprovable article of faith you hold dear and that is unsupported by any extrinsic, verifiable proof.
|
I'm working on it........
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
A consideration of ethics is essential to your original assertion that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system”
|
No. Still no. Nothing to do with the statement as we already have ethics in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
The pages of twists, turns and digressions
|
I have not twisted nor turned. What an odd thing to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
.... in this matter are the direct result of your inability to admit the inherent logical error of this original statement and, alternatively, your failure to offer objective, extrinsically verifiable prove of its truth.
|
No, as I have already stated numerous times
WE HAVE ETHICS IN PLACE NOW. Bringing up ethics is a weak attempt at derailing the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
While my belly button is enthralling, what I find so deeply humorous is the smugness and intensity with which you – oh most vicious critic of those who have faith in the uprovable - defend an unprovable assertion in which you appear to have a deep and abiding faith. Truly, you are worthy of the most vicious mocking.
|
Oh, that's what this is really about? Please continue mocking me, I'll still be amused by your faith.
Preach on brother, your faith will see you through![/QUOTE]
I am not preaching, I leave that to your kind. Don't forget to pray tonight.......