View Single Post
Old 06-07-2012, 10:12 PM   #537
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
Faith? No, I believe based on what I have studied and where 'things' are heading?
Yup - My faith is based on the exact same type of "belief".
[EDIT - BTW, Nice quote of an incomplete sentence (conveniently leaving out the need for objective, extrinsically verifiable methodology to avoid faith based beliefs) ... but then, I am sure you would never call others up on that.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
Did I mention that I'm getting rid of insanity plea?
And what's your algorithm for determining legistlative intent? A party's intent when entering into a contract? Whether or not an individual had the appropriate mens rea to commit a specific offense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
I've already said we have 'ethics' in place.
Ah, so, through all the written decisions, statutes regulations and legal treatises now in existence, we have acheived an ethical perfection that will be fully applicable to all future factual situations regardless of any technological advances, different economic realities or changing morays of society presented to us in the future. Excellent! Of course, certain fundamentalist groups of various religions would assert the we had acheived this perfection several hundred years ago.

Of course ... unlike such prior claims, your assertion that unchanging ethics will always render just results must be right because your assertion is based on science! Unproven and unverifiable science but science nonetheless ... b/c, as everyone knows, you don't need evidence for science.


...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
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”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
No, I don't concede the point. It's just the best current hope hypothesized by people in this field.
What field? Computer programmers? Lawyers? Plumbers?

As I said, you dispute it ... so then prove it. At this point, you have not even demonstrated that it is a provable theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
[blah blah blah] ... 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.
Assuming arguendo that our current ethical system, as encapsulated in all written decisions, statutes regulations and legal treatises now in existence, will continue to render just results in all future fact patterns, -- if you wish all future generations to be bound by the ethics we "have ... in place now", the first step is to quanitfy them - please demonstrate that you can do so. Only then can you demonstrate the objective and verifiable truth of your statement that we would have a "safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing".

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
Oh, that's what this is really about? Please continue mocking me, I'll still be amused by your faith.
And I yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Preach on brother, your faith will see you through!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
I am not preaching, I leave that to your kind.
"My kind"? Pray tell what "kind" that might be? Please point out to me where have "preached" my position or assertions based on "faith" or "belief" in this thread. Rather, I am simply seeking proof from the individual who has, in the past, asserted that the failure to provide tangible proof of a belief renders that belief invalid.

Is your faith in science that fragile that you must once again invoke "Captain Deflection"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
Don't forget to pray tonight.......
I shan't. Thank you for the concern for my spiritual well being.
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.

Last edited by JoeRedskin; 06-08-2012 at 02:29 PM.
JoeRedskin is offline  

Advertisements
 
Page generated in 0.99916 seconds with 10 queries