basic fairness in law
Re: basic fairness in law
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=506047 time=1617585989 user_id=472]
[quote=Advocate post_id=506043 time=1617582163 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506037 time=1617579648 user_id=9431]
Great! Then answer my question about Biden.
[/quote]
Your questions are disingenuous and may safely be ignored with no presumed loss of legitimacy to my position. Thanks for playing.
[/quote]
No, Mannie's question is spot on.
Apply your solution, answer the question.
[/quote]
I neither know nor care a single thing about Biden, and the questions are still disingenuous, both artificially strengthened by an intentional misunderstanding of the provided text and unintentionally made irrelevant by entirely missing the already stated points.
[quote=Advocate post_id=506043 time=1617582163 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506037 time=1617579648 user_id=9431]
Great! Then answer my question about Biden.
[/quote]
Your questions are disingenuous and may safely be ignored with no presumed loss of legitimacy to my position. Thanks for playing.
[/quote]
No, Mannie's question is spot on.
Apply your solution, answer the question.
[/quote]
I neither know nor care a single thing about Biden, and the questions are still disingenuous, both artificially strengthened by an intentional misunderstanding of the provided text and unintentionally made irrelevant by entirely missing the already stated points.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: basic fairness in law
Au contrraire: I gave you the links so that you cannot deny the facts.
But can you answer the question? Can you make sense of the view you espoused at the beginning...that's the real question.
Re: basic fairness in law
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506053 time=1617587201 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=506043 time=1617582163 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506037 time=1617579648 user_id=9431]
Great! Then answer my question about Biden.
[/quote]
Your questions are disingenuous...
[/quote]
[i]Au contrraire:[/i] I gave you the links so that you cannot deny the facts.
But can you answer the question? Can you make sense of the view you espoused at the beginning...that's the real question.
[/quote]
What i had to say stands on it's own. You can take it or leave it and i owe no one any explanation, especially the likes of you.
[quote=Advocate post_id=506043 time=1617582163 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506037 time=1617579648 user_id=9431]
Great! Then answer my question about Biden.
[/quote]
Your questions are disingenuous...
[/quote]
[i]Au contrraire:[/i] I gave you the links so that you cannot deny the facts.
But can you answer the question? Can you make sense of the view you espoused at the beginning...that's the real question.
[/quote]
What i had to say stands on it's own. You can take it or leave it and i owe no one any explanation, especially the likes of you.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: basic fairness in law
So the answer is, "No."Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:32 amWhat i had to say stands on it's own.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:46 am But can you answer the question? Can you make sense of the view you espoused at the beginning...that's the real question.
I thought as much.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: basic fairness in law
Cop out.Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:45 amI neither know nor care a single thing about Biden, and the questions are still disingenuous, both artificially strengthened by an intentional misunderstanding of the provided text and unintentionally made irrelevant by entirely missing the already stated points.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:26 amNo, Mannie's question is spot on.
Apply your solution, answer the question.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: basic fairness in law
From his suggested topics, such as his bizarre "slavery" one and this one, that Advocate isn't really thinking about what he writes before he writes it. He just "throws some idea out there" as a provoker, but either is being disingenuous about that actually representing his beliefs or is unbelievably unreflective about what he actually believes. Because I honestly can't imagine somebody actually thinking through a topic like this, using any data or any careful reflection at all, and then coming to the conclusion from which he started.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:15 pmCop out.I neither know nor care a single thing about Biden, and the questions are still disingenuous, both artificially strengthened by an intentional misunderstanding of the provided text and unintentionally made irrelevant by entirely missing the already stated points.
So he must just be playing around. Or maybe throwing entirely unformed ideas into the hopper.
Re: basic fairness in law
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506146 time=1617636164 user_id=9431]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=506133 time=1617632120 user_id=472][quote]
I neither know nor care a single thing about Biden, and the questions are still disingenuous, both artificially strengthened by an intentional misunderstanding of the provided text and unintentionally made irrelevant by entirely missing the already stated points.
[/quote]
Cop out.
[/quote]
From his suggested topics, such as his bizarre "slavery" one and this one, that Advocate isn't really thinking about what he writes before he writes it. He just "throws some idea out there" as a provoker, but either is being disingenuous about that actually representing his beliefs or is unbelievably unreflective about what he actually believes. Because I honestly can't imagine somebody actually thinking through a topic like this, using any data or any careful reflection at all, and then coming to the conclusion from which he started.
So he must just be playing around. Or maybe throwing entirely unformed ideas into the hopper.
[/quote]
The thinking out is in the original post. You know, the parts you've ignored? You're obviously being willfully ignorant which is pretty close to evil in my estimation.
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=506133 time=1617632120 user_id=472][quote]
I neither know nor care a single thing about Biden, and the questions are still disingenuous, both artificially strengthened by an intentional misunderstanding of the provided text and unintentionally made irrelevant by entirely missing the already stated points.
[/quote]
Cop out.
[/quote]
From his suggested topics, such as his bizarre "slavery" one and this one, that Advocate isn't really thinking about what he writes before he writes it. He just "throws some idea out there" as a provoker, but either is being disingenuous about that actually representing his beliefs or is unbelievably unreflective about what he actually believes. Because I honestly can't imagine somebody actually thinking through a topic like this, using any data or any careful reflection at all, and then coming to the conclusion from which he started.
So he must just be playing around. Or maybe throwing entirely unformed ideas into the hopper.
[/quote]
The thinking out is in the original post. You know, the parts you've ignored? You're obviously being willfully ignorant which is pretty close to evil in my estimation.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: basic fairness in law
He's pseudo-profound...He actually believes he's plumbin' the depths...but, he's just a cork, bobbin' on the surface.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:22 pmFrom his suggested topics, such as his bizarre "slavery" one and this one, that Advocate isn't really thinking about what he writes before he writes it. He just "throws some idea out there" as a provoker, but either is being disingenuous about that actually representing his beliefs or is unbelievably unreflective about what he actually believes. Because I honestly can't imagine somebody actually thinking through a topic like this, using any data or any careful reflection at all, and then coming to the conclusion from which he started.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:15 pmCop out.I neither know nor care a single thing about Biden, and the questions are still disingenuous, both artificially strengthened by an intentional misunderstanding of the provided text and unintentionally made irrelevant by entirely missing the already stated points.
So he must just be playing around. Or maybe throwing entirely unformed ideas into the hopper.
He's good to to poke a stick at, though.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: basic fairness in law
This one?
"In any individual v. group case, or where there is another obvious power imbalance, the law should be interpreted to favor the lesser party in all ways possible. If the law is written to be fair in the first place, that distinction will be irrelevant. If it is not, it will made to favor, as much as possible, those most in need of it's protection."
Please point to the "thinking" here. What I'm seeing is a bunch of gratuitous statements that issue in appalling conclusions the minute they're presented with the very first real-world case. (the Biden case)
But If I've missed something illuminating to that case, please feel free to point it out.