basic fairness in law

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: basic fairness in law

Post by Advocate »

[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.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: basic fairness in law

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:22 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:40 am
Advocate wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:10 am The law must be interpreted. Infinitely precise law is neither desirable nor possible.
Great! Then answer my question about Biden.
Your questions are disingenuous...
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.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: basic fairness in law

Post by Advocate »

[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.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: basic fairness in law

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:32 am
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.
What i had to say stands on it's own.
So the answer is, "No."

I thought as much.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: basic fairness in law

Post by henry quirk »

Advocate wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:45 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:26 am
Advocate wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:22 am Your questions are disingenuous and may safely be ignored with no presumed loss of legitimacy to my position. Thanks for playing.
No, Mannie's question is spot on.

Apply your solution, answer the question.
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.
Cop out.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: basic fairness in law

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:15 pm
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.
Cop out.
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.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: basic fairness in law

Post by Advocate »

[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.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: basic fairness in law

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:22 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:15 pm
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.
Cop out.
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.
He's pseudo-profound...He actually believes he's plumbin' the depths...but, he's just a cork, bobbin' on the surface.

He's good to to poke a stick at, though.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: basic fairness in law

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:53 pm The thinking out is in the original post.
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.
Post Reply