basic fairness in law
basic fairness in law
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.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: basic fairness in law
Translation: whomever I see as "disadvantaged" or "oppressed" should automatically be considered to have made a solid case, and whomever I consider "advantaged" should be found guilty without trial.
Re: basic fairness in law
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506003 time=1617556175 user_id=9431]
[b]Translation: [/b]whomever I see as "disadvantaged" or "oppressed" should automatically be considered to have made a solid case, and whomever I consider "advantaged" should be found guilty without trial. :roll:
[/quote]
The actual argument for my point is the part you stripped off in order to substitute your own. I will need to invent a new largest number to represent the amount of logical fallacies you just committed in a single sentence. Impressive.
[b]Translation: [/b]whomever I see as "disadvantaged" or "oppressed" should automatically be considered to have made a solid case, and whomever I consider "advantaged" should be found guilty without trial. :roll:
[/quote]
The actual argument for my point is the part you stripped off in order to substitute your own. I will need to invent a new largest number to represent the amount of logical fallacies you just committed in a single sentence. Impressive.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: basic fairness in law
Okay, I'll play.Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:00 pmThe actual argument for my point is the part you stripped off in order to substitute your own....Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:09 pm Translation: whomever I see as "disadvantaged" or "oppressed" should automatically be considered to have made a solid case, and whomever I consider "advantaged" should be found guilty without trial.
Joe Biden has been accused of forcible sexual assault by former Senate staffer, Tara Reide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden ... allegation
VP Kamala Harris declared during the public debate that she believed the allegation to be true; and then later recanted and laughed about it, after she was named as Biden's running mate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iMYlJqsDcg
Who is "the lesser party," who has the advantage of "the power balance," and what does the law owe us to do with this situation -- according to what your statement DID mean?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: basic fairness in law
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:11 pmOkay, I'll play.Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:00 pmThe actual argument for my point is the part you stripped off in order to substitute your own....Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:09 pm Translation: whomever I see as "disadvantaged" or "oppressed" should automatically be considered to have made a solid case, and whomever I consider "advantaged" should be found guilty without trial.
Joe Biden has been accused of forcible sexual assault by former Senate staffer, Tara Reide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden ... allegation
VP Kamala Harris declared during the public debate that she believed the allegation to be true; and then later recanted and laughed about it, after she was named as Biden's running mate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iMYlJqsDcg
Who is "the lesser party," who has the advantage of "the power balance," and what does the law owe us to do with this situation -- according to what your statement DID mean?
*sounds of crickets*
I wonder why....
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: basic fairness in law
Ain't no tellin'...HA!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:27 pmImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:11 pmOkay, I'll play.
Joe Biden has been accused of forcible sexual assault by former Senate staffer, Tara Reide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden ... allegation
VP Kamala Harris declared during the public debate that she believed the allegation to be true; and then later recanted and laughed about it, after she was named as Biden's running mate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iMYlJqsDcg
Who is "the lesser party," who has the advantage of "the power balance," and what does the law owe us to do with this situation -- according to what your statement DID mean?
*sounds of crickets*
I wonder why....
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: basic fairness in law
the law should be interpreted to favor the lesser party in all ways possible
Nope.
The law shouldn't be interpreted, nor skewed to serve any interest.
The law is a simple thing: a man's life, liberty, and property are his.
Where there is a claimed violation of law (where a man, or group of men, claims deprivation, in part or whole, of life, liberty or property) there ought to be an investigation of the claim, then, if warranted, a trial.
The problem, of course, is us: we allow parasites (lawyers, legislators) to skew what ought to straight forward.
The solution, of course, is us: we need to pick the ticks from our bellies (and, yes, doin' so is gonna be just as panful as it sounds).
Nope.
The law shouldn't be interpreted, nor skewed to serve any interest.
The law is a simple thing: a man's life, liberty, and property are his.
Where there is a claimed violation of law (where a man, or group of men, claims deprivation, in part or whole, of life, liberty or property) there ought to be an investigation of the claim, then, if warranted, a trial.
The problem, of course, is us: we allow parasites (lawyers, legislators) to skew what ought to straight forward.
The solution, of course, is us: we need to pick the ticks from our bellies (and, yes, doin' so is gonna be just as panful as it sounds).
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: basic fairness in law
Well, here's the most appalling clip, to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iMYlJqsDcghenry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:13 pmAin't no tellin'...HA!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:27 pmImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:11 pm
Okay, I'll play.
Joe Biden has been accused of forcible sexual assault by former Senate staffer, Tara Reide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden ... allegation
VP Kamala Harris declared during the public debate that she believed the allegation to be true; and then later recanted and laughed about it, after she was named as Biden's running mate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iMYlJqsDcg
Who is "the lesser party," who has the advantage of "the power balance," and what does the law owe us to do with this situation -- according to what your statement DID mean?
*sounds of crickets*
I wonder why....
Now, if Stephen Colbert were a journalist...Too much to ask? If Stephen Colbert were a good interviewer...Still too much? How about we just consider what an ordinary person with an even moderately functioning moral compass would have done?
He would have stopped the interview immediately, and said,
"Ms. Harris, I'm sorry: you're laughing and saying, 'It was a debate.'
You're going to have to explain to me what is funny.
Is it funny that you lied about the sexual assaults of women to try to destroy the good reputation of your opponent, Mr. Biden, and now you think that's funny?
Or is it funny that you believe that in a 'debate,' on the way to gaining a political advantage, you should be allowed to use any tactic at all? Is that funny?
Is it funny that you traded on the pain and suffering of real women, real rape victims, to leverage a cruel slander against your opponent?
Or is it funny that you were able to convince us you were speaking the truth and being a good person then, and you also think you're going to get us to excuse you now?
Or do you think we're such immoral fools that we should think that the situation is just obviously funny, and we'll join you in laughing?
Or, on the other hand, do you still believe the victims, as you claimed during the debate, but are now willing to tell us that you care nothing for their suffering and are willing to support their abuser "1,000%," as you put it?
Are you trying to tell us it's funny that the victims were assaulted and their attacker has gotten away with it?
What part of all this is funny, please, Ms. Harris? Why are you laughing? On what expectation are you anticipating we'll just join you and sweep under the rug either your betrayal of all women or your slander of Joe Biden in front of a national audience?"
That's what a good journalist, a good interviewer, and a good man would have done. But we're short on all three right now, it seems.
And in charity, I will hope that Stephen Colbert was just so taken aback, confused and stupefied by her conduct that he nervously laughed, and then couldn't think of what to say. I hope he didn't really agree with her. And I sure hope he misspoke when he said he believed her. And, for his sake, I also hope that afterward he realized what a base and shameful capitulation he had accidentally made, and determined never to be caught being so foolish again.
But anybody who saw that clip of Kamala Harris, and knew what she had said in the debate, and then later voted for her and Biden, should turn in any membership to #metoo or any other women's rights organization. Because they, like she, apparently feel that the issue is so unserious that you can just laugh it off.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: basic fairness in law
That's what a good journalist, a good interviewer, and a good man would have done.
In the Halls of Powers, and lined up along the walk leadin' to the Halls of Power, there an't no good nuthin' or nobody.
Parasites, all.
The Slaver-Kings, blind armies-girded, do plot
offering Paradise, delivering Rot.
In the Halls of Powers, and lined up along the walk leadin' to the Halls of Power, there an't no good nuthin' or nobody.
Parasites, all.
The Slaver-Kings, blind armies-girded, do plot
offering Paradise, delivering Rot.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: basic fairness in law
Ah, the man's a poet,henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:15 pm The Slaver-Kings, blind armies-girded, do plot
offering Paradise, delivering Rot.
And didn't knowit.
Re: basic fairness in law
>The law shouldn't be interpreted, nor skewed to serve any interest.
The law must be interpreted. Infinitely precise law is neither desirable nor possible.
It should not be skewed, and i never said or implied anything of the sort. The straw is strong with this one.
But since it is, almost literally always, it should be skewed in favor of creating the lease injustice. And the way to do that is to not favor whoever is already advantaged. Duh.
The law must be interpreted. Infinitely precise law is neither desirable nor possible.
It should not be skewed, and i never said or implied anything of the sort. The straw is strong with this one.
But since it is, almost literally always, it should be skewed in favor of creating the lease injustice. And the way to do that is to not favor whoever is already advantaged. Duh.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: basic fairness in law
The law must be interpreted.
Nope.
This... a man's life, liberty, and property are his
...is unambiguous.
No interpretation is required, only recognition and preservation.
Infinitely precise law is neither desirable nor possible.
Indeed. That way lies madness.
It should not be skewed, and i never said or implied anything of the sort. The straw is strong with this one.
You wrote, the law should be interpreted to favor the lesser party in all ways possible.
That's skewin'.
Pull the wool up offa your eyes before you try and pull it down over mine.
But since it is, almost literally always, it should be skewed in favor of creating the lease injustice. And the way to do that is to not favor whoever is already advantaged. Duh.
I told you how to un-skew the law up-thread, duh.
Nope.
This... a man's life, liberty, and property are his
...is unambiguous.
No interpretation is required, only recognition and preservation.
Infinitely precise law is neither desirable nor possible.
Indeed. That way lies madness.
It should not be skewed, and i never said or implied anything of the sort. The straw is strong with this one.
You wrote, the law should be interpreted to favor the lesser party in all ways possible.
That's skewin'.
Pull the wool up offa your eyes before you try and pull it down over mine.
But since it is, almost literally always, it should be skewed in favor of creating the lease injustice. And the way to do that is to not favor whoever is already advantaged. Duh.
I told you how to un-skew the law up-thread, duh.
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: basic fairness in law
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506037 time=1617579648 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=506034 time=1617577835 user_id=15238]
The law must be interpreted. Infinitely precise law is neither desirable nor possible.
[/quote]
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=Advocate post_id=506034 time=1617577835 user_id=15238]
The law must be interpreted. Infinitely precise law is neither desirable nor possible.
[/quote]
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.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: basic fairness in law
No, Mannie's question is spot on.Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:22 amYour questions are disingenuous and may safely be ignored with no presumed loss of legitimacy to my position. Thanks for playing.
Apply your solution, answer the question.