Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448 
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 20, 2014 20:10:20 GMT -5
Yes.
By "unacceptable" you mean "undesirable".
You resent wrongful convictions and therefore support efforts to have them overturned, but you accept the necessity of having to imprison potentially innocent men.
Or stated differently: sending innocents to jail is acceptable to you, but denying them additional chances to appeal their convictions is not.
It means your son driving a car is acceptable to you.
Also, that the risk of your son having an accident is acceptably low in your view. If he was blind and you (reasonably) believed he posed a significant threat to himself and others while driving, I suspect you wouldn't find that acceptable.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,754 
|
Post by chiver78 on May 20, 2014 20:17:15 GMT -5
Yes. By "unacceptable" you mean "undesirable". You resent wrongful convictions and therefore support efforts to have them overturned, but you accept the necessity of having to imprison potentially innocent men. Or stated differently: sending innocents to jail is acceptable to you, but denying them additional chances to appeal their convictions is not. It means your son driving a car is acceptable to you. Also, that the risk of your son having an accident is acceptably low in your view. did you miss where I said that I fully support organizations that work to free wrongfully imprisoned people? undesirable is not *at all* the appropriate word to use here. at the risk of turning this thread over to distraction b/c you see fit to tie us up with semantics, I'll walk away from this disagreement in vocabulary. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 20, 2014 20:29:28 GMT -5
Yes. By "unacceptable" you mean "undesirable". You resent wrongful convictions and therefore support efforts to have them overturned, but you accept the necessity of having to imprison potentially innocent men. Or stated differently: sending innocents to jail is acceptable to you, but denying them additional chances to appeal their convictions is not. It means your son driving a car is acceptable to you. Also, that the risk of your son having an accident is acceptably low in your view. did you miss where I said that I fully support organizations that work to free wrongfully imprisoned people? undesirable is not *at all* the appropriate word to use here. at the risk of turning this thread over to distraction b/c you see fit to tie us up with semantics, I'll walk away from this disagreement in vocabulary. Hence why I distinguish between the two issues: sending innocents to jail; and denying them additional chances to appeal their convictions. The former being undesirable but acceptable (at no point have you endorsed any action or policy that would result in fewer innocents being sent to jail), the latter being unacceptable. If it's all semantics to you, fine. Not worth fighting over.  |
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,754
|
Post by chiver78 on May 20, 2014 20:50:37 GMT -5
taking this to PM, because while I don't want to hijack the thread, there's still something lost in translation.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 20, 2014 22:09:09 GMT -5
Yes. By "unacceptable" you mean "undesirable". You resent wrongful convictions and therefore support efforts to have them overturned, but you accept the necessity of having to imprison potentially innocent men. Or stated differently: sending innocents to jail is acceptable to you, but denying them additional chances to appeal their convictions is not. It means your son driving a car is acceptable to you. Also, that the risk of your son having an accident is acceptably low in your view. did you miss where I said that I fully support organizations that work to free wrongfully imprisoned people? undesirable is not *at all* the appropriate word to use here. at the risk of turning this thread over to distraction b/c you see fit to tie us up with semantics, I'll walk away from this disagreement in vocabulary. man. i wish i had this much restraint and prudence.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 20, 2014 22:18:06 GMT -5
i am not a "collateral damages" guy. this raises the bar for any moral endeavor. this test means that wrongful outcomes should be limited at all costs. this has implications for both war and justice.
in the case of war, it means ONLY entering into a conflict when all other means have been exhausted, and when it is clear that the outcome will be WORSE for not entering. very few conflicts meet that standard (maybe none). therefore, conflict should generally be avoided at all costs, excepting the unimaginable cost.
ditto for justice. it should be meted out with the perspective in mind that any verdict might be wrong. and that we are operating on a principle of certainty. and that the outcome therefore must have at least the possibility of redemption, of correction, and of something of value to the nation that undertakes it. none of these cases can be made for the death penalty, and therefore, it should NEVER be used.
NOTE: this does not apply to anything OTHER than the DP, including LWOPP. if mistakes are made, they can be redeemed, even if the cost is very great. the gyrations we go through to defend against this possibility (ie the appeals route) are noble, but ultimately futile.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 20, 2014 22:35:06 GMT -5
Only if you consider "redeemed at great cost" to be consistent with "redeemed". I don't, and neither did any of the exonorees I've seen.
The state issues a formal apology and hands them a few million dollars, but can't give them back their time or redact their indignity. Exonorees consistently state they'd never go through it again for all the money in the world, and I believe them.
At best I'd call that "mitigating the damage", not redeeming the injustice. YMM (obviously) V.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 20, 2014 22:38:58 GMT -5
if i considered them the same, i would not have made the distinction. as usual, you are arguing with yourself.
good night.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 20, 2014 22:44:56 GMT -5
 Good night, sir.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on May 20, 2014 23:00:59 GMT -5
If you ever want to delve into this further, pick up a copy of John Grisham's "The Innocent Man". It's a non-fiction book he wrote about an innocent man who went on trial and got convicted - and was waiting on death row for his execution. The original charge and court case, plus all the appeals are played out in the book. A real page-turner.
.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 5:24:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 6:54:52 GMT -5
I have most of Genesis' musical work on disc but have never seen that video. Most of the caricatures were lost on me except for Collins and Rutherford. I would have to say it's about mans penchant for self destruction including wars. no, i mean the idea of national guilt, jma. if it applies to the DP, does it also apply to foreign wars? in other words, are unjust wars ALSO a moral hazard for citizens of a nation? I would say yes (moral hazard), but only if both sides of the conflict hold to a similar moral standard. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2014 10:14:07 GMT -5
no, i mean the idea of national guilt, jma. if it applies to the DP, does it also apply to foreign wars? in other words, are unjust wars ALSO a moral hazard for citizens of a nation? I would say yes (moral hazard), but only if both sides of the conflict hold to a similar moral standard. you adjust your morality based on the morals of others? i never took you for a relativist.  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 5:24:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 11:32:51 GMT -5
I would say yes (moral hazard), but only if both sides of the conflict hold to a similar moral standard. you adjust your morality based on the morals of others? i never took you for a relativist. I have no problem what so ever killing someone who means me deadly harm, but wouldn't touch someone who doesn't, whether through the state or on my own Including all the levels in between. That's my moral standard. If the label applied is relativist, OK with me. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2014 11:44:31 GMT -5
you adjust your morality based on the morals of others? i never took you for a relativist. I have no problem what so ever killing someone who means me deadly harm, but wouldn't touch someone who doesn't, whether through the state or on my own Including all the levels in between. That's my moral standard. If the label applied is relativist, OK with me. it isn't. the relativist would adjust his moral position based on the MORALS of his adversary. what you just stated (i would act the same way no matter what anyone else does or thinks) is an ABSOLUTIST position. however, this latter position contradicts what you said earlier about wars. but i am pretty flexible. i will assume that you didn't mean what you said earlier, and that you would NOT advocate that we behave any different morally depending on the morality of our enemy- that is an ABSOLUTIST position that i happen to agree with. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 5:24:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 11:57:56 GMT -5
I have no problem what so ever killing someone who means me deadly harm, but wouldn't touch someone who doesn't, whether through the state or on my own Including all the levels in between. That's my moral standard. If the label applied is relativist, OK with me. it isn't. the relativist would adjust his moral position based on the MORALS of his adversary. what you just stated (i would act the same way no matter what anyone else does or thinks) is an ABSOLUTIST position. however, this latter position contradicts what you said earlier about wars. but i am pretty flexible. i will assume that you didn't mean what you said earlier, and that you would NOT advocate that we behave any different morally depending on the morality of our enemy- that is an ABSOLUTIST position that i happen to agree with. Absolutist it is then. Never really got into the labels on the moral reasoning's of war. I was more into the technical efficiency of winning. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2014 12:01:38 GMT -5
it isn't. the relativist would adjust his moral position based on the MORALS of his adversary. what you just stated (i would act the same way no matter what anyone else does or thinks) is an ABSOLUTIST position. however, this latter position contradicts what you said earlier about wars. but i am pretty flexible. i will assume that you didn't mean what you said earlier, and that you would NOT advocate that we behave any different morally depending on the morality of our enemy- that is an ABSOLUTIST position that i happen to agree with. Absolutist it is then. Never really got into the labels on the moral reasoning's of war. I was more into the technical efficiency of winning. winning is always good. winning is better when the moral cost is low. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 5:24:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 12:32:41 GMT -5
Absolutist it is then. Never really got into the labels on the moral reasoning's of war. I was more into the technical efficiency of winning. winning is always good. winning is better when the moral cost is low. And a low cost in lives lost.  |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,484
|
Post by billisonboard on May 21, 2014 12:32:48 GMT -5
... winning is always good. ... I don't believe anything you tell me," Nately replied... "The only thing I do believe is that America is going to win the war."
"You put so much stock in winning wars. The real trick lies in losing wars, in knowing which wars can be lost. Italy has been losing wars for centuries, and just see how spendidly we've done nonetheless. France wins wars and is in a continual state of crisis. Germany loses and prospers. Look at our own recent history. Italy won a war in Ethiopia and promptly stumbled into serious trouble. Victory gave us such insane delusions of grandeur that we helped start a world war we hadn't a chance of winning. But now that we're losing again, everything has taken a turn for the better, and we will certainly come out on top again if we succeed in being defeated."
www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/catch-22.shtml  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 5:24:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 12:39:24 GMT -5
... winning is always good. ... I don't believe anything you tell me," Nately replied... "The only thing I do believe is that America is going to win the war."
"You put so much stock in winning wars. The real trick lies in losing wars, in knowing which wars can be lost. Italy has been losing wars for centuries, and just see how spendidly we've done nonetheless. France wins wars and is in a continual state of crisis. Germany loses and prospers. Look at our own recent history. Italy won a war in Ethiopia and promptly stumbled into serious trouble. Victory gave us such insane delusions of grandeur that we helped start a world war we hadn't a chance of winning. But now that we're losing again, everything has taken a turn for the better, and we will certainly come out on top again if we succeed in being defeated."
www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/catch-22.shtml An armed drone has been dispatched. What are your coordinates again ?  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2014 16:53:00 GMT -5
winning is always good. winning is better when the moral cost is low. And a low cost in lives lost. i think one follows from the other. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,484
|
Post by billisonboard on May 21, 2014 17:49:05 GMT -5
And a low cost in lives lost. i think one follows from the other. Depends if you are looking at total body count or just ones on your side. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2014 18:36:35 GMT -5
i think one follows from the other. Depends if you are looking at total body count or just ones on your side. that occurred to me, but i figured i would take the high road, this time. |
|
~ Friendships Are Warm ~ True Passions are Fire ~ 
