Criticizing Lawyers, Teachers & Dating

[Jukia]

and a tard! :devil:

Ah the two of you are such wonderful examples of Christians.

 

[Jukia]

Our system is not godly it is human. Islamists think theirs is godly though, perhaps you would be more comfortable living under Sharia law?

 

[Quincy]

:rotfl: Arranged marriages.

 

[resurrected]

Actually I was not quote mining from anything. "Taking the bad with the good" is simply a generic statement. If it is from Job, I was unaware of that.

It does indeed derive from Job

Job 2:10
King James Version (KJV)

10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

 

[resurrected]

:rotfl: Arranged marriages.

...were a staple of society for millenia. You know, back when we had stable marriages?

 

[Jukia]

It does indeed derive from Job

So your god provides both good and evil? He not only does miracles but also gives some people cancer? Interesting.

 

[resurrected]

So your god provides both good and evil? He not only does miracles but also gives some people cancer? Interesting.

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.



and He's not just my God, He's your God too.


You'll find out soon enough.

 

[Jukia]

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.



and He's not just my God, He's your God too.


You'll find out soon enough.

Well, does he maketh miracles for some people and maketh others get cancer? That seemed to be what the verse from Job said.

 

[Stripe]

I didn't say it withheld justice.

Sure, you did.

 

[Town Heretic]

Sure, you did.

No I didn't. Among a number of things you didn't address, I said:

...It doesn't have the right to withhold justice.

Who said it withheld justice? Whoever did would have to make the case. Feel free to do that.

Telling me it does is just to admit it is evil.

I didn't say it withheld justice. You're making an unsupported claim and building on it before you lay a foundation of fact and/or argument/reason.

There's nothing unjust about mitigation. In fact, it would be unjust to punish a man rushing his wife to the hospital who is caught speeding as you would someone having a race for the fun of it. I think Christ spoke to that. Is man made for the Sabbath or the Sabbath for man?

...You've declared away in response and shifted the focus, which seems to be your meat.

Let me know if that changes. :e4e:

 

[Stripe]

No I didn't.

Sure, you did. You said your just-a-system could pardon people.

 

[Town Heretic]

Sure, you did. You said your just-a-system could pardon people.

You're assuming that works an injustice. But at least we appear to have whittled you objections down to the one mistake, which is progress.

 

[Stripe]

You're assuming that works an injustice.

Courts don't have the right to show grace.

You need to actually have this discussion instead of demanding my opinions be couched in the terms defined by your system.

Courts do not have the right to pardon people.

If you want to advance this discussion you might suggest an example where you think a person should be pardoned and I will show you how either:
a) he should never have been arrested or charged, or
b) you support an evil system.

But at least we appear to have whittled you objections down to the one mistake, which is progress.

You've made far more than just one.

 

[The Barbarian]

Courts don't have the right to show grace.

But people do. In fact, God expects us to do so.

Courts do not have the right to pardon people.

But people do. In fact, God expects us to do so.

If you want to advance this discussion you might suggest an example where you think a person should be pardoned and I will show you how either:
a) he should never have been arrested or charged, or
b) you support an evil system.

Is that like your "mathematical proof against evolution" you never got around to showing us?

 

[Town Heretic]

Courts don't have the right to show grace.

Grace is about sin. Our law isn't about sin, unless you read sin into every illegal act as an extension of Romans.

You need to actually have this discussion instead of demanding my opinions be couched in the terms defined by your system.

You made simplistic, one word challenges to that system. I met them with actual answers, reason and illustration and you're complaining? :think:

Courts do not have the right to pardon people.

And they don't in our system. See, that's part of the problem here. You aren't really familiar with the thing you're criticizing. Courts can overturn verdicts, but pardons are reserved for another branch of government, not the judiciary. The part of the justice system that issues pardons is the executive. And that amounts to a special review and is, within the scope of things, a rare event.

And the onus is on you, as the complaining party, to demonstrate the terms you advance against the system.

If you want to advance this discussion you might suggest an example where you think a person should be pardoned and I will show you how either:
a) he should never have been arrested or charged, or
b) you support an evil system.

You made charges. I've answered you on them. If you want to advance your part you need to address my answers, off.

You were and remain wrong and assumptive at every turn. I've set out why and how. When and if you're serious about advancing the conversation you'll meet me as I met you.

 

[Stripe]

Grace is about sin. Our law isn't about sin, unless you read sin into every illegal act as an extension of Romans.

A court has no right to pardon people. It has no right to show leniency. It should not show mercy. It should not extend grace to criminals. It should punish without preference or prejudice. The law should be blind.

And they don't in our system.

I see. So when you said "Our legal system ... allows for pardon" you were wrong?

 

[CabinetMaker]

A court has no right to pardon people. It has no right to show leniency. It should not show mercy. It should not extend grace to criminals. It should punish without preference or prejudice. The law should be blind.

I see. So when you said "Our legal system ... allows for pardon" you were wrong?

No, he was exactly right in what he actually said. You have sever reading comprehension problems and completely misread and misrepresented what TH did, in fact, say.

 

[Stripe]

No, he was exactly right in what he actually said. You have sever reading comprehension problems and completely misread and misrepresented what TH did, in fact, say.

Sorry, Mr. Sever. You've no credibility at all. :loser:

Town Heretic did indeed say that his legal system allows for pardons. Now he's saying it doesn't.

 

[Town Heretic]

A court has no right to pardon people.

You teach English, so there's no excuse in your continuing to get that wrong. I didn't say the court pardoned anyone. The executive is part of the system of justice but it's not the judiciary.

And why doesn't the executive have a right to grant a pardon?

It has no right to show leniency.

So are you suggesting that we should treat a man rushing to take his dying child to the hospital exactly as we do a teenager speeding down the road because he wants to see how fast his car will go?

That takes us back to the whether the Sabbath was made for man or man for the Sabbath.

It should not show mercy.

Christ did, but why shouldn't the court consider mitigating factors?

It should not extend grace to criminals.

Supra. Grace isn't the court's province.

It should punish without preference or prejudice. The law should be blind.

Justice is a prejudice. The law should be blind to status, should give you and pauper and the ruler the same position. Now the rich can afford better counsel or more and has greater resources than the average Joe, but the principle is still in play in terms of adjudication. It's something I'd like to see worked on.

I see. So when you said "Our legal system ... allows for pardon" you were wrong?

No. The system is larger than one branch. The executive branch both enforces and writes law, subject to review by the judiciary in challenge through the court system. It's also the branch where pardons originate. The court system doesn't do that.

 

[CabinetMaker]

TH answered the question you asked which was:

Courts do not have the right to pardon people.

You, Stripe, specifically said courts to which TH replied:

And they don't in our system. See, that's part of the problem here. You aren't really familiar with the thing you're criticizing. Courts can overturn verdicts, but pardons are reserved for another branch of government, not the judiciary. The part of the justice system that issues pardons is the executive. And that amounts to a special review and is, within the scope of things, a rare event.

At which point you promptly moved the goal posts by stating the following:

I see. So when you said "Our legal system ... allows for pardon" you were wrong?

You asked about courts, TH responded to your statement about courts, and then you twisted his words in a sad attempt to make him look like a liar. You really should apologize for bearing false witness against a brother in Christ.