Just a System
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
We aren't a theocracy, so, standards instead of any particular religious system's notion of moral truth expressed as law. In our system you mostly get to decide moral questions for yourself, except where those choices impact the rights of others. That scares some people. Offends some. But it's kept us freer longer than any other system in existence.Standards in place of God's standards .oly:
Right Divider
Body part
You never cease to amaze me with your out of context quotes.Other countries have courts, as well (Ps 33:12).
Right Divider
Body part
The proof was YOUR POST!:yawn: Proof please (Eph 4:14).
Ooooooookay then.
lain:
The only people that can tell the doctor or lawyer about their business is another doctor or lawyer. Thus, are implying I'm on par with doctor in analogy and lawyer on topic.
But that raises a good question. How can I tell people about the legal system when I'm not a lawyer? Because one does not need to be a lawyer to know injustice and our system has a lot of injustice due to systemic problems that no lawyer would ever want to address. The obvious next question being, how can I know what will make the system better? One way is to ask God. God lays out what is right and wrong, and also provides a system that is more accountable than ours. When we compare the systems, we can trace a number of injustices in our system directly to a failure to follow God's opinion on the matter.
You are correct, I got that wrong. You weren't meaning that I didn't credit the doctor for his insight, but I didn't credit the insight to the vast knowledge and experience. But your analogy is wrong when applied to my case. I do credit the failure in our system to the vast knowledge and experience of the people wedded to our current system. It's part of the problem.
That I'm not dying is the point. Don't miss the point of an analogy because you take it further than it was meant to go.
Looks like about 10% don't have it coming, with a higher percentage in the future. You think 10% is negligible, but it's not. And what's worse, is that a great part of the 90% are people that are incentivized to commit crimes by the system, a lot of the crimes are arbitrary, and also a lot of that number are people that committed acts that should not be crimes that are currently crimes according to the system.
One might ask how we know the percentage of innocent people currently being punished will be higher in the future? Because the system doesn't need to incarcerate you to punish you. Innocent parents that have their children taken by the state are being punished. So are people that have to suffer through the system with a frivolous lawsuit that they win eventually. The punishment by bureaucrats on businesses and individuals that never enter the court system are part of the unjust punishment system. Eventually, the people that will start to rebel against the injustice and really end up incarcerated because they fought for their rights will be another group you can count as the system being unjust to.
And there are more than that.
Tell that to the roughly 10% of innocent people incarcerated now. And the others currently being being punished unjustly by the system as mentioned above. The reason the entirety of the people in the US are afraid to get sued isn't because it's a hassle to show how the attacking party is wrong, but because they know that no matter how well they can prove their innocence they will be punished by the system in terms of time and money and the attacker just might win!
Ah. Sour grapes. No, I won. I saved some lives. But it's because I realized the system is rigged. A rigged system is the definition of an unjust one.
No, again. I'm suggesting that while you're demonstrably trying to level a judgement about a thing you only understand anecdotally, you aren't on par/aren't qualified to make the judgement.
You don't have to be a lawyer. You simply have to be sufficiently informed. Now if you have someone with no discernible credentials, nothing to seriously suggest he or she has more than an anecdotal familiarity and he's arguing a point contrary to someone with a serious education and a wealth of familiarity with that same system, the reasonable man, absent some fairly damning evidence, will understand that all things are not being equal.
Let's start with the good. You're right that you don't need to be a lawyer to recognize injustice. You only need to understand the term and the opportunity.
Now for the bad: the moment you step from recognizing in a moment to the system comment I have no reason to believe you, absent that evidence, evidence to establish a rule. Because otherwise you're just a guy making broad declarations without any apparent justification or qualification. The "no lawyer would want to" puts you squarely within the chip on his shoulder/lack of objectivity that normally attends anyone making that sort of declaration. You know, all blacks, or every liberal, etc. Just a bad beginning that you also don't need an education to not believe.
Protestants can't even agree among one another what God is clearly saying about any number of things. And that's before we get to Catholics or other religions with adherents who would agree with your approach and differ with your particulars.
Which is one reason our solution came into play. So you're entitled to your conscience and the state only interferes with that when you attempt to interfere with the rights of someone else.
Citation to source? What is that ten percent representing? Criminal convictions reversed on appeal? Civil judgments voided? So, until then it leaves...
Even by your standard, however arrived at, you know that fear would be unreasonable. Even you think that 90% of the time the right party will prevail. As to time and money, that's what it takes in this society. The good news is that when you're sued civilly you can counter sue on expenses required to defend and then some. And if you can't afford a lawyer, criminally, the state will pay a lawyer to defend you.
It isn't though.
The problem you believe in is mostly the product of a limited experience and a lack of any particular other to give you a better and more accurate insight.
"The only thing scarier than Godzilla is Godzilla's lawyers." Paul Watson
That's just going to make you fat...if you're lucky.
I guess you're right. I don't have the credentials to see the massive injustice in the system. Does that mean I have to call evil good now?
Ignorance doesn't have to be fatal unless we confuse it with virtue. Now you have two choices. You can tell your oncologist that you read an article on shark cartilage and won't be needing his services, or you can realize that there's a reason we value hard won and extensive knowledge more than we do our anecdotal exposure.
Not if you go by my approach. I don't define words, I learn the definitions.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
to do that, yorzhik, you would have to be an expert on injustice
iow, a lawyer :chuckle:
I was just wondering if you'd have anything substantive to contribute on the topic. . . I'm still wondering.
I was just wondering if you'd have anything substantive to contribute on the topic. . . I'm still wondering.
someone should report you for encouraging him
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
... I'm still wondering.
the dimwitted often do find themselves in that sort of predicament
but admitting you have a problem is the first step towards seeking a solution! :thumb:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i was going to thank you for encouraging me, but i can't :idunno: