Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bloop_bleep]

The fact that you happen to be defending Roy Moore is surely just a coincidence.

Oh no! He's onto us! He knows we're just evil scumbag fascist-defenders working for the Republicans!

I'm a liberal. I have always been a liberal. I severely dislike the vast majority of what the Republicans are proposing. But I'm not advocating a senator to resign simply because of something we don't have even a remote inkling of being true yet.

How the hell is admitting to something completely unrelated implying that he did the main act? You don't know that he did it. No one knows whether he did it. When asked for evidence why you think he did it you gave the bullshit answer "because everyone knows he did." You also gave evidence for something entirely unrelated. If all your reasons for why he did it are nonsense, which you yourself cannot possibly believe in, why do you think he did it? You think he did it by the mere fact that he's a Republican and you disagree with him. Your attitude, like NullForceOmega said, is the problem. Many of the left have that attitude and so do many of the right. If you fix your attitude you would finally be able to understand some of our arguments.

[Lucus Casius]

To clarify, the argument is "it's impossible to prove that Moore did these things, ergo, we should assume that the accusations against him are false/deceptive."  Hence the repeated "innocent until proven guilty" stuff.  Correct?

I'm not entirely sure how the legal system comes into play here, admittedly.  Or why it's particularly relevant whether he did it or not, so long as people believe he did and it can be used against him.  Still.

[bloop_bleep]

To clarify, the argument is "it's impossible to prove that Moore did these things, ergo, we should assume that the accusations against him are false/deceptive."  Hence the repeated "innocent until proven guilty" stuff.  Correct?

I'm not entirely sure how the legal system comes into play here, admittedly.  Or why it's particularly relevant whether he did it or not, so long as people believe he did and it can be used against him.  Still.

No. The argument is "it's impossible to prove that Moore did these things, therefore we cannot say whether or not he's guilty."

[NullForceOmega]

Innocent until proven guilty as a concept is divorced from legality, it's foundation is based on formal logic, hence "proof".  The point of it is to attempt to enforce an open worldview and promote careful consideration of available data as well as informed decision making.

[Lucus Casius]

That is a very, very large stretch of what the presumption of innocence entails.  Unless you have supporting evidence to show that it isn't a matter of legality?

Edit:  Or show that this is indeed the origin of the term and the idea.

[Starver]

"It's pop, not soda or coke. Soft drink is also no longer acceptable."

At last a (fake) Trump policy I can completely support!

[misko27]

It's unclear to me that society must act exactly as the state does and follow the same principles thereof, which is what you are implying. I believe an argument could be constructed such that state should act differently, precisely because it is the state and not society.

The state only exists because society creates it.  It is an outgrowth of the needs of increasingly complex social interactions as population grows.  The state IS society and society IS the state.

Woah, calm down there, Rousseau.

I cannot even begin to understand how you can view such utterly intertwined co-dependent structures as distinct entities.

Can you not imagine a society without a state? Or a state without a society? If you can, then they are distinct. If you cannot, you must tell me whether you believe all societies are represented by a state. What about sub-societies? What about non-state actors? What about anything and everything else?

Innocent until proven guilty as a concept is divorced from legality, it's foundation is based on formal logic, hence "proof".  The point of it is to attempt to enforce an open worldview and promote careful consideration of available data as well as informed decision making.

It is not, because you have made one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line, but only slightly less well-known is this: you cannot derive an ought from an is. You cannot say that because we do not know perfectly whether Moore is guilty or innocent, that we ought not to treat him differently. To say we do not know beyond a reasonable doubt is as close to an "objective" truth as you can get. But to say the later is a statement of preference for consideration over action, for thought over doing, for allowing the guilty to go free over imprisoning the innocent. These are value judgments, and it is that which you must defend.

To clarify, the argument is "it's impossible to prove that Moore did these things, ergo, we should assume that the accusations against him are false/deceptive."  Hence the repeated "innocent until proven guilty" stuff.  Correct?

I'm not entirely sure how the legal system comes into play here, admittedly.  Or why it's particularly relevant whether he did it or not, so long as people believe he did and it can be used against him.  Still.

No. The argument is "it's impossible to prove that Moore did these things, therefore we cannot say whether or not he's guilty."

Wrong! That's only half of your argument. The other half of your argument is "We cannot be sure whether Moore is guilty, therefore we should not treat him as if he were guilty." And that "should", which you and Omega have managed to hide from your arguments thus far, is precisely the problem.

[sluissa]

I'm now imagining a fucked up mirror universe version of To Kill a Mockingbird replacing Tom Robinson with Roy Moore.

Also possibly just because I chuckled a bit, replacing Atticus Finch with Johnnie Cochrane.

[NullForceOmega]

Can you not imagine a society without a state? Or a state without a society? If you can, then they are distinct. If you cannot, you must tell me whether you believe all societies are represented by a state. What about sub-societies? What about non-state actors? What about anything and everything else?

No.  Social structure is the state.  It is purely an outgrowth of interpersonal interactions and there is no way that either can exist or function without the other.  Your argument is sophistry.  You are attempting to change the fundamental definition of  the concept to fit your narrative.  Sub societies are just parts of societies.  Non-state actors are still a derived from a societal power structure.  Anarchy is a transitional state between power structures.  Communism fails when a complexity threshold is reached.  There can be no society without a derived power structure, and likewise a power structure cannot exist without support.  If all you want to do is argue semantics or play the definition game I am NOT going to humor you.

I don't have to defend my values to you or any other living being.  Because they are MINE.  I'm not forcing them on anyone, but I am applying them to my interaction with others.  That is my prerogative.

As for whether or not we should treat someone who has not been proven to have committed a crime as guilty or not you are absolutely right.  I see absolutely no reason to treat someone as a criminal without proof, this was never hidden, it was outright given.  It still isn't defending him.  It is adopting a 'wait for further information' stance.

[Max™]

By definition, assuming anything at all requires that there is no evidence. If you have evidence, it's not an assumption. Also by definition, some things must be assumed. No one has ever managed to construct a system without assumptions.

*pops in to taunt misko*
Assumptions as in "something which is taken to be true" sound very similar to the "something which is held as true" definition of beliefs, and both can be replaced with cautious doubt until such time as facts or a constructive proof is found to supplant that uncertainty. Indeed you can also substitute the awareness that certain ideas--though not actually facts themselves--may nonetheless serve in the interrim as something which may be treated as usefully true... with an asterisk noting that there are limitations on observation, awareness, and the ability of scientific study itself to do more than eliminate that which is false.
*drops smoke bomb and jumps out a window*

[misko27]

Can you not imagine a society without a state? Or a state without a society? If you can, then they are distinct. If you cannot, you must tell me whether you believe all societies are represented by a state. What about sub-societies? What about non-state actors? What about anything and everything else?

No.  Social structure is the state.  It is purely an outgrowth of interpersonal interactions and there is no way that either can exist or function without the other.  Your argument is sophistry.  You are attempting to change the fundamental definition of  the concept to fit your narrative.  Sub societies are just parts of societies.  Non-state actors are still a derived from a societal power structure.  Anarchy is a transitional state between power structures.  Communism fails when a complexity threshold is reached.  There can be no society without a derived power structure, and likewise a power structure cannot exist without support.

Society is the state? What about, say, the society of a hated minority? Should they be expected to use the same priniciples of the state that persecutes them, as it is "an extension of their own society"?

Your argument lacks historical basis, and it is you who are bucking intellectual tradition and choosing to redefine words. The state is not defined as "any sort of power-structure whatsoever" it has a specific definition. The Weberian definition is "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." That is the definition I use. By my definition, which is certainly the most common one used academically today, your argument is bupkis.

If all you want to do is argue semantics or play the definition game I am NOT going to humor you.

It's funny you should say this, given I'd accuse you of the same thing. You decide to redefine the word state, a word with a long historical and academic tradition, to fit your argument and then accuse me of playing the definition game? But of course, you've stated the rules, we must abide by them. This is that classic joke where someone states that the only sort of fair fight that exists is the one that just so happens to be on their terms and advantages themselves. How convenient a moral indignation! What luck, to have such useful moral principles!

I don't have to defend my values to you or any other living being.  Because they are MINE.  I'm not forcing them on anyone, but I am applying them to my interaction with others.  That is my prerogative.

Amusing. Well, you have the right to not defend your values, or even your definitions, just as I have the right to make fun of them.

As for whether or not we should treat someone who has not been proven to have committed a crime as guilty or not you are absolutely right.  I see absolutely no reason to treat someone as a criminal without proof, this was never hidden, it was outright given.  It still isn't defending him.  It is adopting a 'wait for further information' stance.

Further information? Yet another difference between the courts and society is the courts are sure of an investigation, society is not. To wait for information that will not come is to decide to do nothing. To decide to do nothing is still a choice. I choose differently!

[Maximum Spin]

Let's not forget that it's literally impossible to "defend your values" anyway because there are no universally accepted axioms to argue with, so this is just an exercise in talking past one another with smugness (okay, misko's really the only smug one here, but that's beside the point) and not an actual conversation.

[nenjin]

In what way is it bullshit to choose partial over total defeat?

I have to answer this.

When you stand for "morals" and "principles" as handed down by the Almighty and are immutable rules of human behavior.....

A "partial" defeat doesn't really make those morals or any righteousness flowing from them legitimate. "We're approving of promiscuous sexual behavior with minors by some of the most powerful people in the country.....but at least the gays still can't get married!"

That's horseshit. Real life isn't some 40k dystopia (yet), and there's no reason we should have to tolerate this set of necessary evils. Anyone who claims to be part of a moral majority has to stand by their morals. They are not something you can sacrifice in the name of victory and then still claim the moral high ground, because you deliberately sacrificed it in the name earthy, fleshy victory. Moral credibility is pretty much shot.

And here's what pisses me off the worst: conservative republicans play the "all or nothing" game with America's values. They won't compromise on issues relating to homosexuals because "we can't violate our beliefs" and in the next sentence say "I could live with a pedophile because it keeps my beliefs intact." As though being a sexual predator is a fucking virtue in the New Testament.

There's no integrity in treating your morals like that. I'd fucking LOVE to see what would have happened if instead of preying on teenage girls, Moore was trying to pick up teenage boys. REAAALLLLLY put the squeeze on the conservative's flexible and adaptive morality, and ultimately expose it for what it really is: self-serving bullshit. That can be discarded or re-framed as needed to fit the situation. Just as God intended it when he put this shit on stone tablets.

It's like when Mike Huckabee, Mr. "Christian values" was found to be cheating on his wife, and CR straight up said "it doesn't matter to his suitability to office" even though he was running on a morality platform. Like, oh, suddenly the sanctity of marriage and god's divine union ISN'T so important. Like character isn't important. Oh, FORGIVENESS is what we should practice here, everyone fucks up, ya know?

For me I can't resolve these inconsistencies in beliefs and I have no idea how some of these people sleep at night....but then again I'm not religious.

[Max™]

okay, misko's really the only smug one here, but that's beside the point)

Hey, that hurts... I was being smug too dammit...

Also tossing out that I had a female boss--an attactive one even, if imposing as she was a 6 foot tall blonde, and I'm 5'9" or so--grab my obliques and give a squeeze and it was... odd like, I've been a stripper, it amuses me when little old ladies give me a pinch or a grope, and I've got no problem telling anyone to fuck off, boss or not... but my first thought was "if I was a cute little chick and my handsome 6 foot tall male boss did that, this would be kinda awful" because then I wouldn't have the power to end the situation like I normally do. Man or woman, if I don't want your hands on me, I can make goddamn sure they're off me, but that isn't the case for everyone, just like being able to fuck off to another job isn't always an option, so fuck these pussy grabbing pieces of shit and their creepy lecherous old shitbags too.

[misko27]

Let's not forget that it's literally impossible to "defend your values" anyway because there are no universally accepted axioms to argue with, so this is just an exercise in talking past one another with smugness (okay, misko's really the only smug one here, but that's beside the point) and not an actual conversation.

Was it not Parmenides who said that we need only three things in life: something to do, something to look forward to, and to be a smug Sonuvabitch?