Printable View
Sidney, you are probably sitting in a library researching and carefully collating your responses to this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Before your next response, I would like to respectfully suggest that you pick up this book from the shelf, and read it...
Cloke, K. (2008) Conflict Revolution Janis Publications, USA
In the event that you learn nothing from it, it will at the least keep you quiet for a couple of days :)
its all a matter of opinion
You're right Thar, I am in the library but no not researching this just avoiding what I should be researching lol...... maybe I'm not interested in resolution and just want the conflict..?
certainly the general tenor of my argument is lacking in the public perception as shown in this thread.... And in my opinion that is a problem. I don't really want reconciliation with the idea that uniformed opinion and the expression of it is at all desireable, outside of the process of reaching informed opinion.
surely the quieting of the debate because of artifical tolerance implies acceptance? it is certainly one of the symptoms of a less robust and more dishonest society...?
thanks for the book ref though.... I will look at it sometime..
You lectured your opinion on the definition of opinion without revealing that you were speaking about the legal definition rather than he common English definition until the actual definition was posted, I'm unsure if you're trying to be smart or just arrogant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
I never mentioned that you denied the right to be stupid etc, it's stupid to imply that I did.
You should be offering your opinion on how to weigh others opinions, not argue about the definition of a word, I understand what you're trying to do and I somewhat agree with you but you could go about it in a better way, but that's just my opinion.
Spot on Savaloy :thumbsup:
An opinion can only be derived from what one believes to be fact, even informed know it all's can be wrong, just depends where they got the info :D
yep... i offered it as purely an argument without clarifying initially.... but then I did...Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
and the point is that you didn't recognise what it was... before or after that
and of course there is a better way... there is always a better way
that in response to my posts implies that I didn't think that... hence my response...Quote:
Everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to voice it, no matter how stupid or ill founded, this is at the core of a free society.
"weight" or credibility isn't the actual issue... the issue is the proliferation and noise from uniformed opinion expressed because of percieved right. Our world is full of information, the solution isn't more analysis of more crap, its less crap.
Not according to the popular definition...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibo
Now the same could be said of your trade. Facts must be ignored because, even though they are correct, they are not admissible (due to a legal technicality as opposed to a just nature). As a result the legal opinion formed, by the legal professions own definition, is not based on full and truthful knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Any one got any popcorn left I've run out :)
I recall someone said... "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.."
Often wish I was clever enough to have thought of that, first.
Having trouble sleeping print this lot off.. :thumbsup:
In my onion I reckon you ll be dozing off before page 4....
ahhhh....a challenge....Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
evidence is often not admissible, but the system is trying to be fair. The protagonists are charged to deliver to their best efforts for the parties they represent. That is often considered to be unfair to the other party. The courts are charged with enforcing the roles and deciding on the evidence allowed what the outcome should be...
some evidence while factual and truthful can create bias disproportionate to the real value of the information. For example a defendants previous criminal history. The court has to decide what is fair and equitable because proving guilt is the responsibilty of the prosecution and cannot be assumed with the introduction of material that creates prejudice and bias unrelated to the matter before the court.
the system is trying to be fair... I'm more impressed about that than I thought that I could be, but the components of the system often appear not to be fair in order for the system to achieve that.. and that is a fact. The reason that the general public think that the system is not is because that only hear about its failings and they only see the errant practitioners.... its actually not that bad at its purpose. Where the system falls down is in the limited amount of resource and thought about how we should best deal with those who transgress.
Where we continue to fall down is in the ideal of punative deterent, and failing to try and equip our criminals to be better citizens on their evitable return to general society.
Justice is not an outcome its a process.... outcomes can never be equitable from the victims perspective. The desire to punish is not beneficial after the fact.
Every system has failings, but this one is probably not as flawed as most think. The primary issues of concern are sentencing options and access/cost for those at the lower ends of society.
Always room for improvement though...
Indeed. It is like all other aspects of life, just costlier than even a partner. There is the definite perception that it has evolved into it's own self regenerating spiral of increasing complexity and cost, and moved into more of a legal system than a justice system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
I can remember a government vowing to sort the whole system out an simplify the laws. Of course they inevitably just introduced more complex and wordy laws that made the whole thing messier.
So it's too much to ask to shut down the border and control crime?
Yes :)