Question of sensibility (repeat)

[Rule]

The older poll was deleted because people seemed confused about the question.  This should be more clear.

[CrAz3D]

uhm....this seems rather pointless, maybe it ought to be worded differently?

Of course the dude that is about to die is more tragic, but what are you trying prove by us saying that?

[Rule]

Of course the dude that is about to die is more tragic, but what are you trying prove by us saying that?

Believe it or not, some people don't think that's obvious.

[CrAz3D]

Of course the dude that is about to die is more tragic, but what are you trying prove by us saying that?

Believe it or not, some people don't think that's obvious.

Word.

But also, unless Mr. 5% has taken a step towards killing Mr. 95%, there should be no punishment/resitrctions for Mr. 5%

[Invert]

What about a case where someone was arrested and charged with a rape and put to jail for it then 20 years later the DNA test came back negative proving that person innocent.

How do you apologize for that? Would it go something like this: "Oops, sorry. You're free to go now."

[Rule]

What about a case where someone was arrested and charged with a rape and put to jail for it then 20 years later the DNA test came back negative proving that person innocent.

How do you apologize for that? Would it go something like this: "Oops, sorry. You're free to go now."

A different question with a different answer.  This is not a question of whether someone should be charged with a crime that they haven't definitely committed.

[Invert]

Your question is about indefinites.

[Rule]

Your question is about indefinites.

Yes it is.

[Invert]

My comments were about acting on indefinites.

Your poll relates to acting on indefinites.

[Rule]

My comments were about acting on indefinites.

Your poll relates to acting on indefinites.

Well, my question wasn't specifically commenting on how we should act on indefinites.  Although we are often faced with indefinites, how we act on them doesn't have to be black and white.  We shouldn't either ignore them or act as though they are definites, in my opinion.  There should be compromise.

[Invert]

Sometimes it is black and white and there is no compromise, it happens quite often in life and the choice is not ours whether or not it has to be black and white it just is.

We should as a society try to do our best to make those decisions and when a mistake is made we should do our best to compensate for that mistake since it was black and white and there is no correcting it.

The whole controversy is about whether or not our guess is the best guess.

[Rule]

Sometimes it is black and white and there is no compromise, it happens quite often in life and the choice is not ours whether or not it has to be black and white it just is.

We should as a society try to do our best to make those decisions and when a mistake is made we should do our best to compensate for that mistake since it was black and white and there is no correcting it.

The whole controversy is about whether or not our guess is the best guess.

Yes, that makes sense (not being sarcastic).  I think the idea of "definites" in the justice system is actually an illusion.  Nothing is really definite.  A witness could be lying.  DNA evidence isn't perfect, even though it's very accurate.  We have to draw the line somewhere.

[MyndFyre]

The older poll was deleted because people seemed confused about the question.  This should be more clear.

I do not appreciate the outright deletion of my post.  Trash it.  Or is this the way you would have it if you ruled the world?  If I 95% disagreed with you, I would be silenced for preventative measures?

You know what else is funny Rule, you're arguing for preemption, but as I recall you were against a preemptive American war with Iraq?

[Rule]

The older poll was deleted because people seemed confused about the question.  This should be more clear.

You know what else is funny Rule, you're arguing for preemption, but as I recall you were against a preemptive American war with Iraq?

People love artificially putting someone into a position where they are always for an idea, or are always against it.  It's a dirty tactic. The idea that someone contradicts himself when he supports an action in a particular circumstance, and opposes it in a totally different situation, is ridiculous. Because I may believe that it might possibly be a good idea to act preemptively in some unspecified situation does not mean I think that it is always a good idea to act preemptively.

Also, I don't think I've ever said whether I was for or against a "preemptive American war with Iraq"? 

I'm sorry that you were offended that I deleted my poll.  I wasn't trying to "cover anything up," and although I think it would be awkward and inappropriate, you're free to rewrite or paste anything you did post.

[Grok]

People love artificially putting someone into a position where they are always for an idea, or are always against it.  It's a dirty tactic. The idea that someone contradicts himself when he supports an action in a particular circumstance, and opposes it in a totally different situation, is ridiculous. Because I may believe that it might possibly be a good idea to act preemptively in some unspecified situation does not mean I think that it is always a good idea to act preemptively.

LMAO, this is classic.  Aren't you trying to do exactly that in the marijuana thread, where you're refusing to present your case for criminalization of pot until everyone else agrees that in the hypothetical context it is sometimes reasonable to ask people to give up some unspecified freedom when there is a high likelihood of that freedom leading to harm on someone else?

It's a dirty tactic.  Quoted for Truth.