Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
A few posts back there is something about Definitions, in which I posit that most serious human disagreements take place between one side that avoids definitions and an opposing side that insists on having them. I further observe that what we today call “the left” seems to be all about avoiding definitions.
And, blaming the ensuing inevitable conflict on the other side, persuading any bystanders into believing that all conflict comes from the attempt to define things. Successfully, for the most part. Well, we have multiple leftists trying to challenge this…it’s almost cute. Not a one among them seems to understand how they’re trying to so challenge. There’s no rhyme or reason or coherence to their criticisms. It’s like the Internet argument equivalent of a nerd-slap-fight. It’s also like they’re trying to put together an argument while…avoiding defining anything. Which would prove the point.
Jonah Goldberg has a fascinating addition to this: Ask some leftists you know, to define “social justice”:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jonah Goldberg: SOCIAL JUSTICE = ‘good things’ no one needs to ARGUE for & NO one DARE be against!
No one who advocates for social justice defines social justice that way. Goldberg is making a strawman argument. He simply defines what he doesn’t like as something he doesn’t like, and then thumps his chest in triumph. Kudos for the excellent example of a misleading definition.
- Zachriel | 04/08/2014 @ 13:29http://freelancechristianitydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/strawman-demo1.jpg
Without watching the piece…
Define social justice?
I can’t even get a straight answer on what “is” is.
I generally take it slow and ask what Affirmative Action originally meant, before it “remisjustified” racism, sexism, and “other” discrimination, based on irrational fear and/or hatred.
Asking what plain ‘ol “discrimination” means usually garners answers akin to what Woman’s SUFFERAGE!!!, or Chauvinist, means. Things usually get uncomfortable when Socialist, National Party, Union Labor get …um…translated to them. I freely confess to sand bagging on THAT.
IMHO, anyone citing “social” justice is simply unhappy without exceptions to “regular” justice for all.
Also see:
Family Court
Alien Spouse
Undocumented immigrant
Woman’s “health”
Micro-aggression
White privelege
And almost anything else that apparently NOW requires a hyphen.
Of course, I MAY be biased, and see things through a different continuing education. lens.
- CaptDMO | 04/08/2014 @ 14:17“…..one side that avoids definitions and an opposing side that insists on having them”
- CaptDMO | 04/08/2014 @ 14:29Semantics dork alert. I say….
Both sides insist on definitions.
One side insists definitions remain consistent throughout the “debate”, as in Dictionary.
the other DEMANDS they suit their current comprehension, subject to the way the debate is going. as in Thesaurus(including ant.,hom. “sugestions”)
SEE: Alice in Wonderland
“Common” sense
CaptDMO: Both sides insist on definitions.
Which “side” is Jonah Goldberg on, when he uses a silly straw man in lieu of a definition.
- Zachriel | 04/08/2014 @ 14:31No one who advocates for social justice defines social justice that way.
Well that doesn’t mean much. I’ve personally met a lot of people who advocate for social justice, who do not define it in any way whatsoever; they just prattle on about it.
- mkfreeberg | 04/08/2014 @ 15:14mkfreeberg: Well that doesn’t mean much.
No one who advocates social justice, or even wants to have a reasonable discussion of social justice, uses Goldberg’s strawman. Here’s an actual definition:
Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation.
- Zachriel | 04/08/2014 @ 15:29http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a3.htm
Which “side” is Jonah Goldberg on, when he uses a silly straw man in lieu of a definition.
– Zachriel
Oh, was I supposed to watch that? OK.
Hmmmmm…Goldberg doesn’t “use” a straw man, he exposes it.
I’ll let folks search, on their own, instead of my own (admittedly biased) cut-and-past links to cherry picked “theses” via…say… Mozilla, to the assorted references of predatory claims to “Social Justice”, including the specific historical citations he makes in his bit if you like.
BUCKETS of folks, disingenuously claim providence to Social Justice, with Zero recognition of what it actually MIGHT mean as a “rule” equally applied to all.
- CaptDMO | 04/08/2014 @ 16:33Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due…
Not an adequate definition. Doesn’t define. Isn’t objective.
“What’s the speed limit around here?”
“Just don’t go too fast.”
- mkfreeberg | 04/08/2014 @ 19:29mkfreeberg: Not an adequate definition. Doesn’t define. Isn’t objective.
Not all definitions are objective or precise. What is beauty? What is hot? That doesn’t mean the concepts aren’t defined. Rather, they assume a certain commonality among people.
In any case, the definition is certainly much more consistent with normal usage than Goldberg’s strawman definition. John Rawls defined social justice as the ability people have to realize their potential in the society where they live. If you want to argue about social justice, you have to start with what people actually mean by the term.
As we said, kudos.
- Zachriel | 04/09/2014 @ 03:33Not all definitions are objective or precise. What is beauty? What is hot? That doesn’t mean the concepts aren’t defined. Rather, they assume a certain commonality among people.
It does mean the concepts aren’t defined, and that is the point Goldberg was making.
If this is what y’all meant by ” he uses a silly straw man in lieu of a definition,” then we agree. “Social justice,” as a descriptive phrase, is about as useful as a cough, a sneeze, or a dinner plate hurled at a spouse’s head in the middle of the night. It doesn’t actually mean anything and it never was supposed to.
- mkfreeberg | 04/09/2014 @ 05:45Isn’t it hilarious how the people who yell “straw man!” in an argument are almost always availing themselves of a straw man in the process?
Oh, wait. I meant “sad.” It’s sad how they do that.
The reason nobody has huge political fights over terms like “beauty” and “hot” is that nobody is tying huge, intrusive, rights-crushing government programs to those definitions. With “social justice,” they are. Let’s say I have the potential to get a PhD in Astrophysics from Harvard, but don’t. Is that “social injustice”? How could we tell? Most importantly, how would it be remedied? (Justice implies redress).
Liberal SOP seems to be: Define vague, probably undefinable stuff only in terms of other vague, probably undefinable stuff. Pretty soon you either give up in despair or, 200 posts later, you’re arguing about the exact diameter of the pinhead on which 2,006 hypothetical angels are theoretically dancing. Meanwhile, out in the real world, vague gassy nonsense like “social justice” moves billions of our tax dollars.
- Severian | 04/09/2014 @ 06:42The dishonesty is the implied statement of a goal. In reality, there is no goal, it’s all about the journey.
“The situation that affects everybody does not suit my own personal preferences” is not a good slogan for a revolution. It reveals too much bratty motivation — although it would be honest. “Social justice” makes it sound like there is some goal that has not been reached which, once it’s reached, everything will be all pie-eyed and wonderful and we can stop fighting and start living together in harmony.
The truth is there are people who have this need to live in endless revolutions. And they’re brats. Have to have everything their way. They’ll never stop revolting, ever. But if the public at large were to be made aware of that, it would pose problems for the revolution.
- mkfreeberg | 04/09/2014 @ 06:55Cf. my comments to the post above. I really don’t know why the GOP doesn’t argue this way.* “I’m sure my opponent’s plan is brilliant, but it’s also exceedingly immature.” You let liberals have their precious binky — “you are a brilliant, brilliant person, and morally superior, too” — without conceding an inch on the policy. Who didn’t have an absolutely foolproof genius plan to fix all the world’s ills when he was sixteen? Hell, that’s what dorm room bull sessions are for. Recognizing all the obvious-to-grownups flaws in those genius plans used to be known as “maturing” and it used to be a good thing.
*actually, I do know — it’s because they’re truly, epically shitty at politics. But still.
- Severian | 04/09/2014 @ 07:14mkfreeberg: It does mean the concepts aren’t defined, and that is the point Goldberg was making.
Goldberg provided an explicit—and false—definition.
mkfreeberg: {Social justice as a descriptive phrase} doesn’t actually mean anything and it never was supposed to.
Social justice is defined as the ability of people to realize their potential in society. Racism and colonialism have left an unjust situation, which the social justice movement means to address.
mkfreeberg: The reason nobody has huge political fights over terms like “beauty” and “hot” is that nobody is tying huge, intrusive, rights-crushing government programs to those definitions.
In other words, our point was sound, so you engage in diversion instead. Some valid terms are not objective or precise. As for examples of political terms, we might include reasonable, liberty, or prudence.
As for specific policies, even today, aboriginal peoples are being pushed off their lands, then relegated to working the fields for their new landlords. This has led to vast inequality, which the social justice movement attempts to address. There are valid arguments against many of the policies of the social justice movement, but you can’t address those arguments by beating on straw.
- Zachriel | 04/09/2014 @ 09:32The last comment should have been attributed to Severian. (Edit or preview would be nice.)
- Zachriel | 04/09/2014 @ 09:34Did y’all just try to address a comment to me? You sillies — you know what happens when you do that. Back to your shame closet, you hacks.
- Severian | 04/09/2014 @ 11:04Z: As for specific policies, even today, aboriginal peoples are being pushed off their lands, then relegated to working the fields for their new landlords. This has led to vast inequality, which the social justice movement attempts to address.
What is the time limit on inequality? If you are treated illegally by Joe Criminal, you can sue him directly or ask for the law to prosecute. But what if Joe Criminal stole from your father? Grandfather? Great-great-great grandfather? At what point does the action of someone in the past become too far back for action?
- Captain Midnight | 04/09/2014 @ 12:09Captain Midnight: What is the time limit on inequality?
That’s immaterial to the question, which is the proper representation of a political position.
However, society can only progress through a process of reconciliation and forgiveness. Grudges will only lead to more pain.
Captain Midnight: But what if Joe Criminal stole from your father? Grandfather? Great-great-great grandfather? At what point does the action of someone in the past become too far back for action?
Institutions can be held liable for wrongful conduct.
- Zachriel | 04/09/2014 @ 12:13Goldberg provided an explicit—and false—definition.
By which, I assume, y’all are referring to (2:13):
I would imagine it’s a “false definition” in the sense that self-identifying “champions of social justice” would take exception to it. But that’s not the test, is it. Y’all didn’t let it stop y’all when y’all came up with a definition for “right wing,” with which self-identifying right-wingers would not likely agree.
So it’s settled. That is not the test. We have to reconcile the definition with current events and current factional behavior.
I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if Goldberg’s definition passes that test. Here’s a definition that does not:
If social-justice advocates thought of social justice as that, then they would push for: Kids being told more often that they’re WRONG. Fewer “participation” trophies, more genuine-excellence trophies. A complete ban on affirmative action forever. Laissez-Faire. Fewer time-outs, more spankings. Fewer out-of-wedlock births. Fewer divorces. And drastic cultural change: Men AND women in our movies being courageous, wise, principled and understanding protagonists. Men in commercials not being made to look like idiots.
Fewer labor regulations, so that employers aren’t afraid to hire people. I’m sure most people would consider themselves to be closer to their potential when they have a job, than when they don’t have one and the democrats are telling them “Well at least you get to spend more time with your family.”
If that were the definition of social justice, then LBJ’s Great Society would be seen as champions of social justice as a great detriment to social justice. Most people would consider men to be closer to their potential when they live with their kids, than when they don’t; they’d consider the kids to be closer to their potential, when they live with their fathers. Let’s hear it for that brand of social justice!
If only the purveyors of the “social justice” moniker, and whatever lies behind it, would agree. But it’s obvious they don’t.
- mkfreeberg | 04/09/2014 @ 17:42mkfreeberg: By which, I assume, y’all are referring to …
Jonah Goldberg: SOCIAL JUSTICE = ‘good things’ no one needs to ARGUE for & NO one DARE be against!
mkfreeberg: Social justice is about the state amassing ever increasing power in order to do good things.
That would be closer to progressivism, though that doesn’t necessarily entail a larger government, just one that is large enough.
mkfreeberg: Here’s a definition that does not: Social justice is defined as the ability of people to realize their potential in society…
Indeed, that is what is normally meant by social justice. You may disagree with the policies of those who advocate for social justice, even find them counterproductive, but that doesn’t salvage Goldberg’s strawman argument.
mkfreeberg: If social-justice advocates thought of social justice as that, then they would push for: …
No. You are confusing the definition of a term describing a social theory with whether certain policies are consistent with their goals.
Most people who advocate for social justice don’t agree that those policies would be best at achieving the goal of social justice. For instance, when indigenous peoples are pushed off their land, it may sometimes make sense to redistribute the land back to the original peoples, even if it means undoing existing land contracts. You do realize that the process of pushing people off their land is still ongoing, and those are the very places where movements for social justice has the greatest influence?
- Zachriel | 04/09/2014 @ 17:55No. You are confusing the definition of a term describing a social theory with whether certain policies are consistent with their goals.
There’s confusion going on here but it isn’t mine.
Stronger discipline helps people achieve their true potential, although at the time they may not like it. So we can probably agree that when y’all say “the ability of people to realize their potential in society” what y’all are really talking about is: “Things that bring people closer to their higher potential, that they happen to LIKE.”
But, of course, of all the things that raise our potential in this earthly plane, most of it is things we do not like that much. At the time. Higher standards. Disappointments. Admonitions from authority figures, parents, people we care about that “you can do better.”
But social justice isn’t about such things, is it? Even as defined by those who purport to pull for it.
So it isn’t about the entree, it’s more about the dessert. Y’all’s definition doesn’t get that specific, but it’s true, and it’s important to get that spec’d. “Social justice” is about yummies. It’s about privileges. Num nums.
- mkfreeberg | 04/09/2014 @ 19:24mkfreeberg: Stronger discipline helps people achieve their true potential, although at the time they may not like it.
Quite possibly, but that’s not the issue, which is what people mean when they say “social justice”.
We provided an example. When indigenous peoples are pushed off their land, it may sometimes make sense to redistribute the land back to the original peoples, even if it means undoing existing land contracts. You do realize that the process of pushing people off their land is still ongoing, and those are the very places where movements for social justice have the greatest influence?
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 05:25Quite possibly, but that’s not the issue, which is what people mean when they say “social justice”.
Try to concentrate on all of one thing at once. What we’ve done here is logically rule out a possibility: They can’t possibly mean what y’all say. Any time an unpleasant experience helps somebody reach their true potential, which is actually very often, there is something that should fall under the definition of s.j. according to y’all’s definition — but doesn’t, because the phrase’s use is limited to things that are pleasant and immediately gratifying to the person affected.
This is the part where we come to agreement that y’all’s definition simply doesn’t work.
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2014 @ 05:45mkfreeberg: Any time an unpleasant experience helps somebody reach their true potential, which is actually very often, there is something that should fall under the definition of s.j. according to y’all’s definition — but doesn’t, because the phrase’s use is limited to things that are pleasant and immediately gratifying to the person affected.
No, because most people who advocate social justice don’t agree with your premise. They think that some people reached their potential at the costs of others. So rich plantation owners are rich because they took land from indigenous people. Advocates may or may not be right about that, but that is certainly what they are referring to when they advocate for social justice.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 05:54No, because most people who advocate social justice don’t agree with your premise.
And, most people who profess to be of the “right wing” don’t agree with y’all’s definition of “right wing,” but I don’t see that stopping y’all.
How come the rules have to work differently here?
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2014 @ 06:15mkfreeberg: And, most people who profess to be of the “right wing” don’t agree with y’all’s definition of “right wing,” but I don’t see that stopping y’all.
That is incorrect. The basic meaning has a persistence across time and cultures. For instance, nearly everyone places religious fundamentalists, anti-immigrant, and economic free marketers, on the political right, just as nearly everyone places environmental extremists, proponents of diversity, and social democrats on the political left.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 06:35Right-wing politics
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 07:05http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
Left-wing politics
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 07:06http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Ah. We’re back to what “most people” say. Deja vu all over again.
Is anybody else starting to think the Cuttlefish have some dude locked up in their basement they call “most people” and/or “common usage,” who only gets fed if he says what they want him to? Maybe he shares a bunk with “authentic conservatives.” That’s about the only way their appeals to these entities make sense.
- Severian | 04/10/2014 @ 07:15Severian: We’re back to what “most people” say.
What most people say doesn’t determine the laws of gravity, but it does determine the meanings of words those people use. The field is called lexicography.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 07:19Captain Midnight: What is the time limit on inequality?
Z: That’s immaterial to the question, which is the proper representation of a political position.
No, time is a key part of social justice. Let’s take your example of aboriginal peoples being pushed off their lands and then working under the new landowners. Social justice says that the landowners owe the aboriginal people reparations for their act. But do the children of the landowner owe the children of the aboriginal people reparations for the acts of their parents? Now run that forward 5, 10, and 15 generations. Does the fifteenth generation of landowners owe reparations to the fifteenth generation of the displaced aboriginal people? There are two possibilities here: 1) there is no time limit, or 2) there is a time limit.
So which is it, 1 or 2?
Z: However, society can only progress through a process of reconciliation and forgiveness. Grudges will only lead to more pain.
Social justice is all about grudges. And money. But mostly money.
Z: Institutions can be held liable for wrongful conduct.
For how long? Let’s imagine the head of some government issues an order declaring a people to be treated as enemies of the state and that they should therefore be exterminated or driven out. Subsequently, the forces of that state push those unwanted people out of their lands in the middle of winter. The lands the people had owned and lived on was sold or given away to others. A strong claim for redistribution of money from the state to the displaced people can be made. After all, it was the state that drove them out of their homes and took their lands. But for how long is that claim valid? If we roll forward the clock one hundred years, nobody in the government involved in the expulsion is still alive, and neither are any of the displaced landowners. After 150 years, how much money is due to the descendants of the displaced landowners from the state that expelled them? In that time, there have been many people who have come and gone in that government, so is the claim still valid against the actions of 150 years earlier, or has that golden opportunity passed?
- Captain Midnight | 04/10/2014 @ 10:19Z: Right-wing politics … Left-wing politics
Still clinging to the old and busted French seating arraignment model, I see. Do you also cling to the outdated Richter scale as well?
- Captain Midnight | 04/10/2014 @ 10:24Wait, what’s that? Y’all tried to address me again? Well, we all know y’all can’t read too good. Get back in your shame closet, you dishonest little pissants.
- Severian | 04/10/2014 @ 12:02Captain Midnight: No, time is a key part of social justice.
It’s certainly a key component of evaluating social justice, but not to the meaning of the term. By the way, that means you accept the standard definition of social justice. Is it just to take land away from people who may have held it for generations, even it was originally taken from others.
Captain Midnight: Social justice says that the landowners owe the aboriginal people reparations for their act.
Not necessarily.
Captain Midnight: There are two possibilities here: 1) there is no time limit, or 2) there is a time limit.
Or there are competing values that have to be balanced. In Colombia, native people want to stop the taking of their land today, while the Tartars have attempted to return to Crimea generations after the Soviets forced them out, and many Jews have returned to the Levant claiming it as their homeland after having lived elsewhere for millennia. It’s not always an easy question. Justice must be tempered with mercy and forgiveness.
Captain Midnight: Social justice is all about grudges. And money. But mostly money.
Right. So native tribes who are today watching miners despoil their lands, or worse, forcing them off at gunpoint, just want the money, even when they have already refused money in return for their land.
Captain Midnight: For how long?
Under law, state institutions are rarely held responsible. Under ethics, they must reconcile with those they wronged.
Captain Midnight: If we roll forward the clock one hundred years, nobody in the government involved in the expulsion is still alive, and neither are any of the displaced landowners.
Under the concept of tort, the institution remains liable, but the claimants may no longer be alive. So the lesson is to steal what you can, then avoid responsibility until the victims are dead. But the problem with that is that people pass their grudges down over generations. Think how long it took the U.S. to get over their Civil War.
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
Captain Midnight: Still clinging to the old and busted French seating arraignment model, I see.
The meaning is standard, and consistent with how people use the term. We provided a citation and examples above.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 14:06It’s not always an easy question. Justice must be tempered with mercy and forgiveness.
It’s quite easy. The problem is it isn’t objective. If one side says “There, that makes us even” and the other side says “No, I think that compensation was a bit too much” then what you have is…conflict. So, before the reparations you have conflict, after the reparations you still have conflict. Result: A complete waste of time IF the point was to mend conflict. On the other hand, you have achievement of the mission, if the point was to move money around.
So if anybody says the mission was fulfilled, well then…we have sound and logical proof of what really motivated them. It’s just like any lefty policy proposal, really: Driven by a loose coalition of the dishonest and the willfully ignorant, with the former misleading the latter.
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2014 @ 16:59mkfreeberg: The problem is it isn’t objective.
Humans values aren’t objective. If justice were applied mercilessly, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”.
You keep ignoring our examples. Not sure why.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 18:45I’m not ignoring y’all’s examples, I’m accounting for something that is pretty obvious to anyone who’s ever been involved in a conflict: The solution to it doesn’t work the same way as a math problem. I know it feels empowering to the arbiter, whether that arbiter is self-appointed or not, to say “Reparations are due from so-and-so -to such-and-such in the amount of [0, or something else]” and then strut around as if that’s the one & only correct answer. That just isn’t how it works.
Captain Midnight has offered many reasonable problems, most of them time-based, with the reparations argument. Some might reasonably think that’s the final word: His questions are unanswerable, therefore we can’t have reparations. Others may think his questions don’t signify anything of any importance at all. If there is one single answer to the conundrum, it cannot arrive by way of people’s feelings because if you only go by that, you can’t arrive at any one single answer except by ignoring one side, or the other, or finding some mathematical average (which must be wrong no matter what).
The conservative answer would be the answer that would conserve — civilization. And that is an objective calculation of cause-and-effect. Can civilization endure with different clans and races endlessly bringing claims against other clans and races for historical wrongs, and counterclaims, and prevailing, with legal force behind the awards? That question has an objective answer, in the sense that you don’t need to view the situation from a certain vantage point in order to see it. As is the case with most ideas that are conservative and not liberal, you just have to think on it logically. IF people are willing to do so.
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2014 @ 21:51mkfreeberg: I’m not ignoring y’all’s examples, I’m accounting for something that is pretty obvious to anyone who’s ever been involved in a conflict: The solution to it doesn’t work the same way as a math problem.
We agree that finding social justice isn’t a simple math problem.
mkfreeberg: That just isn’t how it works.
Of course not. The various parties represent political and social forces, with the economically weaker party nearly always losing. However, sometimes they can band together to protect themselves from stronger forces.
mkfreeberg: Captain Midnight has offered many reasonable problems, most of them time-based, with the reparations argument. Some might reasonably think that’s the final word: His questions are unanswerable, therefore we can’t have reparations.
If that were true, then we couldn’t have any laws concerning property. Certainly present wrongs can be addressed, legally and politically. Certainly, an oppressed group has a right to some sort of compensation.
mkfreeberg: Can civilization endure with different clans and races endlessly bringing claims against other clans and races for historical wrongs, and counterclaims, and prevailing, with legal force behind the awards?
Modern civilization can withstand a lot, but not an unreconciled injustice. These issues must be addressed, which is called social justice.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 02:38If that were true, then we couldn’t have any laws concerning property.
False equivalence.
Reparations policies/proposals are not in the same ballpark as property rights. Not the same league. Not even the same game.
- mkfreeberg | 04/11/2014 @ 05:16mkfreeberg: Captain Midnight has offered many reasonable problems, most of them time-based, with the reparations argument. Some might reasonably think that’s the final word: His questions are unanswerable, therefore we can’t have reparations.
mkfreeberg: Reparations policies/proposals are not in the same ballpark as property rights.
Reparations are a form of recovery for damages.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 06:55Captain Midnight: No, time is a key part of social justice.
Z: It’s certainly a key component of evaluating social justice, but not to the meaning of the term.
Let me make this clear, so you don’t spend days and weeks squirreling off on some tangent: I am not defining social justice by bringing up time. I’m explaining the application of social justice with regards to time.
Z: By the way, that means you accept the standard definition of social justice.
To make things simple, let’s go with the UN’s definition as pointed out by Jonah Goldberg:
And there is the question of how to implement it:
Now we can agree on the meaning of social justice and the method of application.
Z: Is it just to take land away from people who may have held it for generations, even it was originally taken from others.
After I have stolen you car from you, how long must I have it in my possession so your claim on it is void? After I have kicked you out of your house, how long must I live there so your claim as a home-owner is dismissed and mine recognized?
Captain Midnight: Social justice says that the landowners owe the aboriginal people reparations for their act.
Z: Not necessarily.
Interesting. So a group of people, in this case the now landowners, can oust out the original inhabitants, and the ousted people do not necessarily have any claim for reparations. Please, do provide for us the full and complete definition of social justice that identifies when reparations for being thrown of one’s land are due or not.
Captain Midnight: There are two possibilities here: 1) there is no time limit, or 2) there is a time limit.
Z: Or there are competing values that have to be balanced.
You have, in your normal round-about non-answer way, identified that the answer is 1) there is no time limit. If there were a time limit on reparations, then there wouldn’t be competing values that would need to be balanced. If #2 were the standard of social justice, then a wrong, done at any time, would need to be addressed.
Captain Midnight: Social justice is all about grudges. And money. But mostly money.
Z: Right. So native tribes who are today watching miners despoil their lands, or worse, forcing them off at gunpoint, just want the money, even when they have already refused money in return for their land.
What part of “mostly” makes you read it as “all”?
Captain Midnight: For how long?
Z: Under law, state institutions are rarely held responsible. Under ethics, they must reconcile with those they wronged.
Ethically, when does the past wrong fall into too long ago?
Captain Midnight: If we roll forward the clock one hundred years, nobody in the government involved in the expulsion is still alive, and neither are any of the displaced landowners.
Z: Under the concept of tort, the institution remains liable, but the claimants may no longer be alive. So the lesson is to steal what you can, then avoid responsibility until the victims are dead.
That’s how it has been done in history. And that’s one reason why social justice is a hard thing to define and implement. The example I gave before of a head of government ordering people to be exterminated or driven out was taken from actual events. So ethically, how much does the state of Missouri today own to the descendants of the Mormon people it forcefully tossed off their lands in 1838-1839?
Z: But the problem with that is that people pass their grudges down over generations.
And that could be the crux of the problem I have with the social justice movement. It is about grudges. Rather than letting the past wrongs be forgiven and forgotten, people clutch them tightly to their chest and demand that governments take from the descendants of the wrong-doers and give it to the descendants of the wronged.
Captain Midnight: Still clinging to the old and busted French seating arraignment model, I see.
Z: The meaning is standard, and consistent with how people use the term. We provided a citation and examples above.
The Richter scale had a standard usage, a consistent application by many people, and we could provide many citations and examples. But it doesn’t matter because it is an outdated and inefficient scale that has been, over time, replaced by something better. In like wise, you are clinging to an outdated and inefficient left-right model and refusing to accept or use the better model. I understand your reluctance to change. Change is hard.
- Captain Midnight | 04/11/2014 @ 09:58Captain Midnight: Now we can agree on the meaning of social justice and the method of application.
Then we can dispense with Goldberg’s straw definition.
Captain Midnight: After I have stolen you car from you, how long must I have it in my possession so your claim on it is void?
Depends on the jurisdiction. Civil and criminal liability usually has a statute of limitations of several years. However, the title never transfer. If you can find the car, it’s still yours.
Captain Midnight: So a group of people, in this case the now landowners, can oust out the original inhabitants, and the ousted people do not necessarily have any claim for reparations.
Most of the United States was taken by force or nefarious means from indigenous peoples. It would not be justice, though, to evict everyone who lives there now. They, too, have rights.
Captain Midnight: You have, in your normal round-about non-answer way, identified that the answer is 1) there is no time limit. If there were a time limit on reparations, then there wouldn’t be competing values that would need to be balanced.
Time is certainly an element, but there is no specific limit. We provided examples. In Colombia, native people want to stop the taking of their land today, while the Tartars have attempted to return to Crimea generations after the Soviets forced them out, and many Jews have returned to the Levant claiming it as their homeland after having lived elsewhere for millennia.
Captain Midnight: What part of “mostly” makes you read it as “all”?
It’s not always about grudges either. Most tribes in Colombia just want to be left alone. And grudges are valid concerns. If someone kills your brother, then you will want justice. Grudges can be addressed through a process of reconciliation.
Captain Midnight: And that’s one reason why social justice is a hard thing to define and implement.
Of course. That’s been our position throughout the discussion. That’s why justice has to be tempered by forgiveness.
Captain Midnight: But it doesn’t matter because it is an outdated and inefficient scale that has been, over time, replaced by something better.
The standard left-right political distinction is still in wide use.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 11:00@ Captain Midnight
Friendly wager: How many times do you think you’d have to post the question “So ethically, how much does the state of Missouri today own to the descendants of the Mormon people it forcefully tossed off their lands in 1838-1839?” to get an answer?
I’m putting the over/under at about 75.
- Severian | 04/11/2014 @ 11:28Severian: “So ethically, how much does the state of Missouri today own to the descendants of the Mormon people it forcefully tossed off their lands in 1838-1839?”
They reconciled.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 11:35Shhhh… the adults are talking. You belong back in your shame closet.
- Severian | 04/11/2014 @ 11:38Z: Then we can dispense with Goldberg’s straw definition.
You are the one who is hung up with something you call his definition. Let’s look at the bit you’re hung up on in context, shall we?
That’s not his definition of social justice, but how he claims it is used. Richard Sherman used this type of language when he expressed the idea that “thug” is code for the N-word. That’s not the actual definition of the word, but how he sees it being used.
In Goldberg’s video, and congratulations on getting at least 90 seconds into it BTW, he refers to the UN’s language to define social justice and how it would be enforced. That’s what I cited above. His language in the video is pretty easy to understand. To get hung up on that one phrase and heap abuse on it while ignoring the rest of Goldberg’s video is similar to another activity someone mentioned here. I’m trying to remember the exact term for it, but it involves constructing a model out of dried grain stalks and pounding on it. I’m sure the term will come to me.
Z: If you can find the car, it’s still yours.
And after the deaths of the the original two, is the son of the original car owner able to seize the car from the son of the car thief? And what about if we are talking about grandchildren, or later generations?
Captain Midnight: So a group of people, in this case the now landowners, can oust out the original inhabitants, and the ousted people do not necessarily have any claim for reparations.
Z: Most of the United States was taken by force or nefarious means from indigenous peoples. It would not be justice, though, to evict everyone who lives there now. They, too, have rights.
Ah. So there *is* a time limit to reparations. But since there is no guidelines for when that kicks in, social justice is at the whim of the state. Good thing we have angels in government so there’s no chance of abuse.
Z: The standard left-right political distinction is still in wide use.
Pretty much the same thing someone could have said as the Magnitude scale was introduced. You don’t have to justify your sticking with the old and busted. I understand your hesitation to upgrade to the new hotness. I will just mock you for your 18th Century thinking.
Z: They reconciled.
Yep. The deaths and theft of 1838-1839 have been taken care of by an expression of regret and the rescinding of the original order. Nice bar established here by the state. So Colombian officials only need to express their regret to the tribes, and everything is cool. I’ll send them an email today, so they can get past that issue.
Now to be clear, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not calling for money or other reparations from Missouri. But it is illustrative as an example of one inherent problem of social justice: time. I would say the largest cry in the US for social justice and reparations deals with slavery. Slavery was a horrible institution, and anyone who was a slave-owner should pay reparations to anyone who was their slave. Beyond that, I say let it go and move on.
- Captain Midnight | 04/11/2014 @ 13:03Captain Midnight: That’s not his definition of social justice, but how he claims it is used.
No one who advocates social justice uses it to mean “code for ‘good things’ no one needs to argue for, and no one dare to be against!”
Captain Midnight: I’m trying to remember the exact term for it, but it involves constructing a model out of dried grain stalks and pounding on it. I’m sure the term will come to me.
Except that he actually said what we quoted, and argues from that premise. But no one who advocates for social justice has any such conception.
Captain Midnight: And after the deaths of the the original two, is the son of the original car owner able to seize the car from the son of the car thief? And what about if we are talking about grandchildren, or later generations?
That is correct. If the original item still exists, then title transfers to the heirs. For example,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/10728354/Tate-to-return-Constable-painting-looted-by-Nazis.html
Captain Midnight: So there *is* a time limit to reparations.
Time is an element, not a limit. Justice entails balance.
Captain Midnight: The deaths and theft of 1838-1839 have been taken care of by an expression of regret and the rescinding of the original order.
An admission of error is essential for reconciliation.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 14:34Captain Midnight: That’s not his definition of social justice, but how he claims it is used.
Z: No one who advocates social justice uses it to mean “code for ‘good things’ no one needs to argue for, and no one dare to be against!”
Just as no one who says “Thug” uses it as a synonym for the N-word, regardless of what Richard Sherman says.
Z: But no one who advocates for social justice has any such conception.
And you know that because you have scanned the inner thoughts of all advocates for social justice, so you know what they believe in their heart of hearts?
Z: That is correct. If the original item still exists, then title transfers to the heirs.
Ah. So any descendants with their Missouri land deeds can get their land back today. That’s good to know.
Z: An admission of error is essential for reconciliation.
And problem solved.
- Captain Midnight | 04/11/2014 @ 15:11Captain Midnight: Just as no one who says “Thug” uses it as a synonym for the N-word, regardless of what Richard Sherman says.
We understand the argument. It’s just not reasonably supportable.
Captain Midnight: So any descendants with their Missouri land deeds can get their land back today.
The Mormons signed over their lands, obviously under duress. It would be interesting if they brought a case, but because they no longer hold title, it’s a civil case with a statute of limitations.
Captain Midnight: We kicked you off your lands, and for that we are sorry. But just only sorry, we are very sorry. So, we’re good now, right? Great!
Necessary, but not necessarily sufficient.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 15:21Captain Midnight: So any descendants with their Missouri land deeds can get their land back today.
The Mormons signed over their lands, obviously under duress. It would be interesting if they brought a case, but because they no longer hold title, it’s a civil case with a statute of limitations.
This is yet another example of reading comprehension being key in a discussion. Please note that my statement stipulates a descendant as still having the deed to the family’s Missouri land. And possessing such, that person should be able to regain full ownership and control of the land. Do you support that person’s claim to the family’s land? (Hint: this is where you answer with a “Yes” or a “No”.)
Z: Necessary, but not necessarily sufficient.
It has to be sufficient for the Mormons because words were all that were offered.
- Captain Midnight | 04/11/2014 @ 15:39Captain Midnight: Please note that my statement stipulates a descendant as still having the deed to the family’s Missouri land.
You provided a specific example, hence, the answer is specific to the example. If they still had a deed, then they might have a case, but then again, governments can ratify force, and often do. In the case of indigenous peoples, they rarely have deeds to land they have occupied, leaving them vulnerable.
Captain Midnight: Do you support that person’s claim to the family’s land?
Certainly they have the right to raise the issue. But as we said, if justice were applied mercilessly, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”.
Captain Midnight: It has to be sufficient for the Mormons because words were all that were offered.
And they accepted those words. They don’t seem interested in making any other claim, and it was right that Missouri accepted responsibility for their previous wrong.
Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. — Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 18:44So which is to prevail, mercy or justice?
Can’t have both.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 07:10mkfreeberg: So which is to prevail, mercy or justice?
Of course they can coexist. People reconcile. It’s not easy, but it can and does happen. But it can’t happen when one group continues to either persecute another group, or refuses to admit to past persecution.
For instance, many on the political right in Japan still refuse to acknowledge their crimes in China during WWII. This has led to continuing friction between the two countries. This isn’t something that is peculiar to modern American liberalism, but a facet of human behavior.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 07:15Of course they can coexist. People reconcile. It’s not easy, but it can and does happen.
Either by way of mercy, or by justice.
Not both.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 07:26mkfreeberg: Either by way of mercy, or by justice.
Indeed, they can’t even exist apart! A bit of justice, a dash of mercy, a measure of justice, a liberal helping of forgiveness. That’s what people do when they reconcile.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 07:34Indeed, they can’t even exist apart! A bit of justice, a dash of mercy, a measure of justice, a liberal helping of forgiveness. That’s what people do when they reconcile.
Right, they let the justice go. Which means there isn’t any.
it’s an either-or. Life, you’ll find out if y’all ever start living it, is full of those. You can have one or the other of something, but not both. You can choose one over the other, but then you can’t go and say your choice had this elegant intermingling of both of them.
Well…you can, but that would be wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 07:44mkfreeberg: Right, they let the justice go.
No. There usually can’t be reconciliation without some sort of balancing of the scales. It starts with sincere recognition of the wrong, followed by action.
mkfreeberg: it’s an either-or.
That’s your black-and-white thinking acting up again.
You lend a man $5. He falls on hard times. He comes to you with a $2 chicken and promises to give you more later. You tell him it’s a fine chicken, and call the debt even. You invite his family for Sunday dinner. There’s some justice, $2 for $5, and a liberal helping of forgiveness.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 07:59I have no idea why you continue to engage with these pathologically dishonest hacks, Morgan, but it must count for something that you’ve got them resorting to Hallmark card cliches from the 1930s. A $2 chicken? Well gorsh, Mrs. Wilson, I’d whitewash just about any length of picket fence for a bite of that apple pie on yonder windowsill!
- Severian | 04/12/2014 @ 09:41Severian: A $2 chicken?
Thank you for engaging the argument. Are you saying that mercy and justice were compatible in the 1930s, but not today?
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 09:45Shame closet.
- Severian | 04/12/2014 @ 09:49That’s your black-and-white thinking acting up again…There’s some justice, $2 for $5, and a liberal helping of forgiveness.
$2 is not $5. Justice would be $5.
See, this is the trouble with that specific part of liberal thinking, which is the definition of standards after, rather than before, everything is all played out and the chips are down. As Thomas Sowell said, everything succeeds if you lower the standards enough, and everything fails if you raise them high enough. What you have in y’all’s example there, is 60% mercy. Justice would be all the money being paid back, which would circumvent the need for any mercy. It is an either-or proposition, after all.
You can’t build things that actually work thinking like a liberal, because to build things that actually work, you have to recognize things as they truly are. That explains Detroit.
And the healthcare.gov launch.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 11:36I’m afraid what y’all call “black and white thinking” is really nothing more elaborate than recognizing differences where they exist, and acknowledging they’re absent, or not meaningful, when they’re absent or not meaningful.
Time to post it again. If y’all ever get out and start living life, y’all will find these are important.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 11:38mkfreeberg: What you have in y’all’s example there, is 60% mercy.
More than that. He shares the chicken.
mkfreeberg: Justice would be all the money being paid back, which would circumvent the need for any mercy.
The man is poor, or did you not get that?
mkfreeberg: It is an either-or proposition, after all.
Apparently not per the example we provided. There was the recognition of the debt, an effort to pay, and a compromise that enriched both families. The sum was greater than its parts.
mkfreeberg: I’m afraid what y’all call “black and white thinking” is really nothing more elaborate than recognizing differences where they exist, and acknowledging they’re absent, or not meaningful, when they’re absent or not meaningful.
It’s called a false dichotomy, when you claim there are only two possibilities, when there may be another, or many.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 12:24The man is poor, or did you not get that?
Poor people don’t pay back loans? That can’t be right. I know lots of people in dire straights who’ve managed to pay back their loans.
And if they don’t, we have a justice system that compels them to. It’s got to do with the rights of that other guy…who might not be poor. Regardless of his economic bracket he still has the right to petition his government for redress of grievances. Go on, look it up.
It’s called a false dichotomy, when you claim there are only two possibilities, when there may be another, or many.
If only that applied here. The debtor paid off the debt, or else he didn’t.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 12:30mkfreeberg: Poor people don’t pay back loans?
It’s not that hard to follow the story. As noted above, it’s a standard Hallmark narrative. The loan is due. He has a chicken. His neighbor calls it even, and invites the man’s family to Sunday dinner to share the chicken. The sum was greater than its parts.
mkfreeberg: And if they don’t, we have a justice system that compels them to.
Sure, and the neighbor could have taken the debtor to court. Instead, he found a solution that enriched both families.
mkfreeberg: The debtor paid off the debt, or else he didn’t.
The debt was paid in full and then some. That’s the part you don’t understand, and can’t understand as long as you only see in black-and-white.
Nelson Mandela spent 26 years in prison in the fight for democracy in South Africa. The government plotted to murder him, but were afraid of the repercussions. When Mandela was freed, what did his jailer owe him? What did he owe his jailer? Mandela invited him as his personal guest to his inauguration as the first majority elected president of his nation. The debt was paid in full because Mandela said it was. The sum was greater than its parts.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 14:21It’s not that hard to follow the story. As noted above, it’s a standard Hallmark narrative. The loan is due. He has a chicken. His neighbor calls it even, and invites the man’s family to Sunday dinner to share the chicken. The sum was greater than its parts.
Again, it’s not a problem with following y’all’s story — unless we’re talking about problems y’all are having following y’all’s story. Y’all claim to have this sloppy mushbucket full of justice and mercy, which I say are mutually exclusive things. But in the course of y’all’s explanation, it emerges that it’s just a game of pretend. The note-owner pretends the whole $5 was paid back when it wasn’t. That’s mercy, not justice.
Or else we could make it work because the note-owner valued the chicken at $5 or more. That’s certainly plausible, I might go for that. But I don’t think that’s what y’all had in mind; more likely, y’all lifted this “Hallmark story” out of the 1930’s and failed to account for inflation.
But let’s say that’s exactly what happened, What y’all then have there is a sale of a good for an equivalent value. And that’s justice. But…not mercy. There was no mercy there, just a bartering operation, mutually beneficial to both sides.
It’s obvious y’all are failing to grasp how things work in the real world. Out here, where we have to make things actually work, we do not & cannot extrapolate this infinite-weight from people who happen to sit on the Supreme Court, or spent 26 years in jail, or “felt the sting” of racism, or happened to be the first black President of the U.S., or any of those…at the end of the day, we’re all descended from Adam, we’re all fallen, and an opinion is an opinion.
But opinions can be tested. It’s also possible to follow their fabric and spot flaws. If an opinion relies on two different things being the same, or a meaningful difference in two things existing where it doesn’t, then we know the logic is flawed. The opinion can still be “right” just like a stopped clock can tell the correct time. But you can’t have mercy and justice existing in the same situation; y’all’s attempt to falsify that has instead proven it to be true. If y’all try to do it eighty more times, the most likely result is that y’all will fail the same way eighty more times.
Y’all just need to get out of the basement and start living life, seeing how things actually work. Or, y’all can continue to log on to the Internet, say untrue things, and get y’all’s butts handed back to y’all on a plate. Over and over again.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 15:46mkfreeberg: which I say are mutually exclusive things
Yes, that’s what you have said.
mkfreeberg: It’s obvious y’all are failing to grasp how things work in the real world. Out here, where we have to make things actually work
Yes, and in the real world, real people compromise, and sometimes forgive.
A way out of Hell
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 17:33http://movieclips.com/mwLt-gandhi-movie-a-way-out-of-hell/
Yes, and in the real world, real people compromise, and sometimes forgive.
Which is mercy. And not justice. Justice, if it means anything at all, means that what you got coming to you is coming to you. Not necessarily good, not necessarily bad, but…just. Hence, the term. Latin, jus. “What’s right” or “What the law is,” roughly translated.
So our difference of opinion is: I do not approve, nor disapprove, of forgiving loans. I’m simply pointing out the math: X was due, Y was delivered, the holder of the note said Y was good enough, therefore the holder of the note donated the amount of X minus Y. Y’all belong to this gumby-stretchy-universe thing where standards aren’t defined until everything has been all acted-out, therefore y’all are in the position of denying…math.
That makes y’all wrong. I’m not saying morally. Just mathematically. Y’all are pretending that what was delivered, was what was due, when that is not the case.
Mercy. Justice. One or the other, but not both.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 18:06mkfreeberg: Which is mercy. And not justice.
Without mercy, there is no justice. Without justice, there is no mercy.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 18:28As this exchange has proven conclusively:
They are opposites, after all. Justice means getting what’s comin’ to ya. Mercy means that didn’t happen.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 18:31mkfreeberg: They are opposites, after all.
No. The opposite of just is unjust. The opposite of mercy is merciless. Another false dichotomy.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 18:37No. The opposite of just is unjust. The opposite of mercy is merciless. Another false dichotomy.
There’s no meaningful difference there. One is offered with positive ramifications, the other with negative ones. Point is, in y’all’s example of the $5 chicken, there is no difference between what was owed and what was delivered, therefore there was no “mercy,” just the acceptance of a (quite reasonable) offer of barter.
Think y’all need to go off and think this stuff through moar-better. But it won’t do any good if y’all don’t live some real life first, so y’all can see how things actually work.
Explains the healthcare.gov launch.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 18:42mkfreeberg: Point is, in y’all’s example of the $5 chicken, there is no difference between what was owed and what was delivered, therefore there was no “mercy,” just the acceptance of a (quite reasonable) offer of barter.
It was a $2 chicken. You would probably sue your neighbor. But untempered justice is not just. It leads only the destruction of social bonds.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 18:52But untempered justice is not just. It leads only the destruction of social bonds.
Well, the second half of that is correct, anyway. That’s why many opponents of reparations oppose reparations. They rightfully ask — where does it stop?
And also, what of descendants of slaveowners who weren’t white? And descendants of slaves who were white? It’s not so simple. Like War Games: The only way to win is not to play.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 18:59mkfreeberg: That’s why many opponents of reparations oppose reparations.
That’s why you need justice and mercy. Mistakes must be acknowledged, and actions taken to mitigate the damage.
mkfreeberg: And also, what of descendants of slaveowners who weren’t white?
Who’s advocating for reparations for slavery? Of course, you say you don’t know the history, but even after the end of slavery, the southern states, instead of reconciling with blacks, spent the next century oppressing them. They just couldn’t admit their error, that they had sent their sons to die for a heinous cause. That history of persecution includes Hank Aaron as a prominent living example. That’s what happens when there is no sincere reconciliation. Mercy and justice must go hand in hand.
Apparently you don’t understand the concept that the sum can be greater than its parts. Mercy when combined with justice, can enrich people far beyond what either can alone. If justice were all, then all would be condemned.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 19:10That’s why you need justice and mercy. Mistakes must be acknowledged, and actions taken to mitigate the damage.
“Must” means someone needs it to be that way, so let’s go passive-voice, which necessitates naming who is the subject of the sentence. Who needs this, and why?
It’s about moving money around, not justice. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 19:16mkfreeberg: “Must” means someone needs it to be that way, so let’s go passive-voice, which necessitates naming who is the subject of the sentence. Who needs this, and why?
When one person or group causes grave damage to another person or group which results in ongoing conflict, then reconciliation may be sought to end the conflict. Reconciliation requires an acknowledgment of wrongs, action to mitigate the harm, and, ultimately, forgiveness.
mkfreeberg: It’s about moving money around, not justice.
We’ve provided multiple examples, but you largely ignore them. For instance, many on the political right in Japan still refuse to acknowledge their crimes in China during WWII. This has led to continuing friction between the two countries. This isn’t something that is peculiar to modern American liberalism, but a facet of human behavior.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 19:31This isn’t something that is peculiar to modern American liberalism…
Actually modern American liberals love to claim all sorts of impulses and objectives and ideas as uniquely theirs, until it becomes apparent that such ideas are bad ones.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 20:45mkfreeberg: Actually modern American liberals love to claim all sorts of impulses and objectives and ideas as uniquely theirs, until it becomes apparent that such ideas are bad ones.
While America has often been a leader on liberal democratic ideals, they certainly are not unique.
- Zachriel | 04/13/2014 @ 05:33While America has often been a leader on liberal democratic ideals, they certainly are not unique.
True, but liberalism means special things here in the U.S., that it doesn’t mean in other countries. We have had unique things taking place on our political landscape that have driven our liberals insane, like the Clinton impeachment, the Bush v. Gore decision, and Barack Obama’s candidacy. In our nation, they have become what they’re supposed to hate.
- mkfreeberg | 04/13/2014 @ 06:58mkfreeberg: True, but liberalism means special things here in the U.S., that it doesn’t mean in other countries. We have had unique things taking place on our political landscape that have driven our liberals insane, like the Clinton impeachment, the Bush v. Gore decision, and Barack Obama’s candidacy.
While liberalism takes on different aspects in different cultures, the basic meaning has remained consistent, that notions of liberty and equality should and can be balanced.
—
Not sure the relevance of the following:
mkfreeberg: Clinton impeachment
The majority sided with Clinton.
mkfreeberg: the Bush v. Gore decision
The majority voted for Gore.
mkfreeberg: and Barack Obama’s candidacy.
The majority voted for Obama, twice.
- Zachriel | 04/13/2014 @ 08:44While liberalism takes on different aspects in different cultures, the basic meaning has remained consistent…
That is incorrect.
- mkfreeberg | 04/13/2014 @ 16:22mkfreeberg: That is incorrect.
Present company excepted, of course.
- Zachriel | 04/13/2014 @ 16:36Z: But as we said, if justice were applied mercilessly, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”.
I see you have degenerated from attempts at logic to pithy sayings. Fine. Here’s a nice snippet from an excellent episode of Babylon 5 that deals with the concept of justice and mercy:
Z: Without mercy, there is no justice. Without justice, there is no mercy.
It is clear that you really don’t have a clue how justice and mercy work because your pithy statement is nonsense. And your $5 chicken example shows that you don’t understand how they work in the real world.
Let’s look at a situation of a loan. Mark goes to John for a large sum of money. A contract is drawn up between them explaining the amount loaned, interest rates, and punishment for failure to pay by a set due date. Both sign the contract and are satisfied with the situation. Time passes and Mark is unable to pay the full amount at the required due date. John reminds Mark that per the contract signed, John can seize all of Mark’s property and throw Mark into jail. Mark asks for mercy and an extension of the time to pay the debt. John asks for justice and the contract be honored in full. If Mark gets mercy, John is not given justice. If John is given justice, Mark is not given mercy. Mercy and justice cannot both be satisfied in the situation of these two people. It. Cannot. Happen.
But both mercy and justice can be satisfied with the intervention of a third person. Sam steps into the picture and asks John if he would be satisfied if he paid him Mark’s debt in full. With that payment, the contract would be fulfilled and justice would be served. Sam turns to Mark and asks if he pays off Mark’s debt, would he then accept Sam as his creditor and work to pay off the debt to him? Mark would get the extension to the debt payments he asked for, and mercy would be extended to him. Sam would be Mark’s savior in this situation, justly paying off the debt to complete the contract and mercifully extending the opportunity to complete the payments to Sam. With Sam’s intervention, both calls for mercy and justice can be satisfied.
Fair credit is due to Boyd Packer for the situation summarized above. He explained in 1977 how mercy and justice may be satisfied with a Savior, and you can read it here.
But to make this discussion short (too late!), let me change the subject a bit. I have a problem with social justice as defined by the UN because it requires the intervention of the state to make it happen. And as we have seen in the discussions here, government doesn’t have any declared standards on how social justice is to be handled. Thus government-forced social justice is not the result of the rule of law but based on the whim of the current people in power. And government by whim should terrify every citizen.
It certainly does me.
- Captain Midnight | 04/14/2014 @ 12:40Captain Midnight: Michael Garibaldi: I’m an eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth kind of guy.
Delenn: So you support a system that would leave everyone blind and toothless.
Michael Garibaldi: Not everyone. Just the bad guys.
What may start as a clear case of right and wrong often descends into grudges carried over generations. They killed your brother, so you will kill one of them. Hindus are the enemy. Muslims are the enemy. Jews are the enemy. Christians are the enemy. Buddhists are the enemy.
Captain Midnight: And your $5 chicken example shows that you don’t understand how they work in the real world.
It is the real world, a circumstance of everyday life. The point raised was that the sum can be greater than its parts. You should try to respond rather than just wave your hands.
Captain Midnight: Mark asks for mercy and an extension of the time to pay the debt. John asks for justice and the contract be honored in full. If Mark gets mercy, John is not given justice. If John is given justice, Mark is not given mercy.
Be sure to sue for your pound of flesh, because it turns out that the monetary debt doesn’t always represent all that transpires between people. Shylock wants revenge, not money, the negative counterpart to mercy.
John gives an extension, and helps Mark with his other problems. John gets paid later, and builds a personal bond that is worth more than the debt. The sum is greater than its parts. This isn’t fantasy, and it’s not universal, but something that happens in the real world.
Captain Midnight: Sam steps into the picture and asks John if he would be satisfied if he paid him Mark’s debt in full.
There’s nothing preventing Mark from fulfilling the role of Sam.
Captain Midnight: Thus government-forced social justice is not the result of the rule of law but based on the whim of the current people in power.
It is nearly always the oppressors, the haves, who control government, not the oppressed, the have-nots; despite the whining of the upper classes in the U.S.
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 05:46Captain Midnight: Michael Garibaldi: I’m an eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth kind of guy.
Delenn: So you support a system that would leave everyone blind and toothless.
Michael Garibaldi: Not everyone. Just the bad guys.
Z: What may start as a clear case of right and wrong often descends into grudges carried over generations. They killed your brother, so you will kill one of them. Hindus are the enemy. Muslims are the enemy. Jews are the enemy. Christians are the enemy. Buddhists are the enemy.
What? No cute little phrase taken from some greeting card or motivational poster? Pitty.
I have a great idea! How about we cure all these generational grudges by having the government forcefully take money from one person and give it to another. That will cure all grudges.
Captain Midnight: And your $5 chicken example shows that you don’t understand how they work in the real world.
It is the real world, a circumstance of everyday life. The point raised was that the sum can be greater than its parts. You should try to respond rather than just wave your hands.
[x] Zachriel complains about hand waving
I see you have fallen back on that cliche. You have proven that you don’t understand how justice and mercy work with your chicken anecdote. Your bromide about the sum being greater than the parts ignores that justice means something just as mercy means something. In your example, mercy is granted, but there is no justice.
Captain Midnight: Mark asks for mercy and an extension of the time to pay the debt. John asks for justice and the contract be honored in full. If Mark gets mercy, John is not given justice. If John is given justice, Mark is not given mercy.
Z: Be sure to sue for your pound of flesh, because it turns out that the monetary debt doesn’t always represent all that transpires between people.
Really?!? Let me note down this gem of information for later pondering. “… between people.” I have learned something new today.
Sarcasm aside, the contract from the example was for a specified amount of money to be paid in full by a specified day. No alternate payment options of lawn care or chicken dinners are specified in the contract, and there were no stipulations for extending the time. Payment in full on the set day is specified, and a proscribed set of action are the result if payment is not made per the contract.
Shylock wants revenge, not money, the negative counterpart to mercy.
Yep, and he had the contract to go by in his call for justice. Had he written it better, he could have gotten Antonio’s pound of flesh.
John gives an extension, and helps Mark with his other problems. John gets paid later, and builds a personal bond that is worth more than the debt. The sum is greater than its parts. This isn’t fantasy, and it’s not universal, but something that happens in the real world.
But the due date had come, and per the contract it was pay or suffer the consequences. If John extends the time for payment, Mark has been given mercy, but John has not been given justice. This point again illustrates how you just don’t get it. But I’m glad to see the sum bromide pop up again.
Captain Midnight: Sam steps into the picture and asks John if he would be satisfied if he paid him Mark’s debt in full.
Z: There’s nothing preventing Mark from fulfilling the role of Sam.
How? Mark is unable to pay, so how could he step in and pay off the debt? Quick and easy Yes/No question for you: if John extends the debt payment time, has the contract, as written, been honored?
Captain Midnight: Thus government-forced social justice is not the result of the rule of law but based on the whim of the current people in power.
It is nearly always the oppressors, the haves, who control government, not the oppressed, the have-nots; despite the whining of the upper classes in the U.S.
Does this change the fundamental nature of social justice by government whim?
- Captain Midnight | 04/15/2014 @ 11:36Captain Midnight: How about we cure all these generational grudges by having the government forcefully take money from one person and give it to another.
That may or may not solve the problem of social injustice, such when there are vast disparities in wealth due to colonialism.
Captain Midnight: In your example, mercy is granted, but there is no justice.
Justice was served. Everyone concerned says the debt had been satisfied. Who are you to say otherwise?
Captain Midnight: Yep, and he had the contract to go by in his call for justice.
Shylock didn’t seek justice.
Captain Midnight: Had he written it better, he could have gotten Antonio’s pound of flesh.
Shylock still wouldn’t have had justice, but revenge. Mercy seasons justice.
Captain Midnight: Does this change the fundamental nature of social justice by government whim?
Turns out that it is possible for people to reconcile. But that requires acknowledgement of the damage caused.
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 12:22Captain Midnight: How about we cure all these generational grudges by having the government forcefully take money from one person and give it to another.
Z: That may or may not solve the problem of social injustice, such when there are vast disparities in wealth due to colonialism.
But the forced redistribution of money is the UN’s definition for social justice.
The governmental taking of one person’s money and giving it to another (minus handling fee) is the stated method by which social justice will be achieved. Good thing government seizing of money never engenders bad feelings.
Captain Midnight: In your example, mercy is granted, but there is no justice.
Z: Justice was served. Everyone concerned says the debt had been satisfied. Who are you to say otherwise?
Justice is served when the contract is honored. When a $5 loan is repaid with a $2 chicken, the accepted lower payment is an example of mercy, not justice. Again, proof that you really have a hard time grasping the nature of justice and mercy. It really ain’t that hard.
Captain Midnight: Yep, and he had the contract to go by in his call for justice.
Z: Shylock didn’t seek justice.
Yeah, Shylock had nothing to do with justice. It was the furthest from his mind.
Of course Shylock wanted justice AND revenge. And it was his call for justice in his bond with Antonio that was the instrument for his revenge and ultimately his undoing. But to say that Shylock didn’t seek justice is to not understand his part in the play.
Captain Midnight: Had he written it better, he could have gotten Antonio’s pound of flesh.
Z: Shylock still wouldn’t have had justice, but revenge. Mercy seasons justice.
You really don’t get it. Had he been successful in obtaining the pound of flesh, he would have had both justice (the complete adherence to the bond) AND revenge.
Captain Midnight: Does this change the fundamental nature of social justice by government whim?
Z: Turns out that it is possible for people to reconcile. But that requires acknowledgement of the damage caused.
Please answer the question posed: Does this change the fundamental nature of social justice by government whim?
And while I’m on the subject of questions posed that you have ignored, I’m still awaiting an answer for this: Quick and easy Yes/No question for you: if John extends the debt payment time, has the contract, as written, been honored?
- Captain Midnight | 04/15/2014 @ 16:04Captain Midnight: “Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth. Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.”
You left out the ellipses. “Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth; however, it is necessary to attach some important qualifiers to this statement.
Captain Midnight: Justice is served when the contract is honored.
You didn’t answer. Everyone concerned says the debt had been satisfied. Who are you to say otherwise?
Captain Midnight: Of course Shylock wanted justice AND revenge.
No. Shylock was offered thrice the payment, but refused. He wanted revenge. According to your reckoning, that’s justice. This is case where the sum is less than the parts.
Captain Midnight: Does this change the fundamental nature of social justice by government whim?
Petitioning the government for a redress of grievances through legal means is hardly “whim”.
Captain Midnight: if John extends the debt payment time, has the contract, as written, been honored?
If John says the contract has been honored, then who are we to judge?
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 17:20Z: You left out the ellipses. “Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth; however, it is necessary to attach some important qualifiers to this statement.
Does the inclusion of the rest of the sentence change the fact that the UN is defining social justice as the government forcefully taking money from one person to give to another?
Captain Midnight: Justice is served when the contract is honored.
Z: You didn’t answer. Everyone concerned says the debt had been satisfied. Who are you to say otherwise?
Who am I to say otherwise? I can say anything I please. And I say that it is obvious that a $2 chicken isn’t a $5 repayment. Justice says that a $5 debt is paid back with $5. That the guy accepted the $2 chicken is an example of mercy, and he waved the requirement of justice. You really have a difficult time with these two concepts, don’t you?
Captain Midnight: Of course Shylock wanted justice AND revenge.
Z: No. Shylock was offered thrice the payment, but refused. He wanted revenge. According to your reckoning, that’s justice. This is case where the sum is less than the parts.
Justice may be defined in Shylock’s case as the faithful adherence to the bond that he and Antonio drew up. Justice isn’t revenge; it is following to the letter of the contract, law, or bond. It is clear from Shylock’s call for the bond to be honored as written that he wanted justice. It is also clear that he wanted revenge. Can you grasp the nature of “AND”?
As for thrice refusing the payment, let’s look at the agreement made between Shylock and Antonio in Act 1, Scene 3:
Did Antonio pay Shylock the three thousand ducats on the agreed time in the agreed place? No, he did not. The bond didn’t mention anything about others paying for Antonio. And thus by the contract they drew up, his pound of flesh was forfeit, and justice allowed it to be, as acknowledge by Portia in Act 4, Scene 1:
She then begged for mercy and offered to pay three times Antonio’s debt. She recognized that compliance to the bond was just, but accepting the money from another would be an act of mercy. Shylock would have nothing of mercy, and so by calling for justice to be executed to the letter, he pursued his vengeance and was ultimately undone. He wanted only justice, and so by the stern and strict hand of justice he was sentenced and suffered his ultimate fate.
Captain Midnight: Does this change the fundamental nature of social justice by government whim?
Z: Petitioning the government for a redress of grievances through legal means is hardly “whim”.
Petitioning the government is a act of the citizen. The “fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth” by government is done at the whim of those in power however they feel at the time. That’s government whim.
Captain Midnight: if John extends the debt payment time, has the contract, as written, been honored?
If John says the contract has been honored, then who are we to judge?
That was a Yes/No question, and again you have dodged it. Please answer the question with a simple yes or a no. Then feel free to pontificate.
- Captain Midnight | 04/16/2014 @ 10:34Captain Midnight: Does the inclusion of the rest of the sentence change the fact that the UN is defining social justice as the government forcefully taking money from one person to give to another?
They are providing how the term is broadly understood, rather than an actual definition. And yes, the qualifiers matter, especially when they explicitly state “however, it is necessary to attach some important qualifiers to this statement.” Among the qualifiers is maximizing economic growth.
Captain Midnight: Who am I to say otherwise? I can say anything I please.
And people can ignore anything they please. The person who received the chicken was satisfied. And he built a personal bond that was worth more to him than the principal.
Captain Midnight: And thus by the contract they drew up, his pound of flesh was forfeit, and justice allowed it to be
Now you’re confusing the law and justice. They are not one and the same.
Captain Midnight: He wanted only justice, and so by the stern and strict hand of justice he was sentenced and suffered his ultimate fate.
Shylock didn’t want justice, but revenge, and the law was his weapon. He couldn’t care less about justice.
Captain Midnight: Petitioning the government is a act of the citizen. The “fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth” by government is done at the whim of those in power however they feel at the time.
If a people petition the government for a redress of grievances, that’s okay, but not if they actually get redress.
Captain Midnight: if John extends the debt payment time, has the contract, as written, been honored?
If John says the contract has been honored, then it has been honored. That was clear from our previous answer.
- Zachriel | 04/16/2014 @ 13:21Captain Midnight: Does the inclusion of the rest of the sentence change the fact that the UN is defining social justice as the government forcefully taking money from one person to give to another?
Z: They are providing how the term is broadly understood, rather than an actual definition. And yes, the qualifiers matter, especially when they explicitly state “however, it is necessary to attach some important qualifiers to this statement.” Among the qualifiers is maximizing economic growth.
Yay! Maximizing economic growth with “strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.” That’s UN-speak for the government forcefully taking money from one person to give to another. That is inherent in the UN definition, and that is something you have failed to either acknowledge or object to.
Captain Midnight: Who am I to say otherwise? I can say anything I please.
Z: And people can ignore anything they please. The person who received the chicken was satisfied. And he built a personal bond that was worth more to him than the principal.
And yay for mercy! But there was no justice because the loan agreement was not fulfilled. It was waved by mercifully accepting a $2 chicken as being sufficient to pay off a $5 debt. Again, you seem to see this act of mercy as somehow fulfilling the requirements of justice. Justice = getting the full $5 repayment of the loan. Mercy = accepting a $2 chicken as being tasty enough. I repeat this concept because you have shown how little you comprehend it. When you issue such inane inaccuracies as “Without mercy, there is no justice. Without justice, there is no mercy” you clearly show that you do not grok these concepts in full.
Captain Midnight: And thus by the contract they drew up, his pound of flesh was forfeit, and justice allowed it to be
Z: Now you’re confusing the law and justice. They are not one and the same.
Huh. Seems that Mirriam-Webster is pretty confused about justice, too. Especially when you consider 1a: “the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments” and 1c: “the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity”. Be sure to write to them soon about changing the definition to fit your vision of it.
Captain Midnight: He wanted only justice, and so by the stern and strict hand of justice he was sentenced and suffered his ultimate fate.
Z: Shylock didn’t want justice, but revenge, and the law was his weapon. He couldn’t care less about justice.
You’re having conjunction problems again. It’s not “but” — it’s “and,” as in justice AND revenge. Portia recognized this in her impassioned plea for mercy:
I’m not getting why you are seeing Shylock’s desire for revenge only and not justice. The answer is clear: por qué no los dos?
Captain Midnight: Petitioning the government is a act of the citizen. The “fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth” by government is done at the whim of those in power however they feel at the time.
Z: If a people petition the government for a redress of grievances, that’s okay, but not if they actually get redress.
Not sure which orifice you yanked that from, but you might review the discussion. What hard and fast rules for redress of past wrongs have been identified in this thread? You can start with identifying a specific time boundary between “yep, you have a claim” and “nope, it’s been too long.” Without clear and specific standards, the result is government whim.
Captain Midnight: if John extends the debt payment time, has the contract, as written, been honored?
Z: If John says the contract has been honored, then it has been honored. That was clear from our previous answer.
It’s clear that you have a mental aversion to answering a yes/no question with an actual yes or a no. Here’s a teachable moment for you: if the contract, as written, states the debt must be paid in full by a certain time, it has been completed (ie, honored by Mark) if Mark actually pays the full amount by the due date. If John mercifully extends the payment time, or forgives the debt, the contract, as written, has not been honored.
John may say the contract has been honored, and all the parties involved may deem the contract honored, but as it is written, it has not been honored. It has been either rewritten by John to change the due date, or it has been negated entirely by forgiving the debt.
Really, have you dug yourself a deep enough hole here? Or are you compelled to keep delving deeper?
- Captain Midnight | 04/16/2014 @ 14:21Captain Midnight: That’s UN-speak for the government forcefully taking money from one person to give to another. That is inherent in the UN definition, and that is something you have failed to either acknowledge or object to.
Just like taxes are forcible taking of property.
Captain Midnight: But there was no justice because the loan agreement was not fulfilled.
That’s odd because the parties to the contract agreed it was fulfilled.
Captain Midnight: “the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments”
Well there you are. There are no conflicting claims when John said the contract was fulfilled.
By the way, that’s the administrative definition, not the definition of the general term, which is “impartial, or fair”, “agreeing with what is considered morally right or good”. Fair, and morally right, are more than simple arithmetic.
Captain Midnight: It’s not “but” — it’s “and,” as in justice AND revenge.
Shylock did not seek justice concerning the contract. His justice was revenge for the pain the Christians had caused him—things not in the contract. That’s why he refused thrice payment.
Captain Midnight: “Though justice be thy plea”
That’s his stated purpose, but everyone knows that Shylock is not motivated by the contract, but by revenge.
Captain Midnight: The answer is clear: por qué no los dos?
Because Shylock was not motivated by the contract. He would have torn up the contract if it would have given him his revenge.
Captain Midnight: What hard and fast rules for redress of past wrongs have been identified in this thread?
Because there aren’t always hard and fast rules, as we pointed out. In Colombia, native people want to stop the taking of their land today, while the Tartars have attempted to return to Crimea generations after the Soviets forced them out, valuable artworks that had been stolen centuries ago have been returned to their countries of origin, and many Jews have returned to the Levant claiming it as their homeland after having lived elsewhere for millennia.
People have to reconcile. That means facing the truth, and making compromises. It’s typically a political process.
Captain Midnight: It’s clear that you have a mental aversion to answering a yes/no question with an actual yes or a no.
We’ve answer many times. The terms have been honored. John will tell you that the chicken represented full payment.
- Zachriel | 04/16/2014 @ 16:48Captain Midnight: That’s UN-speak for the government forcefully taking money from one person to give to another. That is inherent in the UN definition, and that is something you have failed to either acknowledge or object to.
Z: Just like taxes are forcible taking of property.
Try not paying your taxes and see how much force is rallied against you to forcefully take your property. I don’t suggest it because the IRS agents who visit you will be armed. You have objected to the quote attributed to George Washington that government is force, but even with your objections, the meaning is both clear and true. James Madison raised pretty much the same issue when he said, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”
Captain Midnight: It’s not “but” — it’s “and,” as in justice AND revenge.
Z: Shylock did not seek justice concerning the contract. His justice was revenge for the pain the Christians had caused him—things not in the contract. That’s why he refused thrice payment.
You miss the point with Shylock. He did seek justice concerning the contract because that was the vehicle for his revenge. Justice AND revenge.
Captain Midnight: “Though justice be thy plea”
Z: That’s his stated purpose, but everyone knows that Shylock is not motivated by the contract, but by revenge.
*cough* argumentum ad populum *cough* You are so hung up on his need for revenge that you miss Shylock’s use of justice to get there. Justice AND revenge.
Captain Midnight: The answer is clear: por qué no los dos?
Because Shylock was not motivated by the contract. He would have torn up the contract if it would have given him his revenge.
This is what I’m talking about being hung up on the revenge issue. Shylock was most certainly motivated by the just adherence to his contract. Justice was the method of gaining his revenge. Justice AND revenge. Get it?
Captain Midnight: What hard and fast rules for redress of past wrongs have been identified in this thread?
Because there aren’t always hard and fast rules, as we pointed out.
No hard and fast rules == rulings based on the people in government == government whim. I’m so glad to see that you agree with me, even if it takes your normal circuitous route to get here.
Captain Midnight: It’s clear that you have a mental aversion to answering a yes/no question with an actual yes or a no.
We’ve answer many times. The terms have been honored. John will tell you that the chicken represented full payment.
Maybe you should have a quick staff meeting with yourselves because you are conflating your $2 chicken example with my loan example with Mark, John, and Sam. At no point does John say that there has been full payment. Mark and John are in opposition because Mark is calling for mercy and John is calling for justice. If either one gets his way, the other does not.
Now in your $2 chicken example, you somehow believe that $2 == $5. It does not. That the loaner accepts the lesser value chicken as full payment does not mean the loan was honored as written, but that the loaner extended mercy and forgave the remaining debt. The contract terms have not been honored because the full payment of $5 was not given. To believe otherwise is to believe that $2 == $5. And that’s not the case.
Z: He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
I find it’s interesting that, since she was caught in the very act of adultery, the man is not there with the woman to be stoned. As written in the law of Moses, both parties in adultery are to be stoned, but only the woman is brought before Christ. Putting that aside, this situation is an excellent example of mercy. It appears that you can spot examples of mercy, but you have a real hard time wrapping your head around justice. Justice, in your mind, is deeming a $2 chicken to be worth a full $5. Those two are not the same. That the one is accepted as sufficient payment is, again, an example of mercy.
- Captain Midnight | 04/17/2014 @ 13:27Captain Midnight: Try not paying your taxes and see how much force is rallied against you to forcefully take your property.
That’s correct. Force can also be used if you refuse to pay a traffic ticket.
Captain Midnight: James Madison raised pretty much the same issue when he said, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”
Sure. The balance of power minimizes, but doesn’t eliminate the abuse of power. However, please note that Madison certainly believed that coercion was necessary for government, and that government was necessary for civil society.
Captain Midnight: He did seek justice concerning the contract because that was the vehicle for his revenge.
His “justice” had nothing to do with the contract. As we said, he would have torn it up if that would have given him his revenge, and he would have considered it justice. And as views of the play, we see Shylock get “justice” when the contract is essentially dispensed with.
Captain Midnight: *cough* argumentum ad populum *cough*
Gee whiz. It’s a theatre play. Shakespeare’s meaning is clear.
Captain Midnight: You are so hung up on his need for revenge that you miss Shylock’s use of justice to get there. Justice AND revenge.
He didn’t even get his principal.
Captain Midnight: Shylock was most certainly motivated by the just adherence to his contract.
Shylock is hung up on the law, not justice. His justice is to see the Christians punished for tormenting him. Shylock’s punishment is seen as the just fruit of his unforgiving nature. Sure you can determine, in your mind, that only an exact balancing of the monetary scales is justice, but that is certainly not how Shakespeare saw it, or most people.
Captain Midnight: No hard and fast rules == rulings based on the people in government == government whim.
Political reconciliation is hardly whim.
Captain Midnight: Maybe you should have a quick staff meeting …
The neighbors agree that the contract has been fulfilled, and they both gained more than the worth of the contract from their interaction. It’s the counterpoint to Shylock, who lost more than the worth of the contract.
Captain Midnight: That the loaner accepts the lesser value chicken as full payment does not mean the loan was honored as written, but that the loaner extended mercy and forgave the remaining debt.
He said it was a fine chicken. The witnesses to the exchange, at least the ordinary person, would see the $2 chicken, the contract fulfilled, and everyone richer for the exchange. Present company excepted, of course.
Captain Midnight: Putting that aside, this situation is an excellent example of mercy.
No! It was a trail at law.
Jesus had to reconcile legal justice with his message of mercy. It was a trap set by the Pharisees, and they knew he had no choice as a rabbi but to find her guilty if she was guilty under the law. The law required two witnesses, but for some reason, no one would testify against her. Later, Jesus confronted the Pharisees. He claimed to be the light of the world. They said his testimony alone was not true. So he brought forth his second witness, the Father, which if they knew him, they would know the truth of what Jesus said.
Ouch.
Our discussion is an example of how there is no valid argument over fundamental values. In your rather simplistic view, you will balance the monetary values, and have your “justice”. For most people, it’s much more than that. Shylock seeks justice in revenge. Shylock is punished for his lack of mercy, and the audience sees that as justice. But you, you only see the money and the pound of flesh. Even Shylock is aware that justice is much more than that. The difference is that his seeking revenge means the sum is less than the parts, while justice seasoned with mercy can means the sum is greater than the parts.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2014 @ 15:03Captain Midnight: Try not paying your taxes and see how much force is rallied against you to forcefully take your property.
Z: That’s correct. Force can also be used if you refuse to pay a traffic ticket.
Glad to see that we agree that government == force and that social justice is the forceful taking by government of one person’s property and giving it to another.
Z: However, please note that Madison certainly believed that coercion was necessary for government, and that government was necessary for civil society.
What has been written here to throw that into doubt?
Captain Midnight: He did seek justice concerning the contract because that was the vehicle for his revenge.
Z: His “justice” had nothing to do with the contract.
The play is clear that justice via his contract was the vehicle for his revenge, thus making justice something he desired in addition to his lust for revenge.
Z: As we said, he would have torn it up if that would have given him his revenge, and he would have considered it justice.
I notice that I’ve quoted the play to support my statements, but you have not. So please quote the scene where he states this. It is very possible that I have missed/forgotten this attitude of Shylock’s.
Z: And as views of the play, we see Shylock get “justice” when the contract is essentially dispensed with.
Not quite. His call for justice vis a vis his bond is his ultimate undoing. Justice allows him to cut out a pound of flesh from Antonio, but there was nothing in the bond that granted him permission to shed any of Antonio’s blood. And per Venician law, the shedding of Christian blood by a Jew results in the confiscation of his lands and goods. To hold to the standard of justice of the bond is to hold to the standard of justice of the law. When Shylock heard this, he was willing to dispense with his bond to preserve his goods. But Portia states that he has refused the merciful payment of the money in open court and states, “He shall have merely justice and his bond.” At this point Shylock is willing to just walk away, but Portia brings up another law that has effect in this situation: Shylock’s attempt to take Antonio’s life by cutting out a pound of his flesh nearest his heart means Antonio is awarded half of Shylock’s goods and the other half goes to Venice.
Shylock used justice as the method to gain his revenge, and by justice his fate was sealed. Kind of a “live by the sword, die by the sword” type of thing. I suggest you reread Act 4, Scene 1 to make this clear.
Captain Midnight: *cough* argumentum ad populum *cough*
Z: Gee whiz. It’s a theatre play. Shakespeare’s meaning is clear.
Ah. So the logical fallacy is OK in this situation. Gotcha.
Captain Midnight: You are so hung up on his need for revenge that you miss Shylock’s use of justice to get there. Justice AND revenge.
Z: He didn’t even get his principal.
Yep. Because of his use of justice to get his revenge turned and bit him in the butt. Justice AND revenge. Are you grasping this concept?
Captain Midnight: Shylock was most certainly motivated by the just adherence to his contract.
Z: Shylock is hung up on the law, not justice.
Interesting hair splitting there. It is clear to me that Shylock was interested in justice to provide the “administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments” in regards to his bond. In other words, getting his revenge with a pound of flesh.
Z: His justice is to see the Christians punished for tormenting him.
No, his justice is for the bond to be carried out to the letter. His revenge was to see the Christians punished.
Z: Shylock’s punishment is seen as the just fruit of his unforgiving nature.
Correct! Or to put it into other words:
Shylock set up the measure by which he wished the bond to be judged by, and with that same measure of strict justice according to the law, it was measured out to him.
Z: Sure you can determine, in your mind, that only an exact balancing of the monetary scales is justice, but that is certainly not how Shakespeare saw it, or most people.
The bond being completed as written is justice. Had Antonio paid back the ducats at the due date, justice would have been served. And justice would have been served in the case of Antonio’s default with Shylock getting his pound of flesh (minus any blood or death). In both of these cases justice is served by the bond being completed as it was written.
And you’ve fallen back onto argumentum ad populum again.
Captain Midnight: No hard and fast rules == rulings based on the people in government == government whim.
Z: Political reconciliation is hardly whim.
Political reconciliation is grand. But since there are no hard and fast rules governing it, therefore the rulings come down based on how the people in power at the time see the situation. Thus, the ultimate result is government by whim. Labeling it as such doesn’t distract from the good end results, nor does it denigrate any bad results. It merely states the method for getting to the end result. Is it really that difficult a concept to grasp?
Captain Midnight: Maybe you should have a quick staff meeting …
Z: The neighbors agree that the contract has been fulfilled…
The contract was not fulfilled because the loaner accepted the lesser payment and forgave the rest. They can agree that the contract had been fulfilled, but that does not make it so. No more than calling a calf’s tail a leg means that a calf has five legs because calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg. And thus your $2 chicken story is a great example of mercy on the part of the loaner, but it is not a story of justice.
Captain Midnight: That the loaner accepts the lesser value chicken as full payment does not mean the loan was honored as written, but that the loaner extended mercy and forgave the remaining debt.
Z: He said it was a fine chicken. The witnesses to the exchange, at least the ordinary person, would see the $2 chicken, the contract fulfilled, and everyone richer for the exchange. Present company excepted, of course.
Except for the niggling detail that $2 ≠ $5. Justice is served when the contract, as written, is honored. Lemme call out the “as written” part for you, since I have mentioned it multiple times, and you just don’t get it. But I see you have taken the opportunity to employ your argumentum ad populum fallacy again.
Captain Midnight: Putting that aside, this situation is an excellent example of mercy.
No! It was a trail at law.
*facepalm* And you were doing so well at identifying mercy. Yes, it was a trap set by the Pharasees (and scribes). The law of Moses said she was to die, but capital punishment was a right the Romans had reserved to themselves. When all the accusing men had drifted away, and the guilty woman left alone, Christ told the woman to go and sin no more. Was she guilty? Yes. Was her act condoned by Christ? No. Did Christ call for her punishment as proscribed by law? No. Did Christ extend mercy to her by not condemning her to be punished? Yes. Have you missed His mercy? Yes.
Z: But you, you only see the money and the pound of flesh.
Nope. I have been consistent in identifying both justice and mercy, while you have been confused on both. I have been talking about AND many times, but you have been unable to accept that Shylock could hold two desires simultaneously. You somehow see $2 == $5, but I have been consistent in saying that contracts, as written, mean something. That people have shown mercy is wonderful and life enriching, but that is an act of mercy. Justice calls for a contract to be honored as written. Mercy calls for compassion beyond the cold hard requirements of the words.
- Captain Midnight | 04/18/2014 @ 15:37Captain Midnight: Glad to see that we agree that government == force and that social justice is the forceful taking by government of one person’s property and giving it to another.
Government entails force but is not equivalent to force.
Social justice may involve government, but is a broader concept, and may mean returning property.
Captain Midnight: The play is clear that justice via his contract was the vehicle for his revenge, thus making justice something he desired in addition to his lust for revenge.
Very few would equate Shylock’s action with justice in anything but the most shallow use of the term.
Captain Midnight: So please quote the scene where he states this.
Shylock suggested the pound of flesh as collateral and made light of it. “A pound of man’s flesh taken from a man Is not so estimable, profitable neither, As flesh of muttons, beefs, or goats. I say, To buy his favour, I extend this friendship”.
Then refused thrice payment, “If every ducat in six thousand ducats were in six parts and every part a ducat, I would not draw them; I would have my bond.”
It’s clear the contract is only a means to an end, revenge.
Captain Midnight: So the logical fallacy is OK in this situation.
Pointing out how Shakespeare intended for audiences to understand the characters is not a fallacy.
Captain Midnight: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
That’s right. In the context of his teachings, justice and mercy are one and the same.
Captain Midnight: Thus, the ultimate result is government by whim.
That is equivalent to saying that all political accommodations are whim, from the Declaration of Independence to a local traffic ordinance, which is a misuse of the term.
Captain Midnight: Was she guilty? Yes.
She was not guilty under the law. You misunderstand the nature of witnesses in Jewish law. We provided a second example, or rather the New Testament directly links the two examples.
Captain Midnight: Nope.
Yep. You have a narrow view of justice and of mercy, and refuse to consider that for most people, they are often intertwined. Most people don’t live in the abstract, but are involved. That means Shylock’s notion of justice was revenge. The sum was less than the parts. With the story of the chicken, the sum was more than the parts.
But as we said, one can’t argue fundamental values. You *define* justice in such a way that it’s the letter of a written contract. Most people think of justice as something more.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2014 @ 18:31Let’s try this. Do you think Shylock treated Antonio justly; having suggested the collateral, then turning down even many times the amount due? Do you believe most people think Shylock was just?
- Zachriel | 04/18/2014 @ 18:58Captain Midnight: Glad to see that we agree that government == force and that social justice is the forceful taking by government of one person’s property and giving it to another.
Z: Government entails force but is not equivalent to force.
A distinction of very little difference when the force of government comes crashing down on you.
Z: Social justice may involve government, but is a broader concept, and may mean returning property.
“Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth… Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.”
Repeating the UNs definition since you appear to have forgotten it.
Captain Midnight: The play is clear that justice via his contract was the vehicle for his revenge, thus making justice something he desired in addition to his lust for revenge.
Z: Very few would equate Shylock’s action with justice in anything but the most shallow use of the term.
And this is argumentum ad populum in reverse. Why do you keep returning to this type of argument?
Captain Midnight: So please quote the scene where he states this.
Z: Shylock suggested the pound of flesh as collateral and made light of it. “A pound of man’s flesh taken from a man Is not so estimable, profitable neither, As flesh of muttons, beefs, or goats. I say, To buy his favour, I extend this friendship”.
Then refused thrice payment, “If every ducat in six thousand ducats were in six parts and every part a ducat, I would not draw them; I would have my bond.”
It’s clear the contract is only a means to an end, revenge.
Correct. And without his calls for justice to put the bond’s conditions in effect, he would not have revenge. That is why I repeatedly stated “justice AND revenge.” But the “this” in “quote the scene where he states this” pointed to your claim that “[H]e would have torn it up if that would have given him his revenge, and he would have considered it justice.” You have clearly pointed out that the bond was his vehicle for revenge. Now please cite the rest, the tearing up and considering it justice part.
Captain Midnight: So the logical fallacy is OK in this situation.
Z: Pointing out how Shakespeare intended for audiences to understand the characters is not a fallacy.
And you know Bill’s intentions from your many discussions with him? Or it this a case of you having a fixed idea in your mind, so everyone who is likewise a correct thinker must have the same idea?
Captain Midnight: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Z: That’s right. In the context of his teachings, justice and mercy are one and the same.
Bzzt. Wrong. Justice ≠ mercy. In the context of His teaching, if you deal with strict justice to your fellow man, you will be given strict justice in return by Him. If you deal with mercy to your fellow man, you will be given mercy in return by Him. See Matt. 18:23-35.
Captain Midnight: Thus, the ultimate result is government by whim.
That is equivalent to saying that all political accommodations are whim, from the Declaration of Independence to a local traffic ordinance, which is a misuse of the term.
Are they based on defined laws or on the opinions and feelings of the people in government at the time?
Captain Midnight: Was she guilty? Yes.
Z: She was not guilty under the law. You misunderstand the nature of witnesses in Jewish law. We provided a second example, or rather the New Testament directly links the two examples.
Was she guilty of having committed adultery? Yes, she was caught in the very act. Had she been brought to trial and found guilty per the law of Moses, the Bible is silent on that, but we can assume not. Why the need to hyper-focus on the added “under the law”? Or is it just the need to appear to score points by moving the goalposts?
Captain Midnight: Nope.
Z: Yep. You have a narrow view of justice and of mercy
It’s is better said that I understand justice and mercy. I’m not the one who pulled this asinine statement out of some orifice: “Without mercy, there is no justice. Without justice, there is no mercy.” That is wrong and shows a misunderstanding of their nature.
Z: and refuse to consider that for most people, they are often intertwined.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I fully understand that justice and mercy are intertwined. Your problem seems to come from my refusal to mush the two into some amorphous mass when they are two different things.
Z: You *define* justice in such a way that it’s the letter of a written contract. Most people think of justice as something more.
And again you return to argumentum ad populum.
Z: Do you think Shylock treated Antonio justly; having suggested the collateral, then turning down even many times the amount due?
If you mean justly, as in treating people in a way that is considered morally right, then hell, no, Shylock was not treating Antonio justly. Wanting to carve into someone chest for revenge isn’t what I would call morally right. Do you seriously believe that I would consider it so?
Now if you mean justly, as in legally correct, then yes. He had his bond, and Shylock wanted it followed to the letter. Portia skewers Shylock with that same standard by following to the letter of the bond and the law.
Z: Do you believe most people think Shylock was just?
And again you return to argumentum ad populum. Most people on this board believe you are an ass. Does the popularity of the belief make you so?
- Captain Midnight | 04/19/2014 @ 09:06Captain Midnight: A distinction of very little difference when the force of government comes crashing down on you.
Still upset about those parking tickets, are we?
In any case, not all force is government force, while government force can be used for different purposes, fascism, defeating fascism, slavery, ending slavery, enforcing traffic laws.
Captain Midnight: Had she been brought to trial and found guilty per the law of Moses
She was brought to trial. Jesus was the adjudicating rabbi with the power to decide life or death.
Zachriel: Do you think Shylock treated Antonio justly; having suggested the collateral, then turning down even many times the amount due?
Captain Midnight: If you mean justly, as in treating people in a way that is considered morally right, then hell, no, Shylock was not treating Antonio justly.
We are in agreement then. That’s all we wanted to establish.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 09:21Captain Midnight: A distinction of very little difference when the force of government comes crashing down on you.
Z: Still upset about those parking tickets, are we?
Since it is you who is bringing up parking tickets, why are *you* so obsessed with them?
Z: In any case, not all force is government force
Today is not your day for logic or reading comprehension, is it? Who said that all force is government force? I said government == force, not that force == government. It’s the same as saying penguins are birds, but not all birds are penguins. In this case, no one has made the claim that all birds are penguins, so why do you see the need to point out that it is wrong?
Z: while government force can be used for different purposes, fascism, defeating fascism, slavery, ending slavery, enforcing traffic laws.
And who said here that government force can’t be a force for good? Let’s look again at the quote attributed to Pres. Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” And just as fire can cook your roast if controlled or destroy your home if it is not, government can do good things when controlled by the citizenry or destroy people’s lives when not.
This is several times now that you have felt the need to state authoritatively something that hasn’t been called into doubt.
Captain Midnight: Now please cite the rest, the tearing up and considering it justice part.
Z: …
I take by your silence that you are unable to support your claim that “[Shylock] would have torn it up if that would have given him his revenge, and he would have considered it justice.” That’s all I wanted to establish.
Captain Midnight: Had she been brought to trial and found guilty per the law of Moses
Z: She was brought to trial. Jesus was the adjudicating rabbi with the power to decide life or death.
I missed the part when the witnesses were brought forth, identified, and gave their testimonies of what they witnessed. Maybe you could point out the verse in John 8?
Z: …
I take by your silence that you acknowledge my understanding of justice and mercy is correct while yours has been a muddled mess of nonsense and blather. That’s all I wanted to establish.
Zachriel: Do you think Shylock treated Antonio justly; having suggested the collateral, then turning down even many times the amount due?
Captain Midnight: If you mean justly, as in treating people in a way that is considered morally right, then hell, no, Shylock was not treating Antonio justly.
Z: We are in agreement then. That’s all we wanted to establish.
Lemme quote a chunk I wrote that you snipped:
And by that definition, which is a valid definition of justly, Shylock did treat him justly because he wanted the bond followed to the letter. You might cast your mind back to the many times I mentioned “as written” when discussing contracts and Shylock’s bond. Can’t you see how that applies in the case of Shylock and the other examples? And I take by your third omission that you agree with what I stated in the second use of justly. That’s all I wanted to establish.
- Captain Midnight | 04/19/2014 @ 17:06Captain Midnight: I said government == force, not that force == government.
The subset symbol is ⊂.
Captain Midnight: I missed the part when the witnesses were brought forth, identified, and gave their testimonies of what they witnessed.
There were no witnesses, and under Jewish law, that means her adultery could not be established. Consequently, she was let go.
Captain Midnight: Now if you mean justly, as in legally correct, then yes.
When people ask “Was it just?” they’re usually not asking whether the letter of the law was followed. As you said, Shylock didn’t treat Antonio justly. We are in agreement, and that is all we wanted to establish.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 18:30Captain Midnight: I missed the part when the witnesses were brought forth, identified, and gave their testimonies of what they witnessed.
Z: There were no witnesses, and under Jewish law, that means her adultery could not be established. Consequently, she was let go.
Did she commit the act of adultery? That cannot be denied since she was caught in the very act. Was she found guilty after a trial per the law of Moses, the Bible is silent on that. You can claim that she was brought before Christ to be officially tried instead of just setting up a trap for Him, but there was no trial with Christ because there were no witnesses brought forth. All this was what I said before.
Captain Midnight: Now if you mean justly, as in legally correct, then yes.
Z: When people ask “Was it just?” they’re usually not asking whether the letter of the law was followed. As you said, Shylock didn’t treat Antonio justly. We are in agreement, and that is all we wanted to establish.
My claim is supported by the meaning of the word. You revert to argumentum ad populum as the basis of your claim.
- Captain Midnight | 04/19/2014 @ 19:30Captain Midnight: Was she found guilty after a trial per the law of Moses,
She was brought before Jesus for judgment.
Captain Midnight: but there was no trial with Christ because there were no witnesses brought forth
It takes two witnesses in Jewish law to establish fact. She had no accusers.
Captain Midnight: You revert to argumentum ad populum as the basis of your claim.
The meanings of words are determined by how people use the words. In any case, you said “If you mean justly, as in treating people in a way that is considered morally right, then hell, no, Shylock was not treating Antonio justly.” Yes, that is the meaning we had stated above, and the sense most people mean when they ask “Was it just?”
We are in agreement then. That’s all we wanted to establish.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 19:53Captain Midnight: Was she found guilty after a trial per the law of Moses,
Z: She was brought before Jesus for judgment.
Being brought before Jesus for judgment is not the same thing as being found guilty after a trial per the law of Moses.
Captain Midnight: but there was no trial with Christ because there were no witnesses brought forth
Z: It takes two witnesses in Jewish law to establish fact. She had no accusers.
No accusers = no trial. Thus my statements stand as correct. 1) Having been caught in the very act, she is guilty of committing adultery. She did it. She is guilty of having done it. 2) While being guilty of physically engaging in adultery, she was not convicted of adultery by the standards of the law of Moses. There is no “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty” equivalent in a Mosaic law trial.
If we stipulate that bringing the woman before Christ was for an official trial of her guilt and not just a trap, the trial fizzled out as the prosecution left before the end. Thus she was not convicted of adultery officially. At best it could be said that there was a mistrial, and the legal standing of her guilt unproven.
Now, is there some point you are trying to make here, or are you so hyperfocused on the minutia that you have to pound on each point for the glee of pounding?
Captain Midnight: You revert to argumentum ad populum as the basis of your claim.
Z: The meanings of words are determined by how people use the words.
And an appeal to the dictionary is argumentum ad populum in a printed form.
Z: In any case, you said “If you mean justly, as in treating people in a way that is considered morally right, then hell, no, Shylock was not treating Antonio justly.” Yes, that is the meaning we had stated above, and the sense most people mean when they ask “Was it just?”
We are in agreement then. That’s all we wanted to establish.
You can transform your “the sense most people mean” statement from yet another instance of argumentum ad populum to actual data if you point to your research proving your point. I don’t have the vast experience in talking to “most people” or the gall to be able to state with such certainty that is how “most people” use the word, so I won’t.
But I find it both interesting and telling that while I have proposed two usages of justly, and both are completely valid usages BTW, you have completely ignored one and done so repeatedly. Let’s look at it again: the usage of justly, as in legally correct. Since I don’t have the chutzpah to state that I speak for most people, I won’t lay claim that is the most common usage, but I will restate that it is certainly a valid one. I have quoted before both Shylock and Portia showing that Shylock was demanding that his bond be honored completely and faithfully. It would seem that, as Shakespeare wrote it, the characters are using the “legally correct” rather than the “morally right” usage.
Now, can prove your usage from Shakespeare’s words? And while you are doing that, let me remind you that I’m still waiting for the citations from Shakespeare’s words that validates your claim that “[Shylock] would have torn it up if that would have given him his revenge, and he would have considered it justice.”
- Captain Midnight | 04/21/2014 @ 10:11Captain Midnight: Being brought before Jesus for judgment is not the same thing as being found guilty after a trial per the law of Moses.
She was brought by legal experts before a rabbi for a decision as to her fate. She could have been stoned to death if things had turned out differently. Jesus call for accusers to come forward. Sounds like a trial. It’s the only trial she would get. Furthermore, as a judge, Jesus had responsibilities, and could have been accused if he failed to uphold the law.
Captain Midnight: No accusers = no trial.
The woman was clearly not tried later, but was let go. The matter was settled.
Captain Midnight: And an appeal to the dictionary is argumentum ad populum in a printed form.
No. It’s an authoritative source on how words are used. It’s not a fallacy to point out that most English-speaking people utter “cat” when they point to a domestic feline.
Captain Midnight: You can transform your “the sense most people mean” statement from yet another instance of argumentum ad populum to actual data if you point to your research proving your point.
You provided an administrative definition. Most people, whether you will admit it or not, recognize that laws and contracts can be unjust. But that doesn’t matter. We originally provided the sense of justice we meant, and you have agreed that Shylock wasn’t being just under that definition, even though all he was doing was enforcing a written contract.
We are in agreement on that point. So we have a case where all the terms of a contract might be fulfilled, the equation is balanced, yet the result is unjust. Justice is not an equation.
- Zachriel | 04/21/2014 @ 11:02Captain Midnight: Being brought before Jesus for judgment is not the same thing as being found guilty after a trial per the law of Moses.
Please notice the statement I made here with the emphasis I placed in italics and underlining. Now on to your “response.”
Z: She was brought by legal experts before a rabbi for a decision as to her fate.
Stipulated before, but does not relate to my statement.
Z: She could have been stoned to death if things had turned out differently.
Yep, but does not relate to my statement.
Z: Jesus call for accusers to come forward.
Yep, but does not relate to my statement.
Z: Sounds like a trial.
Stipulated before, but does not relate to my statement.
Z: It’s the only trial she would get.
Certainly true if stoned to death, but does not relate to my statement.
Z: Furthermore, as a judge, Jesus had responsibilities, and could have been accused if he failed to uphold the law.
True, but does not relate to my statement.
So here you written six sentences that have no bearing with the statement I made. Are you really having such a difficulty recognizing the difference between the beginning of a trial experience (being brought before Jesus for judgment) and the end result (found guilty after the trial)? Let’s try some similar examples in the same vein:
Captain Midnight: No accusers = no trial.
Z: The woman was clearly not tried later, but was let go. The matter was settled.
Interesting claim. Please cite the verse from John 8 that states she wasn’t tried later. But again, your comment here says nothing about the fact that with no witnesses to her guilt and no accusers to prosecute, the result was as best a mistrial. In our legal system, a mistrial is not seen as a trial because the person(s) accused in the mistrial may yet be tried in a court without it being labeled double jeopardy.
Captain Midnight: And an appeal to the dictionary is argumentum ad populum in a printed form.
Z: No. It’s an authoritative source on how words are used. It’s not a fallacy to point out that most English-speaking people utter “cat” when they point to a domestic feline.
It’s a fallacy when you declare that most people are using one out of multiple definitions.
Captain Midnight: You can transform your “the sense most people mean” statement from yet another instance of argumentum ad populum to actual data if you point to your research proving your point.
Z: You provided an administrative definition.
I provided a valid definition that you don’t like, and so you have done your utmost to ignore and dismiss it.
Z: Most people, whether you will admit it or not, recognize that laws and contracts can be unjust.
Per one definition of the word, and per the other completely just.
Z: But that doesn’t matter.
And yet you go on and on and on and on and on.
Z: We originally provided the sense of justice we meant, and you have agreed that Shylock wasn’t being just under that definition, even though all he was doing was enforcing a written contract.
And I showed how Shakespeare was using the other definition of the word, and we have agreed that Shylock was being just under that definition, even though what he was doing was morally reprehensible. Please note that I asked for something to back up your “the sense most people mean” claim, and as of yet I have received nothing. You tapdance around the issue without actually providing something to back it up. Excellent job of hand waving. Are your arms getting tired?
Z: We are in agreement on that point.
I’m glad to see that you agree with me completely. So why are you arguing so much?
Z: So we have a case where all the terms of a contract might be fulfilled, the equation is balanced, yet the result is unjust. Justice is not an equation.
You’re wandering off into Hallmark card-like slogans again.
Are you ever going to back up your claim about Shylock being willing to tear up his contract? As I see it, you have three options before you:
- Captain Midnight | 04/21/2014 @ 12:45Captain Midnight: Please notice the statement I made here with the emphasis I placed in italics and underlining: Being brought before Jesus for judgment is not the same thing as being found guilty after a trial per the law of Moses.
She was tried under the law of Moses. She was not found guilty.
Captain Midnight: Please cite the verse from John 8 that states she wasn’t tried later.
Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
She was tried under the law of Moses, and was let go. It’s not reasonable to read John and come to the conclusion that she was dragged away and stoned after the case had already been heard, after Jesus said she could go. It’s contrary to Jewish law. Indeed, it’s clear that the Pharisees stayed to hear Jesus, which returns to the legal point Jesus used to free the woman, and to highlight their hypocrisy.
Captain Midnight: It’s a fallacy when you declare that most people are using one out of multiple definitions.
That wouldn’t be a fallacy, but a statement of purported fact. If someone says a law is just or unjust, or a contract is just or unjust,k it’s quite clear they aren’t referring to administrative procedure.
Captain Midnight: I provided a valid definition that you don’t like, and so you have done your utmost to ignore and dismiss it.
No, we pointed out the difference, and provided the definition that was of interest. If your only point is that “justice” is fulfilling a contract, and the contract was fulfilled, so the result was “just”, then it’s just a tautology, an argument by definition. And as the topic is social justice, it’s obvious that mere administration of law is not what is at issue.
- Zachriel | 04/21/2014 @ 13:02Captain Midnight: Please notice the statement I made here with the emphasis I placed in italics and underlining: Being brought before Jesus for judgment is not the same thing as being found guilty after a trial per the law of Moses.
Z: She was tried under the law of Moses. She was not found guilty.
Her trial began but did not finish because there were no witnesses presented and the prosecutors left. Mistrial. And a mistrial means there was no verdict.
Captain Midnight: Please cite the verse from John 8 that states she wasn’t tried later.
Z: Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Wow! You are capable of citing something when prompted. Now please call out the word(s) that means “and she was never tried again.”
Z: She was tried under the law of Moses, and was let go.
Not so fast. The trial began, but the trial didn’t finish when the witnesses were never called up and the prosecution left. That the trial began is not the same as the trial ended with a guilty/not guilty verdict. I did try to get that point across with three extra examples, but it appears you do not understand that starting something is not the same as completing something.
Z: It’s not reasonable to read John and come to the conclusion that she was dragged away and stoned after the case had already been heard, after Jesus said she could go.
The point I’m making is that the Bible is silent about what happened to the woman afterwards. It is possible that the scribes and Pharisees took her before a different rabbi later, supplied the witnesses, and received a guilty verdict. It’s possible that she lived a blameless life from then on. What we do know is that nothing more is written. The best we can say about what happened afterwards is “I don’t know.” To state otherwise is to read into the Bible more than what is there.
Captain Midnight: It’s a fallacy when you declare that most people are using one out of multiple definitions.
Z: That wouldn’t be a fallacy, but a statement of purported fact. If someone says a law is just or unjust, or a contract is just or unjust,k it’s quite clear they aren’t referring to administrative procedure.
And you can state that with such certainty because of your having polled sufficient people to know what they do/don’t think when they say the phrase since both meaning are valid.
Captain Midnight: I provided a valid definition that you don’t like, and so you have done your utmost to ignore and dismiss it.
Z: No, we pointed out the difference, and provided the definition that was of interest.
Of YOUR interest. You have repeatedly ignored another very valid definition. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, the second definition is the one used in the play. That would make it Shakespeare’s usage, too. It’s interesting that the definition you cling to tenaciously isn’t supported in the play.
Z: If your only point is that “justice” is fulfilling a contract, and the contract was fulfilled, so the result was “just”, then it’s just a tautology, an argument by definition.
That’s not my point, that’s the definition of justice that we already discussed: “the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments” and “the administration of law.” You hyperfocus so much on the morally right aspect that you refuse to acknowledge or accept that justice also entails the strict adherence to the law.
Z: And as the topic is social justice, it’s obvious that mere administration of law is not what is at issue.
The topic started as social justice, but has wandered afield since then. However, since the UN defines it as the “fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth” with “strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.” If government is involved, I hope to hell that the administration of the law is what is at issue. If it’s not based on law, it’s based on whim. And we’ve danced that dance already.
And I see you have chosen to go with “3) Say nothing at all and sheepishly count on your failure to be forgotten.”
- Captain Midnight | 04/21/2014 @ 16:30Captain Midnight: Her trial began but did not finish because there were no witnesses presented and the prosecutors left.
It was over. She was allowed to go.
Captain Midnight: You hyperfocus so much on the morally right aspect that you refuse to acknowledge or accept that justice also entails the strict adherence to the law.
And in the case of John 8, Jesus showed the compatibility of law and mercy. However, this discussion is about social justice, and that concept certainly isn’t based on a strained administrative definition.
- Zachriel | 04/21/2014 @ 16:39Captain Midnight: Her trial began but did not finish because there were no witnesses presented and the prosecutors left.
Z: It was over. She was allowed to go.
And as is your want, you respond in a way that shows you either just don’t get it, or you willfully choose to miss the point. I have stated multiple times that the trial did not go to completion. It was aborted with the lack of witnesses and the departure of the prosecutors. There was nobody left to prevent her from going.
And I notice that your have failed to provide the citation requested to support “and she was never tried again.” I see you have chosen to go with “3) Say nothing at all and sheepishly count on your failure to be forgotten.”
Captain Midnight: You hyperfocus so much on the morally right aspect that you refuse to acknowledge or accept that justice also entails the strict adherence to the law.
Z: And in the case of John 8, Jesus showed the compatibility of law and mercy.
Bzzt! The trial went pffft, so the law aspect of this situation is missing. But you are 50% correct in that Jesus showed mercy.
Z: However, this discussion is about social justice, and that concept certainly isn’t based on a strained administrative definition.
You stated that in your last comment. I’ll quote myself since you failed to comprehend it last time. Do read it this time.
And as for Shylock’s bond, I see you have chosen to go with “3) Say nothing at all and sheepishly count on your failure to be forgotten.”
- Captain Midnight | 04/22/2014 @ 07:53Captain Midnight: I have stated multiple times that the trial did not go to completion.
We understand your point, but don’t agree. It’s quite clear the matter was settled per Jewish law. There’s no other reasonable way to read the story. It’s clear that’s what the author of the story meant. We’ve never heard your novel interpretation, that she was stoned as soon as she turned the corner, just after the Son of God told her she could go.
Captain Midnight: so the law aspect of this situation is missing.
As we pointed out, the law was upheld. It took two witnesses in Jewish law to establish a fact, and there were not two witness. Just to clarify it, the point is emphasized immediately afterwards.
Ouch!
Captain Midnight: If it’s not based on law, it’s based on whim.
Yes, it’s based on law, laws written through political compromise and social reconciliation.
Captain Midnight: And as for Shylock’s bond
You’ve already said Shylock didn’t treat Antonio justly. So we’re in agreement.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 08:02Captain Midnight: I have stated multiple times that the trial did not go to completion.
Z: We understand your point, but don’t agree. It’s quite clear the matter was settled per Jewish law.
Morgan has pointed out your use of passive voice and the problems that gets you. What you mean is that it is quite clear to you that the matter was settled per Jewish law. I have said, and I again say, that it wasn’t settled. The trial died midway with the failure of witnesses to be produced and with the prosecutors leaving. That’s based in what is written. Your view is based on … uh… feelings?
Z: There’s no other reasonable way to read the story.
And you can state this with certainty because …
Z: It’s clear that’s what the author of the story meant.
That passive voice thing again: “It’s clear in my mind that’s what the author of the story meant. Anyone who disagrees with me is not reasonable.”
Z: We’ve never heard your novel interpretation, that she was stoned as soon as she turned the corner, just after the Son of God told her she could go.
Please cite the words where I claim that happened. You have twice claimed something and failed to support it when asked. Are you going for #3?
Captain Midnight: so the law aspect of this situation is missing.
Z: As we pointed out, the law was upheld. It took two witnesses in Jewish law to establish a fact, and there were not two witness.
And it requires people to prosecute, but they left before the trial ended. That, plus the lack of witnesses, means that this was a mistrial. You can assume all day that the trial completed, but you have no basis to assume so. I have provided examples from the words that shows it was a mistrial. So, who has the reasonable way of reading the story?
Captain Midnight: If it’s not based on law, it’s based on whim.
Z: Yes, it’s based on law, laws written through political compromise and social reconciliation.
What’s the time period on returning property when the petitioner holds the deeds to the land?
Captain Midnight: And as for Shylock’s bond
Z: You’ve already said Shylock didn’t treat Antonio justly. So we’re in agreement.
I see you have chosen to go with “3) Say nothing at all and sheepishly count on your failure to be forgotten.”
- Captain Midnight | 04/22/2014 @ 08:31Captain Midnight: So, who has the reasonable way of reading the story?
She was told she could go by the rabbi who had authority in the matter, who, in the context of the New Testament, was the Son of God. It comes down to this: To support your position, you have to leave open the possibility that she was stoned when she turned the corner. Most fair readers of John know that the woman was free to go. It just shows the weakness of your position.
Captain Midnight: What’s the time period on returning property when the petitioner holds the deeds to the land?
That’s determined by political compromise, just like all laws are determined by political compromise.
Captain Midnight: If you mean justly, as in treating people in a way that is considered morally right, then hell, no, Shylock was not treating Antonio justly.
We are in agreement then. That’s all we wanted to establish.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 08:40Maybe the blind guy in John 9 was blinded by the light and got run over by a chariot right after he was cured of his blindness.
Maybe the Good Samaritan only helped the guy in order to set him up for the long con. Maybe the Samaritan was the one rolled him in the first place!
Maybe God blinked when the sparrow fell.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 08:56Captain Midnight: So, who has the reasonable way of reading the story?
Z: She was told she could go by the rabbi who had authority in the matter, who, in the context of the New Testament, was the Son of God. It comes down to this: To support your position, you have to leave open the possibility that she was stoned when she turned the corner. Most fair readers of John know that the woman was free to go. It just shows the weakness of your position.
I have stated that it was a mistrial based on the events as they are written. You have presented zero evidence that the trial came to a full and legal ending other than your feelings on the issue. You again resort to argumentum ad populum with your “most fair readers” claim. And you have ignored what I have clearly written on the subject:
From this you have twisted the words to claim that I believe she was “stoned as soon as she turned the corner.” Reading comprehension — there’s help for that.
Captain Midnight: If you mean justly, as in treating people in a way that is considered morally right, then hell, no, Shylock was not treating Antonio justly.
Z: We are in agreement then. That’s all we wanted to establish.
I see that you are trying to deem yourself a victory in much the same way the Democrats wanted to deem ObamaCare as passed. If it gives you the happy glow and affirmation you crave there in your mom’s basement, then give yourself uptwinkles.
As for everyone else who has punished themselves enough to read down to this point (Sorry, folks!), I wonder if it is as clear to them as it is to me that you have latched on one of two very valid definitions and ignored the other. And it is also very clear to me that multiple times now when you have been called on to back up with a source the claims you make, you have chosen to go with “3) Say nothing at all and sheepishly count on your failure to be forgotten.”
- Captain Midnight | 04/22/2014 @ 09:02Captain Midnight: I have stated that it was a mistrial based on the events as they are written.
Yes, you’ve stated it, but any fair reading indicates that the woman was freed.
Captain Midnight: You again resort to argumentum ad populum with your “most fair readers” claim.
It’s not an argument, so it’s not an argumentum ad populum, but a comment to the reader. Your claim forms the foundation of your argument, so if they reject your reading—as the vast majority almost certainly will—, then they will reject your argument. It’s incredible you could read John any other way, but there you are.
Captain Midnight: I see that you are trying to deem yourself a victory
It has nothing to do with victory. We agree with your statement that “Shylock was not treating Antonio justly” even though Shylock followed the letter of the contract.
Captain Midnight: I wonder if it is as clear to them as it is to me that you have latched on one of two very valid definitions and ignored the other.
When someone is advocating social justice, they are clearly referring to justice in the sense of fundamental fairness, not whether every tittle of the law has been followed.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 09:16@Captain Midnight,
here’s everything you need to know about their reading comprehension and debate skills. (Notice they still kept trying to backtrack and obfuscate for several posts after that. Heck, I even told ’em straight out that any attempts to respond to me henceforth would be met with a link to their epic fail, and they still keep trying it. They’re OCD, is what I’m getting at. And none too bright).
- Severian | 04/22/2014 @ 09:57Captain Midnight: I have stated that it was a mistrial based on the events as they are written.
Z: Yes, you’ve stated it, but any fair reading indicates that the woman was freed.
I went to Bing.com and did a search for “woman taken in adultery” in quotes. The first link was for images, the second went to a Wikipedia page on that story, and the third went to a BibleGateway.com commentary which includes the following phrase: “They had of course condemned her in their accusations, but by not following through on the charge they had thrown out her case.”
Sounds very much like the position someone on here has consistently made. (Hint: it ain’t you.)
And again with the passive voice. Who freed the woman? To answer that, we also need to ask who held her captive? The answer there is simple: those who brought her to Christ for judgment, since it most certainly wasn’t Christ Himself holding her captive. When the accusers departed and the trial was aborted, who then held her captive? The answer again is simple: no one, since her accusers had all left. With no one there holding her captive, we come back to the question: who freed the woman? The answer here is simple: no one freed the woman because she was no longer held captive by anyone. When you say something like “any fair reading indicates that the woman was freed” you speak volumes about your understanding of the situation. Kinda like when you yank a phrase like “Without mercy, there is no justice. Without justice, there is no mercy.” from your fundament.
Z: When someone is advocating social justice, they are clearly referring to justice in the sense of fundamental fairness, not whether every tittle of the law has been followed.
And you know this because you have spoken with each person who has done this to confirm your opinion? You can save yourself a world of butthurt by using your typical first-person plural: “When we advocate social justice, we are clearly referring to justice in the sense of fundamental fairness, not whether every tittle of the law has been followed.” That you can state with certitude. The other you cannot.
And I see you have chosen to go with “3) Say nothing at all and sheepishly count on your failure to be forgotten.”
- Captain Midnight | 04/22/2014 @ 13:38@Severian,
I have to laugh each time you show Z the shame closet. And you have made my wife laugh, so thank you for spreading joy. Out of a sense of mercy I asked if Z was willing to stop digging his hole any deeper, but since then he has redoubled his effort and brought in some excavation equipment.
At some point I will tire of the cuttlefish, and I’ll send him off to another shame closet of his own crafting.
- Captain Midnight | 04/22/2014 @ 13:47@Captain Midnight,
I look forward to it! You showed them the original shame closet way back when we had the misfortune of making their acquaintance, it feels like forever ago. Clearly they’re shameless, but I really have to wonder about their so-called “readers,” for whom they claim(ed) to be “arguing.” I’m personally of the opinion that these mysterious entities are, like “reasonable conservatives” and “most people,” the names of two poor unfortunates bound and gagged in the Aquarium’s basement, who only get fed if they parrot back their lines. But who knows? This is the internet after all; no doubt there’s a paraphilia whose object is “tedious obsessive-compulsive blog trolls who keep using the same tired, obvious tactics, like the world’s dumbest lab rat endlessly, mindlessly punching the lever for another pellet of crack.”
- Severian | 04/22/2014 @ 14:00Captain Midnight: “They had of course condemned her in their accusations, but by not following through on the charge they had thrown out her case.”
Don’t see where it said she was subject to trial later. Instead it says “there is one left who could still execute the judgment”. It’s done.
Captain Midnight: Who freed the woman?
Under the authority of the rabbi, Jesus.
Captain Midnight: The answer there is simple: those who brought her to Christ for judgment, since it most certainly wasn’t Christ Himself holding her captive.
The judge doesn’t unlock the manacles. The jailer does, but we say the judge freed the prisoner, because it is by the judge’s authority.
Captain Midnight: And you know this because you have spoken with each person who has done this to confirm your opinion?
Heh. No, we read what you wrote above when you quoted a U.N. forum as saying social justice is “may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth”.
Here’s another definition:
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 14:32http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/social-justice.html
Captain Midnight: “They had of course condemned her in their accusations, but by not following through on the charge they had thrown out her case.”
Z: Don’t see where it said she was subject to trial later.
I don’t see where it said eating too many french fries can lead to weight gain, but nevertheless it is true. I have stated, based on the lack of witnesses and the accusers leaving, that it was a mistrial. And this commentary backs up what I said. You claim that the trial was completed without witnesses and prosecutors and without a verdict which violates the nature of a Mosaic trial.
Z: Instead it says “there is one left who could still execute the judgment”. It’s done.
The accusers were gone, but The Judge of all was still there. He does not need a Mosaic law trial to judge the woman. He knows what she did and what was in her heart. That she remained, humble and penitent, after those who held her captive had left shows much about her attitude.
Captain Midnight: Who freed the woman? To answer that, we also need to ask who held her captive? The answer there is simple: those who brought her to Christ for judgment, since it most certainly wasn’t Christ Himself holding her captive.
Z: The judge doesn’t unlock the manacles. The jailer does, but we say the judge freed the prisoner, because it is by the judge’s authority.
Who held her captive? Those who brought her to Christ. So when they left, she was no longer a captive. To say that Christ freed her is to say that Christ was the one who held her captive when her captors left. Are you really going to make that claim?
Captain Midnight: And you know this because you have spoken with each person who has done this to confirm your opinion?
Z: Heh. No, we read what you wrote above when you quoted a U.N. forum as saying social justice is “may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth”.
And so fair and compassionate distribution cannot have anything to do with a strict adherence to the law, per your view of justice. If redistribution isn’t being done based on a strict adherence to the law, then it is being done by governmental and judicial fiat. Or whim. I seem to recall reading something about that in this thread.
And I see you have chosen to go with “3) Say nothing at all and sheepishly count on your failure to be forgotten.”
- Captain Midnight | 04/23/2014 @ 08:33Captain Midnight: I don’t see where it said eating too many french fries can lead to weight gain, but nevertheless it is true.
You provided exactly one citation in support, and it did not support your position.
Captain Midnight: I have stated, based on the lack of witnesses and the accusers leaving, that it was a mistrial.
The charges were dismissed. She was free to go.
Captain Midnight: The accusers were gone, but The Judge of all was still there.
That’s right. Under Jewish law, there was insufficient evidence to convict, so the charges were dismissed. Sure, they could have stoned her when she turned the corner, but that is certainly not a reasonable interpretation of what John wrote.
Captain Midnight: To say that Christ freed her is to say that Christ was the one who held her captive when her captors left.
She was held by the law, and freed by the law, under the authority of the presiding rabbi. The Pharisees could do nothing having turned her over to Jesus for his judgment.
Captain Midnight: And so fair and compassionate distribution cannot have anything to do with a strict adherence to the law, per your view of justice.
Laws can be just or unjust.
Captain Midnight: If redistribution isn’t being done based on a strict adherence to the law, then it is being done by governmental and judicial fiat.
Courts in lawsuits, and legislatures with taxes, redistribute all the time. It’s what they do. The question is whether the result is just, not merely whether every tittle of the law was followed. As you said, Shylock did not treat Antonio justly, even though he did nothing but attempt to enforce a contract.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 12:02Z: You provided exactly one citation in support, and it did not support your position.
My position is and always has been that this was a mistrial based on the wording of John. Since the citation agrees with me that this was a mistrial, that makes two witnesses. Seems someone mentioned something about two witnesses here. On the other hand, we have the weak passive-voice statements of some yutz on the internet burdened with the inability to remember another’s position or recognize the support from a quoted citation.
Captain Midnight: I have stated, based on the lack of witnesses and the accusers leaving, that it was a mistrial.
Z: The charges were dismissed. She was free to go.
Again with the passive-voice comments. I have stated multiple times that it was a mistrial. So, do you agree that it was a mistrial? Hint: this is where you answer yes or no. Sadly, I hold little confidence that you are either capable or willing.
Z: Sure, they could have stoned her when she turned the corner, but that is certainly not a reasonable interpretation of what John wrote.
Strawman argument. You are excavating quite a hole for yourself here. You can redeem yourself somewhat by quoting where I said that she could be stoned “when she turned the corner.” Sadly, I hold little confidence that you are either capable or willing.
Captain Midnight: To say that Christ freed her is to say that Christ was the one who held her captive when her captors left.
Z: She was held by the law, and freed by the law, under the authority of the presiding rabbi.
Ah. People have nothing to do with it. It’s THE LAW! So when she was discovered in the very act, it was the law. The witnesses had nothing to do with it. When she was seized, it was the law. The authorities had nothing to do with it. When she was dragged before Christ, it was the law. The scribes and Pharisees had nothing to do with it. And if she had to be stoned, it would be the law. The people wouldn’t have to toss anything. *pfft* All of this reasoning is just silly.
People found her. People grabbed her. People took her before Christ. And people abandoned the trial and her. With that abandonment, there was no person holding her captive. Unless you really believe that Christ was holding her captive.
Captain Midnight: And so fair and compassionate distribution cannot have anything to do with a strict adherence to the law, per your view of justice.
Z: Laws can be just or unjust.
What a utterly fascinating fact! I must write this down. I don’t recall this being ever called into doubt, but it’s great to know.
Captain Midnight: If redistribution isn’t being done based on a strict adherence to the law, then it is being done by governmental and judicial fiat.
Z: Courts in lawsuits, and legislatures with taxes, redistribute all the time. It’s what they do. The question is whether the result is just, not merely whether every tittle of the law was followed.
If you are going to sound like you are familiar with the Bible, you should use the full phrases. It’s “jot and tittle” and not just tittle. It’s “scribes and Pharisees” and not just the Pharisees. Justice AND revenge. And the law can be both strictly adhered to AND be morally correct. Must be a blind spot you have to see only one and not both. It’s such a simple concept, even a child can grasp it.
That being said, cops and courts have to adhere strictly to the laws as written. If they don’t, then they are operating based on their feelings and whims.
Now you have several opportunities in this post to actually respond as requested. But judging by your past performance, I’m pretty doubtful that you will rise to the occasion. After all, when asked to provide support for three of your positions, you have chosen to go with “3) Say nothing at all and sheepishly count on your failure to be forgotten.”
- Captain Midnight | 04/23/2014 @ 20:23Captain Midnight: My position is and always has been that this was a mistrial based on the wording of John.
Your claim is that it doesn’t represent the proper application of Jewish law, and that she was subject to retrial. Both claims are false.
You seem to want to make it fit into Western legal notions. In effect, the proper authorities brought her before a judge. The judge asked for witnesses; there were none. He dismissed the case for lack of evidence. Not being found guilty under the law, the judge told the woman she was free to go. It is the proper application of Jewish law. The issue had been settled.
But the Pharisees were not done with Jesus, and using the same Jewish law concerning witnesses, they challenged him.
Captain Midnight: So, do you agree that it was a mistrial?
A mistrial, in modern parlance, is a trial rendered invalid through an error in the proceedings. There was no error in the proceedings. The case was dismissed for lack of evidence. The issue was decided. The judge told her she could go.
Captain Midnight: That being said, cops and courts have to adhere strictly to the laws as written.
In a democratic society, sure, but in Nazi Germany, we might hope they would break the law. While the rule of law is essential for good governance, it is not sufficient.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 05:12Z: Your claim is that it doesn’t represent the proper application of Jewish law, and that she was subject to retrial. Both claims are false.
I specifically said, “It is possible that the scribes and Pharisees took her before a different rabbi later, supplied the witnesses, and received a guilty verdict.” Now, you have made the claim that she couldn’t have her case of adultery heard by another. Proof?
Captain Midnight: So, do you agree that it was a mistrial? Hint: this is where you answer yes or no. Sadly, I hold little confidence that you are either capable or willing.
Z: A mistrial, in modern parlance, is a trial rendered invalid through an error in the proceedings. There was no error in the proceedings. The case was dismissed for lack of evidence. The issue was decided. The judge told her she could go.
And I see that my lack of confidence of getting a yes or no answer has been vindicated. You keep pointing out the lack of witnesses, a key point of any trial by the Mosaic law, but you seem to be overlooking the prosecutors leaving the scene. It’s just as valid to say that the case was tossed out because of lack of prosecutors. Unless you seem to think that missing the prosecution is a proper application of Jewish law.
Captain Midnight: That being said, cops and courts have to adhere strictly to the laws as written. If they don’t, then they are operating based on their feelings and whims.
Z: In a democratic society, sure, but in Nazi Germany, we might hope they would break the law.
And go by whim. We are in agreement then. That’s all I wanted to establish. Well, that and have you back up the many claims you have put forth but not justified. There have been so many that I’ve lost count of them all. Apparently, you have chosen to go with “3) Say nothing at all and sheepishly count on your failure to be forgotten.”
Hint: Your failure isn’t forgotten, even if it goes unmentioned. It’s an albatross hanging around your neck that people are noticing.
- Captain Midnight | 04/24/2014 @ 08:38Captain Midnight: I specifically said, “It is possible that the scribes and Pharisees took her before a different rabbi later, supplied the witnesses, and received a guilty verdict.”
In the context of the story, it’s clear the issue was settled.
Captain Midnight: And I see that my lack of confidence of getting a yes or no answer has been vindicated.
Ignoring our answer doesn’t constitute an argument. Mistrial is modern terminology, but it doesn’t meet the definition. We’ll try again.
Your claim is that it doesn’t represent the proper application of Jewish law, and that she was subject to retrial. Both claims are false.
You seem to want to make it fit into Western legal notions. In effect, the proper authorities brought her before a judge. The judge asked for witnesses; there were none. He dismissed the case for lack of evidence. Not being found guilty under the law, the judge told the woman she was free to go. It is the proper application of Jewish law. The issue had been settled.
Captain Midnight: And go by whim.
Not sure a German police officer breaking Nazi law would usually be a case of “whim”.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 11:10Captain Midnight: I specifically said, “It is possible that the scribes and Pharisees took her before a different rabbi later, supplied the witnesses, and received a guilty verdict.” Now, you have made the claim that she couldn’t have her case of adultery heard by another. Proof?
Z: In the context of the story, it’s clear the issue was settled.
Ah, so you have no proof other than the passive voice statement that “it’s clear.” Gotcha.
Captain Midnight: And I see that my lack of confidence of getting a yes or no answer has been vindicated.
Z: Ignoring our answer doesn’t constitute an argument.
I understand what constitutes an argument, but the request I made was for a yes or no answer. You proceeded to type 42 words when the requirement was for one.
Z: Mistrial is modern terminology, but it doesn’t meet the definition.
Of course it’s modern terminology. And in your view, there’s nothing wrong in a court case with a missing prosecution. I’m glad that you are just an anonymous voice on the internet rather than an actual judge with a view like that.
Z: The judge asked for witnesses; there were none.
He did? Verse? Don’t try v10, since “accusers” refers to the scribes and Pharisees who brought the woman to Christ.
Z: He dismissed the case for lack of evidence.
Not for lack of evidence but for lack of prosecution. I find it very interesting that you continually skip over the prosecution scampering off as if that is somehow not a big deal, but that’s the whole point of “Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?”
I’m going to guess your comprehension of the Bible is on par with your grasp of mercy and justice. And that has been well established with your idiotic phrase of “Without mercy, there is no justice. Without justice, there is no mercy.”
Captain Midnight: And go by whim.
Z: Not sure a German police officer breaking Nazi law would usually be a case of “whim”.
I’ll repeat myself so I will hopefully be understood this time: “That being said, cops and courts have to adhere strictly to the laws as written. If they don’t, then they are operating based on their feelings and whims.”
And when you have been asked multiple times to specifically back up your claims (and I added another one in this reply), I see you have chosen to go with “3) Say nothing at all and sheepishly count on your failure to be forgotten.”
- Captain Midnight | 05/07/2014 @ 16:04[…] From Captain Midnight. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/07/2014 @ 18:43Captain Midnight: Ah, so you have no proof other than the passive voice statement that “it’s clear.”
The Son of God said she could go. You really think that’s subject to interpretation in the context of the New Testamen?
Captain Midnight: the request I made was for a yes or no answer.
We answered your question several times. You’re trying to apply modern terms to first century Jewish law. If anything, it was a dismissal for lack of evidence, not a mistrial.
Captain Midnight: Don’t try v10, since “accusers” refers to the scribes and Pharisees who brought the woman to Christ.
The witnesses were those who drifted away. The Pharisees were still there as they spoke to Jesus afterwards. Remember, it takes two witnesses to established a truth.
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 05:21