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...
We’ve got some liberal dipshits commenting on this blog, protesting that George Washington could not have said something commonly attributed to George Washington, based almost entirely on the opinions of some unnamed “experts.”
The liberal dipshits, also, are unnamed.
While I’m reading all about that, Mrs. Freeberg and I are watching this. Holy cats. Yes, do see it…once, and once only. It’s on Netflix instant. You’ll get the point straight-a-way:
This unlimited weight of faith in “experts” is not only wrong-headed, but dangerous. And, it could be reasonably conjectured — evil.
But, it certainly is popular. People are just afraid to think for themselves nowadays, I suppose.
Update: More expert opinion, from yesteryear.
These days, a lot of what passes for “debate” and “argument” is really just a bunch of excuses for not considering new ideas. Science-is-settled, debate-is-over, and all that.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Holy macaroni, did they really restart that thread over a month later?! Pathetic.
(And I see they tried to sneak in a response to me, too. So if you insist on yet another endless go-round with them, please refer them to their Shame Chronicle on my behalf. Thanks!).
- Severian | 04/28/2014 @ 20:27mkfreeberg: George Washington could not have said something commonly attributed to George Washington, …
That is incorrect. While Washington could possibly have said it, he probably did not.
mkfreeberg: … based almost entirely on the opinions of some unnamed “experts.”
Not sure why you put “experts” in scare-quotes. The scholars at the Mount Vernon institute are research historians with direct access to the relevant documents. By the way, they do have names.
http://www.mountvernon.org/library/staff
On the one side of the scale, we have the opinion of experts in the field with intimate knowledge of documents concerning George Washington; on the other, we have nothing by handwaving.
mkfreeberg: This unlimited weight of faith in “experts” is not only wrong-headed, but dangerous.
One should be be skeptical, however, it takes a weight of evidence to discount expert opinion when they represent a consensus within their field of expertise. Handwaving is not an argument.
mkfreeberg: Update: More expert opinion, from yesteryear.
Sure. They lacked a plausible mechanism, so most geologists didn’t accept continental drift. Once the mechanism was uncovered, then the consensus changed.
Perhaps you are still confused, despite many attempts at explanation. An appeal to consensus is an inductive argument. Experts are more likely to be right when they represent a consensus within their field of expertise, but are not guaranteed to be right. Indeed, all scientific findings are considered tentative, and subject to revision.
mkfreeberg: Science-is-settled, debate-is-over, and all that.
You’re more than welcome to introduce evidence concerning the supposed quote by George Washington. He wrote extensively, and many of his utterances were recorded by his contemporaries. Did you have such evidence?
- Zachriel | 04/29/2014 @ 07:27By the way, Eratosthenes, what is the Earth’s diameter?
- Zachriel | 04/29/2014 @ 07:27Severian: did they really restart that thread over a month later?!
We followed your link, and responded accordingly.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2014 @ 07:29MY link? It’s flabbergasting how much y’all suck at Internet.
While you’re in the shame closet, reflect on how many blogs’ readerships recognize y’all for incompetent trolls, and how many blogs you’re banned from, and the debt of gratitude you owe Morgan for not doing likewise.
- Severian | 04/29/2014 @ 11:25If Washington could possibly have said it, it is incorrect to say “that is incorrect.”
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2014 @ 12:25Severian: MY link?
Yes, you’ve linked to the thread several times, so we responded on the thread.
mkfreeberg: If Washington could possibly have said it, it is incorrect to say “that is incorrect.”
You said, “George Washington could not have said something commonly attributed to George Washington”. That statement is incorrect. For instance, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” is attributed to George Washington. In fact, it was in his 1790 State of the Union Address. So it is certainly possible for George Washington to have “have said something commonly attributed to George Washington”.
As for “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force,” neither that statement nor anything like it is found in the voluminous documentation about George Washington, nor even from that period. It is probably a spurious attribution.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2014 @ 12:41For the record, ladies and gentlemen, they’re pretending to believe that the link to their Shame Closet is an invitation to “debate” something about George Washington.
I was wrong. That’s not pathetic; it’s pathological. Seriously: Y’all need medication. I’m sure the Department of Student Health has a nice counselor lady who can get you the help you need.
- Severian | 04/29/2014 @ 16:28It is probably a spurious attribution.
But, y’all don’t know that. What y’all have been trying to do on that subject is to manufacture certainty, where it does not and cannot exist. In so attempting, y’all are incorrect.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2014 @ 17:38mkfreeberg: What y’all have been trying to do on that subject is to manufacture certainty, where it does not and cannot exist.
There is no absolute certainty in any empirical claim, however, the evidence strongly supports that the quote is spurious. You’ve offered no evidence to indicate that the quote is properly attributed.
- Zachriel | 04/30/2014 @ 03:10There is no absolute certainty in any empirical claim.
There’s no certainty at all, with this non-empirical one.
- mkfreeberg | 04/30/2014 @ 04:29mkfreeberg: There’s no certainty at all
There is never any absolute certainty, but there is evidence. That evidence is found in documents written by George Washington, and other documents from that period. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that supports the authenticity of the quote?
- Zachriel | 04/30/2014 @ 07:00I think it’s hilarious y’all are trying to reopen this thing under a post about a movie that spells out, in vivid detail, what sorts of horrible consequences are brought about when people think the way y’all do.
Why don’t y’all take the time to watch it to see where this sort of thinking leads. It’s on Netflix instant.
- mkfreeberg | 04/30/2014 @ 17:48mkfreeberg: I think it’s hilarious y’all are trying to reopen this thing under a post about a movie that spells out, in vivid detail, what sorts of horrible consequences are brought about when people think the way y’all do.
We didn’t watch the movie, but read about the actual murder.
You’re probably referring to over-reliance on authority, though we’re not quite sure your point. From what we gather, the judge made the final decision, though social services also made mistakes. The family thought a change in the bail laws was an appropriate solution, not eliminating expert opinion from courts, or eliminating social services or courts entirely.
An appeal to authority is an inductive argument, and is certainly not infallible. An expert is more likely to be correct about subjects within their valid field of expertise than a non-expert. A consensus of experts is even more reliable, but still not infallible. Evidence is always an argument against an appeal to authority. We’ve discussed this before, so not sure why you’re still struggling with the concept.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2014 @ 17:26You’re probably referring to over-reliance on authority, though we’re not quite sure your point.
It is to do with concentrating overly much on the content of an idea, and ignoring all the other attributes of it; the level of certainty that it is the correct idea, the level of potential that it could be wrong (which is slightly different), the consequences of it turning out to be a wrong idea after it has hardened into an actual decision. Whether those making the decision, bear the brunt of these consequences if it is wrong. And, if they’re not, the awesome responsibility being shouldered.
Once again, by embarking on such thoughts with y’all, I’m left with the feeling like I’m trying to explain depth to creatures who inhabit a two dimensional universe. Or, Wednesdays to a dog. We hit a dead end here because of ignorance on y’all’s side of the conversation. Y’all might want to actually watch the movie. It might do y’all some good to get re-acquainted with just how wrong things can go, when too much is invested in the opinions of those who make their living generating opinions, without ever being responsible for their accuracy.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2014 @ 20:04mkfreeberg: It is to do with concentrating overly much on the content of an idea, and ignoring all the other attributes of it; the level of certainty that it is the correct idea, the level of potential that it could be wrong (which is slightly different), the consequences of it turning out to be a wrong idea after it has hardened into an actual decision.
So it has nothing to do with an appeal to authority. Our mistake then. We agree that one should gather all relevant facts before reaching a conclusion, and then be willing to revisit that conclusion when new facts come to light.
But,
Your original post kept talking about experts. Experts certainly should gather all relevant facts before reaching a conclusion, then be willing to revisit that conclusion when new facts come to light.
People make mistakes. Experts make mistakes. Even a consensus of experts make mistakes. Your point is still unclear.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2014 @ 07:19The film is on Netflix instant. It’s free.
- mkfreeberg | 05/02/2014 @ 18:05mkfreeberg: The film is on Netflix instant.
We referred to the actual case history. Did you have a point?
- Zachriel | 05/02/2014 @ 18:50“I think it’s hilarious y’all are trying to reopen this thing under a post about a movie that spells out, in vivid detail, what sorts of horrible consequences are brought about when people think the way y’all do.” — Me.
Another point I have is: People who think the way y’all do, very often are revealed not to care one bit about these “horrible consequences” being visited upon the people that are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the thinking. The movie discussed here, last I checked, was still available on Netflix streaming. For free. It’s been nearly five months. Did y’all have a chance to catch it?
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2014 @ 02:09mkfreeberg: what sorts of horrible consequences are brought about when people think the way y’all do.
Too vague. What does “think the way y’all do” mean? You have often misread our position, even after repeatedly being correct. This point makes more sense:
mkfreeberg: This unlimited weight of faith in “experts” is not only wrong-headed, but dangerous.
We agree that unlimited faith in experts can be dangerous.
In this case, there are competing values. The person has the right to the presumption of innocence, and as someone once said “government’s authority is limited“. That has to be balanced against public safety. The authority for the government then depends on an evaluation of the threat. How else did you expect that threat to be evaluated other than by experts?
- Zachriel | 09/27/2014 @ 06:12Too vague. What does “think the way y’all do” mean? You have often misread our position, even after repeatedly being correct. This point makes more sense:
mkfreeberg: This unlimited weight of faith in “experts” is not only wrong-headed, but dangerous.
We agree that unlimited faith in experts can be dangerous.
Well then, I’m not sure where the disagreement is. If the experts say it isn’t raining today, and a quick check out the window reveals that it is indeed raining, it’s raining. It isn’t necessary to engage in long drawn-out debates about the experts being smart or stupid, or how “likely” they are to be right, how often they’ve been caught wrong; the falling rain makes that all irrelevant.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2014 @ 06:53mkfreeberg: I’m not sure where the disagreement is.
You generally ignore valid appeals to authority, and reject evaluations of such appeals.
mkfreeberg: If the experts say it isn’t raining today, and a quick check out the window reveals that it is indeed raining, it’s raining.
Sure, but your example is not on point as meteorologists generally work with probability, not absolutes.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2014 @ 07:03Yeah, and other experts work with absolutes. Oh wait, no, here are y’all’s comments from another thread:
05/11/2014 @ 06:04: “Sure they could be wrong, but expert documentarians specializing in George Washington are more likely to be right than your bartender or pizza delivery guy about matters concerning George Washington.”
05/11/2014 @ 10:28: “likely, having a high probability of occurring or being true”
It goes on from there. I could do that for quite awhile, but I have to take bottles to the recycling and replace a section of the fence today…
I think this sufficiently clarifies the remark about “think the way y’all do.” Y’all acknowledge “unlimited faith in experts can be dangers” — and then engage in precisely that, relying on those experts while completely losing track of what it is y’all are supposed to get out of their opinions: Probability, or absolutes?
I suppose y’all could try to convince me y’all do have something better-defined in mind, although that could be difficult. It would be far more difficult to get the message to Zachary or his father, not that easy to get hold of them these days. Because of one tragic decision made by experts.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2014 @ 10:04mkfreeberg: Yeah, and other experts work with absolutes.
All scientific findings are considered tentative, no matter how well supported. “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”
mkfreeberg: Probability, or absolutes?
An appeal to authority is an inductive argument, and expert opinion is fallible. However, if several independent oncologists say you have cancer, then you should probably consider acting on that information.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2014 @ 13:52An appeal to authority is an inductive argument, and expert opinion is fallible. However, if several independent oncologists say you have cancer, then you should probably consider acting on that information.
But if likelihood of being right is the objective, it doesn’t make sense to direct the inquiries to those furthest removed from the matters at hand. That is why Zachary is dead.
Although, as y’all have demonstrated repeatedly, there is some sort of busy patchwork of protocols and rules that say, having the opportunity to do it all over again, the rest of us should do it exactly the same way, putting the same people in charge of the same questions — leaving Zachary dead all over again. Let’s leave it to the readers to decide if that’s proper.
Not that y’all are that concerned about it. Y’all have had five months to watch the movie, for free, and evidently couldn’t fit it into y’all’s schedule. In short: Y’all have put together a rather complete mosaic illustration, of the kinds of people, thinkers, and authorities, who shouldn’t decide anything that matters.
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2014 @ 05:55mkfreeberg: But if likelihood of being right is the objective, it doesn’t make sense to direct the inquiries to those furthest removed from the matters at hand.
If it is a valid field of study, then experts are those closest to the matters at hand. An oncologist who has examined you personally is one such expert.
mkfreeberg: leaving Zachary dead all over again
There are competing values. The person has the right to the presumption of innocence, and as someone once said “government’s authority is limited“. That has to be balanced against public safety. The authority for the government then depends on an evaluation of the threat. How else did you expect that threat to be evaluated other than by experts?
We know it’s hard, but try and respond this time.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 06:17How else did you expect that threat to be evaluated other than by experts?
We know it’s hard, but try and respond this time.
Would there be a point? I’m granting the benefit of the doubt and presuming y’all don’t want innocent one-year-old toddlers senselessly murdered. That would mean y’all agree that the outcome here was an undesirable one; but at the same time, it would show that when outcomes are undesirable, there is little-to-nothing about the process that requires any changing. This is an aspect of the Zachriel Weltanschauung that has been long known and long noticed, not only by myself. Rationalization on rationalization on rationalization, and at the end of it, the busy patchwork of rules and protocols can go unchanged — and everyone who followed them, emerges an admirably mediocre bureaucrat, accomplishing nothing extraordinary, but nothing is their fault either.
Meanwhile, Zachary is dead. If it happened a million more times, we’d have a million more dead Zacharys — but not a single change to this busy messy patchwork of rules and protocols in the Weltanschauung, which we know do not produce the results we want. But no one’s at fault, no one is responsible.
I think we don’t disagree on any of this, our disagreement is about the desired end-state. Innocent victims like Zachary, I think, are more important than the rules. Which, I’ve noticed, aren’t connected to the identity of anyone taking actual responsibility anyway.
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2014 @ 07:07mkfreeberg: Would there be a point?
It’s called a discussion. It starts with listening.
mkfreeberg: That would mean y’all agree that the outcome here was an undesirable one; but at the same time, it would show that when outcomes are undesirable, there is little-to-nothing about the process that requires any changing.
Actually, Canadian law did change. In any case, perhaps you missed our question.
There are competing values. The person has the right to the presumption of innocence, and as someone once said “government’s authority is limited“. That has to be balanced against public safety. The authority for the government then depends on an evaluation of the threat. How else did you expect that threat to be evaluated other than by experts?
mkfreeberg: If it happened a million more times, we’d have a million more dead Zacharys
Except it doesn’t happen a million times, and that makes a difference when crafting policy. You could lock up everyone accused of a crime, for instance, but that creates other victims.
mkfreeberg: Innocent victims like Zachary, I think, are more important than the rules.
So you want to do away with rules? What about the rules concerning murder?
Try hard now, to read and respond. We have confidence you can do it if you try.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 07:12Except it doesn’t happen a million times, and that makes a difference when crafting policy.
Yeah, sure. Those clever policy-crafters…
mkfreeberg: Yeah, sure. Those clever policy-crafters.
You’re not making any sense. Are you claiming those people were killed by suspected murderers released on bail?
There are competing values. The person has the right to the presumption of innocence, and as someone once said “government’s authority is limited“. That has to be balanced against public safety. The authority for the government then depends on an evaluation of the threat. How else did you expect that threat to be evaluated other than by experts? So you want to do away with rules? What about the rules concerning murder?
Try hard now, to read and respond. We have confidence you can do it if you try.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 15:10How else did you expect that threat to be evaluated other than by experts?
Oh my, this is something of a shocker. I’m afraid y’all’s response shall have to wait.
Y’all are saying the outcome in the sad tale of Zachary Turner, was the best one that might have been reached, that it’s unreasonable to hope for anything better?
If that’s the case, the picture of the mountain of bones turns out to be relevant. Would a thousand dead Zachary Turners compel us to believe there might have been a better way? A million? A billion? When do we start to suspect putting the experts in charge might not be the best way to go?
- mkfreeberg | 09/30/2014 @ 01:51mkfreeberg: Y’all are saying the outcome in the sad tale of Zachary Turner, was the best one that might have been reached, that it’s unreasonable to hope for anything better?
Not at all, and Canada changed their laws in response to the death of Zachary Turner.
Now try real hard now, to read and respond. We have confidence you can do it if you try. There are competing values. The person has the right to the presumption of innocence, and as someone once said “government’s authority is limited“. That has to be balanced against public safety. The authority for the government then depends on an evaluation of the threat. How else did you expect that threat to be evaluated other than by experts? So you want to do away with rules? What about the rules concerning murder?
- Zachriel | 09/30/2014 @ 05:31Not at all, and Canada changed their laws in response to the death of Zachary Turner.
Oh I see. Making better decisions is all just a matter of changing the rules. So we’re all a bunch of bureaucrats, and as long as everyone follows the rules, nobody makes any mistakes. Whatever it takes to say, allowing the obviously deranged killer of a child’s father to share custody of the child, was not a mistake. And it takes quite a bit.
That raises the question: Which rule would it have broken, to disallow this obviously deranged killer from sharing the custody? Would it have been against the rules to give Zachary a chance to live a full life, and spare the Bagby’s from the grief, to say nothing of the frustration in the months leading up to the killing, having to coordinate childcare arrangements with an obvious nutcase?
Now to y’all’s question. I reject the premise of “balancing” rights. If we were to accept that, then that would mean we live in a society that can freely and casually declare this-and-that a “right” one day, and then the very next day, say “But…this other class over here has a competing ‘right,’ which we declare to be superior to that one.” And then announce that, while this is a regrettable situation, yesterday’s right is just so much fluff.
Indeed, western civilization has been making a nasty habit out of that for the last half century or so. Chief Justice William Marshall might have said something about that. Indeed he did:
That’s about laws versus constitutions, this is about rights versus rights. The brand of insanity is exactly the same. Arguments defeat themselves when they rely on contradictions, therefore, y’all’s question is reduced to a nullity because it relies on a premise that contradicts itself.
You know, it’s really funny about liberals. They have all this belief in “evolution,” survival of the fittest, a genome becoming stronger by means of adaptation and attrition. They embrace change, supposedly. But in the wake of a blunder like the death of Zachary Turner, they don’t admit mistakes. The best & only course correction they can offer is “we changed the law.” It doesn’t seem to be within their capacity to understand that people from the outside, who think like adults, stunned at the lack of common sense that was unfortunately elevated to a position of influence and therefore causative of a tragedy such as this, find little reason to be reassured.
The question that comes up is, are a society’s laws the only means by which that society’s culture can be hurt, or improved? Libs will be the first to tell you that is a negative. But they don’t seem to believe it, and they don’t seem to believe in improving processes except by changing laws & rules — and nagging other people who aren’t libs. It comes off looking like a psychological disorder encumbering people who simply can’t admit they screwed up.
- mkfreeberg | 10/01/2014 @ 04:47When you become agitated, your arguments suffer.
mkfreeberg: Making better decisions is all just a matter of changing the rules.
Not necessarily, but the rule of law has had largely beneficial effects for society. For example, one famous rule is called the U.S. Bill of Rights.
mkfreeberg: I reject the premise of “balancing” rights.
So you reject the presumption of innocence and due process? That government should be able to punish someone or take their children without due process?
mkfreeberg: Chief Justice William Marshall might have said something about that.
Um, Marshall is pointing to the rule known as the U.S. Constitution.
mkfreeberg: The best & only course correction they can offer is “we changed the law.”
Actually, that’s what Zachary’s family worked for as a legacy. Did you have a better solution?
- Zachriel | 10/01/2014 @ 05:59When you become agitated, your arguments suffer.
That’s true of anyone, I suppose; but how would y’all know that about me, here? I’m just taking note of what y’all are saying, and interpreting it as accurately as I know how.
Not necessarily, but the rule of law has had largely beneficial effects for society. For example, one famous rule is called the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Were we having a disagreement about the benefits and liabilities of having a system of laws? I must have missed it. The U.S. Bill of Rights, you say? How fascinating!!
When y’all become agitated, y’all imagine silly breaches in the knowledge of y’all’s opposition, unsupported by any of the dialogue. And y’all’s arguments suffer.
So you reject the presumption of innocence and due process? That government should be able to punish someone or take their children without due process?
If you have a “right” to something, and the law is there to enforce that right, then it should do so. Do y’all agree? If not, then y’all are put into the position of asserting that a thing is the opposite of itself. That makes y’all’s argument automatically self-defeating.
Um, Marshall is pointing to the rule known as the U.S. Constitution.
Um yeah, I said that.
Actually, that’s what Zachary’s family worked for as a legacy.
Right. The system was not self-correcting. Left to its own devices, it turned a child over to a murderer so that he could be murdered. I think that’s wrong. Most people agree with me.
Among those who would not, it’s rather difficult to envision what they think a law is supposed to do, exactly. Laws should protect the innocent first-and-foremost, should they not?
- mkfreeberg | 10/01/2014 @ 16:54mkfreeberg: Were we having a disagreement about the benefits and liabilities of having a system of laws? I must have missed it. The U.S. Bill of Rights, you say?
Good. Glad we’re in agreement. Laws are a necessary, but not always sufficient, component of good social results.
mkfreeberg: If you have a “right” to something, and the law is there to enforce that right, then it should do so. Do y’all agree?
Sure.
mkfreeberg: Left to its own devices, it turned a child over to a murderer so that he could be murdered.
Sure.
While we have seemingly made some progress, you don’t seem to have a point. Someone made a mistake, and this means what exactly? The family thought it should result in a change in the law.
Now try real hard now, to read and respond. We have confidence you can do it — if you try.
There are competing values. A person has the right to the presumption of innocence, and as someone once said “government’s authority is limited“. That has to be balanced against public safety. The authority for the government then depends on an evaluation of the threat. How else did you expect that threat to be evaluated other than by experts? Or did want to do away with judges? What are you proposing?
- Zachriel | 10/02/2014 @ 05:05While we have seemingly made some progress, you don’t seem to have a point. Someone made a mistake, and this means what exactly?
I can see how it would be hard to figure it out. Let’s go back and check my original post.
This unlimited weight of faith in “experts” is not only wrong-headed, but dangerous. And, it could be reasonably conjectured — evil. But, it certainly is popular. People are just afraid to think for themselves nowadays, I suppose.
:
These days, a lot of what passes for “debate” and “argument” is really just a bunch of excuses for not considering new ideas.
Oops, I can see now I’m going to have to go back and amend something I said. I was wrong. Decidedly, emphatically, unambiguously wrong…
…it isn’t hard to figure out at all.
- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2014 @ 03:04mkfreeberg: These days, a lot of what passes for “debate” and “argument” is really just a bunch of excuses for not considering new ideas.
What new ideas are those? The family worked to change the law. Now, try to respond to our point.
There are competing values. A person has the right to the presumption of innocence, and as someone once said “government’s authority is limited“. That has to be balanced against public safety. The authority for the government then depends on an evaluation of the threat. How else did you expect that threat to be evaluated other than by experts? Or did want to do away with judges? What are you proposing?
- Zachriel | 10/04/2014 @ 06:12Now, try to respond to our point.
I did. I said I do not accept the premise of “balancing” rights.
I also responded to the point about the family pushing for the change in law. “Zachary’s Law,” apart from being the very bare minimum of what’s needed to fix the glaring shortfall here — offering a nod of acknowledgement that there is an element of public danger when we pretend the guilty are innocent — was instigated by the victims’ families, instigated outside of the system of bureaucracy that made this mistake. Even when staffed and run by these “experts,” a bureaucracy acts like a bureaucracy; fails to achieve the attribute of self-correction.
Y’all’s defense of them here, based on this “change” of the “law,” is like saying a fire doesn’t pose a danger to the house that is being consumed by it, just because someone ran and got a hose. It’s just silly.
- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2014 @ 13:39mkfreeberg: “Zachary’s Law,” apart from being the very bare minimum of what’s needed to fix the glaring shortfall here — offering a nod of acknowledgement that there is an element of public danger when we pretend the guilty are innocent
Sure. Now try and address the point directly.
mkfreeberg: Y’all’s defense of them here, based on this “change” of the “law,” is like saying a fire doesn’t pose a danger to the house that is being consumed by it, just because someone ran and got a hose.
No one said there wasn’t a problem. However, you have repeatedly refused to engage the point. You can do it — if you try.
There are competing concerns. A person has the right to the presumption of innocence, and as someone once said “government’s authority is limited“. That has to be balanced against public safety. The authority for the government then depends on an evaluation of the threat. How else did you expect that threat to be evaluated other than by experts? Or did want to do away with judges? What are you proposing? Or are you just throwing mud with no concern about future Zacharys?
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 06:16Now try and address the point directly.
I can’t address it more directly than that, other than by agreeing with y’all, which of course I don’t.
There seems to be something in y’all’s history, in which y’all saw someone win an argument by saying “try to address the point directly.” And so here y’all are trying to use the same tactic, but it seems y’all don’t understand how it actually works. Y’all wouldn’t know direct-addressing-of-point if y’all saw it, and furthermore y’all have a reputation around these parts that is consistent with that, not just with me.
However, you have repeatedly refused to engage the point. You can do it — if you try. There are competing concerns. A person has the right to the presumption of innocence, and as someone once said “government’s authority is limited“. That has to be balanced against public safety.
I do not accept the premise.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 06:20mkfreeberg: I do not accept the premise.
You don’t accept that there are competing concerns? Which concern or concerns do you reject? That government is limited? Due process and the presumption of innocence? Or the concern for public safety?
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 06:33You don’t accept that there are competing concerns?
I do not accept the legitimacy of this “balancing.” What could that mean, other than nullifying one right, at least in some specific case, in favor of some other right deemed to possess superiority?
Where would that stop. The baby has an absolute right to life, but this must be “balanced” against the mother’s right to fit into her prom dress. That means the baby never had the right. Should an anti-abortion bill appear on the ballot, the mother’s right to choose, in turn, must be “balanced” against my right to be able to vote, and have my vote count for something — upon which our friends, the liberals, were insisting, brooking no compromise, during the Bush v. Gore imbroglio. In situations such as these, the right that loses during the “balancing” is not merely diluted or weakened, it is entirely nullified. That can only mean it never was a right.
When y’all speak of “balancing,” what y’all really mean is revoking. It doesn’t matter whether or not y’all consciously realize it.
But it’s cute how y’all insist I didn’t “address the point” when I don’t agree. “You can do it — if you try.” Hah! How droll! It seems y’all must have seen someone win an argument by saying “try to address the point,” so y’all are trying to use it here, but y’all unfortunately don’t understand how it actually works. The point has already been addressed, by me, and far too directly for y’all’s liking; that’s y’all’s real problem.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 08:26mkfreeberg: But it’s cute how y’all insist I didn’t “address the point” when I don’t agree.
You did address it finally, by disagreeing with the premise. See! It wasn’t that hard.
mkfreeberg: I do not accept the legitimacy of this “balancing.”
So you would sacrifice liberty for safety? The government should lock up all those accused of crimes until trial. Of course, trials are also a balancing of the rights of the accused against the safety of the public. So are you saying the government should simply hold anyone accused of crimes without trial?
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 08:45Yeah, 10/1 at 4:47. Y’all insisted I address the point many times since then, most recently 10/5 at 6:16. So, obviously y’all had something else in mind.
Why not just come out and say “Agree with us or else we’ll say you haven’t addressed the point”? It would be honest.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 08:49mkfreeberg: Y’all insisted I address the point many times since then, most recently 10/5 at 6:16.
Yes, you said you don’t accept balancing of the right to due process with the need for public safety. So now we want to explore the implications of your position.
So public safety must be paramount in your view. So if someone is accused of a crime, should the government have the power to lock them up without bail? And as trials are imperfect, and sometimes allow the guilty to go free, should we dispense with trials and simply lock up the accused in order to protect the public?
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 08:56Yes, you said you don’t accept balancing of the right to due process with the need for public safety. So now we want to explore the implications of your position.
It would be far more logical, to say nothing of revealing, to explore the implications of yours.
All rights have to be balanced against other rights, so goes the argument. If the people in charge — whoever those may be — determine that this “balancing” involves suspending one right deemed inferior for sake of sanctity of some other right deemed superior, this results in nullification of, or at least an infringement upon, the inferior right.
In fact, really it can’t result in anything else, can it? If both rights emerge from the “balancing” exercise entirely intact, then it could be said no balancing was done. Balancing, therefore, is not balancing at all, it is revocation.
Also, it wouldn’t be balanced, would it. Bureaucracies do not tend to favor rights, they tend to favor identified, privileged groups, even to absurd extremes. How is a man’s right to feel safe and secure in a workplace “balanced” against a woman’s right to feel safe and secure in the workplace? It isn’t. Women being more highly valued as a victim-group than men, the man’s security is sacrificed for the sake of the woman’s. He ends up in an absurd position where his employer can hire a hot mess nutcase, who merely has to report “He makes me feel uncomfortable” when he walks into a room, and his career is in jeopardy. That’s the balancing.
Conclusion: If all rights have to be balanced, then all rights are subject to arbitrary elimination for the political convenience of those who happen to be in charge. That can only mean there aren’t any rights; they exist in name alone.
I notice y’all’s definitions of words tend to be convenient for those attempting to seize unlimited power, without accompanying accountability, and for those who seek to consolidate all that power into the hands of very few. Part of an enduring pattern.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 22:20mkfreeberg: It would be far more logical, to say nothing of revealing, to explore the implications of yours.
Feel free. Please be sure to use quotes, so as to properly represent our views.
mkfreeberg: All rights have to be balanced against other rights, so goes the argument.
Here’s a couple popular examples:
“Your rights end at the tip of my nose.”
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
mkfreeberg: Balancing, therefore, is not balancing at all, it is revocation.
Placing limits doesn’t revoke the right. In the first example, you have the right to autonomy, but it has limits. In the latter example, you have the right to speech, but it has limits. A stoplight isn’t tyranny, even if it makes you stop when you want to go.
mkfreeberg: Conclusion: If all rights have to be balanced, then all rights are subject to arbitrary elimination for the political convenience of those who happen to be in charge. That can only mean there aren’t any rights; they exist in name alone.
So you’re saying that your right to autonomy includes pushing people and falsely shouting fire. Per your previous statements, it doesn’t include due process. Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 10/06/2014 @ 05:22Please be sure to use quotes, so as to properly represent our views.
If y’all’s view is that a certain thing should be done, and y’all are not considering the consequences, it would be improper to use quotes as I point out the consequences because the consequences are not part of what y’all are pondering. Or discussing. That’s kind of the problem.
Placing limits doesn’t revoke the right.
What such an exercise doesn’t revoke, it transforms into something other than a right. Liberals have a tough time with this.
You start out the day with $10 lunch money, and a “right” to that money. A bully comes along and takes $5, decides to leave you with the other $5. The remaining $5 doesn’t represent a “right,” it’s more like a gift from the bully. If the authorities get involved and decide the bully should have $7 and you can make do with $3, or vice-versa, then whatever you get to keep is more like a “privilege” — unless they decide the matter the proper way, giving you your $10 and punishing the bully. Once a right is declared, it’s really an all-or-nothing thing.
A good test of a “right” is, do you get to keep it even if very powerful people don’t want you to. This has a lot to do with why liberals can’t see what’s good about the United States. If the “balance” is upset anytime someone complains, then it isn’t really a balance and the things being managed aren’t really rights.
A stoplight isn’t tyranny, even if it makes you stop when you want to go.
Again with the stoplights. It doesn’t fit, because stoplights protect the innocent. Awarding a one-year-old to a deranged killer does the opposite.
Seems like y’all are hung up on due process. That doesn’t work; people appear before judges all the time, who then may decide those people are risks to the community, flight risks, etc. and deny them parole or bail. In the aftermath, we do not say those people were denied due process.
- mkfreeberg | 10/06/2014 @ 05:45mkfreeberg: If y’all’s view is that a certain thing should be done, and y’all are not considering the consequences, it would be improper to use quotes as I point out the consequences because the consequences are not part of what y’all are pondering.
In other words, you can’t quote anything we wrote that supports your strawman argument. Meanwhile, it takes weeks to get you to respond to direct questions concerning your own views. Here’s how to quote and respond:
mkfreeberg: Balancing, therefore, is not balancing at all, it is revocation.
So you’re saying that your right to autonomy includes punching people in the nose and falsely shouting fire. Per your previous statements, it doesn’t include due process. Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 10/06/2014 @ 06:23In other words, you can’t quote anything we wrote that supports your strawman argument.
No strawman. Y’all are arguing that the laws that make civilization what it is, such as “you have to stop at an intersection when the light is red” for example, are somehow equivalent to turning over a baby to a killer and waiting for him to be murdered. So I don’t need to mold or reshape y’all’s arguments to make it look like y’all are saying that order relies on chaos; y’all are doing that on y’all’s own, before y’all get any of my help.
When y’all’s arguments rely on defining a thing as the opposite of itself, it’s time to pack it in.
- mkfreeberg | 10/06/2014 @ 18:05mkfreeberg: Y’all are arguing that the laws that make civilization what it is, such as “you have to stop at an intersection when the light is red” for example, are somehow equivalent to turning over a baby to a killer and waiting for him to be murdered.
As we said, you’re arguing a strawman.
mkfreeberg: Conclusion: If all rights have to be balanced, then all rights are subject to arbitrary elimination for the political convenience of those who happen to be in charge. That can only mean there aren’t any rights; they exist in name alone.
Due process balances the rights of the accused with public safety. So if rights don’t have to be balanced, that seems to mean that when someone is accused of a crime, they shouldn’t be accorded due process. Is that your position? If not, then try to explain why this particular person should not have been accorded due process.
- Zachriel | 10/07/2014 @ 04:55As we said, you’re arguing a strawman.
Zachary Turner is dead. And, it seems, y’all have no problem with that event standing (properly) as an example of the consequences of our society listening to experts too much, which is something for which y’all advocate rather tirelessly.
It seems y’all saw someone “win” an argument once by yelling “strawman.” Y’all want to use the tactic, but don’t understand the concept.
- mkfreeberg | 10/07/2014 @ 05:07mkfreeberg: And, it seems, y’all have no problem with that event standing (properly) as an example of the consequences of our society listening to experts too much, which is something for which y’all advocate rather tirelessly.
Experts can be wrong. Our question is on what basis would you have held the woman before trial? Would you hold everyone accused of violent crimes without bail? The U.S. Bill of Rights says otherwise.
Not sure why you are incapable of directly responding to questions about your position. It’s as if you’re afraid to confront the implications of your own beliefs.
mkfreeberg: Conclusion: If all rights have to be balanced, then all rights are subject to arbitrary elimination for the political convenience of those who happen to be in charge. That can only mean there aren’t any rights; they exist in name alone.
Due process balances the rights of the accused with public safety. So if rights don’t have to be balanced, that seems to mean that when someone is accused of a crime, they shouldn’t be accorded due process. Is that your position? If not, then try to explain why this particular person should not have been accorded due process.
- Zachriel | 10/07/2014 @ 05:37Experts can be wrong. Our question is on what basis would you have held the woman before trial? Would you hold everyone accused of violent crimes without bail? The U.S. Bill of Rights says otherwise.
Y’all might not be aware of it, but this was a Canadian case. Regarding y’all’s question, my issue is not quite so much that she was not held before trial; it is that she had, not only visitation, but partial custody, of the little boy she would later kill. And there were many warnings about this, but…there’s something about being an “expert.” It’s often not as easy to tell the experts things the experts need to know, as it is to tell regular folk things the regular folk need to know.
The problem is one that has encumbered experts before, many a time: A lack of plain, old, what used to be called “horse sense.” There are people who value human life, and there are people who do not. Experts may imagine there is some kind of imaginary barrier in place, between killing boyfriends after a love affair gone bad versus killing other people.
Such is the power of what we unfortunately today call “expertise.” So many times, it boils down to very little more than, or nothing more than, the ability to imagine vividly. If Zachary Turner were around today we could ask him how that worked out for him. But, of course, he isn’t. A sad, sad situation, and also a preventable one.
- mkfreeberg | 10/07/2014 @ 17:04mkfreeberg: And there were many warnings about this, but…there’s something about being an “expert.”
So the judge ignored warnings from experts.
- Zachriel | 10/08/2014 @ 05:00So the judge ignored warnings from experts.
Now this is a bit confusing. In this thread, y’all define “experts” as people who are close to the matter that is to be decided; locals; commoners. Elsewhere, y’all seem to define them as the opposite, opinionated elites atop an ivory tower, insulated, self-proclaimed. Which is it?
Seems y’all have a definition problem, consequential to relying overly much on passive voice. “…someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill.” Y’all also don’t seem to be applying the passive-voice definition: Prosecutors in Pennsylvania? The Bagby’s? Judges who granted the restraining orders? The ex-boyfriend? These people turned out to be right, tragically, in the end; but which of these are “experts”?
It seems “expert” is more like a definition to be applied after the fact: Turns out these people were right, so they’re the new experts. Crafting a narrative that the other people are experts, is just too hard. Of course the whole point of the post is that until disaster strikes, the other people are experts and nobody had better dare contradict them.
Regarding the Turner case itself and its ramifications, we are confronted with two mutually-exclusive possibilities: The outcome being unacceptable, the process that led to it likewise must be unacceptable. Which must mean unworthy of trust, since the Bagby’s had to provide all of the momentum behind this push for a change in the law — the system did not self-correct.
Or, the process is fine; gotta break those eggs to make the ol’ omelet. Y’all’s position would therefore be that the unfortunate Turner lad, who would be twelve by now, is collateral damage. Acceptable collateral damage.
- mkfreeberg | 10/10/2014 @ 03:05mkfreeberg: In this thread, y’all define “experts” as people who are close to the matter that is to be decided; locals; commoners.
You cited “prosecutors in Pennsylvania”. Prosecutorial offices are generally experts in criminal law and in criminal behavior. Hence, the judge didn’t properly weight expert opinion.
Previously, you rejected balancing the rights of the accused with the need for public safety, but refuse to answer specific questions about your position. Should someone accused of a violent crime be held without bail? Should someone accused of a crime even be granted a trial? What if a mistake is made and a violent person is released? What are the limits of government power?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/HK_Central_Statue_Square_Legislative_Council_Building_n_Themis_s.jpg
Why is Lady Justice holding a scale?
- Zachriel | 10/10/2014 @ 05:38You cited “prosecutors in Pennsylvania”. Prosecutorial offices are generally experts in criminal law and in criminal behavior. Hence, the judge didn’t properly weight expert opinion.
So now the prosecutors are the experts, and the judge is not an expert. Interesting.
Should someone accused of a violent crime be held without bail? Should someone accused of a crime even be granted a trial? What if a mistake is made and a violent person is released?
The issue, here, is that y’all’s expert saw fit to grant custody of Zachary Turner to the woman who would later kill him. Had the expert ruled the other way, it would not have been proper or accurate to say Shirley Turner had been denied bail, or a trial, or due process.
Regarding a mistake being made and a violent person released, the “what if” doesn’t seem to fit because according to the details that is precisely what happened here.
- mkfreeberg | 10/10/2014 @ 20:23mkfreeberg: So now the prosecutors are the experts, and the judge is not an expert.
Prosecutors are experts in criminal law and criminal behavior. Judges are expected to use expert opinion to apply the law.
mkfreeberg: The issue, here, is that y’all’s expert saw fit to grant custody of Zachary Turner to the woman who would later kill him.
Should the government have the right to take away your children without due process?
- Zachriel | 10/11/2014 @ 05:52Prosecutors are experts in criminal law and criminal behavior. Judges are expected to use expert opinion to apply the law.
Fascinating. So let’s see where this puts us. We know from prior conversations that there is no distinction to be made between “do what the experts say” and “listen to the experts” — if there is one, the Zachriel Weltanschauung refuses to acknowledge it. So non-experts are obliged to do what the experts say. Prosecutors are experts, judges are not, and we know juries are not.
Logically, that would have to mean these non-experts must find everybody on trial, guilty. And the judge must always deny bail, except where the prosecution doesn’t contest it.
Should the government have the right to take away your children without due process?
I’ve already pointed out that “due process” is not the issue here. Had the judge denied bail, and/or custody, due process would have been served.
- mkfreeberg | 10/12/2014 @ 02:59mkfreeberg: We know from prior conversations that there is no distinction to be made between “do what the experts say” and “listen to the experts”
That is not our position.
mkfreeberg: I’ve already pointed out that “due process” is not the issue here.
Taking someone’s child away requires due process. Should the government have the right to take away your children without due process?
- Zachriel | 10/12/2014 @ 06:44M: We know from prior conversations that there is no distinction to be made between “do what the experts say” and “listen to the experts”
Z: That is not our position.
It most certainly is. Y’all’s claim is that the judge “ignored warnings from the experts,” but the information y’all have about it falls far short of that: That, in the end, she decided it differently. I’m sure if the judge could participate, she would waste no time at all in pointing out she did listen, mulled it over, and ultimately did not find it compelling.
The strand of logic by which y’all fasten the incoming information, with the outgoing conclusion, therefore must involve: Summarily eliminating the possibility that an arbiter can take in what the experts have to say, and ultimately decide the issue differently. Non experts must do as the experts tell them, nothing more and nothing less, or else they stand guilty of ignoring these expert warnings.
Taking someone’s child away requires due process. Should the government have the right to take away your children without due process?
No, I don’t agree with y’all on this one. By casting the judge as a non-expert, and the prosecutors as experts, and eliminating as an option for the non-experts to do anything but what the experts say, y’all have obliged judges and juries to convict everybody (except for those few cases where the expert prosecutors may admit they have no case).
If y’all wish to press this point that I’m unfairly and inaccurately interpreting y’all’s position, then that would have interesting ramifications as well: Y’all would be saying the judge properly fulfilled her duty, or at least could have, listened to the “expert” prosecutors, thought about it, and decided it the way she thought was right. That would take y’all back to the position of saying the system worked fine, and young Master Turner was merely unfortunate, but acceptable, collateral damage.
Interestingly, it would also have a broader impact: Not only did the non-expert judge decide the matter properly by listening to the experts, and ultimately deciding to reject what they had to say, but y’all would be allowing the rest of us non-experts — indeed, obliging us — to do likewise, responsibly decide these issues after listening to the experts, and considering it a valid and open option to ultimately reject what they have to say.
That would necessarily require y’all to reverse course on a great many things y’all have had to say on this blog, and probably on some other ones. Starting with, the judge ignored warnings from experts.
- mkfreeberg | 10/12/2014 @ 20:26mkfreeberg: Y’all’s claim is that the judge “ignored warnings from the experts”
Um, no. We were repeating back an interpretation of your position, not stating our own position. Our position, which we have repeated many times is that there is a balancing involved.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/HK_Central_Statue_Square_Legislative_Council_Building_n_Themis_s.jpg
mkfreeberg: I’m sure if the judge could participate, she would waste no time at all in pointing out she did listen, mulled it over, and ultimately did not find it compelling.
The judge must balance expert opinion with other considerations, such as due process.
Zachriel: Taking someone’s child away requires due process. Should the government have the right to take away your children without due process?
mkfreeberg: No, I don’t agree with y’all on this one.
Really? You think the government should have the right to take away your children without due process?
- Zachriel | 10/13/2014 @ 05:57The judge must balance expert opinion with other considerations, such as due process.
As I’ve pointed out already, had Shirley Turner lost custody, or been denied bail, due process would have been served.
- mkfreeberg | 10/14/2014 @ 21:57mkfreeberg: As I’ve pointed out already, had Shirley Turner lost custody, or been denied bail, due process would have been served.
So you accept that government needs to follow due process? Try to be specific. We know it’s hard for you, but it can free you from the shackles of ambiguity.
Given that government needs to follow due process, that means, within the law, to balance the rights of the parties involved, as well as the safety of individuals and the public. You rejected this need for balance previously. Have you changed your position on this?
- Zachriel | 10/15/2014 @ 05:46So you accept that government needs to follow due process? Try to be specific. We know it’s hard for you, but it can free you from the shackles of ambiguity.
Given that government needs to follow due process, that means, within the law, to balance the rights of the parties involved, as well as the safety of individuals and the public. You rejected this need for balance previously. Have you changed your position on this?
Here we have an opportunity to explore something: This “Have you changed your position” tactic y’all use.
Y’all talk of specifics, and freedom from the shackles of ambiguity. So be specific. I pointed out that “due process” has nothing to do with the denial of Shirley Turner’s bail; previously, I made the point that “balancing” rights is really nothing more than a euphemism for taking those rights away.
Y’all imply that y’all can see a contradiction there. I’m calling B.S. If there really is one, where is it? Be specific.
- mkfreeberg | 10/17/2014 @ 05:33mkfreeberg: I pointed out that “due process” has nothing to do with the denial of Shirley Turner’s bail
Are you saying Turner was denied due process? It’s certainly required under Canadian and U.S. law.
mkfreeberg: I made the point that “balancing” rights is really nothing more than a euphemism for taking those rights away.
Yes you did. Here’s your tyrant:
- Zachriel | 10/18/2014 @ 06:21http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/HK_Central_Statue_Square_Legislative_Council_Building_n_Themis_s.jpg
Are you saying Turner was denied due process?
Reading comprehension, again. Y’all brought up due process. I haven’t commented on it, other than to point out that it is irrelevant to the situation, therefore y’all’s question is also irrelevant.
Y’all have a lot of difficulties understanding what other people say. These difficulties show a lot of signs of being manufactured.
- mkfreeberg | 10/18/2014 @ 09:59mkfreeberg: I haven’t commented on it, other than to point out that it is irrelevant to the situation, therefore y’all’s question is also irrelevant.
You said, “‘due process’ has nothing to do with the denial of Shirley Turner’s bail”
- Zachriel | 10/18/2014 @ 13:18M: I haven’t commented on it, other than to point out that it is irrelevant to the situation, therefore y’all’s question is also irrelevant.
Z: You said, “‘due process’ has nothing to do with the denial of Shirley Turner’s bail”
Right. So we agree. Y’all brought it up, and I pointed out it isn’t relevant.
I take it that we further agree, it isn’t relevant. Had Shirley Turner’s bail been denied, she would have received her due process. Y’all are confusing this legal concept with another one that could perhaps be called “due outcome.”
- mkfreeberg | 10/20/2014 @ 04:00mkfreeberg: Had Shirley Turner’s bail been denied, she would have received her due process.
Huh? The Canadian constitution guarantees the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. So does the U.S. constitution. Bail hearings are part of due process.
- Zachriel | 10/20/2014 @ 05:41The Canadian constitution guarantees the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.
Mkay, well she had this “just cause,” so there goes that.
- mkfreeberg | 10/26/2014 @ 11:56mkfreeberg: Mkay, well she had this “just cause,” so there goes that.
Actually, the burden is on the state to provide just cause to hold someone. It’s called due process.
- Zachriel | 10/26/2014 @ 12:10Actually, the burden is on the state to provide just cause to hold someone. It’s called due process.
Mkay, well the just cause was clearly defined, so there goes that.
- mkfreeberg | 10/28/2014 @ 23:03mkfreeberg: Mkay, well the just cause was clearly defined, so there goes that.
So we agree that due process is required, which balances the rights of the accused with the power of the state to bind her for trial, and the need for public safety. This balancing is something you explicitly rejected before.
- Zachriel | 10/29/2014 @ 05:34So we agree that due process is required, which balances the rights of the accused with the power of the state to bind her for trial, and the need for public safety. This balancing is something you explicitly rejected before.
While y’all invent contradictions, we see that here on the plane of reality the experts got this little boy needlessly killed. Y’all dealt with the consequential awkwardness by first re-defining “experts” to be the prosecution, so y’all could take the tack of “the judge didn’t properly weight [sic] expert opinion.” I pointed out that this, carried to its logical conclusion, would mean judges are committing mistrials in every case where they find for the defendant (except for those where the expert prosecutors simply acquiesce). Y’all have since abandoned this, and are now on some absurd bunny trail wherein the recognition of a “right” is more like the beginning of an argument, than an end of one.
Such a Weltanschauung would necessarily mean we don’t have any rights at all. At least, we can’t count on the ones we think we do have. They have to be “balanced” against others, and by “experts” like this Canadian magistrate. You know, elite, removed people who aren’t likely to suffer the effects of erroneous decisions. Ludwig Von Mises was right: “They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty.”
- mkfreeberg | 10/31/2014 @ 02:15mkfreeberg: While y’all invent contradictions, we see that here on the plane of reality the experts got this little boy needlessly killed.
Actually, the boy was killed by his mother, though the state missed an opportunity to intervene.
You previously denied that the state has to balance various considerations, including the rights of the accused, as well as the safety of the public.
Frankly, you don’t seem to be making a coherent point. The parents understood that changes to the law might help in future cases, but no one thinks the law will ever be a perfect instrument.
mkfreeberg: Ludwig Von Mises was right: “They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty.”
Actually, the conservative position is to avoid intervening in family relationships.
- Zachriel | 10/31/2014 @ 05:30M: While y’all invent contradictions, we see that here on the plane of reality the experts got this little boy needlessly killed.
Z: Actually, the boy was killed by his mother, though the state missed an opportunity to intervene.
You previously denied that the state has to balance various considerations, including the rights of the accused, as well as the safety of the public.
Frankly, you don’t seem to be making a coherent point. The parents understood that changes to the law might help in future cases, but no one thinks the law will ever be a perfect instrument.
So we have a “government” that relies on the opinions of wise officials like this magistrate…when all’s said & done, it misses opportunities to intervene when evil people kill innocent people. So it allows evil people to kill innocent people, but that’s okay because “no one thinks the law will ever be a perfect instrument.”
That raises an interesting question: If government does not have a duty to stop evil people from killing innocent people because no one expects it to do such a thing (y’all brought up “perfect,” I didn’t)…what, then, is the legitimate function of government? Liberals and conservatives would agree, I hope, that it should be attending to that before it gets to the other things.
- mkfreeberg | 11/13/2014 @ 14:34mkfreeberg: So we have a “government” that relies on the opinions of wise officials like this magistrate
A system of laws as adjudicated by magistrates, yes. It’s a very imperfect system.
mkfreeberg: when all’s said & done, it misses opportunities to intervene when evil people kill innocent people.
Sometimes. Other times, it succeeds. However, the law is a blunt instrument. There’s a balance that has to be struck, to balance the rights of the accused with justice and the safety of the public. People are not omniscient, and an omnipotent government is its own danger.
mkfreeberg: So it allows evil people to kill innocent people, but that’s okay because “no one thinks the law will ever be a perfect instrument.”
So you work to make it better, but you’ll never have a perfect instrument.
mkfreeberg: If government does not have a duty to stop evil people from killing innocent people because no one expects it to do such a thing
Of course they expect the law to protect the innocent. And where the system fails, people try to find ways to improve the system. That’s what Zachary’s family did.
- Zachriel | 11/13/2014 @ 16:29There’s a balance that has to be struck, to balance the rights of the accused with justice and the safety of the public.
Had Ms. Turner been denied bail, and custody, these conditions would have been met. You don’t have a right to be found not-guilty, or a right to be given bail, and custody. Especially when you’re guilty.
Of course they expect the law to protect the innocent. And where the system fails, people try to find ways to improve the system. That’s what Zachary’s family did.
What they did was remove the authority of the magistrate from situations like this, after it had been proven that the magistrate could not be trusted to protect the public.
Perhaps, if those who made these decisions were forced to live more directly with the consequences, there never would have been a problem and Zachary Turner would still be among us. Liberals never seem to work up too much passion about that particular kind of “equality,” though. No one really understands why, even the liberals.
- mkfreeberg | 11/15/2014 @ 18:58mkfreeberg: You don’t have a right to be found not-guilty, or a right to be given bail, and custody.
You have the right to the presumption of innocence under the law. You have the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. That’s true under both U.S. and Canadian law.
mkfreeberg: What they did was remove the authority of the magistrate from situations like this, after it had been proven that the magistrate could not be trusted to protect the public.
No. The Great Writ is still in effect in Canada. It is the responsibility of the government to prove that it has just cause to hold someone, and what bail provisions are reasonable.
Are you arguing that people shouldn’t have due process? Do you even know what that means?
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 06:47You have the right to the presumption of innocence under the law. You have the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. That’s true under both U.S. and Canadian law.
And that’s the whole problem. They had their just cause. I guess y’all aren’t too familiar with the case after all.
- mkfreeberg | 11/16/2014 @ 08:06mkfreeberg: They had their just cause.
We agree they should have given more weight to the protection of the child. The law was changed to provide more protection for the child.
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 08:30We agree they should have given more weight to the protection of the child. The law was changed to provide more protection for the child.
The point is that there is an association between this business about “let the experts decide,” and the devaluation of human life. There is also an association between this business of balancing rights, and eliminating rights within certain situations. In this case, poor Zachary was “balanced” right out of this plane of existence.
Here in America, we believe that all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
- mkfreeberg | 11/16/2014 @ 11:17mkfreeberg: The point is that there is an association between this business about “let the experts decide,” and the devaluation of human life.
It’s possible for experts, or anyone for that matter, to become detached from the concerns of their fellow human beings. However, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use expert opinion where appropriate, but like all such appeals, you need to consider context.
mkfreeberg: There is also an association between this business of balancing rights, and eliminating rights within certain situations.
Balancing rights is part-and-parcel of modern constitutional governance. Not sure exactly what you are claiming here, other than that people and their institutions are fallible. Perhaps you could provide some simple examples.
mkfreeberg: In this case, poor Zachary was “balanced” right out of this plane of existence.
The magistrate was convinced the mother was not a threat.
mkfreeberg: Here in America, we believe that all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Sure, and due process is among those unalienable rights. See Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution 1791, and Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution 1868.
Do you think the law should be changed? In what way? Did you want to do away with due process?
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 11:43M: The point is that there is an association between this business about “let the experts decide,” and the devaluation of human life.
Z: It’s possible for experts, or anyone for that matter, to become detached from the concerns of their fellow human beings. However, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use expert opinion where appropriate, but like all such appeals, you need to consider context.
And in so doing, devalue human life. Thank y’all for proving my point.
Although, that had already been done in large part, by the demise of the unfortunate Zachary Turner, and the bizarre events that led up to it.
- mkfreeberg | 11/16/2014 @ 14:18mkfreeberg: And in so doing, devalue human life.
Why would considering expert opinion in context inevitably devalue human life. If a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic say you have cancer, and they have a treatment that may be able to help save your life, how is considering that information in context devaluing life?
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 14:21Why would considering expert opinion in context inevitably devalue human life.
Well we have an example here. But y’all respond the way socialists respond when their economic models are found to cause misery: They find some flaw in the implementation, so they can claim their pet theory wasn’t applied correctly, therefore the perfect theory must remain untainted by this unfortunate consequence of practice. In going this route, y’all have painted y’all’selves into a corner and pursued a position that makes no sense: Ms. Turner had a right to the presumption of innocence, therefore a right to bail (different thing) and a right to custody Zachary (also a different thing) — yet, y’all “agree they should have given more weight to the protection of the child.”
Well, maybe “they” did. But they also followed the Zachriel rule that the accused is entitled to all sorts of stuff that should be erroneously called “presumption of innocence.” The magistrate was just doing what y’all said should be done. Zachary’s demise is merely the consequence of y’all’s priority system and value set: That the government’s duty to protect the innocent, can always be subordinated to something else, until disaster strikes. It doesn’t matter that y’all refuse to see it.
When you ask a question, and people answer it, a smart person would then use logic to pick that post apart for the edification of the onlookers and observers. But not you, you just pretend the question wasn’t answered, and keep asking it over and over again. That is the Damien Walter method of arguing, and usually occurs right before somebody with half a brain clubs you like a helpless baby seal.
- mkfreeberg | 11/17/2014 @ 05:49mkfreeberg: Well we have an example here.
Sure. Doctors.
mkfreeberg: But y’all respond the way socialists respond when their economic models are found to cause misery: They find some flaw in the implementation, so they can claim their pet theory wasn’t applied correctly, therefore the perfect theory must remain untainted by this unfortunate consequence of practice.
The vast majority of economists reject pure socialism as an economic model. Nearly all successful economies are mixed economies, with robust markets, a social safety net, usually with some industrial policy.
mkfreeberg: Ms. Turner had a right to the presumption of innocence, therefore a right to bail (different thing) and a right to custody Zachary (also a different thing) —
That’s correct. However, like all rights, those rights have limitations, and can be limited or revoked through due process. It’s in your constitution’s bill of rights.
mkfreeberg: yet, y’all “agree they should have given more weight to the protection of the child.”
Again, correct. While Turner had rights, so does the public, and those rights have to be balanced, through application of lawful due process.
See the scales? The blindfold? The sword? What do you think each of these facets of Justice mean?
- Zachriel | 11/17/2014 @ 06:45http://travelphotobase.com/i/USCT/CTHC427.JPG
That’s correct. However, like all rights, those rights have limitations, and can be limited or revoked through due process.
As the unfortunate Zachary Turner’s death shows us, when rights can be limited capriciously according to the whim of these elevated betters, they cease to be rights.
- mkfreeberg | 11/18/2014 @ 05:45mkfreeberg: As the unfortunate Zachary Turner’s death shows us, when rights can be limited capriciously according to the whim of these elevated betters, they cease to be rights.
Capricious? That’s the first time you used that term. In violation of the law? Did the state appeal the ruling?
- Zachriel | 11/18/2014 @ 06:39That’s the first time you used that term.
Is it really? I wouldn’t know. But it isn’t the first time disagreement has been created, solely from the failure of someone within y’all’s collective to understand something.
Capricious
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2015 @ 00:05mkfreeberg: Is it really? I wouldn’t know.
You could know. You wrote it. You might search the page, in case you forgot.
You didn’t answer the questions. In violation of the law? Did the state appeal the ruling?
- Zachriel | 01/12/2015 @ 06:58You could know. You wrote it. You might search the page, in case you forgot.
I’ve written things that aren’t on this page. Were y’all talking about just on this page?
You didn’t answer the questions.
The questions seem to be based on an understanding y’all had of the meaning of the word “capricious,” which is now shown to be an incorrect understanding.
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2015 @ 08:04mkfreeberg: I’ve written things that aren’t on this page.
Sure. We were obviously referring to the use of the term in relation to the topic of the judge’s ruling.
mkfreeberg: The questions seem to be based on an understanding y’all had of the meaning of the word “capricious,” which is now shown to be an incorrect understanding.
Not at all. If the judge limited someone’s rights capriciously or by whim, that would be a very serious violation of legal standard. Did the state appeal the ruling based on this?
- Zachriel | 01/12/2015 @ 08:27