Sadistic parenting story of the day: foster mother arrested for torturing and sodomizing her 10-year - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;32256836]Lawyer =/= Knows all. Lawyer = Knows more than you.[/QUOTE] About some things yes, other things not so much. And I'm not saying that it's a bad thing that lawyers are generally stubborn as fuck and think they know everything about everything. I'd say that's something a good lawyer needs to be.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32256882]About some things yes, other things not so much. And I'm not saying that it's a bad thing that lawyers are generally stubborn as fuck and think they know everything about everything. I'd say that's something a good lawyer needs to be.[/QUOTE] If we were talking about particle physics and you were a particle physicist, I would defer to your judgment. For instance, any time I'm talking about scientific subjects, which I have no formal education on, I defer to the judgement of users (such as Avon) who have a specialized education on the subject. We're talking about the Justice System right now. I'd say a specialized education brings with it a tad more authority on the subject than you are acknowledging. Part of being a lawyer isn't just knowing a lot of precedence and legislation, it's also understanding the logic behind it. This is so that even when you don't have a specific law committed to memory, you can still know with a fair degree of accuracy what the law entails and why it exists.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32256911]If we were talking about particle physics and you were a particle physicist, I would defer to your judgment. We're talking about the Justice System right now. I'd say a specialized education brings with it a tad more authority on the subject than you are acknowledging. Part of being a lawyer isn't just knowing a lot of precedence and legislation, it's also understanding the logic behind it. This is so that even when you don't have a specific law committed to memory, you can still know with a fair degree of accuracy what the law entails and why it exists.[/QUOTE] Yes but I don't see what that has to do with whether wrong opinions exist or not. I would ask such questions not a lawyer but rather an English Professor (Or any other language) (pardon the undoubtedly wrong word order, I am unsure whether English Professor means a professor that is born in England or a Professor that studied the English language). I see it as a language issue, not a legal issue. Pardon me if I'm wrong.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32257110]Yes but I don't see what that has to do with whether wrong opinions exist or not. I would ask such questions not a lawyer but rather an English Professor (Or any other language) (pardon the undoubtedly wrong word order, I am unsure whether English Professor means a professor that is born in England or a Professor that studied the English language). I see it as a language issue, not a legal issue. Pardon me if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] No it's a legal issue. Anyone who thinks killing another human being is justice doesn't know what justice is. We're talking about a guy who says: A: His money is more important than human life. B: Appeals aren't necessary in death-penalty cases. C: We should just shoot people in the street. D: Presumably he thinks Judge Dredd should be for real. And then he wraps it all up by calling that justice, and saying it's his opinion so it's immune to criticism. His opinion is downright wrong. Not just in an ethical or rational sense, but in a literal and factual sense as well.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32257183]No it's a legal issue. Anyone who thinks killing another human being is justice doesn't know what justice is. We're talking about a guy who says: A: His money is more important than human life. B: Appeals aren't necessary in death-penalty cases. C: We should just shoot people in the street. D: Presumably he thinks Judge Dredd should be for real. And then he wraps it all up by calling that justice, and saying it's his opinion so it's immune to criticism. His opinion is downright wrong. Not just in an ethical or rational sense, but in a literal and factual sense as well.[/QUOTE] He's made posts like that in SH numerous times while you weren't around, and I wasn't able to convince him otherwise.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32256882]About some things yes, other things not so much. And I'm not saying that it's a bad thing that lawyers are generally stubborn as fuck and think they know everything about everything. I'd say that's something a good lawyer needs to be.[/QUOTE] as a non lawyer i'll second the claim that an opinion can so profoundly disagree with reality that it becomes a wrong opinion "it's just my opinion" is an argument existing at the cognitive level of a second grader, wholly identical in substance to just saying "nuh-uh"

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32257226]as a non lawyer i'll second the claim that an opinion can so profoundly disagree with reality that it becomes a wrong opinion "it's just my opinion" is an argument existing at the cognitive level of a second grader, wholly identical in substance to just saying "nuh-uh"[/QUOTE] This is like the first time we have ever agreed. Bro grabs.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32257250]This is like the first time we have ever agreed. Bro grabs.[/QUOTE] Really? You guys usually seem to be on the same page.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32257250]This is like the first time we have ever agreed. Bro grabs.[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure we agree on plenty of stuff i just dont think its stuff that gets argued about here

[QUOTE=Lankist;32256722]no its actually wrong. Good opinions are based upon fact and rationale. If it has neither, it is actually wrong.[/QUOTE] An opinion cannot be wrong. You may say 1+1 is not 2 if you have anything to back it up with. The thing is, 1+1=2 is such a wide known and precise fact that almost nobody disagrees with it. If you were to disagree with it, that's alright, but we can think you're utterly out of your mind and stupid for thinking so, but it's still your opinion and it's not 'wrong'. For ethical and moral questions it's even harder to say that somebody is wrong or right though, because nobody know enough to be able to calculate a specific and exact answer. This is why we even debate things like this, because we can only guess and try to generalise to get an answer so people will have different opinions and back it up with different opinions. Err maybe I made it too confusing.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32257306]i'm pretty sure we agree on plenty of stuff i just dont think its stuff that gets argued about here[/QUOTE] Yeah I guess whenever we agree on shit we both find the one sentence we disagree with and go apeshit.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32257183]No it's a legal issue. Anyone who thinks killing another human being is justice doesn't know what justice is. We're talking about a guy who says: A: His money is more important than human life. B: Appeals aren't necessary in death-penalty cases. C: We should just shoot people in the street. D: Presumably he thinks Judge Dredd should be for real. And then he wraps it all up by calling that justice, and saying it's his opinion so it's immune to criticism. His opinion is downright wrong. Not just in an ethical or rational sense, but in a literal and factual sense as well.[/QUOTE] No, his opinion may cling with our morals, but that does not make it wrong. I could see your point when you were talking about 1+1, now, not so much.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32257432]No, his opinion may cling with our morals, but that does not make it wrong. I could see your point when you were talking about 1+1, now, not so much.[/QUOTE] Yes it does. He calls that Justice. Justice isn't a moral principle, it's a finite system (as I have said multiple times) of solving problems with minimal losses. When you say "Justice" you're probably talking about some sort of biblical retribution. When I say "Justice," I'm talking about a very real set of principles, ideas, rights and laws, all of which are violated by the sort of thing he calls Justice.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;32257308]An opinion cannot be wrong. You may say 1+1 is not 2 if you have anything to back it up with. The thing is, 1+1=2 is such a wide known and precise fact that almost nobody disagrees with it. If you were to disagree with it, that's alright, but we can think you're utterly out of your mind and stupid for thinking so, but it's still your opinion and it's not 'wrong'.[/QUOTE] You can argue that it could potentially be right in a navel-gazing metaphysical discussion, but in the real world with which we're interacting, where those numbers represent actual physical objects (ie Timmy's one apple and Susie's one apple, which they give to Bobby who now has two apples), the opinion is, for all conceivable intents and purposes, wrong and to save ourselves the breath/progression of carpal tunnel, we'll just say that the opinion is wrong

[QUOTE=Lankist;32257471]Yes it does. He calls that Justice. Justice isn't a moral principle, it's a finite system (as I have said multiple times) of solving problems with minimal losses. When you say "Justice" you're probably talking about some sort of biblical retribution. When I say "Justice," I'm talking about a very real set of principles, ideas, rights and laws, all of which are violated by the sort of thing he calls Justice.[/QUOTE] -snip because I'm an idiot, I finally understand now please don't kill me- Justice is based on morals though, the very set of principals, ideas, rights and laws you call justice is inherently based on morals.

quick question how does this relate to the thread

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32257565][url]http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/opinion[/url] I am solely talking about whether an opinion can be wrong or not, and according to the dictionary, it can't.[/QUOTE] yo fuck the dictionary it's job is to provide basic, functional definitions for words; not to answer philosophical questions

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32257647]yo fuck the dictionary it's job is to provide basic, functional definitions for words; not to answer philosophical questions[/QUOTE] Don't mind that, the dictionary doesn't even say if an opinion can be wrong or not. I did however found a very good explanation as to why an opinion can be wrong, it has changed my life for ever. [QUOTE]An opinion is what you believe to be true. As such, if I claim something is my opinion when it is not, that claim is wrong. It is not my opinion that there is no such thing as gravity, and if I say it is then that statement is false. Likewise, because an opinion is a belief, that belief can be unmeritied. Even if I were of the opinion that there was no such thing as gravity, by the conventional definitions of the terms involved I would be wrong. So an opinion has to be factual in the sense that it IS your opinion, but it doesn't have to be factual in the sense of corresponding to reality. An opinion that doesn't correspond to reality is STILL wrong, however, even if it is your opinion. Source: [url]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080506115414AAJ5uDZ[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32257565]-snip because I'm an idiot, I finally understand now please don't kill me- Justice is based on morals though, the very set of principals, ideas, rights and laws you call justice is inherently based on morals.[/QUOTE] Old justice was based upon morality. Modern justice is based upon rights. [editline]12th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=mobrockers2;32257565]-snip because I'm an idiot, I finally understand now please don't kill me- Justice is based on morals though, the very set of principals, ideas, rights and laws you call justice is inherently based on morals.[/QUOTE] Old justice was based upon morality. Modern justice is based upon rights.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32257795]Old justice was based upon morality. Modern justice is based upon rights. [editline]12th September 2011[/editline] Old justice was based upon morality. Modern justice is based upon rights.[/QUOTE] That's just silly. Justice always comes down to morality as rights are derived from morals. If we didn't think it was immoral to let people suffer we wouldn't give people rights so their suffering ends. Without morality there is no need for rights, as the only justice we would know without morality would be an eye for an eye.

Opinions are like assholes If you're using it to design your whole argument it's just going to come out like afh;peaupfe39pf\eha because you pressed your asshole down on the keyboard

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32257893]That's just silly. Justice always comes down to morality as rights are derived from morals. If we didn't think it was immoral to let people suffer we wouldn't give people rights so their suffering ends. Without morality there is no need for rights, as the only justice we would know without morality would be an eye for an eye.[/QUOTE] You don't know what rights are. See this is why it's important to defer to the knowledge of individuals educated in a field. Rights are not morals, rights are protections from abuse. Rights are an agreed-upon standard rooted in the golden rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) And before you say the Golden Rule is a moral/religious principle, it is a philosophy existent in every historical and modern culture ever recorded, whether secular or religious or moral or deviant. Rights are basic rules of governance, not guidelines for self improvement. They are quantifiable, they can be rationalized and debated, you can provide sound, factual and rational arguments for and against proposed rights. For example, driving a car is not a right because not all people are physically capable of driving a car. Rights are things that apply to every single human being on Earth. The Right to Life is the most basic and fundamental right, and out of that right comes the Right of Self Determination, Liberty, Free Speech, etc. Rights are inalienable rules, not for YOU to follow, but for GOVERNMENT to follow and to protect. When you murder someone, the worry is not that you have violated your own moral code, but that government has failed to protect your victim's Right to Life. To kill another human being is a violation of the must fundamental right ever conceived. It is an unacceptable practice for any government, especially when it's killing its own citizens. The purpose of rights is NOT to establish a sense of morality. The purpose of rights is to ensure an environment in which everyone can establish their own morality, among all other philosophical and ethical concerns people have their little opinions about. Rights are the only reason you can even have opinions and get away with it. Your rights are above your opinion.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32258003]You don't know what rights are. See this is why it's important to defer to the knowledge of individuals educated in a field. Rights are not morals, rights are protections from abuse. Rights are an agreed-upon standard rooted in the golden rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) And before you say the Golden Rule is a moral/religious principle, it is a philosophy existent in every historical and modern culture ever recorded, whether secular or religious or moral or deviant. Rights are basic rules of governance, not guidelines for self improvement. They are quantifiable, they can be rationalized and debated, you can provide sound, factual and rational arguments for and against proposed rights. For example, driving a car is not a right because not all people are physically capable of driving a car. Rights are things that apply to every single human being on Earth. The Right to Life is the most basic and fundamental right, and out of that right comes the Right of Self Determination, Liberty, Free Speech, etc. Rights are inalienable rules, not for YOU to follow, but for GOVERNMENT to follow and to protect. When you murder someone, the worry is not that you have violated your own moral code, but that government has failed to protect your victim's Right to Life. To kill another human being is a violation of the must fundamental right ever conceived. It is an unacceptable practice for any government, especially when it's killing its own citizens. The purpose of rights is NOT to establish a sense of morality. The purpose of rights is to ensure an environment in which everyone can establish their own morality, among all other philosophical and ethical concerns people have their little opinions about. Rights are the only reason you can even have opinions and get away with it. Your rights are above your opinion.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying right are morals, I'm saying rights derive from a sense of morality, and that without morality there would be no basic rights. You are putting words into my mouth and I don't particularly appreciate that. [QUOTE]To kill another human being is a violation of the must fundamental right ever conceived. It is an unacceptable practice for any government, especially when it's killing its own citizens.[/QUOTE] Morality, we feel that it is an immoral practice, a violation of fundamental rights. Unacceptable. That's morals right there, no other word for it.

Not morality. I don't give a flying fuck if this woman lives or dies on a moral level. There is a word for what I'm saying. It's called Justice. Your opinion is wrong.

What the fuck kind of disgusting fuck does that shit?

[QUOTE=Lankist;32258202]Not morality. I don't give a flying fuck if this woman lives or dies on a moral level. There is a word for what I'm saying. It's called Justice. Your opinion is wrong.[/QUOTE] Arguing with you is impossible, it's like you don't even read what I'm saying and keep on pushing your own "facts" without even knowing what I'm saying.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32258283]Arguing with you is impossible, it's like you don't even read what I'm saying and keep on pushing your own "facts" without even knowing what I'm saying.[/QUOTE] I'm reading exactly what you're saying. You're just wrong. Repeating over and over "law = morality" makes me think you're the one who isn't reading my carefully laid-out explanation of the basis of modern law. I slaved over a hot encyclopedia to make you that definition and do you thank me? NO!

[QUOTE=Lankist;32258486]I'm reading exactly what you're saying. You're just wrong. Repeating over and over [b]"law = morality"[/b] makes me think you're the one who isn't reading my carefully laid-out explanation of the basis of modern law.[/QUOTE] Clearly you're the one not reading my posts as I've not in a single of my posts said that.

"Rights derive from a sense of morality" No they don't. You are wrong. Deal w/ it.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32258486]I'm reading exactly what you're saying. You're just wrong. Repeating over and over "law = morality" makes me think you're the one who isn't reading my carefully laid-out explanation of the basis of modern law. I slaved over a hot encyclopedia to make you that definition and do you thank me? NO![/QUOTE] Rather than the laws which derive from them I think he's saying that the concept of human rights is based on a sort of moral consensus and I don't think he's wrong