11 years in jail so far..for contempt of court! [Archive] - Page 6

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 10:29 AM

Your quote didn't support your claim. Much as your original article didn't support any of the facts that you eventually had to concede.
You felt personally offended because I compared your behaviour to that of a broken record. And yet, in the very sentence where you attempt to show this is not your behaviour, you state and I quote: "You compared me to a broken record because I keep responding to your fallacious arguments by pointing out that the fallacy hasn't changed.

QED.
It has everything to do with remediation. Since he can make right his wrong, he should be compelled to. That is just.
marksman. You have continually held the position that because it is legal to keep this man locked up forever, it is also justice. Get over yourself.
No, you didn't. I set forth the questions you have never answered and you continue to refuse to answer them. Meanwhile, I have patiently answered all of your questions and for it, you have offered ridicule rather than reasons.

I have explained my view a million times. But okay, just for you, I'll answer your questions, as you still seem unable to fathom what I mean.
For a third time, here are the questions you have never answered.
Do you feel any of the following factors should be considered when determining whether a punishment is just:
1) the intent of the defendant
Yes.
2) the ability of the defendant to right his wrong
In general, no.
3) the presence of malice motivating the infraction
Sorry, You'll need to explain that one.
4) the fact that the crime prevents the government from fulfilling its legitimate function.
Certainly not.
If you answered no, please explain why you think that factor is irrelevant.

When I asses if a sentence is just, I look at the nature of the supposed crime committed, who and how many people it hurt (if any), the degree to which they were supposedly hurt and how the sentence stacks up against sentences for other crimes, more heinous or less.
You did claim this. When asked to justify your opinion that Chadwick's incarceration is unjust you wrote:

Would you like to retract this statement?
Uh..no. You claimed the following: "I have found most of the posters on JREF to be eminently rational and reasoned. They, unlike you, do not claim that their "feelings", devoid of any facts, justify making absurd arguments."

Kindly show me where I have claimed that "my feelings justify making absurd arguments."

If you can't, then kindly accept that you are talking baloney.
As odious as your opinion is, it does not offend me. It saddens me that you appear so unwilling to answer my questions in two separate threads. It saddens me that you think offering a judgment based on nothing more than "feelings" is worthy of any consideration.
I continue to be flabbergasted (love that word :)) at your continuing inability to understand my point.

No Court or Judge should make decisions based only on feelings. They should make decisions based on the law. My beef with the decision made in this case, is that it is not Just. The "sentence" is in no way comparable to the "crime".
By the way if you do attempt a poll, may I suggest a neutral phrasing of the question? Simply link the original article and ask the people "Do you think Chadwick's punishment is just?" Then offer the respondents a choice between "Yes", "No" or "I don't have enough facts to render a competent opinion."
Thanks for the suggestions.
I suspect you will continue to be disappointed by the answers you receive.
I hope not.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 10:33 AM

Never before have I seen someone claim that Plato, Kant, Aquinas and Rawls are not substantive.
Me either. Who might have claimed such rubbish?
All of them -- and all the other philosophers Skeptic mentioned -- have discussed the concept of "justness". All of them disagree with your statement that "Feelings is all I have and all that's necessary", which, to date, is the only basis you have offered for your opinion that Chadwick's incarceration is unjust.
Certainly all of them have discussed justness.

But I didn't ask for the opinion of philosophers. I asked for Skeptic's view.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 10:36 AM

So.

Any word from the relative about how Danish courts enforce contempt findings or compel people to obey their rulings?
Nope, as I havn't asked him. I found the answers using google.
We're getting close to two weeks from the promise to check. I take it you and your brother aren't very close? Or perhaps he has no phone and the pigeons sent off to hime have not returned??
Uh...If you look back at what I said, you'll see that I would either get in touch with my brother-in-law and get the answers from him, or do a google search myself. I didn't get in touch with my BIL, so I did a google search.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 10:37 AM

Well, since you insist, I think "justice" is "whatever Bob Jones, the clerk in the store down the street, thinks it is". That's my theory. I decide if a law is providing justice or not by asking Bob.

At least as reasonable as defining "justice" as "Whatever Danish Dynamite on the internet feels in his gut it is", don't you think?

Icnidentally, Bob disagrees with you that Chadwick is a case of injustice. May I ask how, if two people's gut feelings disagree, does one determine what is just?
When you answer my question, I'll be happy to respond to your answer more extensively.

Oroborus

13th October 2006, 10:39 AM

^:dig:

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 10:41 AM

Does anyone here other than DD have the ability to answer the "what if this were in Denmark" question? I wasn't asking just to bait him, I am genuinely interested in the answer and don't really know how to go about looking it up myself.
I have already answered this question. If you could be bothered to go back and find the post that would be nice and show some genuine interest in the question.

To sum up what I wrote: Temporary incarceration of up to 4 weeks can be the judgement of a court. Apparently this temporary incarceration can be extended without limit, though the longest example of this in Danish history is 3 years.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 10:45 AM

I guess implicit in that is that we're not so confident in DD's candor and forthrightness to ask him to translate those sites accurately for us and explain that he's been wrong all along. I can't say that I blame us.

AS
I would say that you could ask Claus to translate but I suppose your paranoia means you wouldn't trust him either. Maybe MRC_Hans? Perhaps the conspiracy doesn't extend everywhere? Why not give him a chance? Or even our Norwegian poster, Ryokan? Surely he could be marginally trustworthy?

I'd accept any one of their translations.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 10:47 AM

Well, folks, it's been more than 36 hours since DD's last foray into this thread. It's been more than a week since he refused to respond to my questions in the "Boom. Boom. Boom." thread. I think it's safe to say that DD has left the building and moved under a new bridge.
"Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...." :)

Oroborus

13th October 2006, 10:48 AM

"Just when you thought intellectual pollution was over"* :D:dig:

drkitten

13th October 2006, 10:50 AM

I have already answered this question. If you could be bothered to go back and find the post that would be nice and show some genuine interest in the question.

Um, DD --

You didn't answer the question. Your answer referred to criminal incarceration, not civil contempt.

You didn't answer the quetsion "what happens if someone defies the order of a Danish court"?

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 10:57 AM

Um, DD --

You didn't answer the question. Your answer referred to criminal incarceration, not civil contempt.

You didn't answer the quetsion "what happens if someone defies the order of a Danish court"?
Yes, I did answer that question. That question doesn't say anything regarding the type of case.

However, I'll have a look to see if I can find whether the possible judgements of civil courts in Denmark are worse than this.

marksman

13th October 2006, 11:11 AM

You felt personally offended because I compared your behaviour to that of a broken record. And yet, in the very sentence where you attempt to show this is not your behaviour, you state and I quote: "You compared me to a broken record because I keep responding to your fallacious arguments by pointing out that the fallacy hasn't changed.

QED.
All the quote you posted proves is that you keep making the same fallacious statements over and over. That doesn't make me the broken record.

marksman. You have continually held the position that because it is legal to keep this man locked up forever, it is also justice. Get over yourself.
Wrong. I never said that what is legal is just. I specifically posted my criteria for justness. None of them involve the existence of the law justifying itself. I challenge you to find the post where I assert that a law is just merely (or even in part) because it is legal. Otherwise, retract this pernicious and false statement, just as you retracted the other false statements I have pointed out in the past.

When I asses if a sentence is just, I look at the nature of the supposed crime committed, who and how many people it hurt (if any), the degree to which they were supposedly hurt and how the sentence stacks up against sentences for other crimes, more heinous or less.
You failed to explain why you do not consider the ability of the wrongdoer to correct his wrong when detrmining if a sentence is just. I have now asked you to do that four times.

In addition, I asked you to explain how the criteria you did mention apply to the Chadwick matter. You have not done that either. For a third time, I now ask you to do so.

You also asked for a clarification of "malice"
Malice must be distinguihed from intent. Someone intentionally breaks the law when they chose to act, regardless of whether a person will be hurt thereby. Driving while intoxicated, which results in injury to another, is an example of this. Malice occurs when the person acts in order to hurt somebody. Ie, the injury to others is not merely a result of the act, but the goal.

Is this a criterion you consider when determining the justness of a punishment. If so, how did you apply it when detemrining the justness of Chadwick's punishment? If not, why not?

Kindly show me where I have claimed that "my feelings justify making absurd arguments."

In post 1157, I asked:
"On what basis do you believe it unjust that a man be held in prison for contempt of court until he complies with the court order? What is the standard you are applying?"
In post 1161, you responded:
"A feeling of justice. You know, the sort of criteria whereby laws are made."

That was the entirety of your response to my question, so it is not being taken out of context. Nor did it include any empticons to indicate you were joking. I asked you the criteria upon which you evaluated Chadwick's sentence for unjustness and your entire basis was a "feeling of justice."

Now retract the statement or defend it, but don't deny you made it.

No Court or Judge should make decisions based only on feelings. They should make decisions based on the law. My beef with the decision made in this case, is that it is not Just. The "sentence" is in no way comparable to the "crime".
But you have been utterly unable to justify the criteria you used. And it took forever to get you to even set them forth.

Me either. Who might have claimed such rubbish?
You did.
In post 1240, you asked Skeptic to define the concept of justice.
In post 1241, Skeptic listed nine philosophers who have discoursed on the notion of "justice," indicating his use of their definitions. It is hard to conceive of a more direct response to your request.
In post 1242, you repeated, "When you have something of substance to utter, please do so. ... Till then, adieu."
This exchange clearly shows that you rejected Skeptic's citation to some of the most eminent philosophers to discourse on the subject as being without substance.

Now, either retract that statement or defend it. Don't deny it doesn't exist.

But I didn't ask for the opinion of philosophers. I asked for Skeptic's view.
His view coincides with the view of those philosophers, as he very clearly wrote. I suspect you didn't even read his post and simply wanted to dismiss him without responding. However, in doing so you made yourself appear foolish. You also dismissed these nine philosophers as lacking substance.

Edit: By the way, it's been more than nine days since you were asked to explain your theory of cultural maturity in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1973828&postcount=353). You have not responded.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 11:26 AM

All the quote you posted proves is that you keep making the same fallacious statements over and over. That doesn't make me the broken record.
Yes it does.
Wrong. I never said that what is legal is just. I specifically posted my criteria for justness. None of them involve the existence of the law justifying itself. I challenge you to find the post where I assert that a law is just merely (or even in part) because it is legal. Otherwise, retract this pernicious and false statement, just as you retracted the other false statements I have pointed out in the past.
If you don't feel this way, then why are arguing as if you do?
You failed to explain why you do not consider the ability of the wrongdoer to correct his wrong when detrmining if a sentence is just. I have now asked you to do that four times.
And I have explained. The simplest answer is because I don't.
In addition, I asked you to explain how the criteria you did mention apply to the Chadwick matter. You have not done that either. For a third time, I now ask you to do so.
Which I have also explained a million times.
You also asked for a clarification of "malice"
Malice must be distinguihed from intent. Someone intentionally breaks the law when they chose to act, regardless of whether a person will be hurt thereby. Driving while intoxicated, which results in injury to another, is an example of this. Malice occurs when the person acts in order to hurt somebody. Ie, the injury to others is not merely a result of the act, but the goal.

Is this a criterion you consider when determining the justness of a punishment. If so, how did you apply it when detemrining the justness of Chadwick's punishment? If not, why not?
So what's the difference between having an intent to do something bad and malice?
In post 1157, I asked:
"On what basis do you believe it unjust that a man be held in prison for contempt of court until he complies with the court order? What is the standard you are applying?"
In post 1161, you responded:
"A feeling of justice. You know, the sort of criteria whereby laws are made."

That was the entirety of your response to my question, so it is not being taken out of context. Nor did it include any empticons to indicate you were joking. I asked you the criteria upon which you evaluated Chadwick's sentence for unjustness and your entire basis was a "feeling of justice."

Now retract the statement or defend it, but don't deny you made it.
Nothing to retract.

For some odd reason you continue ( dare I say like a broken record?) in discussing uninteresting minutiae of law when what I'm discussing is the justice.

Try and get your mind centered around this (perhaps foreign) concept.
But you have been utterly unable to justify the criteria you used. And it took forever to get you to even set them forth.
Justify me feeling on what Justice constitutes? I have explained numerous times how I decide what is Justice and what isn't.
You did.
In post 1240, you asked Skeptic to define the concept of justice.
In post 1241, Skeptic listed nine philosophers who have discoursed on the notion of "justice," indicating his use of their definitions. It is hard to conceive of a more direct response to your request.
In post 1242, you repeated, "When you have something of substance to utter, please do so. ... Till then, adieu."
This exchange clearly shows that you rejected Skeptic's citation to some of the most eminent philosophers to discourse on the subject as being without substance.

Now, either retract that statement or defend it. Don't deny it doesn't exist.
Yes, Skeptic refered to how various philosophers had discussed this question. He never gave his personal view of the two questions I asked.
His view coincides with the view of those philosophers, as he very clearly wrote. I suspect you didn't even read his post and simply wanted to dismiss him without responding. However, in doing so you made yourself appear foolish. You also dismissed these nine philosophers as lacking substance.
He wrote nothing of the kind.

When he answers my two questions, I'll certainly be happy to discuss his views.

Ian Osborne

13th October 2006, 11:29 AM

marksman

13th October 2006, 11:39 AM

All the quote you posted proves is that you keep making the same fallacious statements over and over. That doesn't make me the broken record.
Yes it does.I leave it to the people reading this thread to make the appropriate conclusions from this exchange.

If you don't feel this way, then why are arguing as if you do?
I challenged to show me where I argue such a a thing. You have failed to do so. Stop making accusations you are unable to substantiate.

And I have explained. The simplest answer is because I don't.
Much like your resort to citing your "feelings" as justification for your definition of justice, the words "I don't" do not explain anything. I take this answer as a concession that you are unable to explain why you apply the criteria you do and how you use them to come to a conclusion about justice.

Which I have also explained a million times.
Yet you just conceded that your explanation is "I don't". That you think "I don't" contitutes an explanation speaks volumes about your inability to follow, construct or articulate anything approaching a reasoned logical argument.

So what's the difference between having an intent to do something bad and malice?
Please read again. The distinction is not "intent to do something bad" and "mailice". The distinction is "intent to take an action that may have bad consequence" and "intent to take an action in order to bring about a bad consequence." Do you understand the distinction?

Nothing to retract.
Then, once again, DD, I leave it to those who read this thread to see that you are unable to follow a logical argument.

For some odd reason you continue ( dare I say like a broken record?) in discussing uninteresting minutiae of law when what I'm discussing is the justice.
The exchange I posted had nothing to do with the law. I specifically asked you how you defined "justice". That you think I was asking about the law says more about your mental faculties than it does about anything I have written.

Justify me feeling on what Justice constitutes? I have explained numerous times how I decide what is Justice and what isn't.
Citing your "feelings" and then responding "I don't" when asked to explain them is not an explanation no matter how many times you repeat it.

Yes, Skeptic refered to how various philosophers had discussed this question. He never gave his personal view of the two questions I asked.

He wrote nothing of the kind.
I leave it to those reading this thread to conclude what they will about your inability to follow even the most basic of arguments.

Still waiting for a continuation of the discussion of "cultural maturity" in the "Boom. Boom. Boom." thread. tick, tock, tick, tock. Nine days and counting... We might have to put a "DD Clock" up on the front page next to Sylvia Brown.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 11:47 AM

DD, no one here is claiming keeping Chadwick in the nick is an ideal solution. But as it's the only solution that doesn't end with him leaving the country with a large portion of his wife's money, it's the only just solution. Sub-optimal? Sure, but what's the alternative? Would letting him leave and enjoy the proceeds of his actions be justice?
YES!

We are supposed to be living in countries ruled by law. And those laws are supposed to be made based (ultimately) on what people in general feel is justice (or at least what a majority feels is justice).

Yet the literal translation of what the people feel is justice into law sometimes has unintended side effects. Side effects which suddenly makes an otherwise reasonable law become a monster and a clear abrogation of justice. When this happens, it is up to the people to make an uproar.

NoZed Avenger

13th October 2006, 12:00 PM

Good luck, folks.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 12:09 PM

I leave it to the people reading this thread to make the appropriate conclusions from this exchange.
I'm not quite as large, I'm afraid. Biut I will leave it to independent readers to make the appropriate conclusions.
I challenged to show me where I argue such a a thing. You have failed to do so. Stop making accusations you are unable to substantiate.
The accusations are entirelly substantiated within this thread. I invite interrested readers to have a look.
Much like your resort to citing your "feelings" as justification for your definition of justice, the words "I don't" do not explain anything. I take this answer as a concession that you are unable to explain why you apply the criteria you do and how you use them to come to a conclusion about justice.
It is really very simple, my friend. Kindly explain why some laws are approved by Congress and some aren't.
Yet you just conceded that your explanation is "I don't". That you think "I don't" contitutes an explanation speaks volumes about your inability to follow, construct or articulate anything approaching a reasoned logical argument.

No. It speaks volumes about your inability to understand the question I'm asking.
Please read again. The distinction is not "intent to do something bad" and "mailice". The distinction is "intent to take an action that may have bad consequence" and "intent to take an action in order to bring about a bad consequence." Do you understand the distinction?
It's a fine distinction, but I think I understand now. In one instance the perpetrator figures there's maybe a 50% probability of something illegal happening, in the other instance the perpetrator thinks there's maybe a 90% change of smething illegal happening. Am I close?
Then, once again, DD, I leave it to those who read this thread to see that you are unable to follow a logical argument.
Once again, I'll leave it to independent observers.
The exchange I posted had nothing to do with the law. I specifically asked you how you defined "justice". That you think I was asking about the law says more about your mental faculties than it does about anything I have written.
You have incessantly hammered on about the law. The only time you changed your tune (changed the record?) is when I mentioned justice.
Citing your "feelings" and then responding "I don't" when asked to explain them is not an explanation no matter how many times you repeat it.
Of course it is.
I leave it to those reading this thread to conclude what they will about your inability to follow even the most basic of arguments.
See above. (This seems to be your general escape hatch when cornered. :))
Still waiting for a continuation of the discussion of "cultural maturity" in the "Boom. Boom. Boom." thread. tick, tock, tick, tock. Nine days and counting... We might have to put a "DD Clock" up on the front page next to Sylvia Brown.
I already told you, my dear, that I might have a look at the thread this weekend if I felt so inclined. Try to bate your breath. :)

Ian Osborne

13th October 2006, 12:12 PM

We are supposed to be living in countries ruled by law. And those laws are supposed to be made based (ultimately) on what people in general feel is justice (or at least what a majority feels is justice).

And the majority here seem to think this is justice. Even the ones who were initially on your side.

Yet the literal translation of what the people feel is justice into law sometimes has unintended side effects. Side effects which suddenly makes an otherwise reasonable law become a monster and a clear abrogation of justice. When this happens, it is up to the people to make an uproar.

A agree with all of this, but I don't see how it applies to someone who is keeping himself in jail rather than submit to the lawful and just will of the court.

Remember, DD, Chadwick is trying to run off with his wife's money.

I wonder whether he'll die of old age before this thread concludes?

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 12:12 PM

Good luck, folks.
Great cheering, NoZed. "They" really need it. :)

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 12:21 PM

And the majority here seem to think this is justice. Even the ones who were initially on your side.
Yes, but the majority here are not exactly representative of their populations, are they?
A agree with all of this, but I don't see how it applies to someone who is keeping himself in jail rather than submit to the lawful and just will of the court.

Remember, DD, Chadwick is trying to run off with his wife's money.
The difference between you and I, Ian, appears to be you can't get beyond the Court's decission that this man is withholding evidence. Heck, I could even agree with you that he might. The difference seems to be that for you this makes a great difference as to whether it is just that he spend the rest of his life in jail, wheras for me it makes little difference.

As I've said, I look at the big picture. I compare the sentence of person A based on what harm he/she has done to the sentence of person B based on what harm he/she has done in order to determine what is just.
I wonder whether he'll die of old age before this thread concludes?
I certainly hope not.

drkitten

13th October 2006, 12:28 PM

As I've said, I look at the big picture. I compare the sentence of person A based on what harm he/she has done to the sentence of person B based on what harm he/she has done in order to determine what is just.

I would like to submit that a mere comparison of harm done is not necessarily a good method to determine the severity of punishment.

For example, murder is usually considered to be a serious harm, possibly the most serious harm of all. But attempted murder often results in no harm to anyone whatsoever. If I shoot at you and miss, the bullet whistling harmlessly past your ear, should I be punished?

Should I be punished more than if I were to spraypaint an obscenity on your house? After all, the paint did some substantive harm (you needed to pay to repaint that wall) and the bullet didn't.

Most people wouldn't accept this line of reasoning, however, and would judge attempted murder to be a much more serious crime than vandalism.

So when we judge the severity of an action, we have to look not only at the actual harm done, but at the intended harm, and even at the potential harm done.

What's the potential harm of flauting an order of the court? What's the intended harm?

marksman

13th October 2006, 12:40 PM

Kindly explain why some laws are approved by Congress and some aren't.
And you accuse me of confusing "law" and "justice"? I asked you how you justify your feelings and you respond by citing to Congressional methods for legislating? That is not only a non sequitur, it is a particulrly egregious example of your inability to follow an argument.

It's a fine distinction, but I think I understand now. In one instance the perpetrator figures there's maybe a 50% probability of something illegal happening, in the other instance the perpetrator thinks there's maybe a 90% change of smething illegal happening. Am I close?
Actually, I think you are even further away.
The difference between "intent" and "malice" is "Intent" involves someone who chooses to take an action without calculating the potential of harm at all, whereas "malice" involves someone who chooses to take an action desiring that harm be the result.

The actual chance of harm is irrelevant to the disctinction between "intent" and "malice". Do you understand now?

You have incessantly hammered on about the law. The only time you changed your tune (changed the record?) is when I mentioned justice.
I challenge you -- for a fourth time -- to cite any post in which I included in a definition of "justice" the fact that the punsihment was legal.

You keep saying that I made this argument, but whenever I challengs you to substantiate it, you balk. That's because you are wrong and you are misrepresenting my statements. So either substantiate your accusation or be exposed as a prevaricator.

See above. (This seems to be your general escape hatch when cornered.
No, it's by general response when someone is shown evidence of his fallacy and then denies that it exists without explaining what has been presented. As you did three times alone in the last thread.

I already told you, my dear, that I might have a look at the thread this weekend if I felt so inclined. Try to bate your breath.
Already setting up the excuse for why you'll be unable to respond to the post over the weekend, eh?

ZirconBlue

13th October 2006, 12:51 PM

Yes, but the majority here are not exactly representative of their populations, are they?

I for one certainly hope that the behavior of a couple of the Danes on this forum are not representive of their fellow countrymen.

The difference between you and I, Ian, appears to be you can't get beyond the Court's decission that this man is withholding evidence. Heck, I could even agree with you that he might. The difference seems to be that for you this makes a great difference as to whether it is just that he spend the rest of his life in jail, wheras for me it makes little difference.

As I've said, I look at the big picture. I compare the sentence of person A based on what harm he/she has done to the sentence of person B based on what harm he/she has done in order to determine what is just.

Justice does not exist in a vacuum. Only in context. In the context of this case, Justice is being served. It matters that Chadwick can provide the information requested by the court. Additionally, whether it is just for Chadwick, letting him go now would be unjust to his ex-wife, to our system of law, and, by extension, to our society as a whole. The balance of justice is not in Chadwick's favor.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 12:52 PM

I would like to submit that a mere comparison of harm done is not necessarily a good method to determine the severity of punishment.

For example, murder is usually considered to be a serious harm, possibly the most serious harm of all. But attempted murder often results in no harm to anyone whatsoever. If I shoot at you and miss, the bullet whistling harmlessly past your ear, should I be punished?

Should I be punished more than if I were to spraypaint an obscenity on your house? After all, the paint did some substantive harm (you needed to pay to repaint that wall) and the bullet didn't.

Most people wouldn't accept this line of reasoning, however, and would judge attempted murder to be a much more serious crime than vandalism.
And I would agree.
So when we judge the severity of an action, we have to look not only at the actual harm done, but at the intended harm, and even at the potential harm done.
Certainly.
What's the potential harm of flauting an order of the court? What's the intended harm?
At this stage, it makes no difference. Let me look back at the facts so that I can judge:

Supposed crime: Hiding money from his ex-wife in a divorce settlement.
Sentence: Indefinite incarceration.

Comparing said supposed offence and the sentence to other types of crimes and sentences...let me see...no, I have to say it is completely unjust.

drkitten

13th October 2006, 01:04 PM

At this stage, it makes no difference. Let me look back at the facts so that I can judge:

Supposed crime: Hiding money from his ex-wife in a divorce settlement.
Sentence: Indefinite incarceration.

Once again, a misrepresentation.

His "supposed crime" [sic] is the willful disobediance of a court order.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 01:05 PM

And you accuse me of confusing "law" and "justice"? I asked you how you justify your feelings and you respond by citing to Congressional methods for legislating? That is not only a non sequitur, it is a particulrly egregious example of your inability to follow an argument.
Just answer the question.
Actually, I think you are even further away.
The difference between "intent" and "malice" is "Intent" involves someone who chooses to take an action without calculating the potential of harm at all, whereas "malice" involves someone who chooses to take an action desiring that harm be the result.
OK. Good explanation.
The actual chance of harm is irrelevant to the disctinction between "intent" and "malice". Do you understand now?
I think so.
I challenge you -- for a fourth time -- to cite any post in which I included in a definition of "justice" the fact that the punsihment was legal.
Indeed you do. And if I thought it was of some importance to the point I'm making, I would wade through the 30 pages or so to find it.
You keep saying that I made this argument, but whenever I challengs you to substantiate it, you balk. That's because you are wrong and you are misrepresenting my statements. So either substantiate your accusation or be exposed as a prevaricator.
I mostly refrain from searching for the posts because they are of no relevance to my point. And because I'm lazy. :)
No, it's by general response when someone is shown evidence of his fallacy and then denies that it exists without explaining what has been presented. As you did three times alone in the last thread.
Cool.

Sorry, I forgot what you were complaining about. Perhaps you could regain your honor as someone worthy of dialog if you could give your opinion on the question being discussed. Thanks.
Already setting up the excuse for why you'll be unable to respond to the post over the weekend, eh?
No, my friend. Just saying things the way they are. :)

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 01:07 PM

Once again, a misrepresentation.

His "supposed crime" [sic] is the willful disobediance of a court order.
I have made a misrepresentation of my own argument? Really?

Could you point out where? Thanks.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 01:12 PM

I for one certainly hope that the behavior of a couple of the Danes on this forum are not representive of their fellow countrymen.
I'm sure you do.

Just for giggles, could you tell me why you think this? Thanks.
Justice does not exist in a vacuum. Only in context.
I agree completely!
In the context of this case, Justice is being served. It matters that Chadwick can provide the information requested by the court. Additionally, whether it is just for Chadwick, letting him go now would be unjust to his ex-wife, to our system of law, and, by extension, to our society as a whole. The balance of justice is not in Chadwick's favor.
Wow! You have a very different interpretation of Justice!

Robbers and murderes get less than 11 years imprisonment. Yet a man who might possibly be withholding money from his ex-spouse should rightfully be incarcerated indefinitely.

Sorry, I just can't understand the thinking involved.

drkitten

13th October 2006, 01:25 PM

I have made a misrepresentation of my own argument?.

No, you have made your argument into a misrepresentation of the facts.

You claimed (falsely), that Chadwick's "supposed crime" was "hiding money from his ex-wife in a divorce settlement." This is a misrepresentation in at least three ways.

First, it's not a divorce settlement, as the settlement hasn't been reached. The whole reason why the court wanted the money was to figure out what an equitable settlement would be.

Second, he's not hiding the money from his wife, since at this time the court has no way of knowing how little or how much money she has a claim on. Instead, he is hiding the money from the court, which has demanded all of the money.

But thirdly and most importantly, that's not his "supposed crime" at all. His "supposed crime" was defying the authority of the court.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 01:28 PM

No, you have made your argument into a misrepresentation of the facts.

You claimed (falsely), that Chadwick's "supposed crime" was "hiding money from his ex-wife in a divorce settlement." This is a misrepresentation in at least three ways.

First, it's not a divorce settlement, as the settlement hasn't been reached. The whole reason why the court wanted the money was to figure out what an equitable settlement would be.
Indeed it was a divorce settlement. That was the only reason any of the participants were present in the courtroom.
Second, he's not hiding the money from his wife, since at this time the court has no way of knowing how little or how much money she has a claim on. Instead, he is hiding the money from the court, which has demanded all of the money.
And the court only cares about the supposed money because the ex-wife wants it. Hence, he's hiding alleged money from his ex-wife.
But thirdly and most importantly, that's not his "supposed crime" at all. His "supposed crime" was defying the authority of the court.
Yes. Exactly. That is all that his "supposed" crime amounts to. Contempt of court.

Metullus

13th October 2006, 01:42 PM

* snip *
Yes. Exactly. That is all that his "supposed" crime amounts to. Contempt of court.What do you mean by "supposed"?

Are you suggesting that he is not, in fact, in contempt of a court order? Or is it that you do not consider Contempt of Court to be legitimately considered an offense?

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 01:48 PM

What do you mean by "supposed"?

Are you suggesting that he is not, in fact, in contempt of a court order? Or is it that you do not consider Contempt of Court to be legitimately considered an offense?
Mostly the latter.

Yes, I realize it is a legitimate judgement to make, it just isn't, in my view, a judgement which should effectively confine a man to imprisonment indefinitely.

marksman

13th October 2006, 01:49 PM

Just answer the question.
Only after you have explained its relevance to the discussion. I just explained why I think it is irrelevant. If you think your point -- that "feelings" alone can determine what is just and what is not -- requires an explanation of my personal belief as to the criteria Congressmen use to enact laws, it is up to you to explain why it is relevant.

OK. Good explanation.
And yet now that you understand you won't answer the question and are too lazy to go back a few posts to see what the question even was, right?

if I thought it was of some importance to the point I'm making, I would wade through the 30 pages or so to find it. I mostly refrain from searching for the posts because they are of no relevance to my point. And because I'm lazy. :)
But it is important and relevant. You claimed I misunderstood your argument and justified it by claiming I have been using a definition of justice that includes the legality of the punishment. I have asked you repreatedly to back up this assertion and you have refused on various grounds, the most recent of which is that you are "lazy". Once again, I must leave it to the people on this thread to conclude whether or not you are actually lazy, or just dishonest. (Perhaps both.)

In the future, it would be better for all concerned if you not try to recharacterize other people's arguments unless you are willing to actually back up the assertion.

I forgot what you were complaining about.
I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out how your assertion -- that Chadwick's incarceration is unjust -- is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts, and an argument that relies, as best as can be determined, exclusively on your own emotions. I point out that efforts to get you to clarify your position has resulted in you responding with insults, admissions of laziness, dismissive non-answers like "I don't" or "Yes they do" to questions for which such answers are nonsensical, and an appeal to emotion.

Just saying things the way they are. :)
If that were true, it would be a first. I note that, suddenly, you have decided to start calling me "dear" and "friend". I can't tell if you are merely suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, you feel that false casualness will somehow convince me to stop dismantling your attempts at argument, or if it's merely a puerile attempt to annoy me.

Indeed it was a divorce settlement. That was the only reason any of the participants were present in the courtroom.
No, it was a divorce proceeding. I don't what you think the word "settlement" means, but in English, it means one where both sides have entered into a legally binding contract. A "divorce settlement" would be one in which the sides have entered a legally binding contract to terminate their marriage and divide their goods. The Chadwicks had no divorce settlement. You are, as usual, wrong.

Yes. Exactly. That is all that his "supposed" crime amounts to. Contempt of court.
Yes, exactly. And yet your dismissive tone is no more supportive of your point than your appeal to emotion or your admitted laziness.

ZirconBlue

13th October 2006, 02:04 PM

I'm sure you do.

Just for giggles, could you tell me why you think this? Thanks.

Because you've demonstrated an obstinate pigheadedness and trollish behavior in this thread, and the only person on my ignore list is another prominent Dane. Besides, I don't really need to rationalize this opinion; it's just a feeling.

I agree completely!

Excellent!

Wow! You have a very different interpretation of Justice!

Robbers and murderes get less than 11 years imprisonment. Yet a man who might possibly be withholding money from his ex-spouse should rightfully be incarcerated indefinitely.

Context. Robbers and murderers do not have the option of being freed at their own discretion as Chadwick does. The court is not holding him indefinitely, Chadwick himself is. While he is "possibly" withholding money, he is definitely withholding the information demanded by the court. (I'm sure you disagree, but the evidence provided is pretty incontrovertible, as far as I am concerned.)

Metullus

13th October 2006, 02:08 PM

Mostly the latter.

Yes, I realize it is a legitimate judgement to make, it just isn't, in my view, a judgement which should effectively confine a man to imprisonment indefinitely.Just to make certain that I am clear on this point: am I correct in my interpretation of the above that you agree that "Contempt of Court" is, and should be, an offense, albeit one that is not deserving of indefinite incarceration?

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 02:09 PM

Only after you have explained its relevance to the discussion. I just explained why I think it is irrelevant. If you think your point -- that "feelings" alone can determine what is just and what is not -- requires an explanation of my personal belief as to the criteria Congressmen use to enact laws, it is up to you to explain why it is relevant.
Just answer the bloody question. Seriously, how hard can it be to state how you believe a law's justifiability is justified?
And yet now that you understand you won't answer the question and are too lazy to go back a few posts to see what the question even was, right?
Mostly yes. But just for kicks I went back to see what your beef might be. It appears to be about whether I thought "malice" might be present in the Chadwick case, right? Okay, my answer is that I have no idea.
But it is important and relevant. You claimed I misunderstood your argument and justified it by claiming I have been using a definition of justice that includes the legality of the punishment. I have asked you repreatedly to back up this assertion and you have refused on various grounds, the most recent of which is that you are "lazy". Once again, I must leave it to the people on this thread to conclude whether or not you are actually lazy, or just dishonest. (Perhaps both.)
Leave any question you feel appropriate up to the viewers. As long as you try to eventually address the subject of this thread.
In the future, it would be better for all concerned if you not try to recharacterize other people's arguments unless you are willing to actually back up the assertion.
In the future it would be best for all concerned if you addressed the point of the thread. Thanks.
I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out how your assertion -- that Chadwick's incarceration is unjust -- is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts, and an argument that relies, as best as can be determined, exclusively on your own emotions. I point out that efforts to get you to clarify your position has resulted in you responding with insults, admissions of laziness, dismissive non-answers like "I don't" or "Yes they do" to questions for which such answers are nonsensical, and an appeal to emotion.
Unbelievable. You have been unable to address the point of this thread for 32 pages and you somehow blame this lack on me?
If that were true, it would be a first. I note that, suddenly, you have decided to start calling me "dear" and "friend". I can't tell if you are merely suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, you feel that false casualness will somehow convince me to stop dismantling your attempts at argument, or if it's merely a puerile attempt to annoy me.
Neither. I just like most people. You know the old saying: "An stranger is just a friend you haven't met".
No, it was a divorce proceeding. I don't what you think the word "settlement" means, but in English, it means one where both sides have entered into a legally binding contract. A "divorce settlement" would be one in which the sides have entered a legally binding contract to terminate their marriage and divide their goods. The Chadwicks had no divorce settlement. You are, as usual, wrong.
Okay, just for you my friend, it was a divorce "proceeding". Happy now?
Yes, exactly. And yet your dismissive tone is no more supportive of your point than your appeal to emotion or your admitted laziness.
It was "contempt of court". No more and no less. I've been discussing the downside of this indefinite judgement since page 1.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 02:16 PM

Because you've demonstrated an obstinate pigheadedness and trollish behavior in this thread, and the only person on my ignore list is another prominent Dane. Besides, I don't really need to rationalize this opinion; it's just a feeling.
Please define pigheadedness and trollish behaviour.
Context. Robbers and murderers do not have the option of being freed at their own discretion as Chadwick does. The court is not holding him indefinitely, Chadwick himself is. While he is "possibly" withholding money, he is definitely withholding the information demanded by the court. (I'm sure you disagree, but the evidence provided is pretty incontrovertible, as far as I am concerned.)
As I said, you apparently have a different view of justice than me. You feel that a court's decision is relevant .

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 02:17 PM

Just to make certain that I am clear on this point: am I correct in my interpretation of the above that you agree that "Contempt of Court" is, and should be, an offense, albeit one that is not deserving of indefinite incarceration?
You hit the nail on the head! :)

Metullus

13th October 2006, 02:24 PM

You hit the nail on the head! :)Am I also correct in my understanding that you are not suggesting that Chadwick has not, in fact, committed such an offense in this case?

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 02:27 PM

Am I also correct in my understanding that you are not suggesting that Chadwick has not, in fact, committed such an offense in this case?
Certainly he has been judged guilty of contempt of court. Is that what you were asking?

Metullus

13th October 2006, 02:49 PM

Certainly he has been judged guilty of contempt of court. Is that what you were asking?Not really. I am interested in whether or not you consider his refusal to cooperate with the court to be an offense. Frankly, I am trying to understand your use of the term "supposed" crime in earlier posts.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 02:56 PM

Not really. I am interested in whether or not you consider his refusal to cooperate with the court to be an offense. Frankly, I am trying to understand your use of the term "supposed" crime in earlier posts.
The reason I use the term "supposed" crime is two-fold:

1) He was not charged with a crime. Yet he has received a crime sentence.

2) He has not actually received a verdict on anything he has done. He has only received the verdict of "contempt of court" simply because the court had to make a judgement based on inadequate evidence.

AmateurScientist

13th October 2006, 03:01 PM

DD,

I think you've had Dustin's shovel long enough. He needs it back.

AS

Oroborus

13th October 2006, 03:03 PM

Bad things come in D's (three's)..ehh okay its a horrible pun. OH! and :dig:

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 03:03 PM

DD,

I think you've had Dustin's shovel long enough. He needs it back.

AS
Sorry, AS, you'll need to refresh my memory. Who is Dustin? And why is his shovel of interest?

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 03:04 PM

Bad things come in D's (three's)..ehh okay its a horrible pun. OH! and :dig:
Terrible pun! Good attempt, though. :)

marksman

13th October 2006, 03:07 PM

Just answer the bloody question. Seriously, how hard can it be to state how you believe a law's justifiability is justified?
It is very easy, but you still haven't explained how the question is relevant to our discussion. I asked you why you feel "justness" can be based solely on your subjective emotions. You responded by asking me the basis upon which Congressmen enact legislation. I think your question is a non sequitur and after three requests for clarification, you haven't been able to explain how an answer to your question will answer my original question.

I will answer your question after you answer my preceding question.

It appears to be about whether I thought "malice" might be present in the Chadwick case, right? Okay, my answer is that I have no idea.
Don't you think that would be a relevant consideration to whether his sentence is just? Wouldn't a crime motivated by malice by punishable with a more severe sentence than a crime caused by negligence?

And you never explained why you don't think the fact that he can mitigate the damage he has caused by grounds for a more severe punishment. You just said "You don't" which indicates to me that you are unable to justify it.

As long as you try to eventually address the subject of this thread.
I have answered every question you have put to me but one, and I will answer that one once you answer my preceding question. Unlike you, I have never resorted to rhetorical no sequiturs, "I don't" or "Nuh-huh" to valid relevant questions.

I just like most people.
How odd that you waited 28 pages of discussion to begin with the familiarity. Apparently, for several weeks of conversation you considered me neither stranger nor friend...

Okay, just for you my friend, it was a divorce "proceeding". Happy now?
I'm happy that you're making an effort at using language that won't confuse native speakers of the English language, yes.

It was "contempt of court". No more and no less. I've been discussing the downside of this indefinite judgement since page 1.
Apparently, "discussing" doesn't include answering relevant questions unless people badger you into it. How long will it be until you explain why you think "feelings" alone are enough to define "justice"?

Oroborus

13th October 2006, 03:13 PM

How long will it be until you explain why you think "feelings" alone are enough to define "justice"?

That's a good question, when exactly is hell going to reach 0 kelvin?

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 03:21 PM

It is very easy, but you still haven't explained how the question is relevant to our discussion. I asked you why you feel "justness" can be based solely on your subjective emotions. You responded by asking me the basis upon which Congressmen enact legislation. I think your question is a non sequitur and after three requests for clarification, you haven't been able to explain how an answer to your question will answer my original question.
Sorry. I thought the relevancy of the question was obvious given that I refered to it in the OP, 30 pages ago.
I will answer your question after you answer my preceding question.
Which question? How I judge whether something is Justified? I've already explained.
Don't you think that would be a relevant consideration to whether his sentence is just? Wouldn't a crime motivated by malice by punishable with a more severe sentence than a crime caused by negligence?
Certainly. Unfortunately, in this case, it makes no difference. The "sentence" is indefinite incarceration, remember?
And you never explained why you don't think the fact that he can mitigate the damage he has caused by grounds for a more severe punishment. You just said "You don't" which indicates to me that you are unable to justify it.
Sorry, but once a judgement has been made, that's it.
I have answered every question you have put to me but one, and I will answer that one once you answer my preceding question. Unlike you, I have never resorted to rhetorical no sequiturs, "I don't" or "Nuh-huh" to valid relevant questions.
If you have understood finally what this thread is about, then please give me your opinion. Thanks.
How odd that you waited 28 pages of discussion to begin with the familiarity. Apparently, for several weeks of conversation you considered me neither stranger nor friend...
Some posters in this forum are beyond reason. Only a test of time shows who might be more than that.
I'm happy that you're making an effort at using language that won't confuse native speakers of the English language, yes.
I doubt I've confused any speakers of the English language. Perhaps I confused a few speakers of Lawyerish?
Apparently, "discussing" doesn't include answering relevant questions unless people badger you into it. How long will it be until you explain why you think "feelings" alone are enough to define "justice"?
Less than 0 time as I've already explained it. :)

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 03:25 PM

That's a good question, when exactly is hell going to reach 0 kelvin?
I am amazed that anyone familiar with the democratic process could ask this question seriously.

Let me ask a question, for the people in doubt: What else should the law-making process be dependant on?

DanishDynamite

13th October 2006, 03:25 PM

Double post. Sorry.

RandFan

13th October 2006, 06:25 PM

To sum up what I wrote: Temporary incarceration of up to 4 weeks can be the judgement of a court. Apparently this temporary incarceration can be extended without limit, though the longest example of this in Danish history is 3 years.Anything to keep it from being longer?

{eek, shock} 3 years, OMG, how can you incarcerate an innocent man for 3 years?

RandFan

13th October 2006, 06:28 PM

Some posters in this forum are beyond reason. We are in agreement. :)

Only Claus Larson has persisted longer in the face of overwhelming argument to the contrary. Don't stop though, you can beat his record I'm sure.

JamesDillon

14th October 2006, 08:02 AM

Yes. Exactly. That is all that his "supposed" crime amounts to. Contempt of court.

You say that as if it somehow helps your position, but you're just figuring out in post # 1293 what the rest of us (with a few exceptions) understood in post #1. Chadwick is being detained for contempt of court-- for open and willful defiance of a valid court order-- not for "stealing" money from anyone. There's no comparison to be made here between his actions and theft, because the basis for his detainment is not theft; in fact there has been no crime charged against him, nor, as far as I know, have criminal prosecutors been involved at all. Chadwick's offense is simply his refusal to obey the court's lawful order. The arguments by analogy that you and, previously, Kevin, are trying to make miss that point entirely. It doesn't matter what sentence might be just for a person who stole $2.5 million. Chadwick is not being punished for that; he is being detained for his ongoing refusal to comply with a court order. Every day that he sits in jail, refusing to cooperate, is a fresh instance of contempt. This has all been explaned ad nauseam to you, and there's probably no point in repeating it yet again, but there you go.

marksman

14th October 2006, 08:30 AM

Sorry. I thought the relevancy of the question was obvious given that I refered to it in the OP, 30 pages ago.
Wrong. Nowhere in the original post do you reference the process by which legislators decide what legislation to enact.

Which question? How I judge whether something is Justified? I've already explained.
No, all you said was that you base it on your feelings. Now I have asked you to explain why you think justness can be based on subjective emotions. This is now the fifth time I am asking this question of you. You have never answered it.

Certainly. Unfortunately, in this case, it makes no difference.
Of course it makes a difference. You have no idea is Chadwick acted with malice (despite the fact that his malice is evident in all of the source material that has been provided in this thread). Since you agree that malice is a relevant consideration and you further admit that you are unable to determine if he acted with malice, you have admitted that you lack sufficient facts to determine if his punishment is just. Which makes your condemnation of his punishment quite hollow.

Sorry, but once a judgement has been made, that's it.
Wrong, yet again. Since the judgment can be reversed at any time, it can be reversed upon remediation, which is exactly the proviso that Cadwick's judgment contains. His sentence ends immediately upon remediation.

If you have understood finally what this thread is about, then please give me your opinion. Thanks.
I gave my opinion: Chadwick's incarceration is just. I also gave an multiple poitn reasoning of why it is just.

I doubt I've confused any speakers of the English language. Perhaps I confused a few speakers of Lawyerish?
Your doubts notwithstanding when you sue words in a way not consonant with their meaning, the result is confusion. You used settlement incorrectly and in a way that is particularly misleading.

Less than 0 time as I've already explained it. :)[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Tell me the post in which you answered that question.

WildCat

14th October 2006, 08:44 AM

Just a reminder...

I love to debate.

For me, a debate is often like a game, like chess for example. Like chess, it is a form of entertainment and yet more than entertainment.

I love to debate so much that I sometimes take a position with which I don't completely agree, but a position which I know will lead to lots of replies and hence to lots of debate.

Holding my own in such debates is the challenge. And yet, because of the caliber of posters here, I often learn stuff which I never knew and which affects my actual viewpoint.

So, am I a troll?

Have you ever taken a stance, not because it was integral to your being, but because someone you didn't like took the opposite stance?
(bolding mine)

An admitted troll, getting off on your responses here. Don't even bother w/ him.

Skeptic

14th October 2006, 11:32 AM

Yes, but the majority here are not exactly representative of their populations, are they?

Actually, I'd say that it's a very good bet that the vast majority of people in both the USA and Denmark would agree that justice has been served here.

Matthew Best

15th October 2006, 05:03 AM

And at least one person in the UK (can't quite believe I read the whole 33 pages).

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 02:49 PM

You say that as if it somehow helps your position, but you're just figuring out in post # 1293 what the rest of us (with a few exceptions) understood in post #1. Chadwick is being detained for contempt of court-- for open and willful defiance of a valid court order-- not for "stealing" money from anyone.
Yes, isn't that what I said? He is not serving time for a crime he committed, but is being held indefinitely (in principle) for being in contempt of court.
There's no comparison to be made here between his actions and theft, because the basis for his detainment is not theft; in fact there has been no crime charged against him, nor, as far as I know, have criminal prosecutors been involved at all.
Couldn't agree more. He has not even been charged with a crime. Yet he remains on his 11th year in jail.
Chadwick's offense is simply his refusal to obey the court's lawful order. The arguments by analogy that you and, previously, Kevin, are trying to make miss that point entirely. It doesn't matter what sentence might be just for a person who stole $2.5 million. Chadwick is not being punished for that; he is being detained for his ongoing refusal to comply with a court order. Every day that he sits in jail, refusing to cooperate, is a fresh instance of contempt. This has all been explaned ad nauseam to you, and there's probably no point in repeating it yet again, but there you go.
I understand that perfectly. Hence this thread to discuss how this could possibly be seen as justice.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 03:13 PM

Wrong. Nowhere in the original post do you reference the process by which legislators decide what legislation to enact.
Here is what I said in my OP:
Just read this story on CNN. If I understand it correctly, a husband in a divorce case has so far been in jail for 11 years (!!!!) due to a contempt of court charge. Am I understanding this correctly? Does anyone else think this is insane?
Do you see how I make it very clear that I feel that it is insane (i.e. unjust) that someone can be kept in jail for 11 years just because they are in contempt of court? Do you think this means that I feel the current laws regarding contempt of court are good, right and just? No?
No, all you said was that you base it on your feelings. Now I have asked you to explain why you think justness can be based on subjective emotions. This is now the fifth time I am asking this question of you. You have never answered it.
I have already told you it is based on gut feelings. You apparently don't agree. For example, I feel it is wrong that a man who has hurt no one and has not even been charged with a crime, is languishing in jail on his 11 year. I feel this is wrong, a priori. When I then compare the sentences given violent criminals, robbers or thieves and find that some of these received less than 11 years as their sentence and ar now out walking the streets, I find it even more wrong.

I think it would be interesting to hear your take on what factors should determine if a law is just as well as what should determine if a sentence is just.
Of course it makes a difference. You have no idea is Chadwick acted with malice (despite the fact that his malice is evident in all of the source material that has been provided in this thread). Since you agree that malice is a relevant consideration and you further admit that you are unable to determine if he acted with malice, you have admitted that you lack sufficient facts to determine if his punishment is just. Which makes your condemnation of his punishment quite hollow.
Uh..no. I think malice should be a consideration when considering the length of the sentence handed down for a crime. In this case no one has been charged with a crime. And the length of the non-sentence is indefinite incarceration. In what sense might malice be of relevance?
Wrong, yet again. Since the judgment can be reversed at any time, it can be reversed upon remediation, which is exactly the proviso that Cadwick's judgment contains. His sentence ends immediately upon remediation.
That's what you mean by remediation? In that case, I've discussed that ad nauseam.
I gave my opinion: Chadwick's incarceration is just. I also gave an multiple poitn reasoning of why it is just.
Where?
Your doubts notwithstanding when you sue words in a way not consonant with their meaning, the result is confusion. You used settlement incorrectly and in a way that is particularly misleading.
As I said, I might have confussed a few people speaking Lawyerish.
Wrong. Tell me the post in which you answered that question.
Somewhere upstream. But as I said, if you have another view as to how people determine what is just, I'd love to hear it.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 03:14 PM

JamesDillon
Chadwick is not being punished for that; he is being detained for his ongoing refusal to comply with a court order. Every day that he sits in jail, refusing to cooperate, is a fresh instance of contempt. This has all been explaned ad nauseam to you, and there's probably no point in repeating it yet again, but there you go.
I understand that perfectly. Hence this thread to discuss how this could possibly be seen as justice.Troll.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 03:16 PM

Anything to keep it from being longer?

{eek, shock} 3 years, OMG, how can you incarcerate an innocent man for 3 years?
Not to my knowledge. But as I said somewhere way backstream, the EU is currently debating a law to put a loft (max 8 months) on incarceration for contempt of court.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 03:16 PM

I feel it is wrong that a man who has hurt no one... ?

He has deprived his wife of what is rightfully hers. He has refused to comply with the court. It is in the interest of society that parties in a civil proceeding comply with the court.

It's is just. It is fair. It makes sense.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 03:18 PM

I love to debate.

For me, a debate is often like a game, like chess for example. Like chess, it is a form of entertainment and yet more than entertainment.

I love to debate so much that I sometimes take a position with which I don't completely agree, but a position which I know will lead to lots of replies and hence to lots of debate.

Holding my own in such debates is the challenge. And yet, because of the caliber of posters here, I often learn stuff which I never knew and which affects my actual viewpoint.

So, am I a troll? Yes.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 03:19 PM

Just a reminder...
I love to debate.

For me, a debate is often like a game, like chess for example. Like chess, it is a form of entertainment and yet more than entertainment.

I love to debate so much that I sometimes take a position with which I don't completely agree, but a position which I know will lead to lots of replies and hence to lots of debate.

Holding my own in such debates is the challenge. And yet, because of the caliber of posters here, I often learn stuff which I never knew and which affects my actual viewpoint.

So, am I a troll?

Have you ever taken a stance, not because it was integral to your being, but because someone you didn't like took the opposite stance?

(bolding mine)

An admitted troll, getting off on your responses here. Don't even bother w/ him.
If I remember correctly, the general verdict of the posters responding to my question was that I was in fact not a troll.

NoZed Avenger

15th October 2006, 03:22 PM

If I remember correctly, the general verdict of the posters responding to my question was that I was in fact not a troll.

They hadn't seen this thread. they had no concrete examples to look at before judging.

Link them to it and ask again.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 03:23 PM

If I remember correctly, the general verdict of the posters responding to my question was that I was in fact not a troll.I don't know if that was true then but the consensus would most certainly change in this thread.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 03:26 PM

?

He has deprived his wife of what is rightfully hers. He has refused to comply with the court. It is in the interest of society that parties in a civil proceeding comply with the court.

It's is just. It is fair. It makes sense.
As I said, he has hurt no one. It is possible that he has some dough stached away somwehere which the ex-wife is entitled to half of, yes. And that is it! No one was hurt. The ex-wife has, IIRC, remarried and is just fine in her new life.

And yet, you find it perfectly fine that this man remains behind bars forever.

I can't understand your view but I accept it. Anyone else?

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 03:28 PM

They hadn't seen this thread. they had no concrete examples to look at before judging.

Link them to it and ask again.
NoZed, I am genuinely curious. Why would you feel this thread would change their minds? What makes this thread especially "trollish" in your view? You don't think I feel an injustice is being done here?

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 03:29 PM

I don't know if that was true then but the consensus would most certainly change in this thread.
Could you explain why you think so? You feel that I was not sincere in my OP? That I trully feel that this man has been treated justly?

NoZed Avenger

15th October 2006, 03:39 PM

NoZed, I am genuinely curious. Why would you feel this thread would change their minds? What makes this thread especially "trollish" in your view? You don't think I feel an injustice is being done here?

Link it and ask them. Find out.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 03:42 PM

Link it and ask them. Find out.
Kindly answer my question.

Oh, and in regards to not having facts to make a decision, they had 5 years of my participation on this forum to peruse.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 04:06 PM

As I said, he has hurt no one. So if I take 2.6 million from another person it will not hurt anyone?

It is possible that he has some dough stached away somwehere which the ex-wife is entitled to half of, yes. And that is it! No one was hurt.That's rather presumptuous.

And yet, you find it perfectly fine that this man remains behind bars forever. I find it perfectly fine that this man remain in jail until he complies with a court order. It is in the interest of the courts. It is in the interest of the parties that all parties comply with a court order. It is in the interest of justice.

Yes, perfectly fine for all of the reasons and arguments made time and again.

The defendant has been given every opportunity to comply.
The defendant has been given an opportunity to appeal his case before an appellate court, state supreme court and United States Supreme Court.
He holds the keys to his cell.That's justice.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 04:08 PM

Could you explain why you think so? You feel that I was not sincere in my OP? That I trully feel that this man has been treated justly?Your posts speak for themselves.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 04:13 PM

So if I take 2.6 million from another person it will not hurt anyone
No, it won't hurt anyone but you would be guilty of stealing.
That's rather presumptuous.
In what sense?
I find it perfectly fine that this man remain in jail until he complies with a court order. It is in the interest of the courts. It is in the interest of the parties that all parties comply with a court order. It is in the interest of justice.

Yes, perfectly fine for all of the reasons and arguments made time and again.

The defendant has been given every opportunity to comply.
The defendant has been given an opportunity to appeal his case before an appellate court, state supreme court and United States Supreme Court.
He holds the keys to his cell.
That's justice.
OK. As I said, I can't understand it, but I accept you feel this is perfectly justifiable.

As an aside, would you feel it was clearly injust to put a loft on how long someone could remain in jail, never having been charged with any crime, but being in contempt of court?

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 04:15 PM

Your posts speak for themselves.
I'm sure they do to someone as refined and knowledgable as your good self, but for those less refined perhaps you could clarify.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 04:25 PM

In what sense? ? "In what sense"? In the sense that it is presumptuous (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=presumptuous) that no one was hurt. By your logic taking property from another causes no harm.

OK. As I said, I can't understand it, but I accept you feel this is perfectly justifiable. It's not not simply a matter of feeling. My opinion logically follows from the facts. This man hid assets. This man was ordered to comply with a court order. He cynically chose to play chicken with the court. The courts gave the defendant every opportunity to comply. He has continued to refuse. The courts also granted him every opportunity to have his case heard in appellate courts and state and federal supreme courts.

As an aside, would you feel it was clearly injust to put a loft on how long someone could remain in jail, never having been charged with any crime, but being in contempt of court? I'm amenable to changes duly elected representatives deem are in the best interest of all parties, society and justice.

Justice isn't absolute and I don't agree with every decision of every court or every law passed by every legislature.

WildCat

15th October 2006, 04:27 PM

If I remember correctly, the general verdict of the posters responding to my question was that I was in fact not a troll.
Until this thread.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 04:30 PM

I'm sure they do to someone as refined and knowledgable as your good self, but for those less refined perhaps you could clarify.That's ok DD. It's been explained in depth in the last couple of pages. If you really care read over the last couple days worth of posts. I haven't the time to explain that which is rather obvious and has already been explained.

And for the record, I don't think I'm all that.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 04:32 PM

? "In what sense"? In the sense that it is presumptuous that no one was hurt. By your logic taking property from another causes no harm.
Taking property from someone without their concent would be stealing. A criminal offence. Chadwick has not been charged of any crime.

Your answer doesn't seem to be in accordence with the facts.
It's not not simply a matter of feeling. My opinion logically follows from the facts. This man hid assets. This man was ordered to comply with a court order. He cynically chose to play chicken with the court. The courts gave the defendant every opportunity to comply. He has continued to refuse. The courts also granted him every opportunity to have his case heard in appellate courts and state and federal supreme courts.
I've already accepted that you apparently feel this is perfect justice.
I'm amenable to changes duly elected representatives deem are in the best interest of all parties, society and justice.

Justice isn't absolute and I don't agree with every decision of every court or every law passed by every legislature.
Kindly answer my question. Thanks.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 04:35 PM

That's ok DD. It's been explained in depth in the last couple of pages. If you really care read over the last couple days worth of posts. I haven't the time to explain that which is rather obvious and has already been explained.

And for the record, I don't think I'm all that.
A non-answer. Let me repeat what you responded to. I said:
Could you explain why you think so? You feel that I was not sincere in my OP? That I trully feel that this man has been treated justly?
So, do you feel this way? It is a simple question.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 04:37 PM

Until this thread.
What about this thread?

RandFan

15th October 2006, 04:38 PM

Taking property from someone without their concent would be stealing. A criminal offence. Chadwick has not been charged of any crime. I'm following your logic DD. This is where you reveal yourself to be a troll.

You said:

It is possible that he has some dough stached away somwehere which the ex-wife is entitled to half of, yes. And that is it! No one was hurt. Now, we are talking about harm. The plantiff is out 1.3 million dollars due to the actions of this man. She has been harmed.

And your words "it is possible he has some dough stached away somwehere" is weasely BS. His defense is laughable and not a single judge bought it.

Kindly answer my question. Thanks.What exactly do you think "I'm amenable to changes duly elected representatives deem are in the best interest of all parties, society and justice" means?

RandFan

15th October 2006, 04:40 PM

A non-answer. Let me repeat what you responded to. I said:

So, do you feel this way? It is a simple question. It's NOT simply a matter of "feeling this way". It's a matter of following the logic of the case to come to a conclusion. I don't mind using the word "feel" so long as it is understood that "feel" is the result of evidence and inference. The feeling is based on inductive reasoning.

Again, you demonstrate your trolling behavior when you want to split ridiculous hairs.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 04:43 PM

I'm following your logic DD. This is where you reveal yourself to be a troll.

You said:

Now, we are talking about harm. The plantiff is out 1.3 million dollars due to the actions of this man. She has been harmed.

And your words "it is possible he has some dough stached away somwehere" is weasely BS. His defense is laughable and not a single judge bought it.
You said that he had taken property from another. That's stealing. A criminal offense. And yet he has not been charged with any crime whatsoever.

And no one has been hurt.
What exactly do you think "I'm amenable to changes duly elected representatives deem are in the best interest of all parties, society and justice" means?
That you generally go with the flow? That you have no opinion? I don't know.

What I do know is that you didn't answer my question. Here it is again:
As an aside, would you feel it was clearly injust to put a loft on how long someone could remain in jail, never having been charged with any crime, but being in contempt of court?
Kindly answer it. Thanks.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 04:44 PM

What about this thread?It's clear that you are acting the troll. Sad but true.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 04:47 PM

It's NOT simply a matter of "feeling this way". It's a matter of following the logic of the case to come to a conclusion. I don't mind using the word "feel" so long as it is understood that "feel" is the result of evidence and inference. The feeling is based on inductive reasoning.

Again, you demonstrate your trolling behavior when you want to split ridiculous hairs.
Once again, RandFan. Here is what I asked:You feel that I was not sincere in my OP? That I trully feel that this man has been treated justly?
It seems a simple Yes or No question.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 04:50 PM

It's clear that you are acting the troll. Sad but true.
If only any one of the posters who seem to have nothing of relevance to add to this discussion beside this mantra, could at least try to substantiate it. Perhaps in a PM, as it is of no relevance to the thread itself. Thanks.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 04:51 PM

You said that he had taken property from another. That's stealing. A criminal offense. And yet he has not been charged with any crime whatsoever.

And no one has been hurt.We've been down this road already. If someone murders one of your loved ones you don't have to wait until someone has been charged with any crime before you can figure out whether anyone has been hurt. That's just BS on your part and you know better.

It is a fact that this man had 2.6 million dollars.
It is a fact that he transfered the money over seas.
It is a fact that half of that money belonged to the plaintiff.
It is a fact that this woman has been deprived of her share of that money. What I do know is that you didn't answer my question. I don't understand your purpose or point. I answered and it had nothing to do with going with the flow.

"I'm amenable to changes duly elected representatives deem are in the best interest of all parties, society and justice"

I stand by that answer. It is an answer. If there is something about the answer that you don't understand kindly let me know. Is there a particular word that you don't understand?

It is an answer. That you don't understand it is not my problem.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 04:57 PM

We've been down this road already. If someone murders one of your loved ones you don't have to wait until someone has been charged with any crime before you can figure out whether anyone has been hurt. That's just BS on your part and you know better.

It is a fact that this man had 2.6 million dollars.
It is a fact that he transfered the money over seas.
It is a fact that half of that money belonged to the plaintiff.
It is a fact that this woman has been deprived of her share of that money.

I understand you find this case perfect justice. You can stop the defensive justification.
I don't understand your purpose or point. I answered and it had nothing to do with going with the flow.

"I'm amenable to changes duly elected representatives deem are in the best interest of all parties, society and justice"

I stand by that answer. It is an answer. If there is something about the answer that you don't understand kindly let me know. Is there a particular word that you don't understand?

It is an answer. That you don't understand it is not my problem.
Once again, here is my question:As an aside, would you feel it was clearly injust to put a loft on how long someone could remain in jail, never having been charged with any crime, but being in contempt of court?
I'm not asking whether you would accept the judgement of your representatives, I'm asking you for your opinion.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 04:58 PM

You feel that I was not sincere in my OP? That I trully feel that this man has been treated justly?

I love to debate so much that I sometimes take a position with which I don't completely agree, but a position which I know will lead to lots of replies and hence to lots of debate. I can't read your mind. I don't know if you don't completely agree or if this is complete BS. I know that you have responded as if it is complete BS and that you are not sincere with many of your responses.

I am left with one of two choices.

1.) You don't completely agree with your OP.
2.) You are not sincere in your OP.

You don't appear sincere. At all. So I will answer you, no, I don't feel you were sincere in your OP. But only you know for sure. I know how you are responding and I know that many of your responses are insincere and that you are playing a game. So, you don't give me much to work with.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 05:02 PM

I understand you find this case perfect justice. I don't subscribe to absolutes. I don't think this is perfect justice. That's just a straw man. I think this is pefectly fine (rhetorical) in that it is the best possible justice considering this woman has been denied her rights to her assets, that this man has acted the horses a** and refused to comply.

Once again, here is my question:

I'm not asking whether you would accept the judgement of your representatives, I'm asking you for your opinion. I GAVE YOU MY OPINION!

I'm amenable to changes duly elected representatives deem are in the best interest of all parties, society and justice.

Justice isn't absolute and I don't agree with every decision of every court or every law passed by every legislature.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 05:09 PM

I can't read your mind. I don't know if you don't completely agree or if this is complete BS. I know that you have responded as if it is complete BS and that you are not sincere with many of your responses.

I am left with one of two choices.

1.) You don't completely agree with your OP.
2.) You are not sincere in your OP.

You don't appear sincere. At all. So I will answer you, no, I don't feel you were sincere in your OP. But only you know for sure. I know how you are responding and I know that many of your responses are insincere and that you are playing a game. So, you don't give me much to work with.
Ok. Thanks for finally answering this simple question.

Do others likewise feel that I wasn't sincere in my OP?

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 05:12 PM

I GAVE YOU MY OPINION!

I'm amenable to changes duly elected representatives deem are in the best interest of all parties, society and justice.

Justice isn't absolute and I don't agree with every decision of every court or every law passed by every legislature.
You apparently refuse to answer the question. Ok.

RandFan

15th October 2006, 05:12 PM

Ok. Thanks for finally answering this simple question.

Do others likewise feel that I wasn't sincere in my OP? Remember DD's own words when you consider his responses.

I love to debate.

For me, a debate is often like a game, like chess for example. Like chess, it is a form of entertainment and yet more than entertainment.

I love to debate so much that I sometimes take a position with which I don't completely agree, but a position which I know will lead to lots of replies and hence to lots of debate.

DanishDynamite

15th October 2006, 05:13 PM

Remember DD's own words when you consider his responses.
Going French on me now, RandFan? :)

RandFan

15th October 2006, 05:19 PM

You apparently refuse to answer the question. Ok.No, I'm amenable to changes. Justice isn't simply what I say it is. Justice is not an absolute. I'm not happy with all of the laws. I don't like the drug laws in my country and I actively campaign to end them. However I don't break the law and smoke pot because to me it is important for citizens to follow the laws. I have friends who do smoke pot and I don't have a problem with it. However if they are ever caught they must suffer the consequences of their actions. I would be outraged if they were to receive a stiff sentence the way subgenius (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=722) received. I don't think that was just but that's just my opinion.

So I can't answer yes or no. I can only tell you that I'm willing to follow the laws that apply to me and work to change the ones that I don't agree with and accept unjust those that the legislature or judges deem unjust.

marksman

15th October 2006, 07:38 PM

Here is what I said in my OP:
Do you see how I make it very clear that I feel that it is insane (i.e. unjust) that someone can be kept in jail for 11 years just because they are in contempt of court? Do you think this means that I feel the current laws regarding contempt of court are good, right and just? No?
But you haven't explained the reasoning behind your opinion. That's what I asked you for, not the opinion itself, which you have repeated as nauseum.

But what asked to elucidate, you hem, you haw, you refuse to answer, you give old answers.

I have already told you it is based on gut feelings. You apparently don't agree.
I agree that your answers are based on gut feelings. But even gut feelings have bases. I am trying to see if your has any rational basis. I also think that feelings is a stupid reason to determine justice.

For example, I feel it is wrong that a man who has hurt no one and has not even been charged with a crime, is languishing in jail on his 11 year.
Of course, denying your ex-wife millions of dollars is harm. It's certainly more harm than a black eye.

I think it would be interesting to hear your take on what factors should determine if a law is just as well as what should determine if a sentence is just.
I listed nine separate factors that I use for making a determination if a sentence is just. Post 1232. Apparently, you found it so interesting that you completely forgot.

I suspect you aren't interested at all, but merely ask the question to hide the fact that you are still refising to answer the questions I have posed to you.

Uh..no. I think malice should be a consideration when considering the length of the sentence handed down for a crime. In this case no one has been charged with a crime.
Contempt is a crime, which you have been told and which you ocassionally acknowledge. You then conveniently decide contempt is nota crime when invconvenient.

So, since contempt is a crime and Chadwick is being punished for contempt, it is mete that Chadwick be punished more severely for malicious contempt. My argument stands.

That's what you mean by remediation? In that case, I've discussed that ad nauseam.
Where? What post? When? You didn't, except to dismiss such arguments conclusorily.

Where?Post 1232

As I said, I might have confussed a few people speaking Lawyerish.
Saying it twice doesn't make it any more true. You used English incorrectly. That is bound to confuse Englishs-speakers. I wasn't confused and that's why I was able to point out the word you actually meant to use.

But you can repeat your statement a third time if your like. And then you can claim your repetition make me a broken record.

Somewhere upstream. But as I said, if you have another view as to how people determine what is just, I'd love to hear it.
Post 1232. Although I don't expect you to read it, since you couldn't bother to read it the first time I wrote it.

And are you ever planning to answer my question: what gives you the feeling that the incarceration is unjust? Is it a rational feeling, or is it just some random effect of the hormones and chemicals in what passes for your brain? If it is a rational feeling, we can discuss it. If it is not rational, why could you possibly believe people would be convinced by such an argument.

WildCat

15th October 2006, 08:07 PM

What about this thread?
It's when you decided to live under the bridge.

Oroborus

15th October 2006, 10:29 PM

It's when you decided to live under the bridge.

:D

I made my sig especially for him.

Skibum

15th October 2006, 11:50 PM

Wow, I can't believe I just read this whole thread.

A few thoughts...

The lack of logical thought and reliance on "gut feelings" used by certain posters in this thread is , IMO, rivaled only by Christophera in another much longer thread that I wasted numerous hours of my life reading.

I'm not sure I know why I'm willing to sift through 1400 or so posts , maybe somewhere deep inside of me I'm hoping to witness the occasional light go on in an otherwise dark attic.

There's a fine line between playing devils advocate to stimulate debate and being an outright troll, and DD you crossed that line long ago with remarks like

I thought the US system of Justice was a joke when Guantanamo came around. Apparently it's been a joke since it began.

and

Must admit I thought you had a sense of honor. And even, perhaps, a sense of right and wrong.

Oh well.

Thats just a couple off the first page out of scores of responses I could select from.

I really enjoyed when you try to tout the superiority of the Danish system, especially after you admit you don't know anything about it.

anyways....

I think 7 hours is enough to dedicate to one thread this evening, missed watching the Broncos beat the Raiders and there was no light going off in the dark attic, so I apologize If I come across as curt.

Skeptic

16th October 2006, 04:47 AM

And that is it! No one was hurt.

The ex-wife was hurt. She had $2 mil stolen from her.

The ex-wife has, IIRC, remarried and is just fine in her new life.

So that means his theft doesn't count?

If you just bought a second car, for example, can I now steal your other car? After all, you got along just fine until now with only one car, so I'm hurting no one.

And yet, you find it perfectly fine that this man remains behind bars forever.

Hey, he can get out any time he wants by cooperating with the courts. If HE has no problem with staying behind bars indefinitely so long as he pi$$es off his ex-wife, why should I have a problem with it?

WildCat

16th October 2006, 05:34 AM

I think 7 hours is enough to dedicate to one thread this evening, missed watching the Broncos beat the Raiders and there was no light going off in the dark attic, so I apologize If I come across as curt.
Well I wasted 3 hours of my life last night watching that game... talk about 2 uninspired teams! Well, the Broncos defense was inspired, their offense is like watching last year's Bears team. They win, but you don't know how!

Skeptic

16th October 2006, 06:39 AM

I really enjoyed when you try to tout the superiority of the Danish system, especially after you admit you don't know anything about it.

Well, he know it isn't American. And isn't that automatically enough to prove it's superior?

Oroborus

16th October 2006, 07:16 AM

Well, he know it isn't American. And isn't that automatically enough to prove it's superior?

And bingo was his name-o.

marksman

16th October 2006, 11:25 AM

Just a note: 12 days and counting for DD to respond to my questions on the "Boom. Boom. Boom." thread.

ponderingturtle

16th October 2006, 01:02 PM

My bet is that he wants to see if he can get this thread to 1500 posts

It looks like he is well on his way to winning

DanishDynamite

16th October 2006, 02:04 PM

But you haven't explained the reasoning behind your opinion. That's what I asked you for, not the opinion itself, which you have repeated as nauseum.

But what asked to elucidate, you hem, you haw, you refuse to answer, you give old answers.
I don't understand what it is you feel I havn't answered. Are you asking me to explain how the human body produces the "gut feeling" which determines whether a person feels something (a law, a sentence, etc) is just or whether it isn't? If I could do that I would receive the Nobel Prize in medicine.
I agree that your answers are based on gut feelings. But even gut feelings have bases. I am trying to see if your has any rational basis. I also think that feelings is a stupid reason to determine justice.
It is the only way to determine justice.

Look, somewhere upstream you provided a list of the factors you felt were important in determining justice. How did you arrive at this list? Might there be something important missing from your list? How can you know one way or the other? How do you weigh each point in your list against the other points? How do you know this is the "correct" way to weigh them? Do you think most people in your culture would have the same list? Do you think people from other cultures would have the same list?

As I've said a zillion times, it comes down to gut feeling.
Of course, denying your ex-wife millions of dollars is harm. It's certainly more harm than a black eye.
Of course it isn't harm. You might as well say that not winning in the lottery causes you harm.
I listed nine separate factors that I use for making a determination if a sentence is just. Post 1232. Apparently, you found it so interesting that you completely forgot.

I suspect you aren't interested at all, but merely ask the question to hide the fact that you are still refising to answer the questions I have posed to you.
I remember your list. It doesn't address my question. See previous answer.
Contempt is a crime, which you have been told and which you ocassionally acknowledge. You then conveniently decide contempt is nota crime when invconvenient.

So, since contempt is a crime and Chadwick is being punished for contempt, it is mete that Chadwick be punished more severely for malicious contempt. My argument stands.
Chadwick was not accussed with any crime. He has received a "sentence" which is apparently itself a crime (very odd "sentence", I have to say).
Where? What post? When? You didn't, except to dismiss such arguments conclusorily.
I've answered this in a vast number of posts. One of the very first claims made here was that Chadwick had the key to his own jail.
Post 1232
Already answered.
Saying it twice doesn't make it any more true. You used English incorrectly. That is bound to confuse Englishs-speakers. I wasn't confused and that's why I was able to point out the word you actually meant to use.

But you can repeat your statement a third time if your like. And then you can claim your repetition make me a broken record.
Your repetition makes you sound like a broken record. Happy now? :)
Post 1232. Although I don't expect you to read it, since you couldn't bother to read it the first time I wrote it.

And are you ever planning to answer my question: what gives you the feeling that the incarceration is unjust? Is it a rational feeling, or is it just some random effect of the hormones and chemicals in what passes for your brain? If it is a rational feeling, we can discuss it. If it is not rational, why could you possibly believe people would be convinced by such an argument.
Already answered. When you are ready to address the question I actually asked, I'd love to discuss it with you.

DanishDynamite

16th October 2006, 02:08 PM

I really enjoyed when you try to tout the superiority of the Danish system, especially after you admit you don't know anything about it.
Glad you enjoyed it. It seems the thread wasn't completely without entertainment value then. :)

Anyway, yes, I shouldn't have made claims about the superiority of the Danish court system without checking. I just assumed it was superior as so much of Danish society is. ;)

DanishDynamite

16th October 2006, 02:15 PM

The ex-wife was hurt. She had $2 mil stolen from her.
Nope. Stealing would be a criminal offense.
So that means his theft doesn't count?

If you just bought a second car, for example, can I now steal your other car? After all, you got along just fine until now with only one car, so I'm hurting no one.
If you stole my car, you would be committing a criminal offense.
Hey, he can get out any time he wants by cooperating with the courts. If HE has no problem with staying behind bars indefinitely so long as he pi$$es off his ex-wife, why should I have a problem with it?
The prosecution has no idea if the money even exists. Chadwick says it was lost. It is reasonable to keep a man in jail forever on a suspicion that he might have hid away some extra dough from his ex-wife?

DanishDynamite

16th October 2006, 02:17 PM

Just a note: 12 days and counting for DD to respond to my questions on the "Boom. Boom. Boom." thread.
You really can't get enough of me, eh?

I have to say it warms my heart. :)

marksman

16th October 2006, 02:33 PM

I don't understand what it is you feel I havn't answered.
The question I have asked you eight times now:
On what basis do you believe that "feelings" is an appropriate basis for determining whether a punishment is just?

If you have answered the question, tell me the post where that occurred.

I have gove back to each post you have written in this thread since I first asked the question and I do not see an answer to it. If you have indeed answered the question, please give me the post number.

It is the only way to determine justice.
And this is why Skeptic invoked the writings of Rawls, Aristotle, Aquinas and others. They have set forth methods of determining justice that are not based on feelings. They disprove your statement above.

Look, somewhere upstream you provided a list of the factors you felt were important in determining justice. How did you arrive at this list?
Reason. My goal is to determine a result that will best embody the principles of rehabilitation, deterrence, and remediation. I encourage you to read the works of Bentham, which were very helpful to me in formulating these ideas.

You will note that I have not cited to "feelings."

Might there be something important missing from your list?
It's possible, although you don't seem to be able to point to anything that is missing.

How can you know one way or the other?
We look at various methods of punishment and try as best we can to devise those that meet the state goals. Again, going with "gut feelings' is a horrible means of determining punishments and you might as well arm the villagers with pitchforks and torches and tell them to let their "gut feelings" be their guide.

Do you think most people in your culture would have the same list? Do you think people from other cultures would have the same list?
Who cares?

As I've said a zillion times, it comes down to gut feeling.
That opinion is not only factually wrong but affirmatively dangerous to the well-being of a society and I am very glad that Denmark does not actually craft penal law on the basis of "gut feelings".

Of course it isn't harm. You might as well say that not winning in the lottery causes you harm.
It does if I won the lottery and the lottery commission refuses to pay. In that case they stole my money and that hurts me.

The wife put in decades at a marriage. That money is hers. She earned it. He took it. That hurts her.

Chadwick was not accussed with any crime. He has received a "sentence" which is apparently itself a crime (very odd "sentence", I have to say).
It's only odd because you are wrong. He was accused of contempt of court. He was sentenced for having committed contempt of court. Replace any crime with "contempt of court" and you will see that he was not treated differently than any criminal defendant.

When you are ready to address the question I actually asked, I'd love to discuss it with you.
Done and done. The fact that you actually believe that penal law is based on nothing more than gut feelings is incredible. It is particularly incredible given your pride in the 1,000 year-tradition of Danish law, which is predicated on rejecting the ad hoc justice employed by the "gut feelings" of local clan leaders. When Denmark chose to adopt a "rule of law" over "gut feelings" it took its first infant steps into a more civilized world. Your reification of "gut feelings" not only ignores thousands of years of legal history, social history, and philosophy, but it urinates over the very act that made Denmark special.

DanishDynamite

16th October 2006, 02:57 PM

The question I have asked you eight times now:
On what basis do you believe that "feelings" is an appropriate basis for determining whether a punishment is just?
Incredible. For the last time, "gut feeling" is all that any law anywhere in the world, ever, has been based on. It makes no difference whether it might be "appropriate" or not, that is all there is. I challenge you to argue otherwise. You could begin by explaining where each point in your little list of considerations stems from and why you feel it is important.
If you have answered the question, tell me the post where that occurred.

I have gove back to each post you have written in this thread since I first asked the question and I do not see an answer to it. If you have indeed answered the question, please give me the post number.

Enough with the BS. Start defending your non-answer.
And this is why Skeptic invoked the writings of Rawls, Aristotle, Aquinas and others. They have set forth methods of determining justice that are not based on feelings. They disprove your statement above.
If so, kindly show me where and how these great philosophers did so.
Reason. My goal is to determine a result that will best embody the principles of rehabilitation, deterrence, and remediation. I encourage you to read the works of Bentham, which were very helpful to me in formulating these ideas.

You will note that I have not cited to "feelings."
I note that you failed to answer the question. Please try again.
It's possible, although you don't seem to be able to point to anything that is missing.
I could think up a zillion things that are missing. Was the defendent wearing long pants? Was the temperature above 10 degrees when the crime was committed? Was at least 30% of the Orion nebula visible in the sky at the time?
We look at various methods of punishment and try as best we can to devise those that meet the state goals. Again, going with "gut feelings' is a horrible means of determining punishments and you might as well arm the villagers with pitchforks and torches and tell them to let their "gut feelings" be their guide.
Unbelievable. You still haven't understood me! My questions are:

1) On what basis do people determine if a law is just?
2) On what basis do people determine if a sentence is just?

Where am I advocating for a "trial by mob"?
Who cares?
You don't care whether other people in your culture have the same list? Then how can you even begin to think your list has any relevance? Even as a starting point for determining justice?
That opinion is not only factually wrong but affirmatively dangerous to the well-being of a society and I am very glad that Denmark does not actually craft penal law on the basis of "gut feelings".
They do, as do every society that makes laws.
It does if I won the lottery and the lottery commission refuses to pay. In that case they stole my money and that hurts me.

The wife put in decades at a marriage. That money is hers. She earned it. He took it. That hurts her.
Sure, but no one has been charged of stealing anything in this case, remember?
It's only odd because you are wrong. He was accused of contempt of court. He was sentenced for having committed contempt of court. Replace any crime with "contempt of court" and you will see that he was not treated differently than any criminal defendant.
He went into court to attend his divorce proceeding already being accussed of "contempt of court"?
Done and done. The fact that you actually believe that penal law is based on nothing more than gut feelings is incredible. It is particularly incredible given your pride in the 1,000 year-tradition of Danish law, which is predicated on rejecting the ad hoc justice employed by the "gut feelings" of local clan leaders. When Denmark chose to adopt a "rule of law" over "gut feelings" it took its first infant steps into a more civilized world. Your reification of "gut feelings" not only ignores thousands of years of legal history, social history, and philosophy, but it urinates over the very act that made Denmark special.
I look forward to your desertation explaining how gut feeling isn't the only underlying basis for evaluation of justice.

marksman

16th October 2006, 03:49 PM

Incredible. For the last time, "gut feeling" is all that any law anywhere in the world, ever, has been based on.
That's your assertion. Prove it.

I challenge you to argue otherwise.
Don't ask me to prove a negative, DD. That's disingenuous at best and outright trolling at worst.

You could begin by explaining where each point in your little list of considerations stems from and why you feel it is important.
My "little" list has eight points more than your list of one. If you plan on turning this into a "who's list is bigger" argument, you're going to lose.

If so, kindly show me where and how these great philosophers did so.
Bentham (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Morals-Legislation-Great-Philosophy/dp/0879754346/sr=1-2/qid=1161038104/ref=sr_1_2/002-6829837-3717645?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Rawls (http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Justice-Original-John-Rawls/dp/0674017722/sr=1-1/qid=1161038127/ref=sr_1_1/002-6829837-3717645?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Aquinas (http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Politics-Norton-Critical-Editions/dp/0393952436/sr=1-2/qid=1161038148/ref=sr_1_2/002-6829837-3717645?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Aristotle (http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Dover-Thrift-Editions-Aristotle/dp/0486414248/sr=1-1/qid=1161038201/ref=sr_1_1/002-6829837-3717645?ie=UTF8&s=books)

Now, you show me the political and legal philosophers who can substantiate your claim that justice is based on nothing more than gut feelings.

I could think up a zillion things that are missing. Was the defendent wearing long pants? Was the temperature above 10 degrees when the crime was committed? Was at least 30% of the Orion nebula visible in the sky at the time?
How are any of those factors relevant?

Unbelievable. You still haven't understood me! My questions are:
1) On what basis do people determine if a law is just?
2) On what basis do people determine if a sentence is just?
I understand you are shifting goalposts. Your questions are irrelevant. And once again it is you who confuses justice and law (even though you have a penchant of making this accusation on others).

As you used to say, whether a sentence is just or unjust does not depend on whether other people deem it so. Do you now think "justness" is the result of a popular vote?

Where am I advocating for a "trial by mob"?
Whenever you contend that justness should be determined by "gut feelings" rather than reason. Because gut feelings are exactly what mobs use to determine who to punish and how harshly.

Then how can you even begin to think your list has any relevance? Even as a starting point for determining justice?
Because my list is what societies have been using to determine justice since Hammurabi first took punishments out of arbitrary tribal leaders and handed them to judges a mere 2796 years ago.

Sure, but no one has been charged of stealing anything in this case, remember?
Wrong (yet again). He was accused of hiding assets from the court and from his wife. The assets he is accused of hiding are owned (50%) by his wife. So, yes, he was accused of stealing. It is a necessary included element of his contempt.

He went into court to attend his divorce proceeding already being accussed of "contempt of court"?
I didn't say that. I said that he went into the contempt proceeding accused of contempt of court. There is no "divorce proceeding". That's just another meaningless term you made up. There is a divorce action, but it lasts for months, usually, from the time the first legal papers are filed until a final judgment of divorce is rendered. During the action, he was accused of contempt, the contempt was proven, and then he was punished.

I look forward to your desertation explaining how gut feeling isn't the only underlying basis for evaluation of justice.
Unnecessary as many esteemed philosophers have already done the work for me, whose books I have cited above. The question you ask of me ocupies entire semesters for graduate level pholoophy, sociology, anthropology and legal theory scholars. I have cite dto you the basic books on the subject that should help alleviate you ignorance.

I look to you to either cite me authority that proves you theory that justice is based on nothing more than "gut feelings" or to go and educate yourself.

My JREF prediction: you will do neither.

DanishDynamite

16th October 2006, 04:44 PM

That's your assertion. Prove it.
Yes, that's my assertion. Which is what you were asking for.

You now wish me to prove it. A new and interesting question. Ok, why not? Sounds like a fun challenge. My proof will be in the form of showing how any argument you or anyone else makes trying to show otherwise can be shown in fact to rest finally on gut feeling. Not a mathematical proof, certainly, but good enough for legal work. What do you think?
Don't ask me to prove a negative, DD. That's disingenuous at best and outright trolling at worst.
It is not proving a negative. I simply asked you to argue for your opinion which differs from mine. So do so.
My "little" list has eight points more than your list of one. If you plan on turning this into a "who's list is bigger" argument, you're going to lose.
Evading the question. I'll repeat it: "You could begin by explaining where each point in your little list of considerations stems from and why you feel it is important. "

Are you prepared to stand up for what you posted or was it just talk?
Bentham (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Morals-Legislation-Great-Philosophy/dp/0879754346/sr=1-2/qid=1161038104/ref=sr_1_2/002-6829837-3717645?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Rawls (http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Justice-Original-John-Rawls/dp/0674017722/sr=1-1/qid=1161038127/ref=sr_1_1/002-6829837-3717645?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Aquinas (http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Politics-Norton-Critical-Editions/dp/0393952436/sr=1-2/qid=1161038148/ref=sr_1_2/002-6829837-3717645?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Aristotle (http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Dover-Thrift-Editions-Aristotle/dp/0486414248/sr=1-1/qid=1161038201/ref=sr_1_1/002-6829837-3717645?ie=UTF8&s=books)

Now, you show me the political and legal philosophers who can substantiate your claim that justice is based on nothing more than gut feelings.
A nice list of links to books on Amazon.

Now, if you are through with the silliness, kindly answer my question. I'll repeat it for you:

(You purported that great philosophers had shown my view was wrong. You said: "They have set forth methods of determining justice that are not based on feelings. They disprove your statement above.")

I said: "If so, kindly show me where and how these great philosophers did so. "

So, kindly do so.
How are any of those factors relevant?
I don't feel they are. I just made them up to show how silly your own little list is. Now, why are your list of factors relevant?
I understand you are shifting goalposts. Your questions are irrelevant. And once again it is you who confuses justice and law (even though you have a penchant of making this accusation on others).

As you used to say, whether a sentence is just or unjust does not depend on whether other people deem it so. Do you now think "justness" is the result of a popular vote?
What shifting goalposts? I think I have been talking about whether this non-sentence was justice since page 1.
Whenever you contend that justness should be determined by "gut feelings" rather than reason. Because gut feelings are exactly what mobs use to determine who to punish and how harshly.
I can only assume that you are dense and hope you are not willfully refusing to understand what I say.

I am discussing the justness of a verdict and as a consequence thereof the justice of a law. That is all. Nowhere have I said that courts should be abolished and replaced with mob rule or that sentences should be effected by mobs.
Because my list is what societies have been using to determine justice since Hammurabi first took punishments out of arbitrary tribal leaders and handed them to judges a mere 2796 years ago.
Really? That's interesting as a side note. I wonder if you can prove it?

Not that it matters for this thread, but it is an interesting claim.
Wrong (yet again). He was accused of hiding assets from the court and from his wife. The assets he is accused of hiding are owned (50%) by his wife. So, yes, he was accused of stealing. It is a necessary included element of his contempt.
I don't understand. In post 1055 you said: "He was not sentenced for stealing money. "
I didn't say that. I said that he went into the contempt proceeding accused of contempt of court. There is no "divorce proceeding". That's just another meaningless term you made up. There is a divorce action, but it lasts for months, usually, from the time the first legal papers are filed until a final judgment of divorce is rendered. During the action, he was accused of contempt, the contempt was proven, and then he was punished.
Ok.
Unnecessary as many esteemed philosophers have already done the work for me, whose books I have cited above. The question you ask of me ocupies entire semesters for graduate level pholoophy, sociology, anthropology and legal theory scholars. I have cite dto you the basic books on the subject that should help alleviate you ignorance.
Sorry, but book references don't an argument make. Please make your case.
I look to you to either cite me authority that proves you theory that justice is based on nothing more than "gut feelings" or to go and educate yourself.

My JREF prediction: you will do neither.
My prediction: You won't be able to show me wrong.

RandFan

16th October 2006, 05:27 PM

I am discussing the justness of a verdict and as a consequence thereof the justice of a law. That is all. Nowhere have I said that courts should be abolished and replaced with mob rule or that sentences should be effected by mobs. Cool, then since we don't have mobs and do have courts and apellate courts and since this guy has chosen to keep himself in jail then we have justice.

My prediction: You won't be able to show me wrong.How exactly do you prove gut feelings wrong? Trolls are never proven wrong BTW.

DanishDynamite

16th October 2006, 05:33 PM

Cool, then since we don't have mobs and do have courts and apellate courts and since this guy has chosen to keep himself in jail then we have justice.
:D

(I assume that was a joke)
How exactly do you prove gut feelings wrong? Trolls are never proven wrong BTW.
He doesn't have to prove gut feeling wrong. He just has to show that the basis of what constitutes justice isn't gut feeling.

In regard to your second statement, evidence please.

RandFan

16th October 2006, 05:46 PM

(I assume that was a joke) Hell no.

He just has to show that the basis of what constitutes justice isn't gut feeling. Have you ever had a course in ethics? Are you familiar with Kantian or utilitarian ethics? I wouldn't simply use "gut feeling" as the basis of justice. Philosophers have relied on logic and reason. I don't know but that seems like a better standard than simply, "well it feels right"? Hopefully 2,000+ years of philosophical inquiry has given us a bit more than that.

In regard to your second statement, evidence please.Now that's a joke.

Ace_of_Sevens

16th October 2006, 06:59 PM

You now wish me to prove it. A new and interesting question. Ok, why not? Sounds like a fun challenge. My proof will be in the form of showing how any argument you or anyone else makes trying to show otherwise can be shown in fact to rest finally on gut feeling. Not a mathematical proof, certainly, but good enough for legal work. What do you think?

Resting on gut feeling is quite different from being a gut feeling. You can argue the basic principles are emotionally-based, but that doesn't get you out of building rational arguments on top of them.

WildCat

16th October 2006, 09:54 PM

I have a gut feeling that DD is trolling this thread.

Skeptic

16th October 2006, 10:07 PM

As I've said a zillion times, it comes down to gut feeling.... It is the only way to determine justice.

My gut feeling tells me it is totally unjust that you have money. Please send me the contents of your bank account.

Sigh.

OK, so we can add "justice" to the things DD knows nothing about--adding it to "the basics of the legal system in the USA", "the basics of the legal system in Denmark", and "the facts of the Chadwick case".

Yet he started this entire thread to show that the Chadwick case proves the legal system in the USA is unjust compared to the legal system in Denmark. And he still insists he's right and everybody else is wrong.

Ah well.

Of course it isn't harm. You might as well say that not winning in the lottery causes you harm.

So if you have the winning lottery ticket, and I take it from you, cash it, and run away with the money, I haven't caused you harm, did I? All I did is make you not win the lottery.

RandFan

17th October 2006, 12:09 AM

So if you have the winning lottery ticket, and I take it from you, cash it, and run away with the money, I haven't caused you harm, did I? All I did is make you not win the lottery.I want to move to Denmark and live with DD for awhile. What's his is mine. No harm.

Didaktylos

17th October 2006, 01:53 AM

Incidentally - how does probate law in that jurisdiction deal with an incomplete divorce settlement?

It strikes me that if Chadwick is bloody-minded enough to spend 11 years in jail to keep the money out of his wife's hands, he might even be planning to die with the matter still open and let all the money be consumed in legal wrangling over his estate.

marksman

17th October 2006, 06:21 AM

Yes, that's my assertion. Which is what you were asking for.

You now wish me to prove it. A new and interesting question. Ok, why not? Sounds like a fun challenge. My proof will be in the form of showing how any argument you or anyone else makes trying to show otherwise can be shown in fact to rest finally on gut feeling. Not a mathematical proof, certainly, but good enough for legal work. What do you think?
I think that is not good enough for legal work, or for mathematicians or for anybody interested in rational debate.

You made a hypothesis: justice is based on gut feelings alone. That is a positive assertion, so you should be able to prove it. Asking me to prove the negative of your argument and then trying to shoot down my arguments is commonly known as "rhetorical cowardice."

I simply asked you to argue for your opinion which differs from mine. So do so.
Done, by reference to arguments made since time immemorial on this very topic.

"You could begin by explaining where each point in your little list of considerations stems from and why you feel it is important. "
I'm not evading. Your question consumes years of graduate coursework. I gave you citations to the books that will amply answer your question. Are you interested in the actual answer to your question, or do you only seek to score points in this thread by claiming I haven't responded?

A nice list of links to books on Amazon.
Which answer your question, if you're sincere about wanting an snwer. (I suspect you're not.)

Nowhere have I said that courts should be abolished and replaced with mob rule or that sentences should be effected by mobs.
It is the consequence of basing "justice" on "gut feelings"

I don't understand. In post 1055 you said: "He was not sentenced for stealing money. "
That's because you lack basic abilities in logical duduction and reading comprehension. He wa ssentenced for contempt of court. The contempt of court included allegations of absconding with his wife's funds. It's called a "lesser included element". I assume you are unable to understand what I just wrote but will continue to pretend you do.

Sorry, but book references don't an argument make. Please make your case.
Book references do, since they contain the very arguments that support my case. If you are sincere in wanting answers, you will actually make some effort to educate yourself on the topic.

My prediction: You won't be able to show me wrong.
I can't fart unicorns either. It's not my job to prove you wrong. It's your job to prove you right.

DanishDynamite

18th October 2006, 01:39 PM

Have you ever had a course in ethics? Are you familiar with Kantian or utilitarian ethics? I wouldn't simply use "gut feeling" as the basis of justice. Philosophers have relied on logic and reason. I don't know but that seems like a better standard than simply, "well it feels right"? Hopefully 2,000+ years of philosophical inquiry has given us a bit more than that.
Logic and reason are great inventions. They are unfortunately barely relevant when discussing appropriate penalties for supposed crimes. In the US the crime of murder can be punished by the death penalty. In Denmark it can't. How is this possible if all that is needed to determine the right penalty is logic and reason? In fact, how can penalties for a given crime differ at all between countries or even differ within states of a given country if logic and reason determines the penalty?

DanishDynamite

18th October 2006, 01:42 PM

Resting on gut feeling is quite different from being a gut feeling. You can argue the basic principles are emotionally-based, but that doesn't get you out of building rational arguments on top of them.
Sorry, I don't see the difference. It is true that people then build supposedly "rational" arguments on top of their gut feelings, but that's human nature. We like to think we do things for rational reasons.

DanishDynamite

18th October 2006, 01:47 PM

My gut feeling tells me it is totally unjust that you have money. Please send me the contents of your bank account.
Great. If a majority has the same gut feeling, perhaps you could get a law passed refelecting this.
OK, so we can add "justice" to the things DD knows nothing about--adding it to "the basics of the legal system in the USA", "the basics of the legal system in Denmark", and "the facts of the Chadwick case".

Yet he started this entire thread to show that the Chadwick case proves the legal system in the USA is unjust compared to the legal system in Denmark. And he still insists he's right and everybody else is wrong.

Ah well.
Uh..no. I started this thread to show how I felt that keeping someone who had never harmed anyone in jail indefinitely, was wrong.
So if you have the winning lottery ticket, and I take it from you, cash it, and run away with the money, I haven't caused you harm, did I? All I did is make you not win the lottery.
No, you stole my lottery ticket. A crime.

DanishDynamite

18th October 2006, 01:59 PM

I think that is not good enough for legal work, or for mathematicians or for anybody interested in rational debate.

You made a hypothesis: justice is based on gut feelings alone. That is a positive assertion, so you should be able to prove it. Asking me to prove the negative of your argument and then trying to shoot down my arguments is commonly known as "rhetorical cowardice."
And my proof is that no argument can be made which doesn't unltimately rely on gut feeling. I cannot make a general proof as this isn't mathematics, but I can show that any argument anyone cares to make can be reduced to relying on gut feeling.
Done, by reference to arguments made since time immemorial on this very topic.
No, your only references so far has been to books available on Amazon. Make the argument that think exists.
I'm not evading. Your question consumes years of graduate coursework. I gave you citations to the books that will amply answer your question. Are you interested in the actual answer to your question, or do you only seek to score points in this thread by claiming I haven't responded?
I am interested in your answer. An aswer you appear unable to give. You made the claim. Now provide the evidence.
Which answer your question, if you're sincere about wanting an snwer. (I suspect you're not.)
So you claim. Now show why I should believe you.
It is the consequence of basing "justice" on "gut feelings"
Of course not. The rule of law is fine. It is the determination of whether a law or a verdict is just, and hence whether it should be changed, which is based on gut feeling.
That's because you lack basic abilities in logical duduction and reading comprehension. He wa ssentenced for contempt of court. The contempt of court included allegations of absconding with his wife's funds. It's called a "lesser included element". I assume you are unable to understand what I just wrote but will continue to pretend you do.
Was he charged with stealing or wasn't he?
Book references do, since they contain the very arguments that support my case. If you are sincere in wanting answers, you will actually make some effort to educate yourself on the topic.
If you are sincere in supporting your claim, you will make the argument which supports it.
I can't fart unicorns either. It's not my job to prove you wrong. It's your job to prove you right.
Uh..no. It is your job to show your claim is true. Your claim was, I think, that these philosophers have shown that gut feeling has no relevance to determining justice.

marksman

18th October 2006, 02:22 PM

And my proof is that no argument can be made which doesn't unltimately rely on gut feeling.
That's not a proof in any sense of the word.

I cannot make a general proof as this isn't mathematics
It's rhetorics. Proofs are not limited to mathematics. But why should you be any better versed in logic theory than you are in social theory, legal theory, philosophy, or any of the other topics on which you attempt to opine.

No, your only references so far has been to books available on Amazon. Make the argument that think exists.
My arguments are laid out in those books. It is nto my fault that you are too lazy and/or disingenuous to want to educate yourself.

Was he charged with stealing or wasn't he?
He was charged with contempt of court stemming from the money he wrongfully withholds from his wife. The stealing is part and parcel fo the contempt charge.

That's like saying someone he clubs a guy to death didn't commit assault because he was only charged with murder.

It is your job to show your claim is true.
We have both made claims. My claim is supported by the esteemed books I referenced. Your claim has not been supported at all.

DanishDynamite

18th October 2006, 02:44 PM

That's not a proof in any sense of the word.

It's rhetorics. Proofs are not limited to mathematics. But why should you be any better versed in logic theory than you are in social theory, legal theory, philosophy, or any of the other topics on which you attempt to opine.

My arguments are laid out in those books. It is nto my fault that you are too lazy and/or disingenuous to want to educate yourself.

He was charged with contempt of court stemming from the money he wrongfully withholds from his wife. The stealing is part and parcel fo the contempt charge.

That's like saying someone he clubs a guy to death didn't commit assault because he was only charged with murder.

We have both made claims. My claim is supported by the esteemed books I referenced. Your claim has not been supported at all.
You refuse to support your claim other than refering to books. OK. And you are too scared to take my challenge regarding how any argument you make can be reduced to gut feeling. OK.

I guess we are done here then?

Ian Osborne

18th October 2006, 03:00 PM

I guess we are done here then?

:woo

RandFan

18th October 2006, 06:37 PM

Logic and reason are great inventions. They are unfortunately barely relevant when discussing appropriate penalties for supposed crimes. In the US the crime of murder can be punished by the death penalty. In Denmark it can't. How is this possible if all that is needed to determine the right penalty is logic and reason? In fact, how can penalties for a given crime differ at all between countries or even differ within states of a given country if logic and reason determines the penalty?:rolleyes:

Wow! Uh, by your logic all laws are arbitrary. No DD. There are no moral absolutes. Groups (nations, states, municipalities) must use logic and reason to work through a whole lot of other things like history, precedent, community standards, mores, etc. to decide what is appropriate for a community.

By your logic it's all a crap shoot. I'll ask you the question again, have you ever taken a course in ethics? You seem surprisingly ignorant of the subject. I guess I have missed judged you all of this time.

RandFan

18th October 2006, 06:43 PM

You refuse to support your claim other than refering to books. OK. And you are too scared to take my challenge regarding how any argument you make can be reduced to gut feeling. OK. This is ignorance. Emotions are in part the basis for morals, ethics and laws but to say that any argument could be reduced to gut feeling is just simply ignorance of human behavior and thousands of years of enlightenment.

I don't want to die.
I don't want to suffer.
I want to live in a society that values life and the feelings of individuals.
If I respect the lives and feelings of others I am more likely to have such respect returned.
There is utility to acting as a citizen the way I would like other citizens to act.

Not just gut feeling. Logic and reason.

I guess we are done here then?You've been done for sometime we just haven't figured out how to convince you of it.

Skeptic

18th October 2006, 10:12 PM

You refuse to support your claim other than refering to books. OK.

Yes, that's such a weird thing for someone to do.

DD reminds me of the scene in "The Princess Bride":

--"You call yourself intelligent? Have you heard of Bentham?"
--"Yes."
--"Have you heard of Rawls?"
--"Yes."
--"Have you heard of Aquinas?"
--"Yes."
--"Have you head of Aristotle?"
--"Yes."
--"Idiots!"

Oroborus

18th October 2006, 11:50 PM

Yes, that's such a weird thing for someone to do.

DD reminds me of the scene in "The Princess Bride":

--"You call yourself intelligent? Have you heard of Bentham?"
--"Yes."
--"Have you heard of Rawls?"
--"Yes."
--"Have you heard of Aquinas?"
--"Yes."
--"Have you head of Aristotle?"
--"Yes."
--"Idiots!"

awe I like that movie.Too bad Frezzik isn't here to deal with the troll(s).

marksman

19th October 2006, 06:25 AM

I supposed I should have learned never to deal with a Sicilian... er, Dane when death is... er, gut emotions are on the line!

drkitten

19th October 2006, 07:36 AM

I guess we are done here then?

I don't believe so.

I believe the two of us have an outstanding wager -- you were either going to defend your interpretation of the US 5th Amendment by tomorrow (showing a citation where journalists were refusing to testify on 5th Amendment grounds), or send fifteen euro to the JREF.

I just skimmed this thread and didn't find any such citation. If I missed it, please let me know where it is. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing your response tomorrow or hearing about your cheque.

DanishDynamite

19th October 2006, 11:21 AM

:rolleyes:

Wow! Uh, by your logic all laws are arbitrary.
Certainly not. They are based on gut feeling, not arbitrary.
No DD. There are no moral absolutes. Groups (nations, states, municipalities) must use logic and reason to work through a whole lot of other things like history, precedent, community standards, mores, etc. to decide what is appropriate for a community.
And what determines what is appropriate for a community?
By your logic it's all a crap shoot.
You seem to think that gut feeling = randomness. Why do you think so?
I'll ask you the question again, have you ever taken a course in ethics?
Indeed I have. It was a course during my Junior year.
You seem surprisingly ignorant of the subject. I guess I have missed judged you all of this time.
And your mother wears army boots. Do you think, maybe sometime in the far future, you might actually be able to make a post which doesn't include dispariging remarks on my character? Just curious.

DanishDynamite

19th October 2006, 11:25 AM

This is ignorance. Emotions are in part the basis for morals, ethics and laws but to say that any argument could be reduced to gut feeling is just simply ignorance of human behavior and thousands of years of enlightenment.
I have no doubt marksman agrees with you. For some odd reason, he is unwilling to take my challenge though. Odd that.
I don't want to die.
I don't want to suffer.
I want to live in a society that values life and the feelings of individuals.
If I respect the lives and feelings of others I am more likely to have such respect returned.
There is utility to acting as a citizen the way I would like other citizens to act.

Not just gut feeling. Logic and reason.
Sorry, was that an argument that I was supposed to refute?
You've been done for sometime we just haven't figured out how to convince you of it.
Yes, you haven't. No evidence, old boy.

DanishDynamite

19th October 2006, 11:27 AM

Yes, that's such a weird thing for someone to do.
I wouldn't call it weird, just unable to support their view.
DD reminds me of the scene in "The Princess Bride":

--"You call yourself intelligent? Have you heard of Bentham?"
--"Yes."
--"Have you heard of Rawls?"
--"Yes."
--"Have you heard of Aquinas?"
--"Yes."
--"Have you head of Aristotle?"
--"Yes."
--"Idiots!"
Sounds like a fun play.

DanishDynamite

19th October 2006, 11:28 AM

I supposed I should have learned never to deal with a Sicilian... er, Dane when death is... er, gut emotions are on the line!
Perhaps, or you should just know how to provide evidence of your claims and to argue your claims.

DanishDynamite

19th October 2006, 11:32 AM

I don't believe so.

I believe the two of us have an outstanding wager -- you were either going to defend your interpretation of the US 5th Amendment by tomorrow (showing a citation where journalists were refusing to testify on 5th Amendment grounds), or send fifteen euro to the JREF.

I just skimmed this thread and didn't find any such citation. If I missed it, please let me know where it is. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing your response tomorrow or hearing about your cheque.
Gosh! I do have a vague memory of making a wager of 15 euros. Sorry for forgetting about it! Could you, please, please, refer me to the posts where this wager was made, just so I can refresh exactly what it was about? Thanks!

marksman

19th October 2006, 12:12 PM

Perhaps, or you should just know how to provide evidence of your claims and to argue your claims.

I did. You simply refuse to read my evidence.

DanishDynamite

19th October 2006, 12:55 PM

I did. You simply refuse to read my evidence.
You provided nada. Just links to books. Next time you ask me for evidence, I'll link to the homepage of a public library. Fair? If not, why not?

drkitten

19th October 2006, 01:00 PM

DD:

Proposed in post #1191: 15 euro donation to the JREF says that you won't find it.

And accepted in post #1197.

marksman

19th October 2006, 01:05 PM

You provided nada. Just links to books. Next time you ask me for evidence, I'll link to the homepage of a public library. Fair? If not, why not?

Because it wouldn't tell me which book had such evidence. But I told you exactly what books will support my claim and you refuse to educate yourself.

If I ask for support for your argument and you cite to a specific book, I will either get the book or have my library obtain a copy of the book so that I can educate myself.

But wait! I have asked you for evidence for your claims in two different threads. In this thread you insist that the only evidence you have for your affirmative claim that laws are based on raw emotion is a negative argument (thus, a fallacy.) In another thread, I asked you to support your assertion that Europe is more culturally mature than America, China and Japan. You have yet to respond to that request in any way, except to plead your own laziness.

marksman

19th October 2006, 01:06 PM

I wouldn't call it weird, just unable to support their view.

Sounds like a fun play.

The movie is called "The Princess Bride" and the character that you are admiring is called "Vezzini". He is in fact, a buffoon.

DanishDynamite

19th October 2006, 02:13 PM

Because it wouldn't tell me which book had such evidence. But I told you exactly what books will support my claim and you refuse to educate yourself.
A book usually has hundreds of pages. If you feel you know of a proof which supports your argument, kindly provide said proof. If the proof is too big to handle, provide a link to the proof. Providing a link to a book is not proof. Show me the proof.
If I ask for support for your argument and you cite to a specific book, I will either get the book or have my library obtain a copy of the book so that I can educate myself.
Cool.
But wait! I have asked you for evidence for your claims in two different threads. In this thread you insist that the only evidence you have for your affirmative claim that laws are based on raw emotion is a negative argument (thus, a fallacy.) In another thread, I asked you to support your assertion that Europe is more culturally mature than America, China and Japan. You have yet to respond to that request in any way, except to plead your own laziness.
You have failed to provide proof of your assertion and refused to accept my challenge.

End of story.

DanishDynamite

19th October 2006, 02:14 PM

The movie is called "The Princess Bride" and the character that you are admiring is called "Vezzini". He is in fact, a buffoon.
Thanks for the info.

DanishDynamite

19th October 2006, 02:16 PM

DD:

Proposed in post #1191:

And accepted in post #1197.
Got it. Would you give me until Monday to respond, or do you (rightfully) feel that I've lost and should pay up?

drkitten

19th October 2006, 02:18 PM

Got it. Would you give me until Monday to respond, or do you (rightfully) feel that I've lost and should pay up?

Yeah, sure, take the weekend.

ETA, actually, it occurs to me is that the best result all around is for me to insist that you pay up, but then offer to pay myself as well if you can find the citation by Monday anyway. More money into Randi's coffers and all that.

DanishDynamite

19th October 2006, 02:54 PM

Yeah, sure, take the weekend.

ETA, actually, it occurs to me is that the best result all around is for me to insist that you pay up, but then offer to pay myself as well if you can find the citation by Monday anyway. More money into Randi's coffers and all that.
Thanks. You are indeed large. Ever considered the title of Dr. Cat? :)

Anyway, I think I've already found my reply, but I need to get better evidence than what I have at present. See you Monday, at the latest.

Ace_of_Sevens

19th October 2006, 04:26 PM

You seem to think that gut feeling = randomness. Why do you think so?

Two main reasons:

1. Gut feelings are notoriously fickle. A story causing national outrage could be forgottent he next week.

2. Whose gut feelings? People's feelings are going to differ quite a bit.

RandFan

19th October 2006, 05:07 PM

Certainly not. They are based on gut feeling, not arbitrary. And since gut feelings are arbitrary by your logic all laws are arbitrary.

And what determines what is appropriate for a community?
Here's a surprise, the community.

You seem to think that gut feeling = randomness. Why do you think so?Gut feelings are as varied as are people. My gut feelings are not the same as yours.

Indeed I have. It was a course during my Junior year. It's amazing that you would not understand why justice isn't simply based on gut feelings. You would get an F in your ethics class.

And your mother wears army boots. Do you think, maybe sometime in the far future, you might actually be able to make a post which doesn't include dispariging remarks on my character? Just curious.I can't help that your responses reveal an ignorance of the subject matter which they clearly do.

RandFan

19th October 2006, 05:08 PM

Sorry, was that an argument that I was supposed to refute? Sorry, do you not know what an argument is?

Skeptic

20th October 2006, 02:00 AM

A book usually has hundreds of pages.

DD, we're talking about some of the most famous and infulential books in ethics in all of western history.

Are we seriously supposed to believe you have no idea where to find a summary of what Aristotle or Kant or Rawls said about justice, or what their views are, merely because their books contain "hundreds of pages"?

I'm quite sure that just googling "Aristotle's theory of justice" will be more than enough, on the odd chance you really never heard of it before.

Ian Osborne

20th October 2006, 02:23 AM

A book usually has hundreds of pages.

And by Christmas, so will this thread. :rolleyes:

Skeptic

20th October 2006, 03:07 AM

Sorry, was that an argument that I was supposed to refute?

Sorry, do you not know what an argument is?

Hello, we're both here for an argument...

AmateurScientist

20th October 2006, 04:08 AM

Hello, we're both here for an argument...

Argument? Oh, so sorry. That's down the hall. This is abuse.

AS

slingblade

20th October 2006, 04:18 AM

Your kind makes me puke, you toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!

marksman

20th October 2006, 06:39 AM

A book usually has hundreds of pages.
Fortunately, most of these books have tables of contents and indices that will quickly help you find the exact pages you seek.

If you feel you know of a proof which supports your argument, kindly provide said proof. If the proof is too big to handle, provide a link to the proof. Providing a link to a book is not proof. Show me the proof.
A book is in fact proof when the proof comes in the form of an argument set forth and substantiated within the book. All of the books i cited support my argument. Now you complain that I;ve given you too much information "hundreds of pages!" Well, it's not my fault that the evidence contradicting your argument and supporting mine is so overwhelming. I am sorry that there are mountains and mountains of pages just waiting to be read by you.

Just read Rawls for a start. It's not a terribly long book and discusses most of the other works I cited. It has an index and a table of contents for you. It really can't get much easier than that.

You are quite simply one of the laziest debaters I have had the misfortune to meet. So lazy you can't even be bothered to ask your local library for a copy of any of the books cited. Heck, I'd be surprised if the books by Rawls and Bentham -- seminal works in the field of legal philosophy -- haven't been translated into Danish. I'm absolutely certain that Aristotle's Politics has.

You have failed to provide proof of your assertion and refused to accept my challenge.
You haven't demonstrated a working knowledge of "proof", "assertion" or "challenge," much less "crime", "contempt", "theft", "settlement", "trial", "prosecutor", "burden of proof", "presumption of innocence", "fifth amendment", "first amendment", or "self-incrimination", all of which I have had to correct you on in this thread.

DanishDynamite

20th October 2006, 01:22 PM

Two main reasons:

1. Gut feelings are notoriously fickle. A story causing national outrage could be forgottent he next week. The death of a story in the news media is hardly unexpected or relevant to gut feelings.
2. Whose gut feelings? People's feelings are going to differ quite a bit.
Statistically, they don't differ much. For a given society.

DanishDynamite

20th October 2006, 01:27 PM

DD, we're talking about some of the most famous and infulential books in ethics in all of western history.
You mean they are important in this regard as the Bible?
Are we seriously supposed to believe you have no idea where to find a summary of what Aristotle or Kant or Rawls said about justice, or what their views are, merely because their books contain "hundreds of pages"?
Does it seriously matter? I could refer any argument I made to the Bible. I'm sure that somewhere within this selfcontradictory assembly of stories, there would be a paragrah or two which would support my argument.
I'm quite sure that just googling "Aristotle's theory of justice" will be more than enough, on the odd chance you really never heard of it before.
If you are so sure, then all you have to do is to google it and present the revealed argument here.

DanishDynamite

20th October 2006, 01:34 PM

Fortunately, most of these books have tables of contents and indices that will quickly help you find the exact pages you seek.
I'm sure they do. Just as a public library uses the Dewey Decimal system.

Now, please present your argument.
A book is in fact proof when the proof comes in the form of an argument set forth and substantiated within the book. All of the books i cited support my argument. Now you complain that I;ve given you too much information "hundreds of pages!" Well, it's not my fault that the evidence contradicting your argument and supporting mine is so overwhelming. I am sorry that there are mountains and mountains of pages just waiting to be read by you.
As I said, you have provided nada. When you think you are ready to provide an argument, I look very much forward to it.
Just read Rawls for a start. It's not a terribly long book and discusses most of the other works I cited. It has an index and a table of contents for you. It really can't get much easier than that.
Just read the Bible. It has all the answers.

marksman, if you are so sure that these books somewhere contain the argument which will smash my view for ever, why don't you provide this argument? Have you no honor?
You are quite simply one of the laziest debaters I have had the misfortune to meet. So lazy you can't even be bothered to ask your local library for a copy of any of the books cited. Heck, I'd be surprised if the books by Rawls and Bentham -- seminal works in the field of legal philosophy -- haven't been translated into Danish. I'm absolutely certain that Aristotle's Politics has.
And you are one of the most inable providers of evidence that I have yet met on this forum.
You haven't demonstrated a working knowledge of "proof", "assertion" or "challenge," much less "crime", "contempt", "theft", "settlement", "trial", "prosecutor", "burden of proof", "presumption of innocence", "fifth amendment", "first amendment", or "self-incrimination", all of which I have had to correct you on in this thread.
And you have yet to show that you might finally understand the point of this thread.

marksman

20th October 2006, 03:23 PM

I'm sure they do. Just as a public library uses the Dewey Decimal system.

Now, please present your argument.
DOne the argument is in the words of the books I cited.

marksman, if you are so sure that these books somewhere contain the argument which will smash my view for ever, why don't you provide this argument? Have you no honor?
I don't have the time to present a thesis that, as I explained, takes up graduate studies.

Were you to ask me to prove e=mc2, it would be proper for me to cite to Einstein's treatise on the subject that does precisely that. Were you to claim that I failed to substantiate my argument because I didn't take the time to teach an uneducated ignoramus advanced relativistic physics, it's the ignoramus who has exposed himself as dishonorable.

And you are one of the most inable providers of evidence that I have yet met on this forum.
Well, I'm certainly better than you. I at least prvided authority for my claim. You have made two claims to me and have provided neither a fact nor a reference in support of it.

DanishDynamite

20th October 2006, 03:33 PM

DOne the argument is in the words of the books I cited.
Cite the argument you are making. Otherwise, see the Bible for justification of any argument anyone on Earth has ever made. I'm sure it's in there.
I don't have the time to present a thesis that, as I explained, takes up graduate studies.
You don't have the time to provide an argument. OK.
Were you to ask me to prove e=mc2, it would be proper for me to cite to Einstein's treatise on the subject that does precisely that. Were you to claim that I failed to substantiate my argument because I didn't take the time to teach an uneducated ignoramus advanced relativistic physics, it's the ignoramus who has exposed himself as dishonorable.
No, citing a book as evidence is never accepted as evidence within the scientific world. You need to be a bit more specific.
Well, I'm certainly better than you. I at least prvided authority for my claim. You have made two claims to me and have provided neither a fact nor a reference in support of it.
Providing authority is as relevant as providing coffee for a meeting. Provide an argument for your ridiculous claims. And grow some balls and accept my challenge.

Tchau.

Ace_of_Sevens

20th October 2006, 04:51 PM

The death of a story in the news media is hardly unexpected or relevant to gut feelings.
Really? If justice is determined by how peopel feel abotu something, how is that fact that may nto even care a few days later irrelevant?

Statistically, they don't differ much. For a given society.
Evidence? If justice is based on gut feelings, which are all basically the same in a given society, why do hot issues even exist?

RandFan

20th October 2006, 04:52 PM

Statistically, they don't differ much. For a given society.Really? Says who? Are you saying justice is simply whatever the gut feelings of a society say it is? Mob rule?

Slavery was ok based on gut feelings for a long time. Lynchings were usually spurred by gut feelings. The problem with "gut feelings" is that they are easily changed and shift with political movements and economic and social stresses (see Marie Antoinette and her unfortunate encounter with gut feelings).

I think based on the reading of the early Greek philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and more modern ones like Kant, Singer and others that justice is ever so much more than just gut feelings. Justice, it seems is based in part on our feelings but it is a reasoned process involving empathy, compassion, utility, etc.

I've already made these points and I know that it is convenient for you to simply ignore them, the troll that you are, so I'm really writing for others in the event that someone else won't buy such a ridiculous and ignorant notion as justice being simply based on gut feelings. One would hope that thousands of years of philosophical inquiry into ethics have gotten us farther than just base feelings.

Skeptic

20th October 2006, 10:56 PM

You mean they are important in this regard as the Bible?

No, not exactly. Kant, say, in relation to the bible's view of justice is a bit like Newton compared with the bible's "flat land with four pillars" physics.

But, come one, DD--you knew that. Are you seriously suggesting we believe that you've never heard of Aristotle or Kant?

Skeptic

20th October 2006, 11:00 PM

Statistically, they don't differ much. For a given society.

So what's your problem with Chadwick? Statistically, most Americans will surely agree justice was served in his case.

But wait, let me guess: your argument really is:

1). DD feels in his gut that Chadwick was treated unjustly.
2). "Statistically", gut feelings "don't differ much" for given societies, so Dutch society as a whole thinks Chadwick was treated unjustly.
3). Since Dutch society is so much more progressive and wonderful than the evil USA, what it feels collectively is universal justice (or as close to it as humanely possible).

So, by the virtue of being (a) born Dutch and (b) having gut feelings--achievements you had a lot to do with personally--whatever you feel in your gut just happens to be what universal justice demands.

There is no need for any time-consuming and annoying work like figuring out what the law says, or what the facts of the case are. You can just feel, and immediately what justice demands is revealed.

la justice, c'est moi, eh, DD? That's what I like about you: your famous modesty.

Oroborus

20th October 2006, 11:34 PM

Your kind makes me puke, you toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!

heh

I wave my private parts at your aunties!

slingblade

21st October 2006, 02:21 AM

heh

I wave my private parts at your aunties!

I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper!

:p

Skeptic

21st October 2006, 05:20 AM

I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper!

:p

Those two are from a DIFFERENT MOVIE, you... you... heretics! Don't you know your holy scriptures?!

P.S.

I think the easiest way for Al Queda to infiltrate Britian is to impersonate British students. All they would need to do is learn their Monty Python; the bad English in a foreign accent, ragged beard, and "down-with-everything" attitude comes with the territory...

slingblade

21st October 2006, 12:09 PM

Those two are from a DIFFERENT MOVIE, you... you... heretics! Don't you know your holy scriptures?!

No...both from Holy Grail. Actually, both from the same speaker.

Sit here and hold the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch while I go look up the appropriate scriptures.

It's okay.

I'll be right back.

Really.

Skeptic

21st October 2006, 02:10 PM

No...both from Holy Grail. Actually, both from the same speaker.

I know--I meant they're both from a different movie than my original quote...

slingblade

21st October 2006, 02:20 PM

I know--I meant they're both from a different movie than my original quote...

Oh. Well keep up, could you? :p

Oroborus

21st October 2006, 09:58 PM

wow this topic amazingly took a turn for the better (i.e the last four posts or so). Too bad it wont last.

TjW

22nd October 2006, 08:49 AM

wow this topic amazingly took a turn for the better (i.e the last four posts or so). Too bad it wont last.
Yes. I find that terribly unjust.

Skeptic

22nd October 2006, 11:14 AM

Yes. I find that terribly unjust.

The next guy to say the word "unjust" in this thread gets kicked right in the guts...

TjW

22nd October 2006, 12:08 PM

Whew! Got mine un just the nick of time.

AmateurScientist

22nd October 2006, 12:15 PM

Whew! Got mine un just the nick of time.

:D

Very clever use of language and the faux typo.

AS

P.S. Don't kick him, Skeptic

Ian Osborne

22nd October 2006, 03:03 PM

Do you think Chadwick weighs the same as a duck? If not, he's innocent.

marksman

22nd October 2006, 06:48 PM

Cite the argument you are making.
As I've said ad nauseum, te argumetn is stated in post 1232. You asked some very broad follow-up questions, questions that would occupy graduate level courses. To answer them completely would require more bandwidth than this forum has to offer. So I gave you the books that containthe arguments. Yet you assiduously refuse to read.

the Bible for justification of any argument anyone on Earth has ever made. I'm sure it's in there.
No, I've read the Bible. It's not in there.

No, citing a book as evidence is never accepted as evidence
Except, of course, you didn't ask me for evidence. you asked for an argument. Books are accepted as evidence of arguments. Just as Einstein's paper on special relativity was accepted as an argument for e=mc2

Providing authority is as relevant as providing coffee for a meeting.
No, providing authority is exactly what is required what one asks for an argument. Which is what you did in the very first line of this post. You can't even manage to remember what you wrote in the beginning of a single post.

And grow some balls and accept my challenge.
What challenge? I think you have confused me with another poster that did offer you a challenge. All you've done is made claims that you are unable to substantiate except to claim nobody can prove the negative of the argument.

DanishDynamite

23rd October 2006, 11:18 AM

I believe the two of us have an outstanding wager -- you were either going to defend your interpretation of the US 5th Amendment by tomorrow (showing a citation where journalists were refusing to testify on 5th Amendment grounds), or send fifteen euro to the JREF.
I believe I've found the case. Have a look at this (http://www.silha.umn.edu/Summer%202006%20Bulletin/Court%20of%20Appeals%20Orders%20Freelance%20Journa list%20To%20Hand%20Over%20Videotape.pdf) link. An excerpt:
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in
an unpublished opinion on Sept. 8, 2006
that freelance journalist Joshua Wolf must turn
over a videotape he made of a July 8, 2005 protest
demonstration in San Francisco. Wolf has refused
to turn over the tape, claiming to do so would violate
his First and Fifth Amendment rights.
I would have liked to find the court records themselves, though. Would you know if this is a reliable link?

DanishDynamite

23rd October 2006, 11:24 AM

Thanks for the sparks of enthusiasm which some posters still show, but aside from clearing up things with dr. kitten, I'm afraid I'm done here. Thanks for your participation, folks.

drkitten

23rd October 2006, 11:41 AM

I believe I've found the case. Have a look at this (http://www.silha.umn.edu/Summer%202006%20Bulletin/Court%20of%20Appeals%20Orders%20Freelance%20Journa list%20To%20Hand%20Over%20Videotape.pdf) link. An excerpt:

I would have liked to find the court records themselves, though. Would you know if this is a reliable link?

Interesting. I'm afraid that it doesn't really support your point, since the central aspect of the case is not that Wolf claimed protection under the 5th Amendment, but that he tried to claim protection and was rudely rejected. There are some good links in the article you linked to (nice job), including this one
(www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/memdispo.nsf/pdfview/090806/$File/06-16403.PDF) that links to the text of the analysis of the argument.

From that link : "The compulsory production of voluntarily created records may have inherently testimonial aspects where it requires the witness tacitly to attest that the evidence sought exist, that it is in his possession, that the materials produced are those described in the subpoena, and that this testimony may incriminate him (cites omitted). Here, although Wolf argues that production of the videotape will incriminate him, he fails to explain how. [...] Wolf fails to show how his mere possession of the viideotape is a violation of a criminal statute."

Basically, the court pointed out that although Wolf claimed the 5th amendment, it doesn't apply precisely for the reasons detailed upthread.

marksman

23rd October 2006, 11:49 AM

And just in case DD forgets what it was he promised to establish. Here's his original claim:

journalists are also indicted for taking the 5th

He was to show us a journalist indicted for invoking his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.

In the case cited, the journalist failed to explain how he might be "incriminated" by producing the requested videotape which, as one might expect, is a necessary element of the right against self-incrimination.

DanishDynamite

23rd October 2006, 11:54 AM

Interesting. I'm afraid that it doesn't really support your point, since the central aspect of the case is not that Wolf claimed protection under the 5th Amendment, but that he tried to claim protection and was rudely rejected. There are some good links in the article you linked to (nice job), including this one
(www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/memdispo.nsf/pdfview/090806/$File/06-16403.PDF) that links to the text of the analysis of the argument.

From that link : "The compulsory production of voluntarily created records may have inherently testimonial aspects where it requires the witness tacitly to attest that the evidence sought exist, that it is in his possession, that the materials produced are those described in the subpoena, and that this testimony may incriminate him (cites omitted). Here, although Wolf argues that production of the videotape will incriminate him, he fails to explain how. [...] Wolf fails to show how his mere possession of the viideotape is a violation of a criminal statute."

Basically, the court pointed out that although Wolf claimed the 5th amendment, it doesn't apply precisely for the reasons detailed upthread.
drkitten, it has been a pleasure to discuss with you on this thread, but I'm done with it. The only question of interest that remains for me is whether you agree that this case demonstrates that I have fulfilled my burden, i.e. "showing a citation where journalists were refusing to testify on 5th Amendment grounds", in regard to our bet or whether you feel I have not done so.

DanishDynamite

23rd October 2006, 11:58 AM

And just in case DD forgets what it was he promised to establish. Here's his original claim:

He was to show us a journalist indicted for invoking his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.

In the case cited, the journalist failed to explain how he might be "incriminated" by producing the requested videotape which, as one might expect, is a necessary element of the right against self-incrimination.
I'm only interested in drkitten's view on my fullfilment of the bet. Sorry.

1400+ posts should be enough for anyone. :)

drkitten

23rd October 2006, 12:13 PM

drkitten, it has been a pleasure to discuss with you on this thread, but I'm done with it. The only question of interest that remains for me is whether you agree that this case demonstrates that I have fulfilled my burden....

Yeah, well, that's what I'm trying to decide, you see.

The basic problem is that Wolf's claim that the 5th amendment was even relevant was, legally speaking, way out of line. (It's rather like if I wanted to fight a parking ticket on the basis that it violated my rights under the Geneva Conventions. I mean, sure, I could say that if I wanted to, but all I'd get for my trouble is a rather bewildered and annoyed look from the judge. Which is more or less what Wolf got.)

On the other hand, I suppose I didn't specify that the journalist claiming 5th amendment privilege had to be in his right mind.

Cheque will be in the mail tomorrow....

ETA Marksman, you got an opinion? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

AmateurScientist

23rd October 2006, 12:21 PM

ETA Marksman, you got an opinion? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[Calvin Coolidge]

You win.

[/Calvin Coolidge]

(paraphrased, as he actually said "You lose.")

AS

DanishDynamite

23rd October 2006, 12:24 PM

Yeah, well, that's what I'm trying to decide, you see.

The basic problem is that Wolf's claim that the 5th amendment was even relevant was, legally speaking, way out of line. (It's rather like if I wanted to fight a parking ticket on the basis that it violated my rights under the Geneva Conventions. I mean, sure, I could say that if I wanted to, but all I'd get for my trouble is a rather bewildered and annoyed look from the judge. Which is more or less what Wolf got.)

On the other hand, I suppose I didn't specify that the journalist claiming 5th amendment privilege had to be in his right mind.

Cheque will be in the mail tomorrow....

ETA Marksman, you got an opinion? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Excellent!

And just to show that I'm not the devil incarnate, my check for 15 euros to the JREF will be in the mail as well tomorrow. :)

(And yes, for the wonderful skeptics who have entertained me on this thread and who I'm sure will ask for evidence, I shall scan said check and post it here if asked to do so. )