Smapti is Pitted

[Smapti]

@Steve_MB

The ethical issue here is that McColloch took the biggest dive since Felix Baumgartner.

So what you’re saying is that you prefer a system where the government tells the jury what decision to make, and forbids them from seeing any evidence that does not support that decision, and they do as the government says without exercising any free will or any of their powers of questioning or investigation.

And you are upset because in this instance the government did not tell the jury what to do, and the jury used its free will to make a decision based on all the evidence.

But I’m the one who’s a fascist.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

So what you’re saying is that you prefer a system where the government tells the jury what decision to make, and forbids them from seeing any evidence that does not support that decision, and they do as the government says without exercising any free will or any of their powers of questioning or investigation.

And you are upset because in this instance the government did not tell the jury what to do, and the jury used its free will to make a decision based on all the evidence.

But I’m the one who’s a fascist.

No, we’re saying that those in government and law enforcement should do better. Where do you get this strawman bullshit? They are sucking (in some ways), and they should do better.

[elucidator]

Oh, so you would make the use of strawmen arguments illegal, and punishable by firing squad? Clearly, you have no respect for…

Wait a second, let me think about that. Strawman arguments actually illegal? Hmmm. No, still wrong. Tempting, but wrong.

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

No, we’re saying that those in government and law enforcement should do better. Where do you get this strawman bullshit? They are sucking (in some ways), and they should do better.

In what way do you believe the grand jury failed?

[elucidator]

Twenty three pages and you haven’t figured that out yet? Have we any reason to believe that twenty four will do the trick?

[Steophan]

@Smapti

In what way do you believe the grand jury failed?

Oh, they didn’t fail, and I’m sure everybody knows that. The only failure was the prosecutor not simply dismissing the case as soon as he knew there wasn’t enough evidence for a conviction.

But apparently because he’s not attempting to prosecute enough policemen when there’s not enough evidence, he’s a bigot and biased towards the police…

[Guinastasia]

@Smapti

They’re not terrorists if they’re doing so peacefully and non-disruptively and have acquired any appropriate permits.

So then Rosa Parks was a “terrorist”? After all, she was “disruptive” and didn’t have any “appropriate permits”? What would you say about all those lunch counter sit-ins? :dubious:

I swear, you’d support Bull Connor, if you had been alive back then. Arresting children and setting police dogs on them. Fuck.

[Smapti]

@Guinastasia

So then Rosa Parks was a “terrorist”? After all, she was “disruptive” and didn’t have any “appropriate permits”? What would you say about all those lunch counter sit-ins? :dubious:

Petty criminals, mostly. Boycotting is one thing, trespassing and disrupting business is another.

I swear, you’d support Bull Connor, if you had been alive back then. Arresting children and setting police dogs on them. Fuck.

To the extent that he enforced the law as it was written, yes. To the extent that he actively sought to enact bad laws, no.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Smapti

To the extent that he enforced the law as it was written, yes. To the extent that he actively sought to enact bad laws, no.

So, if he happened to be successful in getting a bad law written, then you would support his actions in enforcing it?

[Smapti]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

So, if he happened to be successful in getting a bad law written, then you would support his actions in enforcing it?

Yes. A bad law is still a law and I don’t get to choose which laws I obey or acknowledge. One can disagree with a law and work to repeal it, but not liking a law doesnt mean you can ignore it.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Smapti

Yes. A bad law is still a law and I don’t get to choose which laws I obey or acknowledge. One can disagree with a law and work to repeal it, but not liking a law doesnt mean you can ignore it.

Doesn’t mean you have to support it, which is what you said. Of course, if you’re an authoritarian prick, you support whatever the authorties tell you that you should.

Which also makes me doubt that you would oppose an authority figure during the effort to get a bad law codified. Cause, you know, authority.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

Yes. A bad law is still a law and I don’t get to choose which laws I obey or acknowledge. One can disagree with a law and work to repeal it, but not liking a law doesnt mean you can ignore it.

When a law is morally unacceptable, like the laws that forbid aiding escaped slaves, or the segregation laws, one’s duty is to disobey the law.

[Smapti]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Doesn’t mean you have to support it, which is what you said. Of course, if you’re an authoritarian prick, you support whatever the authorties tell you that you should.

I acknowledge that the government has the authority to enforce the law and I support their doing so by whatever means they lawfully can use to enforce it. That doesn’t mean I support the law.
[/QUOTE]

Which also makes me doubt that you would oppose an authority figure during the effort to get a bad law codified. Cause, you know, authority.

I have opposed many attempts to codify bad laws.

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

When a law is morally unacceptable, like the laws that forbid aiding escaped slaves, or the segregation laws, one’s duty is to disobey the law.

“Morally unacceptable” by whose standards? Your own? Then you’re just back to picking and choosing which laws you want to obey.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

Then you’re just back to picking and choosing which laws you want to obey.

All of the major steps in US history that made the US better involved “picking and choosing which laws” to obey. Without disobeying immoral laws, we wouldn’t have had a country to begin with – much less all the (not yet complete) progress in civil rights and equal treatment for all.

[Steophan]

@iiandyiiii

When a law is morally unacceptable, like the laws that forbid aiding escaped slaves, or the segregation laws, one’s duty is to disobey the law.

It is also one’s duty to accept any punishment accruing from that disobedience without complaint.

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

It is also one’s duty to accept any punishment accruing from that disobedience without complaint.

LOL. Of course. The black protesters during Civil Rights who were beaten and attacked by dogs by police shouldn’t have complained about it.

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

All of the major steps in US history that made the US better involved “picking and choosing which laws” to obey.

You mean like Jim Crow, which came about when the southern states decided the 14th amendment was morally unacceptable and they didn’t have to follow it?

Or the Whiskey Rebellion, which came about when certain people decided federal excise taxes were morally unacceptable and they didn’t have to follow them?

Or the Civil War, which started when the slave states decided that the federal government in general was morally unacceptable and they didn’t have to follow it?

Without disobeying immoral laws, we wouldn’t have had a country to begin with – much less all the (not yet complete) progress in civil rights and equal treatment for all.

What “immoral laws” existed that the foundation of our country owes its existence to the defiance of?

And what civil rights achievements would not have occurred if people had followed the law?

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

LOL. Of course. The black protesters during Civil Rights who were beaten and attacked by dogs by police shouldn’t have complained about it.

I seem to remember there was this guy at the heart of the civil rights movement who was big on nonviolent resistance and allowing the cops to do what they were going to do without fighting back. What was his name? Morton something?

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

I seem to remember there was this guy at the heart of the civil rights movement who was big on nonviolent resistance and allowing the cops to do what they were going to do without fighting back. What was his name? Morton something?

Where did I say they should fight back? Quit making shit up, liar. Constantly making shit up and lying, because your position is so fucking weak.

And don’t forget that you said he was a terrorist.