Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Anonymous on 1 Mar 2010 17:53 In article <obednW0lbctcbRbWnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Howard Brazee wrote: [snip] >> Whichever is more important, make damn sure you don't feel complacent >> because you got "somebody". >> >> Punishing the innocent makes it much, much more likely that the guilty >> will get away. >> >> Are those the breaks you're comfortable with? > >First, everybody is guilty of something. Oh, look... a Calvinist! Define 'guilt' loosely enough and your conscience won't be bothered with American things like 'the presumption of innocence' >Catching a truly innocent person is >almost impossible. For example, few people are in prison for what they DID; >they are there for what could be proved. They are there because they were convicted in a court of law or plead guilty (for whatever reasons). DD
From: Howard Brazee on 2 Mar 2010 12:21 On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:53:57 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>First, everybody is guilty of something. > >Oh, look... a Calvinist! Define 'guilt' loosely enough and your >conscience won't be bothered with American things like 'the presumption of >innocence' On the other hand, their desire for justice can only be met by not caring if the guilty got caught and punished, as long as *someone* got punished. So what if the guilty are still out there planning attacks on us. Someone got punished, and all's right in the world. Hopefully it was some punk or foreigner or someone who really deserved it for not being like me. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Anonymous on 2 Mar 2010 18:30 In article <o4iqo5pucpjrb5lk47pmms8vfue14lirqa(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:53:57 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>>First, everybody is guilty of something. >> >>Oh, look... a Calvinist! Define 'guilt' loosely enough and your >>conscience won't be bothered with American things like 'the presumption of >>innocence' > >On the other hand, their desire for justice can only be met by not >caring if the guilty got caught and punished, as long as *someone* got >punished. If everyone is among 'the guilty' then the logical conclusion would be to just drag someone out of the crowd, Mr Brazee... that would be a definition of justice closer to one espoused by Gilbert & Sullivan's Mikado (a musical comedy of the 19th century) than one I believe would be considered by the Founders in the late 18th. A strangely sadistic cry, that 'Who cares who did it as long as I can make someone, anyone, suffer for it?'... one often issued, I've been told, by self-important Officers of the Law who forget that their salaries are paid for by taxpayers. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Mar 2010 11:36 On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 23:30:31 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>On the other hand, their desire for justice can only be met by not >>caring if the guilty got caught and punished, as long as *someone* got >>punished. > >If everyone is among 'the guilty' then the logical conclusion would be to >just drag someone out of the crowd, Mr Brazee... that would be a >definition of justice closer to one espoused by Gilbert & Sullivan's >Mikado (a musical comedy of the 19th century) than one I believe would be >considered by the Founders in the late 18th. However, the people who are satisfied with such a response (and apparently there are a *lot* of such people), may possibly be persuaded that letting the real perpetrators go free is not a good idea. Even more so when the crime is "beyond the pale". At least, I haven't received a response that addressed this aspect of bypassing due process. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Anonymous on 5 Mar 2010 08:45
In article <gq3to55dq99dnfeir7p67279tt6prisvtu(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 23:30:31 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>>On the other hand, their desire for justice can only be met by not >>>caring if the guilty got caught and punished, as long as *someone* got >>>punished. >> >>If everyone is among 'the guilty' then the logical conclusion would be to >>just drag someone out of the crowd, Mr Brazee... [snip of myself, a midsentence interruption] >However, the people who are satisfied with such a response (and >apparently there are a *lot* of such people), may possibly be >persuaded that letting the real perpetrators go free is not a good >idea. > >Even more so when the crime is "beyond the pale". It appears that the presumption of guilt as proposed renders that irrelevant, Mr Brazee. If 'everyone is guilty of something' and 'someone is guilty of crime (x)' then getting 'the guilty' is easy because that set contains 'everyone'. >At least, I haven't received a response that addressed this aspect of >bypassing due process. I'd not hold my breath were I you, Mr Brazee. DD |