Criticizing Lawyers, Teachers & Dating

[Town Heretic]

Which is similar in attitude to the man who says he rarely fails because he rarely tries.

Well, no. It's saying that when we realize that despite our best efforts we on occasion work an injustice we are understandably reluctant to use a thing for which there is no semblance of redress. Though, again, it's only one argument among a few.

Regardless, God says to execute murderers.

I don't find anything in the old or new testament that commands us to execute our law as Israel did in the OT. And I think Christ's fulfillment of the law alters its application, but that doesn't really have anything to do with my entry into our conversation in answering your mostly mistaken notion that we don't need lawyers for justice. I've allowed you to move the conversation further and further afield, but I'm not interested in arguing over a system not in play or why I believe God gave Israel as sound a thing as they could manage, lacking forensic evidence and the tools we have on hand today.

It is called justice, which is what you have just concede your system actively avoids.

Complete nonsense for the reasons cited prior. You keep making these grand pronouncements, but you consistently get your facts wrong and fail to support your part with either data or anything like a structured argument.

As I said, murderers are released and commonly go on to reoffend.

Except that isn't what you said and it isn't true even so. You used the word typically. It isn't typical, it's exceptional. What's true is that some people, convicted of murder, are allowed back into society at some point. And some of them reoffend.

 

[Stripe]

Well, no.

Well, yes.

Judges are supposed to judge. Installing a system that prefers them to not pass judgement is to not act for fear of failure.

We are understandably reluctant to use a thing for which there is no semblance of redress.

We understand, you are cowards.

I don't find anything in the old or new testament that commands us to execute our law as Israel did in the OT.

That's nice. When you find someone who says we must practice law as the ancient Israelites did, you might be able to win an argument with him. :up:

I think Christ's fulfillment of the law alters its application.

What on Earth are you talking about? :AMR:

We don't care what you think. We care what the bible says.

I've allowed you to move the conversation further and further afield.

I think you will find yourself accusing me of what you have done incessantly.

I'm not interested in arguing over a system not in play.

I know. You're desperate to avoid an honest appraisal of what I consider a good justice system.

Complete nonsense for the reasons cited prior. You keep making these grand pronouncements, but you consistently get your facts wrong and fail to support your part with either data or anything like a structured argument along the "X is true because..." lines.

It is true that you concede that your system actively avoids justice because your system prefers to not execute murderers for the fear of mistakenly executing the innocent.

Except that isn't what you said and it isn't true even so.

Evolutionists struggle with reading.

You used the word typically. It isn't typical, it's exceptional.

Two in five is exceptional?

What's true is that some people, convicted of murder, are allowed back into society at some point. And some of them reoffend.

Right. Objective fact: Your system only infrequently executes murderers. Typically, it releases them back into society, where they commonly reoffend.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

We understand, you are cowards.

If Precaution A reasonably prevents and/or reduces Effect B, wherein Effect B is an undesirable outcome, the emotive characterization of Precaution A as 'cowardice' is not only a useless one, but an overtly irrational objection.

The real objection here seems to be more along the lines of "I don't like it".

 

[Town Heretic]

Judges are supposed to judge. Installing a system that prefers them to not pass judgement is to not act for fear of failure.

Which both isn't the case or what I said, so...

We understand, you are cowards.

As a rule I'm only impressed by that sort of thing when it's said in my actual, physical presence. Else, what an utterly goofy thing to write.

When you find someone who says we must practice law as the ancient Israelites did, you might be able to win an argument with him. :up:

Given you haven't at any point in this discussion set out any particluar notion while noting I was unsympathetic to a Biblical model (which only holds water in a fun-house mirror sense), it's a reasonable assumption that you have that in mind.

We don't care what you think.

You should probably consider blogging then.

We care what the bible says.

The Bible doesn't say we're to implement a particular legal system, assuming you have one and you think it's that.

I think you will find yourself accusing me of what you have done incessantly.

You think all kinds of things. Little of it, so far, appears to be factual.

I know. You're desperate to avoid an honest appraisal of what I consider a good justice system.

It doesn't take much effort to avoid what you aren't presenting. But, again, I simply noted your long line of errant and factually deficient declarations about a system of justice you're neither familiar with by direct exposure or particular education yet feel competent (and God alone knows why) to attempt to lecture on while at nearly every point getting it spectacularly wrong.

It is true that you concede that your system actively avoids justice

Not even a little true.

because your system prefers to not execute murderers for the fear of mistakenly executing the innocent.

Which isn't, again, what I wrote. I noted that among a number of arguments against capital punishment is a legitimate concern over wrongfully executing individuals.

32 states have a current death penalty in play. Since you thought a forty percent recidivism rate was the rule earlier you should consider 32 to be a mind blowing, iron clad affirmation.

Evolutionists struggle with reading.

You're an evolutionist? Or are you talking about something else without sufficient information?

Right. Objective fact: Your system only infrequently executes murderers.

Who decides what constitutes infrequently? Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 1,373 people have been executed in this country.

Typically, it releases them back into society, where they commonly reoffend.

I already shot that out of the water last time. Repeating it doesn't actually reverse the facts I responded with, so...

Forty-five states (plus the District of Columbia) presently employ a life sentence in which there is no possibility of parole for at least 25 years.

Thirty-three of those jurisdictions use a life sentence in which parole is never possible.


Is there anything, any fact about our system and its functioning that you intend to get right at some point? If only for the sake of novelty.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Which both isn't the case or what I said, so...


As a rule I'm only impressed by that sort of thing when it's said in my actual, physical presence. Else, what an utterly goofy thing to write.


Given you haven't at any point in this discussion set out any particluar notion while noting I was unsympathetic to a Biblical model (which only holds water in a fun-house mirror sense), it's a reasonable assumption that you have that in mind.


You should probably consider blogging then.


The Bible doesn't say we're to implement a particular legal system, assuming you have one and you think it's that.


You think all kinds of things. Little of it, so far, appears to be factual.


It doesn't take much effort to avoid what you aren't presenting. But, again, I simply noted your long line of errant and factually deficient declarations about a system of justice you're neither familiar with by direct exposure or particular education yet feel competent (and God alone knows why) to attempt to lecture on while at nearly every point getting it spectacularly wrong.


Not even a little true.


Which isn't, again, what I wrote. I noted that among a number of arguments against capital punishment is a legitimate concern over wrongfully executing individuals.

32 states have a current death penalty in play. Since you thought a forty percent recidivism rate was the rule earlier you should consider 32 to be a mind blowing, iron clad affirmation.


You're an evolutionist? Or are you talking about something else without sufficient information?


Who decides what constitutes infrequently? Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 1,373 people have been executed in this country.


I already shot that out of the water last time. Repeating it doesn't actually reverse the facts I responded with, so...

Forty-five states (plus the District of Columbia) presently employ a life sentence in which there is no possibility of parole for at least 25 years.

Thirty-three of those jurisdictions use a life sentence in which parole is never possible.


Is there anything, any fact about our system and its functioning that you intend to get right at some point? If only for the sake of novelty.

:thumb:

 

[Stripe]

The Bible doesn't say we're to implement a particular legal system.

It makes some non-negotiables abundantly clear.

Which isn't, again, what I wrote. I noted that among a number of arguments against capital punishment is a legitimate concern over wrongfully executing individuals.

Your system actively avoids executing murderers -- executing murderers is justice.

32 states have a current death penalty in play. Since you thought a forty percent recidivism rate was the rule earlier you should consider 32 to be a mind blowing, iron clad affirmation.

:AMR:

Of what?

Who decides what constitutes infrequently? Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 1,373 people have been executed in this country.

Given that in that time at least 40 million people have been murdered, I'd say "infrequently" is the perfect description.

Forty-five states (plus the District of Columbia) presently employ a life sentence in which there is no possibility of parole for at least 25 years.

At which point, the murderers are typically released.

Thirty-three of those jurisdictions use a life sentence in which parole is never possible.

And very few murderers get this sentence.

 

[Town Heretic]

It makes some non-negotiables abundantly clear.

That's anything but.

Your system actively avoids executing murderers -- executing murderers is justice.

In order, not since 1976 in most jurisdictions and so is life without the possibility of parole.

Of what?

That the system's attitude toward the death penalty isn't what you think it is. The majority of states have it.

Given that in that time at least 40 million people have been murdered, I'd say "infrequently" is the perfect description.

Where in the world do you get that figure from? By way of example, in 2011 there were 12,664 murders. I believe the high mark in the last decade or so was sixteen thousand in 08. As with any system, where there are no witnesses or sufficient forensic evidence, a great many of those (often related to criminal activity) go unsolved and uncharged.

At which point, the murderers are typically released.

Not in 33 jurisdictions (the vast majority).

And very few murderers get this sentence.

What's the percentage and where are you getting your undeclared statistics from? I get mine from the FBI database.

 

[Stripe]

That's anything but.

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. “If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, “then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. “And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, “then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. “And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you. “Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:15-21 NKJV)

“But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, “then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. “Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you. (Deuteronomy 19:11-13 NKJV)

Seems abundantly clear to me. :idunno:

 

[Jukia]

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. “If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, “then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. “And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, “then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. “And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you. “Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:15-21 NKJV)

“But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, “then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. “Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you. (Deuteronomy 19:11-13 NKJV)

Seems abundantly clear to me. :idunno:

Almost sounds like Islamic justice.

 

[Jukia]

TH. Stripe said 40 million. He must be right, he is a self-professed Christian, those guys always tell the truth else they anger their god and risk hell fire. I am sure he can back his # up. Just ask him. He will provide a citation to a recognized journal and, if you are really lucky, to Walt Brown's magnum opus.

 

[Town Heretic]

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. “If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, “then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. “And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, “then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. “And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you. “Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:15-21 NKJV)

“But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, “then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. “Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you. (Deuteronomy 19:11-13 NKJV)

Seems abundantly clear to me. :idunno:

So you think everything that applied to Israel and the law applies to us? :think: That's a ponderous notion if so and a curious selectivity if not.

Or, I didn't say I hadn't read the way justice was measured and dispensed in those days and that covenant. I said there was nothing in the Bible that commands us to follow suit.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

If the silliness of resurrecting the antiquated jurisprudence of ancient Israel to 21st century U.S. isn't already palpably evident, I don't know that any persuasion would be effective.

The elders of the city? Cities aren't overseen by elders anymore. These are clearly culturally specific. Perhaps we should consult nursing home residents on legal matters.

 

[Jukia]

“Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:15-21 NKJV)

“

Wow, very Islamic, no?

 

[Stripe]

So you think everything that applied to Israel and the law applies to us?

Nope.

Is this the only way you can conduct this conversation -- by pretending that things you know cannot be true must be the case?

I said there was nothing in the Bible that commands us to follow suit.

Evolutionists hate reading.

"Your eye shall not pity him."

 

[resurrected]

btw stripe - in post 331, town capitulated by block quoting


his rules


you win

 

[Town Heretic]

btw stripe - in post 331, town capitulated by block quoting


his rules


you win

No, I object to block quoting to avoid points. Normally I'd omit the reproduced material, but I didn't. The only point, the only thing he actually wrote was included and answered.

But you know that. It amazes me how incapable you are of letting go of me. Threads, posts, whether I'm present or not...I hope one day you get the semblance of a life that releases you from all this warping, frustrated anger that seems to drive you.

 

[Stripe]

you win

I'm not here to win.

Murderers, rapists and kidnappers should be executed.
Thieves should be flogged and made to pay back the losses they inflicted twice over.
Perjurers should face the consequences of what they lied to cover or accuse with.

One judge should be solely responsible for deciding each case. The only appeals should be by the judge to a higher judge.

When people practice justice like this, people learn how to judge.

With the lawyers always in the way, people learn that the man with the most money has the advantage.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope.

Is this the only way you can conduct this conversation -- by pretending that things you know cannot be true must be the case?

I actually didn't. I noted that you hadn't put out your case and noted the possible alternatives.

Now you, on the other hand, actually continue to do what you accuse me of. You'll do it again in this next line:

Evolutionists hate reading.

That's not really a term, but quote me anywhere arguing for either model. I'll wait while, once again, you fail to do that.

People without an argument rarely make one. I answered on your points and you've spent a great deal of your time getting the facts wrong, running from challenges to sustain declarations and trying to make this about me.

I'm not here to win.

Well in that case, congratulations. You've succeeded spectacularly.

 

[Stripe]

I actually didn't.

I find that difficult to believe. I have presented what I think is correct in a plain and straightforward manner on a number of occasions.

 

[Town Heretic]

I find that difficult to believe.

Now that's remarkable. But I really don't commit to memory the particular positions of people around here. My rough understanding/recollection of you on the topic was that you favored an OT legal system, but your response here had me wondering. And when I noted you as someone wanting that you seemed to take umbrage and then, later, agree, at least to some extent.

I have presented what I think is correct in a plain and straightforward manner on a number of occasions.

Okay, I'm not saying you haven't, but not within the context of our argument. I suppose you could have posted links or said something as simple and straight forward as, "As you may or may not remember I favor using the same system utilized by the nation of Israel under the Mosaic covenant" or maybe declared yourself a Theonomist or something like that. :idunno:

In any event, I didn't enter into this to criticize or even really discuss Theonomy or that covenant, but to answer errant declarations about the system of law I've been trained in and understand, both in its failings and virtues.

I've done that, challenged your numbers and beliefs regarding it. That's all I can do. The rest is up to you to consider or not.