| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:25 SolaR- wrote: Obviously the law involves ethics, i don't think anyone here argued against that. However the law doesnt equal ethics. They are two different things that can exist seperately. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:26 ticklishmusic wrote: she didnt refer to black people as superpredators. try again She didn't? I swear ive seen her say it on video. If trump said it, would you still say the same? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:26 ticklishmusic wrote: she didnt refer to black people as superpredators. try again If Trump had said something like that, we'd have pages of people insisting he was dogwhistling for white supremacist voters. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22737 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:15 Nyxisto wrote: No, that's called the state of law. Guilt is established in the court, not before. If the accuser can not provide enough proof then you're not going to be sentenced and that is the morally right thing to do, and your defender better tries their best to defend you because everybody is entitled to a defense. Yes there is a legal argument about "guilt" then there is the argument about "factual guilt". Personally I couldn't pacify myself with the notion that factual guilt didn't matter if there was any way to avoid legal guilt. I get that authorities have to be held accountable, like they shouldn't be able to circumvent a warrant to get evidence for a case, but if someone forgot to sign a form or something that's an incredibly dumb reason to excuse someone of legal guilt when their factual guilt isn't in question. Again one of many reasons I'm not a lawyer. People can accept that as "just the job" but I don't think it's fair to dismiss that people have legitimate moral/ethical concerns with the realities of our "justice" system. On May 14 2016 06:29 xDaunt wrote: If we want to get technical, what Hillary did that was unethical was bragging about what she did after the fact (or more specifically, disclosing what she knew). Yeah it's the pride and comfort she took in it that I think disturbs most people. Hillary sure as hell called black people super predators (not all of us obviously), more specifically Bill very recently reiterated that she was talking about unfortunate and abused black youths. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:22 oBlade wrote: It's fair enough to say someone was just doing their job (I'd say that should apply more to something that doesn't involve child rape, for example, Trump's bankruptcies). But she's the one who says she's a feminist and great for women. That invites the scrutiny. You can be a feminist and work as a defense attorney and defend child rapists. Attorney's aren't supposed to pass value judgments. In fact being able to be impartial in court and keep her personal views out of it is a very good thing, not a bad one. On May 14 2016 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Again one of many reasons I'm not a lawyer. People can accept that as "just the job" but I don't think it's fair to dismiss that people have legitimate moral/ethical concerns with the realities of our "justice" system. But in this case there is no reason for moral concern, there simply wasn't enough evidence I assume to sentence the guy. If there's no evidence you're not supposed to be punished even if you're 'factually guilty'. The purpose of the justice system isn't to punish every single morally guilty person on the planet. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:28 SolaR- wrote: She didn't? I swear ive seen her say it on video. If trump said it, would you still say the same? Then you should rewatch the video. She refers to gangs of violent blacks kids without empathy (paraphrasing here) as superpredators. There's also a bit about how they got there and how violence is an immediate problem and those who are perpetrating it need to be stopped. The qualifiers and context are important. Trump is a different person, so the words coming out of his mouth should be considered differently in light of who he is, what he's said and what he's done. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
The notion that meming to fight back vs the corporations is somehow helpful is utter rubbish. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:28 SolaR- wrote: She didn't? I swear ive seen her say it on video. If trump said it, would you still say the same? She was referring to criminals involved in gang murders, not "black people". | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:29 xDaunt wrote: If we want to get technical, what Hillary did that was unethical was bragging about what she did after the fact (or more specifically, disclosing what she knew). I am having a really hard time tracking down the quote itself outside the meme. Most of the articles I am reading say she never that. This one was posted previously. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/23/hillary-clinton-quotes-Internet-complete/ On May 14 2016 06:34 zlefin wrote: the memes don't help; you don't counter lies with more lies, you counter lies with truth. The notion that meming to fight back vs the corporations is somehow helpful is utter rubbish. It becomes very difficult to counter any of this, since proving something doesn't exist is hard. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:28 SolaR- wrote: She didn't? I swear ive seen her say it on video. If trump said it, would you still say the same? Good lord. The area was a mess. Black community was doing all it could. Reached out to politicians, big group eventually decides what to do. This group involves a bunch of black people. Huge pressure to make something happen because it's fucking chaos in these areas. Tons of people dying and people are blaming the government for not doing something. In an event, Clinton describes this freak area as having super predators among them. This is an apt description of the area. It WAS a really fucked up place that got national attention. Saying people were super predators is not the same as calling black people super predators. People trying to pretend the crime bill somehow reflects poorly on Hilary is HILARious | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:34 ticklishmusic wrote: Then you should rewatch the video. She refers to gangs of violent blacks kids without empathy (paraphrasing here) as superpredators. There's also a bit about how they got there and how violence is an immediate problem. The qualifiers and context are important. Trump is a different person, so the words coming out of his mouth should be considered differently in light of who he is, what he's said and what he's done. Yes i am already aware of that context. But she is still labeling an entire group of people as super predators. I think that should provide some context of who she is. I love how trump comments are blown out of proportion, but hillarys comments dont generate the same animosity. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22737 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:32 Nyxisto wrote: You can be a feminist and work as a defense attorney and defend child rapists. Attorney's aren't supposed to pass value judgments. In fact being able to be impartial in court and keep her personal views out of it is a very good thing, not a bad one. But in this case there is no reason for moral concern, there simply wasn't enough evidence I assume to sentence the guy. If there's no evidence you're not supposed to be punished even if you're 'factually guilty'. The purpose of the justice system isn't to punish every single morally guilty person on the planet. I'm not sure what the "point of the justice system" in this country is at all. As was pointed out my ,and many others concerns, are less about that she did her job and more about how she felt about it afterwards. If you have to fire a subordinate that's your job, but if you know you're doing it because the corporation doesn't want to have to support the guys family any more because they can get someone to do his job cheaper (even though he's loyally worked there for a decade+) you can do it and still not be a bad person because it's your job. But if you go around bragging about how you found some technicalities to write him up for to give a cover justification (besides he's worked there too long and earns too much, while the corp told him why that's exactly what he should do) it's totally fair for people to question your morals and ethics. @plan Just watch the video: (set to the quote I imagine is being referred to). Watch the whole thing if you want to hear her laughing about his factual guilt. On May 14 2016 06:39 Mohdoo wrote: Good lord. The area was a mess. Black community was doing all it could. Reached out to politicians, big group eventually decides what to do. This group involves a bunch of black people. Huge pressure to make something happen because it's fucking chaos in these areas. Tons of people dying and people are blaming the government for not doing something. In an event, Clinton describes this freak area as having super predators among them. This is an apt description of the area. It WAS a really fucked up place that got national attention. Saying people were super predators is not the same as calling black people super predators. People trying to pretend the crime bill somehow reflects poorly on Hilary is HILARious This is the standard response without the "did you live through it!?" The people she was calling super predators were black youth who grew up in abusive communities, they were victims first. They needed to be brought (with their communities) to heal not "heel". Like crack just grew legs and walked into these communities. So sick of this nonsense. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8001 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:19 SolaR- wrote: What about her refering to black people as "super predators" yea, that was fucked up. Wish people would stop defending it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:46 darthfoley wrote: yea, that was fucked up. Wish people would stop defending it. She apologized for it like 4 months ago and said she was wrong. I am sure the people asking about it are aware she apologized as well. That isn't the reason they are bringing it up again. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:34 zlefin wrote: the memes don't help; you don't counter lies with more lies, you counter lies with truth. The notion that meming to fight back vs the corporations is somehow helpful is utter rubbish. Agreed. I didn't know the meme I had in my hands was dirty until humiliated shortly after. I had already heard the tapes beforehand though. I meme'd irresponsibly. Sorry I'll try to contribute better next time. I think the Hitchens video & his comments regarding Hillary are apt however. I disagree with his early analysis that she feels owed the presidency, or that she's doing it for therapeutic reasons. I think that's more an insinuation. But the rest is quite apt. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22737 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:50 zlefin wrote: Oy, so many people refuse to listen to and look up the actual quotes. I wish we could have a rule against misquoting things. It gets tiring when people argue over misrepresentations. To be clear on the other quote I was referring to. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators. No conscience. No empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel. + Show Spoiler + She was talking about black youth and decidedly said that we need to incarcerate them before we address what kind of abuse led them down the path in the first place. Of course it was also a dog whistle for folks who thought it was a genetic/black culture thing and not the normal response to such circumstances. (Chinese and opium, black and crack, white alcohol, meth, prescription drugs, South America has oxi [not to be confused with oxy] and so on) On May 14 2016 06:55 Plansix wrote: She apologized for it like 4 months ago and said she was wrong. I am sure the people asking about it are aware she apologized as well. That isn't the reason they are bringing it up again. Which "apology" are you referring to? | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On May 14 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote: I mean the quote isn't accurate but it's pretty much what she said. The actual quote I presume it's referring to is. Roy: "How did it turn out" Hillary: "Oh he plea bargained. I got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail for about 2 months" She laughed when she talked about how she basically knew he was guilty, but that didn't matter. She knew she set a rapist free and didn't appear to be bothered by it at all. People can take that for what they will. I personally would have a deep sense of anger at the system for helping to destroy a young girls life, more than a sense of pride/ease exposing incompetence within the system in order to free someone you believe to be a child rapist. Suppose that's one of several reasons I'm not a criminal lawyer. Getting guilty people off or convicting innocent people because of ones ability to make the best legal argument they can strikes me like a legal pyramid scheme. That it's legal and lucrative doesn't get it over the moral and ethical bar for me. Which also happens to be one of my most frequent sources of contention with those on the right (more recently on the left as well). Some seem to think that if something is legal and lucrative than it's basically automatically moral and ethical. First, you're editorializing the interview. There are numerous instances where, yes, she did express that the case had a deep effect on her. One of the highlights of the interview for instance is that she states she'll never trust the polygraph again after that case. To argue that it had no effect on her is silly, given the girl in question was a family friend. That being said, she was the court-appointed attorney lawyer to Taylor. Second, it is entirely ethical (in legal ethics anyways) to defend someone who you believe is guilty in the Western legal framework. As a defense attorney, your duty is not to determine the guilt of your client, but to offer up the best damned defense they can get as a citizen of this country deserving of a fair shake at representation, regardless of your feelings on the matter. Deliberately throwing a case just because of her own belief of the defendant's guilt would be a significantly greater evidence of moral bankruptcy. The more important issue raised by the interview is discussing her own opinions about the client's guilt. That's something that is questionable unless she was given permission by her client to do so. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Code For Giants Cup
Online Event
HupCup
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
SOOP
Dark vs MaxPax
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Clem
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs SHIN
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
