As for your post 05:08 PM on 30 June 2007 Regarding
judges:
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
All quotes (in bold) from Wikipedia
[b]1. In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law"
and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted
to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to
deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by
implication, to administer justice within a defined area of
responsibility. Do you have the "jurisdiction" to
condemn?
2. Omniscience is the capacity to know everything
infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a
character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc.
In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God. This
concept is included in the Qur'an, where God is called "Al-'aleem"
on multiple occasions. This is the infinite form of the verb
"alama" which means to learn.If you cannot know
"everything" are you sure that your condemnation has taken
"everything" into consideration?
3. Rules of evidence govern whether, when, how, and for
what purpose proof of a case may be placed before a trier of fact
for consideration.Are you so sure that the evidence that
you use to condemn someone complies with the "Rules of evidence"?
and whose "RULES"?[/b]
I think I had addressed your concerns in one way or another
(like the quote above regarding judges and yet you claim I had not)
but you either refuse to see them or is unable to see them or have
missed reading them...
or I think that you are "nit-picking" and are bringing up issues
that are irrelevant, inconsequential and "out of topic".
If you agree that there is no need for high precision in a forum
situation, then focus on the main issues and important points and
seek clarification on these main issues and important points
instead of taking issue with anything and everything under the sun.
(Go buy Anything and Whatever... then)
Bll Clinton once said during the Monica Lewinsky saga "It depends
on how you define "is""
Sure in a presidential impeachment trial it might be important how
one defines "is" Even then, even though it was a US president
impeachment proceeding, it was a big joke.
You, it seems to me are just "arguing" for the sake of "arguing" to
show everyone how clever you are... asking people to define
"is"
I on the other hand (of course I will say that, I know) is simply
concerned about the fact that many in sgforums are given to
condemning people with insufficient evidence, if not condemning
people with no evidence...
and
Not knowing "at all" about the rules of making a valid argument and
logic.
But that does not mean people should come along and insist on
logical purity and that others make perfectly valid
arguments...
that is:
Quote "When we reduce arguments to idiocies such as "it depends on
how you define is" we are in deep trouble."
