Really, let's see: Kardasians, Miley Cyus, Beyonce... the list is endless and somehow the morals of Crosby is called to the carpet by the same masses that so support all the others.

I would say that would be included in the arena of idiotic analogies.

Sexually assault, that is being very presumptuous is it not? Conviction by the idiocy of the masses? Should we just go ahead and bypass the trial for expediency?

Why, he has already been pronounced guilty. His morals in marriage are a matter between him and his wife, no one else.

As to the rest, it is upon them to prove their accusations not for Cosby to do the impossible, prove a negative.

But being lawyers protect lawyers their will never be justice in this matter, Cosby is guilty be proclamation and will be punished for the rest of his life. His income is in jeopardy, his fortune could be taken and his freedom could be at stake.

For what, 16 or possibly more that wanted anything in this world to be near Cosby. And by anything, dropping their drawers if they even had any and participating in the world of coke, smoke and booze.

Really, can you name some? Surely not those that enjoyed being part of that back then and now see what? The prospect of money?

Yeah, that's the ticket, money to replace funny.

Why, it was your source, don't you read what you post?

Wow, thank you Metalwing:

The Natural-law Argument

Then there is a very common argument from natural law. That was a favorite argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am traveling on in time in my review of the arguments. The arguments that are used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.

This is a very interesting perspective but I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions as he doesn't take into account the theorem of what is known and what is yet to be discovered, neiscience. While he is using this argument to explain his position of why he believes there is no god, his argument lacks validity because of his refusal to acknowledge this. But interesting all the same and with some areas that should provoke thought for those capable or such an endeavor.

And for the same gentleman:

My desire and wish is that the things I start with should be so obvious that you wonder why I spend my time stating them. This is what I aim at because the point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.

Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature made them.

- Bertrand Russell

With this and going through his biography, this is a gentlemen I could grow to love, I will have to read his works or at least his philosophical works because after perusing "Russel's Paradox", that boy had some loose screws.

Anyway, I believe what you posted does not imply what you are trying to imply but instead remands one to go look in the mirror.

Yep, absolutely stupid, racism at it's best.

"ABOUT THE NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
The National Bar Association was founded in 1925 and is the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges. It represents the interests of approximately 60,000 lawyers, judges, law professors and law students.The NBA is organized around 23 substantive law sections, 9 divisions, 12 regions and 80 affiliate chapters throughout the United States and around the world."

Justice, perhaps you should look that word up...

Again, that is the matter of your opinion, right or wrong. But until one knows and recognizes truth through knowledge, they has no perception of truth, just an ill-formed prejudiced opinion that attempts to bend the will of others to their sour outlook on life. If one grows up in a household where the parents distill it okay to take what is not theirs, then how can anyone expect that perception of reality to contain any "estimate" of truth regarding a thief?

Is stealing a loaf of bread okay but stealing a car criminal? So how can one have a perception of truth without an understanding of objective truth? They can't, it is impossible.

What you are trying to interject into the argument is human nature, not the laws of nature.

Obviously it is not perfectly clear so let me put it in other terms. I care not what you call him and I care less what you do with him. If you don't like Odumbo, then don't use it. Whether you put Odumbo on a pedestal or trample Odumbo underfoot, I care not.

But the basis of your argument lies in the fact you wish me to see as you see and I refuse because I just don't care. But I am open to all views and measure against my knowledge. Some I oppose, some I ignore and those rare others, I assimilate.

The key being I think for myself and change perceptions based on assimilation of knowledge. If you will notice, I said perception as it is a human fallacy to waver, well not so much a fallacy as an inherent ability. When one stops wavering, one stops learning and starts the journey into ignorant. But that in the only aspect of truth in the whole process, man's knowledge is but a perception of that around him.



We may be using common terms in different ways. From my pov, when people use language to discuss and debate what may or may not be true, we often parse out our different overall positions into individual claims. Working with claims, and evaluating the accuracy of claims, is a good process for determining what may or may not be true.


Way different ways, first I am of the old school and using letter acronyms for words is not clear and concise communications but just the desire to be lazy and have instant gratification. I have been studying law for a sum of time. Law is but understanding the origin of words and using them precisely from the correct language. There are no different ways just the failure to establish clarity of meaning.

A good example is truth, truth is immutable, it can't waver, it can't change. Truth is natural law such as harm. If one were deny gravity step off a tall building, one would pay the penalty for denial of truth.




Yes, of course. I was just saying that our legal system recognizes and embraces the ambiguity, the grey area, of evaluating 'how likely' it is that a claim is accurate, and making decisions based on this. I don't understand your position, but you seem (?) to be allergic to this nuance. "Beyond a reasonable doubt"


First, our legal system is not very lawful. It, in and of itself, is based on the "color of law". It is the misconception of man that supports this fallacy. And it is not based on evaluating "how likely" a claim is accurate, it is a system devised to be misconceiving by modifying what may or may not be allowed to be heard. It is a game designed to mitigate the guilty while shafting those that can't afford justice.

Therefore it has led you to a perception that is no where near the truth because of a lack of knowledge. Beyond a reasonable doubt is but a fallacy to give the "color" of that which has no basis in truth.

But then it does make for lively conversation at cocktail parties of those with a sense of not knowing what is not known. They believe justice is served when the judge throws out the weapon with the accused prints. But please, feel free to explain to the victims loved ones the justice of that.

And don't start with due process, that is but a symptom of the problem, justice is only for those that can afford it. But I study law and can afford all the justice in the world, it's just a matter of my time and that is a cost well worth the freedom.




There are some objective truths which I am equipped to know, and therefore I know that those that deny the existence of any objective truth are wrong. Being wrong doesn't make them idiots, and I was wrong to imply so earlier - but the *ways* that such people often argue for the non-existence of objective truth usually shows them to be idiots.


Again, a perception and a flawed one at that;

Nescience vs Ignorance - The context of not knowing.

Nescience

From the Latin verb nesciere: "to not know because knowledge was absent or unobtainable"

Ignorance

From the Latin verb ignorare: "to not know even though necessary information is present, because that information has been willfully refused or disregarded.

Ignorance carries blame. The masses are in a state of ignorance.
The question is why?

Therefore, idiots are those that choose to remain ignorant. It is a choice, a choice that a majority choose as their way of life.




No, much worse than that, the truth of the matter is they are not only idiots but suffer from:

Solipsism

From the Latin adjective solus: "alone" and the Latin pronoun ipse: "self".

The ideology that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Solipsists contend that knowledge of anything outside of one's own mind is unsure, hence there is no such thing as objective truth, and nothing about the external world and it's workings can actually be known. A perception they are god.

Solipsist are mentally ill.



They is the excuse, not the reality. If you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, you are going to get a knot maybe even a concussion. But there are those of diminished abilities that need to learn my experience. And then there are the idiots that refuse to learn and do it again. A prime example are these sports stars that receive a concussion and goes back for more. But the real idiots then want to blame others later in life for there idiocy.



That isn't objective truth, just theorems. It is a theorem that becomes "proven" once accepted by peer review, that is until the next theorem shows it to be wrong to be replaced by the new synopsis. Objective truth is immutable, unchanging. It is based in natural law and has been part of the universe since it's inception.

But to put it in elementary terms, it is right and wrong, black and white, there are no grays. Black is the absolute absence of reflection of any light, white is the absolution reflection of all light, immutable. As an ex-cabinetmaker, let me tell you that within man's perception there are over 2 million colors labeled white but in objective terms, none of them are really white as man is incapable of producing the perfection of nature.

To recognize objective truth is actually very simple, it is the difference of right and wrong. In the age of morality, it was a well known concept taught by parents. Today, morality is a lost concept and without morality one cannot fathom truth.

And right is so simple it is ill understood as everyone wants to change it by their perception. Right is doing as one desires so long as that desire allows another to have the same freedom. It is not modifiable by the desires of another to force another to obey their whims.

Wrong is easily as simple. If you harm or impede upon another, it is wrong or in law, Malum in se: "A wrong in itself"; an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction, upon principles of natural, moral, and public law. Grindstaff v State, 214 Tenn. 58, 377 S.W. 2d 921, 926; State v Shedoudy, 45 N.M. 516, 1 18P 2d 280, 287.

An act is said to be malum in se when it is inherently and essentially evil, that is, immoral in its nature, and injurious in its consequences, without any regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state. Such are most or all of the offenses cognizable at common law (without the denouncement of a statute); as murder, larceny, etc.

But likewise in law most confuse Malum Prohibitum with wrong, but that is just the "color" of wrong, something prohibited by someone that perceived themselves as god to bend others to their will.

Of course that would be your reply, I would expect no different. Those that live by the brawn seldom exercise the brain. They prefer to try and disrupt and deflect rather than be embarrassed by lack of thought on a matter.

Conspiracies abound everywhere, first as theories, then as full blown conspiracies. But the true idiots of this world accept everything at face value like good little citizens. Something to do with the lack of intelligence to question things.

There are many words that are resident in conversational or reading memory that can come forward into the written memory. But those lacking the desire to seek knowledge have them in none of the memories. But in today's world there is the internet and good old spell check that helps to free the mind to collect knowledge rather than minute details.

I think you should stick to exotoric, esoteric is well beyond your capabilities.

Actually not, Mark Passio again:

I have suffered, therefore I shall cause suffering.

Self-Loathing is the underlying psychological condition that causes people to attempt to abdicate their own personal responsibility to exercise conscience, and fall into patterns of order-following and justification. Just as it is not possible for an order-follower to truly be exercising conscience, it is not possible for an order-follower to truly love themselves.

Self-Loathing is created when an earlier trauma has been suppressed and buried into the subconscious mind, instead of being confronted, dealt with, and healed. Such trauma could take the form of feelings of inadequacy, whether real, suggested, or imagined.

So it would seem your trauma is somehow associated with the founding fathers, not them personally but within that created by them.

But just how will Agenda 21 fix this? Will the suffering of others somehow lessen the trauma?

Do you actually know what you are talking about? I do and very explicitally. And here is my favorite lady on the subject: SOUNDS LIKE SCIENCE FICTION...OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY...BUT IT ISN'T.

But just in case you would like to read the source document, I only puked 100 times trying to get through it. AGENDA 21 Right from the glorious UN itself.

And just who gave us that glorious UN, why Mr. Atomic Bomb himself, Harry S Truman

I see the Egyptians loved the idea so much they turned over the apple cart, the first major failure of Odumbo.

And Putin and China, don't think they care much for the UN but like one world order. And with the way Europe and this forsaken country is going, they could win. The only rough part is the depopulation part, Agenda 21 didn't cover the nuclear option but then that plan is so 1992.

Closure? By that are you referring to "fiasco"? Ferguson dying down, next media event. Got to keep the masses entertained. God knows don't want them to start thinking.

"Justa" what I thought. Great talk.

Still no thoughts.... on the subject matter, eh?

Sure he did...

It is a logical fallacy to gauge the veracity of any information based upon how you feel when first seeing or hearing it.

Sound familiar?

Sir, as I stated, I am master of none outside self and will not make the choice for you, what you want to call Odumbo is your prerogative, I have mine. And yes you do have to choose, I have made my choice and it seems you have made yours. But yes I would place him upon a pedestal, the one your kick out once the rope is attached, of course we must have due process before we hang him.

What does a claim have to do with truth, that is but a perception, a perception of man. Perception of man wavers, first to one side then to the next therefore it can't be truth. Truth can't waver, it is now, it was then and always will be in the future which is different from the future truth which is impossible.

And man convicts based on perception, not necessarily the truth. As in Ferguson, it is the absolute truth that Officer Wilson killed that thug. Yes thug as that is another truth but this one proven by evidence to be absolute, not perception as in beyond reasonable doubt.

Objective truth, how can one state that only idiots believe there is no objective truth and then state that one is not equipped to know that truth? A conclusion drawn from two opposing premises is a flawed opinion and one of the premises is in error which is comical in a way, the error also happens to be the subject of the discourse.

I know, I am but a condemned man but never a slave. Some have but the good talk and some have the walk.

Do you pay taxes, of course you do. Do you register your property, of course you do. Do you ignore authority, of course you don't.

Are you willing to pay the price and stand for your freedom, not really.

Fairly easy, lose reason, think illogical, use emotional and bingo.

Dang, strong kool aid.