3 ms·
That's dodging the point. Your assertion that my point of view was purely subjective while the opposing views were not. What constitutes guilt is simple, bein
by tux1968 7y ago
That's dodging the point. Your assertion that my point of view was purely subjective while the opposing views were not.
What constitutes guilt is simple, being convicted of transgressing a law.
The objective measure in my book, is that of real world harm balanced against unintended side effects and limitations on freedom.
* ps. your not so subtle implication that only you know what you're talking about and other people don't is not arguing in good faith.
- jacques_chester 7y ago> What constitutes guilt is simple, being convicted of transgressing a law. "How was he convicted?" -> "He was found guilty". "How is he guilty?" -> "He was convicted". This is a circular argument. What is the standard that quantifies that a conviction should occur? > The objective measure in my book, is that of real world harm balanced against unintended side effects and limitations on freedom. I see. How is real world harm measured objectively? How are unintended side effects measured objectively? How are limitations on freedom measured objectively? ps. My implication wasn't meant to be subtle. That's my fault.