Source: Vick 'one of the heavyweights' in dogfighting

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm sorry, are you saying that you are working towards what is a good reason to form a law?

no what is 'good' in and of itself. it seems you use a biblical background to establish your morality. i do not have that prop.

as for laws i would say civil order and prosperity would be the best place to start.

 

[peplaw06]

and i can come up with economic basis for all of them.

as for childrens protection it is good for the long term viability and ability to compete to educate and protect children.

ownership is the absolute basis for economy. without it capitalism is impossible. murder is an economic deterrent and a waste of human resources.

like i said they are not mutually exclusive.

:laugh2:

Valiant effort, but you fail. I said little to no part, and you come up with two huge stretches. What is the economic basis for outlawing rape, incest and child molestation?

And sorry, but no judge is going to award custody of children to one parent over another because they will have a better chance to succeed economically. Father is a multi-millionaire and routinely beats and molests his kids, while mom is poor but a good mother. guess who's getting the kids?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

crap, now we have to watch Fuzzy dance around this too?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:laugh2:

Valiant effort, but you fail. I said little to no part, and you come up with two huge stretches. What is the economic basis for outlawing rape, incest and child molestation?

And sorry, but no judge is going to award custody of children to one parent over another because they will have a better chance to succeed economically. Father is a multi-millionaire and routinely beats and molests his kids, while mom is poor but a good mother. guess who's getting the kids?

again i stated that the two are not mutually exclusive.

i said long term viability and success. incest has a biological issue with inbreeding. molestation certainly hampers longterm viability. rape i would say to a lesser degree but still substatial and very very real.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

crap, now we have to watch Fuzzy dance around this too?

original arguments summer. you love taking joy at the input of others but doesnt it bother you that you are unable to have your own?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

original arguments summer. you love taking joy at the input of others but doesnt it bother you that you are unable to have your own?

my field is not the law, so I feel no reason to get in over my head

which you seem to have no problem w/

to steal a line from Hostile:

"dance boy...dance"

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

my field is not the law, so I feel no reason to get in over my head

which you seem to have no problem w/

what exactly is your field summer?

and for something you claim to know nothing about you certainly seem to be willing to judge my knowledge.

 

[peplaw06]

no what is 'good' in and of itself. it seems you use a biblical background to establish your morality. i do not have that prop.

as for laws i would say civil order and prosperity would be the best place to start.

:laugh2:

Again, i try to be civil, and we go on for a while, and you insult my beliefs. And you wonder why I'm on your little drama-queenish hall of fame? I find it sad that you always get in long pissing match threads where you don't budge an inch. And you chastized theo in the fan zone for picking an argument just for the sake of arguing? I came in here for some good natured civil discourse, but you won't have it.... "I think for myself." Well good for you. All I have to say is it's not very conducive to learning if you're going to think for yourself, yet let no one convince you that you might just be missing something in a debate. But I guess if you can figure it all out on your own, there's no sense in debating with you. Your "girlfriend" must be a saint.

And civil order and prosperity? Sound like morality and economics to me.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

what exactly is your field summer?

business administration, but I haven't taken any classes since '03

and for something you claim to know nothing about you certainly seem to be willing to judge my knowledge.

I know some things, but economics isn't something I've been well-versed in, or law, I know the basics of law though, enough to where I can get in debate over simple terms, where peplaw is at, is way over my head, so I'm just content to sit and watch, and it's a good show, your tap dance is amazing

and your prior use of habeus corpus gives me all I need to know about your "knowledge", which basically amounts to you throwing crap against the wall, like always

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:laugh2:

Again, i try to be civil, and we go on for a while, and you insult my beliefs. And you wonder why I'm on your little drama-queenish hall of fame? I find it sad that you always get in long pissing match threads where you don't budge an inch. And you chastized theo in the fan zone for picking an argument just for the sake of arguing? I came in here for some good natured civil discourse, but you won't have it.... "I think for myself." Well good for you. All I have to say is it's not very conducive to learning if you're going to think for yourself, yet let no one convince you that you might just be missing something in a debate. But I guess if you can figure it all out on your own, there's no sense in debating with you. Your "girlfriend" must be a saint.

And civil order and prosperity? Sound like morality and economics to me.

how did i insult you? im just saying that i dont have a prexisting basis for my moral beliefs. osrry if you feel insulted.

i mean this in a very real way. i am trying to work out my philosophy. i understand much of what youre saying and i repect your right to believe it. i dont understand why you get upset that i dont derive my beliefs from the same placve you do.

 

[peplaw06]

again i stated that the two are not mutually exclusive.

i said long term viability and success. incest has a biological issue with inbreeding. molestation certainly hampers longterm viability. rape i would say to a lesser degree but still substatial and very very real.

*sigh*

I understand that they are not mutually exclusive. however, the economic concerns in these laws are GREATLY outweighed by the moral concerns.

I'm sure all these lawmakers and judges are more concerned with how much money these kids who are being molested are going to contribute to their bottom line. They are much more concerned with that than say the moral implications... But keep those blinders on, by all means.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

*sigh*

I understand that they are not mutually exclusive. however, the economic concerns in these laws are GREATLY outweighed by the moral concerns.

I'm sure all these lawmakers and judges are more concerned with how much money these kids who are being molested are going to contribute to their bottom line. They are much more concerned with that than say the moral implications... But keep those blinders on, by all means.

and im not saying that there are not a strong perceived moral basis for all of them. im just saying that there does exist an economic impetus as well. i think that in more laws you can find an economic causation versus a moral one.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

if you want to call civil order and prosperity moral then fine. i dont look at it like that but if it fits for you then good.

 

[peplaw06]

how did i insult you? im just saying that i dont have a prexisting basis for my moral beliefs. osrry if you feel insulted.

i mean this in a very real way. i am trying to work out my philosophy. i understand much of what youre saying and i repect your right to believe it. i dont understand why you get upset that i dont derive my beliefs from the same placve you do.

Don't play dumb. Your use of the word "prop" in reference to my religious and/or moral beliefs is a clear shot. I know it and you know it.

I never once commented on the way you derive your belief system. You're still working it out? Great. But don't degrade my belief system simply because you don't agree. I didn't get upset because you don't get your beliefs from where I do. I got upset because you insulted it. you did it twice actually. More mildly with "inconsistent..." you don't know where I'm inconsistent. You assume I am because you have heard of the Bible and that is your impression of it.

And spare me the backhanded apologies. Such a copout. "I'm sorry if you feel insulted?" Say it with me, "I'm sorry I insulted you." The impetus is on you. It's not my fault I was insulted.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

business administration, but I haven't taken any classes since '03

I know some things, but economics isn't something I've been well-versed in, or law, I know the basics of law though, enough to where I can get in debate over simple terms, where peplaw is at, is way over my head, so I'm just content to sit and watch, and it's a good show, your tap dance is amazing

and your prior use of habeus corpus gives me all I need to know about your "knowledge", which basically amounts to you throwing crap against the wall, like always

i said habeus corpus instead of due process once and that deonstrates im an idiot? i freely admit that peplaw is going to be more knowledgeable on the particulars of law then me but that doesnt make me afraid to talk to him about it.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

i said habeus corpus instead of due process once and that deonstrates im an idiot?

habeus corpus IS due process

say it w/ me:

trial, judge, jury

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Don't play dumb. Your use of the word "prop" in reference to my religious and/or moral beliefs is a clear shot. I know it and you know it.

I never once commented on the way you derive your belief system. You're still working it out? Great. But don't degrade my belief system simply because you don't agree. I didn't get upset because you don't get your beliefs from where I do. I got upset because you insulted it. you did it twice actually. More mildly with "inconsistent..." you don't know where I'm inconsistent. You assume I am because you have heard of the Bible and that is your impression of it.

And spare me the backhanded apologies. Such a copout. "I'm sorry if you feel insulted?" Say it with me, "I'm sorry I insulted you." The impetus is on you. It's not my fault I was insulted.

Actually i dont see it as an insult. when in doubt you turn to your religion. i dont have it that easy. that is all i meant and if you want to read more into it then fine.

i actually find many many good things out of the christianity it is just too inconsistent for me to use as an all encompassing reference.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

habeus corpus IS due process

say it w/ me:

trial, judge, jury

umm no its not its a writ to have a prisoner brought to court.

 

[peplaw06]

and im not saying that there are not a strong perceived moral basis for all of them. im just saying that there does exist an economic impetus as well. i think that in more laws you can find an economic causation versus a moral one.

You can find anything if you search hard enough.

You'll call it a "perceived" moral basis, and I'll call your's a "perceived" economic basis. The dog fighting debate, which is off the tracks, has rarely ever mentioned economics. You're the only one I recall bringing it up. Most people's feelings get involved, and that's why these threads are so heated. That's America, that's democracy. Like it or not most people disagree with you for moral reasons.

You can scream it's economics all you want, but at a base level, people's emotions got involved. I don't recall anyone saying that they abhorred dog fighting because it hurt their bottom line. Take from that what you will. i assume it will be something along the lines of, "they're not thinking for themselves, like I am. They're going with the crowd." But the crowd rules in democracy.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

oh and here is a link explaining it.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm