Lawmakers in Oklahoma pass bill that would make performing abortions a felony

[Teallaura]

Where did I (or Justin) insult you?

I said you committed the fallacy, not that you insulted me.

[Cow Poke]

Huh?

You just described a representative democracy - I've never heard of a "representative republic"....

Let's see.... [clearing throat]... "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the democracy... um......"

HOWEVER, if you use the term "representative democracy", at least that's better than thinking the US is a "democracy".

[Teallaura]

Look at the OJ Simpson trail. Here you have a guy guilty as ____ with his DNA all over the place, shoe prints, motive, history of domestic violence, and that jury let him go because they wanted revenge for Rodney King - let's all be real. The mob won that day and I think that case is a fine example of how our justice system is an antique.

I think if you've got educated people in the law, good detectives, and half way reasonable judges there is no need in a case like that to have a jury when the evidence is that deep.

Actually, it's an excellent example of the legal system working exactly as designed. If prosecution is stupid enough to sabotage their own case and provide reasonable doubt, it's a sad comment on competency, not the system.

[lilpixieofterror]

PS: Never seen CSI. I watch Forensic Files - especially when nothing else is on.

Everyone except CowPoke seems to have missed my point about forensics.

I got the point just fine. Forensics is important, but you need other things too (such as establishing a timeline of events, which can still be established by witness testimony). After all, there might be a good reason your DNA is in the area where somebody died (such as you visited their house hours before). I do watch Forensic Files too and establishing motives and timelines is often shown as being important on the show too.

[Sea of red]

I said you committed the fallacy, not that you insulted me.

You need to not throw around accusations of fallacious thinking towards others.

An ad-hominem attack is when someone uses a character attack in place of an argument. What I made was neither a rebuttal to an argument, or an attack on anyone's particular character. It was an observation as to the methods of the pro-life community, that maybe concerned offensive to some.

FYI: I'm southern.

[Teallaura]

The key word was impartial Teal. Neither you, nor Bill, are looking at this case with a clear head. I have never argued against further judicial review in cases like you've mentioned. I have said that this case wasn't a good one. Stop beating on Plessy v Ferguson. Yes, we all know that the supreme court flips itself some times. What you aren't doing is providing the context between those changes. Public opinion, and our society in general, changed a whole lot in the time between 1896 and 1954. As much as society has changed since Roe, it hasn't been through the kind of tectonic shifts that took place between those 2!

Anyway, that doesn't matter much. What do you know about the law that the Governor did not? A governor who, as I laid out in my previous post, has all the reason in the world to pass whatever anti-abortion laws she wants but, for some reason, struck this one down? Why would an opponent of abortion veto a bill passed by a super majority of both houses unless it was a terrible test case and a waste of money?

Tell you what, prove your own perfect impartiality then you can tell others how to be impartial. When you get that pole out of your eye, I'll let you help me with my speck.

Brown wasn't the first test case - probably not the 100th, either. You totally missed the point - it's not okay to allow an injustice to continue merely because it's politically expedient - and yes, that IS ultimately what you are arguing for here. NO ONE, not you, not Governor Fallin, not Fibber McGhee - NO ONE can predict what test case will succeed. When Mr Brown tried to enroll his kid in a white school he had no way to know that case would succeed where all its predecessors had failed and every reason to believe it would not. 1960's America didn't have any pro-civil right majority ANYWHERE. The political climate was incredibly hostile - so according to you, Mr Brown shouldn't have bothered decent folk with the expense of a hopeless test case.

[Teallaura]

You need to not throw around accusations of fallacious thinking towards others.

An ad-hominem attack is when someone uses a character attack in place of an argument. What I made was neither a rebuttal to an argument, or an attack on anyone's particular character. It was an observation as to the methods of the pro-life community, that maybe concerned offensive to some.

FYI: I'm southern.

I know what it is - and I stand by the assertion.

And Texas isn't Southern - it's Texas.

[Cow Poke]

and texas isn't southern - it's texas.

yeah!!!!!

[Teallaura]

PS: Never seen CSI. I watch Forensic Files - especially when nothing else is on.

Everyone except CowPoke seems to have missed my point about forensics.

Okay, I understood you to say that because we have forensics we no longer need/should rely on eye witness testimony. Did I misunderstand you?

[lilpixieofterror]

I know what it is - and I stand by the assertion.

And Texas isn't Southern - it's Texas.

I've been to Texas, Alabama, and Georgia. I'd have to say that Texas reminds me more of California than Alabama or Georgia (shhh, don't tell CP I said that).

[Sea of red]

Actually, it's an excellent example of the legal system working exactly as designed. If prosecution is stupid enough to sabotage their own case and provide reasonable doubt, it's a sad comment on competency, not the system.

No, Teal. It's a testament to how contaminated juries can become when exposed to outside influences. The defense made an absolute mockery of that court room, and those jurors were never going to convict OJ, regardless of how strong the evidence was. Don't be so naive as to think they actually considered the evidence or cared about the victims. They didn't care if OJ murdered someone. It was about some warped perception of justice which involved letting an obvious murderer go free.

[Teallaura]

No, Teal. It's a testament to how contaminated juries can become when exposed to outside influences. The defense made an absolute mockery of that court room, and those jurors were never going to convict OJ, regardless of how strong the evidence was. Don't be so naive as to think they actually considered the evidence or cared about the victims. They didn't care if OJ murdered someone. It was about some warped perception of justice which involved letting an obvious murderer go free.

The case was mishandled from the word go - the jury probably did invalidate but it still came to the correct conclusion based on the evidence AS PRESENTED. That last bit is critical - it's how the system works.

Celebrity justice rarely is.

[Sea of red]

Okay, I understood you to say that because we have forensics we no longer need/should rely on eye witness testimony. Did I misunderstand you?

You're way off.

My position is that if we have surveillance or hard forensics linking somebody to a crime, we really shouldn't have to involve the public. It's a waste of money, peoples time, and runs the risk of people bringing in unnecessary biases to a cut and dried case.

[Cow Poke]

You're way off.

My position is that if we have surveillance or hard forensics linking somebody to a crime, we really shouldn't have to involve the public. It's a waste of money, peoples time, and runs the risk of people bringing in unnecessary biases to a cut and dried case.

But, let's say we have the body cam video of a police officer who shoots an apparently unarmed man -- but we only have that video. What we might not have is the facts that led up to that - perhaps the robbery he just committed, or a person he just murdered....

I think there are a lot of things that could be assumed to be "cut and dried", but in the light of .... it's like (literally) taking something out of context. We need the context in which the "hard forensics" exist.

[Sea of red]

I got the point just fine. Forensics is important, but you need other things too (such as establishing a timeline of events, which can still be established by witness testimony). After all, there might be a good reason your DNA is in the area where somebody died (such as you visited their house hours before). I do watch Forensic Files too and establishing motives and timelines is often shown as being important on the show too.

Well I guess we have something in common now, eh?