Trayvon Martin Case

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Three strikes, you're out.

Like most of your comments that wasn't a strike. Also, you weren't appointed Ump so I'm still very 'In'.

Originally Posted by Lotus

I asked a simple, basic question about the ethical basis for the system of justice you are proposing.

Which I answered: Whatever 'we're' currently using. Why do you refuse to accept the answer?

Originally Posted by Lotus

Three times you have failed to offer an intelligent response. Obviously you have not at all thought through the very foundation of your system.

Again, I responded. Oh, and by the way; you can't count.

Originally Posted by Lotus

The fact is, Monksdown was correct above. The fact is that you cannot simply turn ethical decisions into mathematical equations. Anyone who knows anything about ethics knows this fact.

Do we have any ethics experts here? Any math experts? My theory is sound even without evidence.

Originally Posted by Lotus

I suggest that before you start pontificating again about making ethics into quantifiable equations, you first learn the basics about what ethical theory is all about.

Feel free to make any suggestions you like, you're not any kind of authority here so I'll continue to theorize to entertain myself and you can mock away.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Do we have any ethics experts here? Any math experts? My theory is sound even without evidence.

Nope. Doesn't sound a bit like a faith based argument to me!

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Feel free to make any suggestions you like, you're not any kind of authority here so I'll continue to theorize to entertain myself and you can mock away.

You make faaaarrrrr to easy.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Which I answered: Whatever 'we're' currently using. Why do you refuse to accept the answer?

My theory is sound even without evidence.

First, "Whatever 'we're' currently using" is not an intelligent answer. It is an obvious admission that you have no idea what you are talking about. You've made an argument which is inherently ethical yet you obviously know nothing about ethics.

Second, Your statement about not needing evidence is hilarious! Thank you, I will laugh about that claim for a long, long time. You argued that science has all of the answers and then you completely abdicate science, which always demands evidence. You stabbed yourself in the back by abdicating the essence of science, the reliance on evidence! There is no need to defeat you in argument; you have voluntarily defeated yourself.