Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Some Evangelical Leaders Speaking Out Against Separating Child/Parent Migrates
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AllButNone" data-source="post: 72810370" data-attributes="member: 394572"><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p>Your argument seems to be:</p><p>a) X is a criminal</p><p>b) Therefore X is responsible for whatever happens to himself as a result of the law</p><p></p><p>But, and why I say you're begging the question, is because X is responsible for whatever happens to himself as a result of the law that he's been defined as a criminal.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You misunderstand. Your previous posts had already indicated that you acknowledged and were arguing against the premise "needlessly harsh". While I certainly agree that premise is unsubstantiated, Iluvatar reiterating it is just a precondition for his subsequent statement.</p><p></p><p>What I take issue with is that you've singled out Iluvatar for a thread continued through many posts, one that you'd already engaged in by nature of your own arguments.</p><p></p><p>**edited a typo</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not sure if that's a legal term of art here. I'm using the phrase in the colloquial sense. (that was supposed to be extent, not extant, too) Where you said, "Yep. But how does one find themselves exposed to such discretion" to iluvatar, I was referring to this. Maybe I misunderstand such discretion, but to me this implies there's a lesser and greater degree to which a person can be prosecuted. Is that mistaken? That's where my question is directed.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>And this point is where I think you'll find the most disagreement, on the basis that different people have different circumstances. I could be mistaken, but I think you probably wouldn't argue that if two people commit the same crime under the same conditions, one person should be executed, and the other person should get a slap on the wrist. I'd say, and I'd imagine you'd agree the incongruity of the punishment is unjust. Likewise, having to separate a child from a parent creates an incongruity in the nature of the punishment, and I think a lot of people here feel that this incongruity itself places some onus on prosecutors to restrain themselves in some way, or the attorney general to direct some restraint.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AllButNone, post: 72810370, member: 394572"] [SIZE=3] [/SIZE] Your argument seems to be: a) X is a criminal b) Therefore X is responsible for whatever happens to himself as a result of the law But, and why I say you're begging the question, is because X is responsible for whatever happens to himself as a result of the law that he's been defined as a criminal. [SIZE=3][/SIZE] You misunderstand. Your previous posts had already indicated that you acknowledged and were arguing against the premise "needlessly harsh". While I certainly agree that premise is unsubstantiated, Iluvatar reiterating it is just a precondition for his subsequent statement. What I take issue with is that you've singled out Iluvatar for a thread continued through many posts, one that you'd already engaged in by nature of your own arguments. **edited a typo [SIZE=3][/SIZE] Not sure if that's a legal term of art here. I'm using the phrase in the colloquial sense. (that was supposed to be extent, not extant, too) Where you said, "Yep. But how does one find themselves exposed to such discretion" to iluvatar, I was referring to this. Maybe I misunderstand such discretion, but to me this implies there's a lesser and greater degree to which a person can be prosecuted. Is that mistaken? That's where my question is directed. [SIZE=3][/SIZE] And this point is where I think you'll find the most disagreement, on the basis that different people have different circumstances. I could be mistaken, but I think you probably wouldn't argue that if two people commit the same crime under the same conditions, one person should be executed, and the other person should get a slap on the wrist. I'd say, and I'd imagine you'd agree the incongruity of the punishment is unjust. Likewise, having to separate a child from a parent creates an incongruity in the nature of the punishment, and I think a lot of people here feel that this incongruity itself places some onus on prosecutors to restrain themselves in some way, or the attorney general to direct some restraint. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Some Evangelical Leaders Speaking Out Against Separating Child/Parent Migrates
Top
Bottom