GUILTY!!
- Thread starter AGENT707
- Start date
Thrasymachus defined justice as good as one possibly can, and I do believe it exists, just not how most of us want to interpret the word.
Justice is to the advantage of the strong.
Cut and dry. Plato argued this idea over a couple hundred pages, but I don't think this answer was ever wrong to begin with.
Basically what it means is, there really is no precise, standardized definition of the word. It is defined by those who rule over the common people. Those in power choose to regulate and carry out punishments as they see fit, and not as society has collectivley understood this concept. For example, if you break my leg, and in turn I end your life, I have served justice because I believe my actions were justified by what you did, and because I am stronger, it is so. But if I were twice as small as you, and you broke my leg, I would be unable to end your life, and you would decide the conclusion of this conflict, because you are stronger.
I firmly believe that this is the only way to define the word and since you went out of your way to post that you don't believe there is such a thing as justice, I thought I might help you out a little.
Justice is to the advantage of the strong.
Cut and dry. Plato argued this idea over a couple hundred pages, but I don't think this answer was ever wrong to begin with.
Basically what it means is, there really is no precise, standardized definition of the word. It is defined by those who rule over the common people. Those in power choose to regulate and carry out punishments as they see fit, and not as society has collectivley understood this concept. For example, if you break my leg, and in turn I end your life, I have served justice because I believe my actions were justified by what you did, and because I am stronger, it is so. But if I were twice as small as you, and you broke my leg, I would be unable to end your life, and you would decide the conclusion of this conflict, because you are stronger.
I firmly believe that this is the only way to define the word and since you went out of your way to post that you don't believe there is such a thing as justice, I thought I might help you out a little.
^OH SHIT, I ACTUALLY AgREE WITH YOU.
AgENT 707,
YOU STRESSED, "well i kinda do...and no it HASNT affected my life
BUT after things like the O.J. case im glad things ended up the way they did in this case...
im not sure y ur getting hostile over this?"
NO HOSTILITY, JUST QUESTIONIN' WHY DOES IT EVEN MATTER?
AgENT 707,
YOU STRESSED, "well i kinda do...and no it HASNT affected my life
BUT after things like the O.J. case im glad things ended up the way they did in this case...
im not sure y ur getting hostile over this?"
NO HOSTILITY, JUST QUESTIONIN' WHY DOES IT EVEN MATTER?
upon futher thought that comment holds alot more weight than the flippant comment u probably perceived it as.
lets COMPARE, even though u do not commprehend, and look at the glaring similarities.
1. both killed their wives.
2. both had a media circus surrounding them
3. both had high powered attorneys
4. both cases were heavily based on circumstancial evidence
5. both flead, and tried to escape punishment
6. both were caught
7. both outcomes were based on emotional responses than actual facts and evidence
8. Be fuccin real they BOTH are guilty
now the differences:
1. there was more evidence against OJ than peterson
2. the race card was played to a T in the OJ case but wasnt a factor in the peterson case
3. Oj is free with more of a preponderance of evidence against him than there ever was with peterson
Honestly the peterson case is a travesty of justice as was the OJ case. If both cases were strictly weighed on their factual and evidential merits OJ would be in jail and peterson would be free. There simple was not enough hard evidence against peterson.
If OJ would have been white he would have been found guilty.
lets COMPARE, even though u do not commprehend, and look at the glaring similarities.
1. both killed their wives.
2. both had a media circus surrounding them
3. both had high powered attorneys
4. both cases were heavily based on circumstancial evidence
5. both flead, and tried to escape punishment
6. both were caught
7. both outcomes were based on emotional responses than actual facts and evidence
8. Be fuccin real they BOTH are guilty
now the differences:
1. there was more evidence against OJ than peterson
2. the race card was played to a T in the OJ case but wasnt a factor in the peterson case
3. Oj is free with more of a preponderance of evidence against him than there ever was with peterson
Honestly the peterson case is a travesty of justice as was the OJ case. If both cases were strictly weighed on their factual and evidential merits OJ would be in jail and peterson would be free. There simple was not enough hard evidence against peterson.
If OJ would have been white he would have been found guilty.
another example of the dire need for media reform
go sign the www.mediacarta.org
and check out www.adbusters.com
go sign the www.mediacarta.org
and check out www.adbusters.com
