Princess, you lack even basic vocabulary skills. From dict.org . Now, it's true that people attempted to justify slavery. But it's just hollow rationalization unless you extend them the value judgement of being correct.
Sorry for being way late on this but I don't mind the death penalty in principle. However in practicality I think its misused due to inherent flaws in the system; which makes me more inclined to let murderers live than a few innocents die.
haven, That's all nice and well. So when I said justifying something was finding reasons do show something is right, that disagrees with your definition how exactly? Again, what eaactly are you arguing? I don't think that accpeting something and justifying it are the same thing. I'm not trying to justify what goes on in prison. I know that it happens though and that there's not much that can be done about it short of major reforms. And for the record, you can't really define what is just and unjust. You don't get that from the dictionary.
Sorry for my late response. My wife and I have been sick as hell with the flu. Anyway... Oh, well. I'm not a prince, nor am I totally peaceful. Thought he heard??? How in the world is that not calling into question his powers of observation. If you don't believe him, for God's sake, just say it and move on. But, don't get all offended if you say... or... or... Now, how is it that saying he had obviously never listened to her show, he was "wrong now" about what he thought he "heard then" and that he had a "wrong understanding" not saying he lied, didn't hear or didn't understand? I'm not sure what your definition of lying, not hearing or not understanding is, but it seems fairly clear that is EXACTLY what you said. Personally, I don't care if you call him or me a liar. What I don't understand is your unwillingness to admit that the statements above (pulled from the original thread) seemed to point to the fairly obvious conclusion that you just didn't believe RM95. No, you said, "you obviously HAVEN'T listened to Dr. Laura" after he said he did. What exactly do you call that accusation? Ok, I exaggerated, but "you had a wrong understanding of something" would seem to suggest that you felt he didn't have the ability to discern what she said and understand it in context. Maybe not stupid, but clearly not very sharp either. No, you said, "You are WRONG NOW about what you think you heard THEN." There are only two ways to interpret this comment. Either you are saying he made it up or he didn't hear it making him deaf. Ok, another exaggeration, but you get the point. No, it isn't. You disagreed so you called into question his ability to grasp what was being said. It's ok to disagree and even say you don't believe but at least be honest. Ok, I just used YOUR words instead. I didn't say anything wrong. I was trying to be funny but that wasn't really the point. I was attempting to point out that your statements about RM95 and your perception of that argument were as misleading as you think he is being when he reported her comments in the first place. There ya' go.
Princess, you're beginning to vex me with your inability to comprehend even the most rudimentary logical concepts. People have attempted to justify slavery. Whether it actually is justified is a value judgement on the part of the speaker. Hence, if you say "slavery is justified." You're not saying, "some people tried to justify it." You're saying you believe that it's a valid phenomena that doesn't offend your ethical system. This is a simple, simple concept. If you want to start a poll, go ahead, but I think you'll lose to the tune of 125,000 to 1 or something. You said it was justified. If it was jsutified, it's ethically valid. If you believe slavery is ethically valid... well, you have deep, deep problems. Conversely, if you've somehow manage to get into college without knowing what justification needs... you need tutoring. Then you don't understand language. Perhaps your inability to articulate your thoughs is making you look like a complete nut. Of course you can define what is just and unjust. You do it every day. Think it's wrong if someone steals from you? I do. Would I be wrong if I walked up and smacked you upside the head in a futile attempt to put some sense in your head? Yep. Is it wrong to torture a child? Yep. One may disagree concerning what is ethically valid and not. But you can't avoid judgement yourself, in many things. Slavery is certainly one of them. You can't says "I have no ethical position on the enslavement of human beings." You're either opposed to it... or you don't have a problem with it. And besides, you did make a statement concerning it's ethical value. You said it was justified. Now think very, very hard... I know that's difficult for you... and tell me if you think slavery is justified, or if your vocabulary is simply limited.
You can define what is just and unjust within our laws, but that does not touch on what is just and unjust in the world. Read some Plato and see what he has to say about it. I never said I was justifying slavery or treatment in prison. You're taking the arguement up with the wrong person. Timing said I was justifying it. I only said that prisoners should expect and accept it until reforms are made. Maybe it's all the same to you. People justify things all the time, or try to at least. Doesn't make them all correct.
You're either wrong about justification here, or you think slavery is right. You say "I don't think you can justify something that is not right." Then you say "it was the practice of the time and widely accepted and justified." You don't think something that is not right can be justified... then you say slavery was justified. You're either contradicting yourself, or you approve of slavery. Sorry princess, you have no loophole to get out of here. You've been caught, and it's time to pick your poison. This is one of the more amusing things I've ever read. I've taken 24 hours in philosophy. Trust me, I've read Plato. And a lot more than that... that's how shall we put it... more "advanced." I've give hope of ever convincing you of anything external. All I'm trying to do now is demonstrate, first hand, your obvious contradiction while setting aside your pathetic, plaintive defenses. Holy ****ing ****! Is that so? I could have sworn you had just written So, either it's justified... or it's not. And if it's justified, then it's right. You've already said that it was justified. Which statement do you want to retract: A. Your understanding of justificiation. or B. That slavery is justified. The choice is yours. You dug this hole for yourself.
I've taken 16 hours of political classes on Plato and Socrates (and a little Aristotle) alone, taught by about 5 different professors. I was misunderstood in my statements. Here is goes... I DO NOT believe that something can be completely justified and still be wrong. And that is a belief. You can like it or not. More commonly, justification means merely finding excuses for something. Many people justified slavery under this second definition. Or rather, they attempted to justify it. Slavery was useful for our country; the "necessary evil" so often spoken of. So when Timing said I was justifying prison treatment, I was making excuses for it perhaps, but not saying it was right. The whole point of this was that something can be accepted and still be wrong.
Why would anybody do this? Quite frankly, Aristotle's positions are often still held as pretty valid (although more in metaphysics than political science)... but Plato is more significant for being the first major philosopher in the Western tradition than for his specific positions. Why not take something concerning thinkers that people actually still debate directly, instead of indirectly? Princess... the dictionary is against you. Nobody else thinks this way. The purpose of words is to communicate. If you're so unable to use words correctly... well, don't talk. Look at dylan's sig. There's a complete prima facie contradiction there. You can't get out of it. No matter what you say, even if we accept your bogus understanding of the word, you still made a blatant contradiction on your own terms. You can't escape that. Maybe you should find a board where people don't bother to be consistent in their statements? If we believe everything you say content wise... you still contradict yourself with your own language.
I made a mis-statement. I should have said some try to justify slavery. And I've admitted it. Sorry. I take the classes because they are interesting and fun. A few of them I had to take. The one I am in now is really about the Politics of Greek Theater which deals with Aristophanes and Socrates and Plato. I wasn't debating anything. I was stating that these were not simply my "made up" words. Plato is still taught and people do at least examine his ideas, if not think about them themselves. Timing accused me of justifying treatment in prison and asked how could I justify something that I thought was wrong and I said I wasn't justifying it. IF he meant that I was accepting it, then fine. Maybe you should stop harassing me. There's a difference between discussion/debate and personal attacks.
I went after you because you made an obvious contradiction... Timing called you on it... and you wouldn't acknowledge it. You hold some pretty tenuous beliefs princess. Now, I don't mind radicals... but if you're going to make some of the statements you do, you better damned well be able to back them up. Some things are impossible to substantiate, either way. This was not. To read a self-contradiction of that magnitude... about such an important issue... annoyed me to the point where I wasn't going to let you get away with it. Also, I think you give academia, in general, a bad name. I'm a student, and believe that education in the liberal arts is extremely valuable. However, your treatment of academics seems to be summed up by "well, my professor says this." That's not the value of an education. With a good education, you learn how to think... not what to think. Being educated means one is able to reason logically, think critically, and write well. You flaunt the fact that you're a student... but pay too little attention to writing in a way that is consistent with being enlightened, which is the object of the liberal arts. As Imanuel Kant said, "have the courage to use your own reason!"
Princess, if accepting what is clearly wrong and inhumane is stupid (which you don't deny) then the other alternative is not to accept it. That's all you have to do. Say "you know, you're right. Anal rape and beatings are not acceptable." I'm not saying you have to go in to prisons yourself and pull apart fighting prisoners. But at least make the stance that it is not OK and that you do not condone it. There are option besides ignoring and condoning things. The world is not full of problems with two solutions.
