New Endangered Species

A friendly place for chat, rumors, gossip and jokes.
User avatar
Jogeephus
Mentor
Mentor
Posts: 24049
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby Jogeephus » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:11 pm

Bright Raven wrote:
Jogeephus wrote:In my view, the misdeeds of your past are diluted with time assuming you have learned from your past mistakes and have become a better person.


Morally, I agree. But right or wrong has nothing to do with the judicial system which is founded on the judgement of guilt or innocence. The exception is damage claims where value judgements involve "right and wrong" but usually defined by law. Hence, a judge or jury judges the accused guilty or not guilty. They don't get into the right or wrong business. (You could argue that the legislature in making laws is more engaged in the right and wrong business).

On a moral basis as opposed to a legal basis, you have to cultivate values based on your experiences (that may or may not include the influence of religion). In Georgia, it might have been a moral wrong to open your eyes during a game of hide-and-go-seek but in Kentucky, it was a "moral right" to peep at least 4 times before you got to 100. :nod: So one man's values label some misdeeds as "wrongs" whereas another man's values labels those misdeeds as "rights".

In my personal value system, I would think that your peeping has been forgiven if not totally diluted. :lol:


I'm glad I don't have to live with the guilt of peeking the rest of my life. Its a burden I care not to carry.

But going to your example of the judicial system. Is it not true there is a statute of limitations on most all crimes except murder? Isn't this an example of the wrong doing being diluted?
0 x
Experience - the ability to instantly recognize a mistake when you make it again.

User avatar
Jogeephus
Mentor
Mentor
Posts: 24049
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby Jogeephus » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:19 pm

greybeard wrote:
I peeked when I got to 52 then shut my eyes again. This was wrong I know and I know I cheated but today should this keep me from being put on the board at the bank?

Does peeking during that game reach the threshold of 'high crime or misdemeanor'? No. It is on that premise, not whether it was 'diluted' or not that would make me tend to answer "no", but I would have to have some kind of re-assurance that you wouldn't be using the power of your board position to 'peek' at my account information or to look into aspects of that bank's operations not available to other investors and do a bit of insider trading.
Now, if someone today, had asked if you had peeked 53 years ago and you lied and said no, then that's a different story. Loss of public trust.



In my view, the misdeeds of your past are diluted with time assuming you have learned from your past mistakes and have become a better person.

Perhaps in your own mind, but I view that as but one more rationalization to "make it all ok'. Misdeeds, should carry a penalty, and simply not repeating them is no penalty at all..not doing them again (or to begin with) is the norm, not something special or enviable or reward worthy. If it were, then the whole "everybody gets a trophy" thing is not to be so easily ridiculed after all.

We all understand what this thread and it's question specifically relates to , but it's also multi faceted. IF one accepts that the long period of 'doing good' in the interim dilutes a misdeed, then one must also accept that a similar long period of 'doing good' prior to the misdeed has to count as well. I generally do not, on either account, but I do accept that there is a murky and mostly intangible threshold that should be met. If great harm was done to others during the misdeed, then imo, no amount of time 'doing good'' will suffice.


I can totally agree with that. And if that were the case I would think alarms would have gone up at the time and the wronged or the parent of the wrong would be seeking justice. The old legal maxim that states, "justice delayed is justice denied". I think most will agree with this and I have trouble understanding why anyone would want to delay their own justice if they were actually wronged.
0 x
Experience - the ability to instantly recognize a mistake when you make it again.

User avatar
Bright Raven
GURU
GURU
Posts: 7283
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:57 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby Bright Raven » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:25 pm

Jogeephus wrote:
Bright Raven wrote:
Jogeephus wrote:In my view, the misdeeds of your past are diluted with time assuming you have learned from your past mistakes and have become a better person.


Morally, I agree. But right or wrong has nothing to do with the judicial system which is founded on the judgement of guilt or innocence. The exception is damage claims where value judgements involve "right and wrong" but usually defined by law. Hence, a judge or jury judges the accused guilty or not guilty. They don't get into the right or wrong business. (You could argue that the legislature in making laws is more engaged in the right and wrong business).

On a moral basis as opposed to a legal basis, you have to cultivate values based on your experiences (that may or may not include the influence of religion). In Georgia, it might have been a moral wrong to open your eyes during a game of hide-and-go-seek but in Kentucky, it was a "moral right" to peep at least 4 times before you got to 100. :nod: So one man's values label some misdeeds as "wrongs" whereas another man's values labels those misdeeds as "rights".

In my personal value system, I would think that your peeping has been forgiven if not totally diluted. :lol:


I'm glad I don't have to live with the guilt of peeking the rest of my life. Its a burden I care not to carry.

But going to your example of the judicial system. Is it not true there is a statute of limitations on most all crimes except murder? Isn't this an example of the wrong doing being diluted?


Yes. Our value system goes back to ancient times. If you look at old Greek and Roman laws that predate the Judeo-Christian concept of values, there was always a dilution of guilt over time except in the most heinous offenses.
3 x
"Looking for an honest man".
Diogenes.

User avatar
sstterry
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:04 am
Location: Bulls Gap, TN

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby sstterry » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:58 pm

I will not even attempt to enter this fray. I have realized that with all the accusations and responses, there are very few on this Board that have an open mind. Whether it be from upbringing or education, it will always be " By Goodness" I am right and no facts or truths matter." I am not always right, but I like to think that I am man enough to acknowledge when I am not!
3 x

User avatar
Bright Raven
GURU
GURU
Posts: 7283
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:57 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby Bright Raven » Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:02 pm

sstterry wrote:I will not even attempt to enter this fray. I have realized that with all the accusations and responses, there are very few on this Board that have an open mind. Whether it be from upbringing or education, it will always be " By Goodness" I am right and no facts or truths matter." I am not always right, but I like to think that I am man enough to acknowledge when I am not!


Not going to let you off that easy, Bud. Who gives a shyt what anyone thinks. This board needs some opposing views, otherwise it is just one big back slapping fest.
1 x
"Looking for an honest man".
Diogenes.

User avatar
bball
GURU
GURU
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:43 am
Location: Indiana

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby bball » Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:45 pm

Bright Raven wrote:
Jogeephus wrote:
Bright Raven wrote:
Morally, I agree. But right or wrong has nothing to do with the judicial system which is founded on the judgement of guilt or innocence. The exception is damage claims where value judgements involve "right and wrong" but usually defined by law. Hence, a judge or jury judges the accused guilty or not guilty. They don't get into the right or wrong business. (You could argue that the legislature in making laws is more engaged in the right and wrong business).

On a moral basis as opposed to a legal basis, you have to cultivate values based on your experiences (that may or may not include the influence of religion). In Georgia, it might have been a moral wrong to open your eyes during a game of hide-and-go-seek but in Kentucky, it was a "moral right" to peep at least 4 times before you got to 100. :nod: So one man's values label some misdeeds as "wrongs" whereas another man's values labels those misdeeds as "rights".

In my personal value system, I would think that your peeping has been forgiven if not totally diluted. :lol:


I'm glad I don't have to live with the guilt of peeking the rest of my life. Its a burden I care not to carry.

But going to your example of the judicial system. Is it not true there is a statute of limitations on most all crimes except murder? Isn't this an example of the wrong doing being diluted?


Yes. Our value system goes back to ancient times. If you look at old Greek and Roman laws that predate the Judeo-Christian concept of values, there was always a dilution of guilt over time except in the most heinous offenses.


This is true. We even dilute the punishments, often with reduced sentences "for good behavior".
This discussion prompts me to think of one of the best letter authors in history; St. Paul. A man who persecuted a great number people with a particular belief system. A long history of causing great suffering and even death. Yet, his contributions to society continue to positively impact people today.
What is the moral exchange rate? All men are flawed. That is no rationalization. It is a fact. One act does not define the man. We begin to understand the man based upon his behaviors, particularly, his habitual behaviors. This reveals his true nature; his character.
Callmefence summed it up quite well I'd say.
Ownership of ones actions is a delicate matter in today's climate of "never ending supply of easily offended" folks. Causing harm to someone intellectually, emotionally vs. physically or financially. Our laws tend to pertain to the physical nature of people and things. If you offend someone emotionally or intellectually, does one take ownership of that and attempt to make it right? Could be a full time job for some people (myself included i suspect)
1 x
We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are. -Anais Nin
Happy people build their inner world; unhappy people blame their outer world. -Dalai Lama

User avatar
JMJ Farms
GURU
GURU
Posts: 3522
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:51 pm
Location: Middle Georgia

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby JMJ Farms » Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:54 pm

bball wrote:
Bright Raven wrote:
Jogeephus wrote:
I'm glad I don't have to live with the guilt of peeking the rest of my life. Its a burden I care not to carry.

But going to your example of the judicial system. Is it not true there is a statute of limitations on most all crimes except murder? Isn't this an example of the wrong doing being diluted?


Yes. Our value system goes back to ancient times. If you look at old Greek and Roman laws that predate the Judeo-Christian concept of values, there was always a dilution of guilt over time except in the most heinous offenses.


This is true. We even dilute the punishments, often with reduced sentences "for good behavior".
This discussion prompts me to think of one of the best letter authors in history; St. Paul. A man who persecuted a great number people with a particular belief system. A long history of causing great suffering and even death. Yet, his contributions to society continue to positively impact people today.
What is the moral exchange rate? All men are flawed. That is no rationalization. It is a fact. One act does not define the man. We begin to understand the man based upon his behaviors, particularly, his habitual behaviors. This reveals his true nature; his character.
Callmefence summed it up quite well I'd say.
Ownership of ones actions is a delicate matter in today's climate of "never ending supply of easily offended" folks. Causing harm to someone intellectually, emotionally vs. physically or financially. Our laws tend to pertain to the physical nature of people and things. If you offend someone emotionally or intellectually, does one take ownership of that and attempt to make it right? Could be a full time job for some people (myself included i suspect)


Come on in there Brad! Late to the party but everyone will remember when you walked in the door. Excellent post. If that doesn’t make everyone who reads it stop and think, then they need to reread it bc they missed one part or another the first time. Seriously though, that should invoke some serious self analysis for each of us. No matter how “good” any of us are, there is, and always will be, room for improvement. I’ve enjoyed this thread. I hope it doesn’t go the way of the buffalo like so many do. So far so good.
0 x
“Watch your top knot” - Will Geer as Bear Claw in Jeremiah Johnson

User avatar
greybeard
Mentor
Mentor
Posts: 16864
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:51 pm
Location: Cleveland Tx

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby greybeard » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:02 pm

I can totally agree with that. And if that were the case I would think alarms would have gone up at the time and the wronged or the parent of the wrong would be seeking justice. The old legal maxim that states, "justice delayed is justice denied". I think most will agree with this and I have trouble understanding why anyone would want to delay their own justice if they were actually wronged.


Look at the world thru it's eyes, not thru yours (or mine).
There are lots of reasons people don't pursue justice at the time an offense happened, and tho they may not appear 'reasonable' to you (or me) ya have to consider where they were in their own timeline. There is, such a thing as tossing the baby out with the bathwater especially if the person that did the offense held power over the victim.

https://www.thenation.com/article/nearl ... lt-reform/
0 x
"For evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing" Burke

It ain't easy being a used cow salesman.

Covet Not!

Dave
GURU
GURU
Posts: 6830
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:35 pm
Location: Baker County, Oregon

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby Dave » Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:40 pm

Son of Butch wrote:Bible law: 2 witnesses to convict.
Modern Example: dna is a witness, so victim plus dna = 2 witnesses

False witness: A false witness is to receive the punishment of the crime of which they accused.
Murder by lying in wait (premeditated murder) = death sentence
(The murderer is to be sent publicly and swiftly to God for judgement and these things will cease from among you)


Eye witness accounts are not always good. A month or so ago I was doing some work alongside the road here. A deputy stopped and talked for 10 minutes or so. We had a nice chat and then he went on his way. A week or so later a friend called. I had told him about the deputy stopping. The friend and the deputy who is his friend were having a discussion about eye witness reports. Seems the deputy missed to part about me having a beard and was arguing that I was clean shaven.
0 x

User avatar
Son of Butch
GURU
GURU
Posts: 5131
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:44 pm
Location: Frost Bite Falls, Minnesota

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby Son of Butch » Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:54 pm

Having a beard is not a crime. :)
0 x

ddd75
GURU
GURU
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:47 am
Location: KY

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby ddd75 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:17 am

sstterry wrote:I will not even attempt to enter this fray. I have realized that with all the accusations and responses, there are very few on this Board that have an open mind. Whether it be from upbringing or education, it will always be " By Goodness" I am right and no facts or truths matter." I am not always right, but I like to think that I am man enough to acknowledge when I am not!



Always throw that 'education' into the mix..

Maybe you missed the part on how wealth creation is tied to intelligence..
0 x

User avatar
sstterry
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:04 am
Location: Bulls Gap, TN

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby sstterry » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:47 am

ddd75 wrote:
sstterry wrote:I will not even attempt to enter this fray. I have realized that with all the accusations and responses, there are very few on this Board that have an open mind. Whether it be from upbringing or education, it will always be " By Goodness" I am right and no facts or truths matter." I am not always right, but I like to think that I am man enough to acknowledge when I am not!



Always throw that 'education' into the mix..

Maybe you missed the part on how wealth creation is tied to intelligence..

That was not meant to be the "amount of education" that one has, but the type of education. We all tend to believe what we want to believe and our basic upbringing plays a major role in how our attitudes are formed.
3 x

Dave
GURU
GURU
Posts: 6830
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:35 pm
Location: Baker County, Oregon

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby Dave » Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:55 am

Son of Butch wrote:Having a beard is not a crime. :)


No, but a cop who is supposed to be trained to notice and remember details doesn't notice the beard? Just how reliable are eye witnesses?
0 x

User avatar
Son of Butch
GURU
GURU
Posts: 5131
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:44 pm
Location: Frost Bite Falls, Minnesota

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby Son of Butch » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:50 am

sstterry wrote:there are very few on this Board that have an open mind.

I believe it has to do with age.
When I was first taught about communism by a teacher in jr high, I thought it sounded great.
But as my understanding grew I realized how completely wrong it is and that even the best intentions can send people
down the wrong path.

With age comes experience which forms thought and strengthens opinions and beliefs as to how to best live your life.
Some might call it a concentrated or narrow focus on what to accept or reject while others would call it close minded.
But with age it happens to all in varying degrees.

p.s.
Isn't it pretty close minded to say others aren't open minded?
;-)

.
3 x

User avatar
Bright Raven
GURU
GURU
Posts: 7283
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:57 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: New Endangered Species

Postby Bright Raven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:20 pm

Son of Butch wrote:
sstterry wrote:there are very few on this Board that have an open mind.

I believe it has to do with age.
When I was first taught about communism by a teacher in jr high, I thought it sounded great.
But as my understanding grew I realized how completely wrong it is and that even the best intentions can send people
down the wrong path.

With age comes experience which forms thought and strengthens opinions and beliefs as to how to best live your life.
Some might call it a concentrated or narrow focus on what to accept or reject while others would call it close minded.
But with age it happens to all in varying degrees.

p.s.
Isn't it pretty close minded to say others aren't open minded?
;-)

.


Age is an EXCUSE. There are Users here who are still wet behind the ears who are closed minded. QUALIFICATION: They have every right to be closed minded as far as I am concerned.

Just making the point. Age has nothing to do with it.

To define closed minded might help. I think what sstterry is saying is that there are a few Users who exhibit very little capacity to even discuss values or views outside their own.
3 x
"Looking for an honest man".
Diogenes.


Return to “Coffee Shop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: herofan and 12 guests