Privatizing Aboriginal Reserves

[Cannuck]

IDo you think morality and the legal system can never be intertwined?

Not really. I think morality "can" drive politics. The political process produces laws, policies etc and the legal system deals with the fallout. Take the abortion debate for example. The morality of abortion does not and should not enter into the legal arena. That could and should be dealt with in the political arena. The only real questions that need to be answered is when does life begin and do we value human life enough to protect it.

As for cryptic rhetoric, I think the problem that you are having is that you are assuming this is a debate. I can assure you it is not. I have told CB in the past that I believe debate involves civility. Since he is not willing to do that and since the Cancon is not interested in moderating civility (or able to moderate effectively), I am not interested. I have told CB repeatedly that I am here for entertainment and to make fun of blowhards. If CB, is trying to debate, it clearly shows his limited grasp of the written word. I have given you the benefit of the doubt as I'm not sure you were aware of the situation. You are now. If you choose to follow CB to the dark side, I shall have to begin making fun of you as well.

It's a bit baser than that actually. Seems to me it's A stating a position, B stating a position, and then one stating the other is out-to-lunch which provokes a similar retort (allbeit with evidential backup) and away we go. And about every 10th post there's actually some direct mention of the topic.

You are a wise one Les.

 

[JLM]

LOL....only somebody that has no life would consider a thread on a web forum a sticky situation.I really hope that when I get to be old like you, I have more important things in my life.

Going for coffee = copout and sidetrack. Is it any wonder I find your alleged debate tactics so amusing?

Small minds are easily amused!

 

[Cannuck]

Small minds are easily amused!

Oh dear!! You sure told me!

 

[CDNBear]

Not really. I think morality "can" drive politics. The political process produces laws, policies etc and the legal system deals with the fallout.

Here comes the inevitable Jimmy shuffle, and back peddle....lol.

As for cryptic rhetoric, I think the problem that you are having is that you are assuming this is a debate. I can assure you it is not. I have told CB in the past that I believe debate involves civility. Since he is not willing to do that and since the Cancon is not interested in moderating civility (or able to moderate effectively), I am not interested. I have told CB repeatedly that I am here for entertainment and to make fun of blowhards. If CB, is trying to debate, it clearly shows his limited grasp of the written word. I have given you the benefit of the doubt as I'm not sure you were aware of the situation. You are now. If you choose to follow CB to the dark side, I shall have to begin making fun of you as well.

Cop out. The same one you use every time I make you look foolish. Which is nothing more than proof of your defeat.

I wasn't trying to debate you, I was made completely aware of your inability to do so, here. Where you employed everything you just tried to apply to me. Even though I attempted to be civil and stick to using facts. You proved to be nothing but a child, when I countered every point you put forth.

When you began to lose, you simply became insulting and childish, as you always do.

Since then, all I have ever done is just make fun of you. SLM, DaS, RCS, Gh, and a few others can attest to the fact that I have stated it in PM's time and time again, "Watch me get him going with this one", "Watch and see how he replies with [insert one of Jim's usual tactics here]". And so on.

All so we can watch you come back to this very point, each and every time...

"I'm not here to debate, CB is an idiot, I'm here for entertainment"

But for the life of me, I can not imagine how you find entertainment in engaging me, only for you to be completely made a fool of. You are either suffering from some form of dementia, or are as a I suspect, a liar, through and through. I think it's a combination of both, since your posts are littered with dishonesty, yet you still think people take you seriously.

 

[SLM]

Not really. I think morality "can" drive politics. The political process produces laws, policies etc and the legal system deals with the fallout. Take the abortion debate for example. The morality of abortion does not and should not enter into the legal arena. That could and should be dealt with in the political arena. The only real questions that need to be answered is when does life begin and do we value human life enough to protect it.

I disagree, the laws as written are intended to be a reflection of the values and mores of a society. Morals pertain to or are concerned with the principals of right and wrong. Laws codify those principals into a set of rules meant to govern conduct within a society. So morality absolutely enters the legal arena, they are inextricably linked.

 

[JLM]

I disagree, the laws as written are intended to be a reflection of the values and mores of a society. Morals pertain to or are concerned with the principals of right and wrong. Laws codify those principals into a set of rules meant to govern conduct within a society. So morality absolutely enters the legal arena, they are inextricably linked.

You got it right! :smile:

 

[Cannuck]

I disagree, the laws as written are intended to be a reflection of the values and mores of a society. Morals pertain to or are concerned with the principals of right and wrong. Laws codify those principals into a set of rules meant to govern conduct within a society. So morality absolutely enters the legal arena, they are inextricably linked.

No. The legal system does not concern itself with whether abortion is moral or immoral, whether Robert Latimer was moral or immoral. Certainly laws codify the principles but law making is the job of the politician

 

[DaSleeper]

I disagree, the laws as written are intended to be a reflection of the values and mores of a society. Morals pertain to or are concerned with the principals of right and wrong. Laws codify those principals into a set of rules meant to govern conduct within a society. So morality absolutely enters the legal arena, they are inextricably linked.

Absolutely right....some of the laws ...eg. abortion...simply exemplify how society in general and certain people in particular are becoming morally bankrupt.

 

[SLM]

No. The legal system does not concern itself with whether abortion is moral or immoral, whether Robert Latimer was moral or immoral. Certainly laws codify the principles but law making is the job of the politician

It can't be compartmentalized that way. Challenges within the court system decide on the merit of the laws and the laws themselves are a direct reflection of societies values and principles, so in deciding on the merit of the law the system does concern itself with the values those laws were written to uphold.

Politics plays a role, precedents play a role, the courts play a role, the judiciary plays a role, the laws as written play a role. Big picture, it's all interwoven. It still all reflects societies values.

 

[Cannuck]

It can't be compartmentalized that way.

I did just that and nothing you have said provides evidence to the contrary.

 

[SLM]

I did just that and nothing you have said provides evidence to the contrary.

Um, yeah. I know you did. So? My statement pertains to why I disagree with that.

 

[Cannuck]

Um, yeah. I know you did. So? My statement pertains to why I disagree with that.

Um, yeah. I know. Your statement has no basis in reality.

 

[L Gilbert]

No. The legal system does not concern itself with whether abortion is moral or immoral, whether Robert Latimer was moral or immoral. Certainly laws codify the principles but law making is the job of the politician

Sort of right. The legal system applies itself to the laws written by politicians on the basis of morality. So it is an indirect relationship. A direct relationship would be that involved in civil law.

It can't be compartmentalized that way. Challenges within the court system decide on the merit of the laws and the laws themselves are a direct reflection of societies values and principles, so in deciding on the merit of the law the system does concern itself with the values those laws were written to uphold.

Politics plays a role, precedents play a role, the courts play a role, the judiciary plays a role, the laws as written play a role. Big picture, it's all interwoven. It still all reflects societies values.

Yup.

Um, yeah. I know. Your statement has no basis in reality.

Sure it does.

 

[SLM]

The legal system applies itself to the laws written by politicians on the basis of morality.

And further, existing legislation also serves as a guideline for the drafting of future legislation. The most important ones of course being the charter and constitution. That would be the reason that some laws do not hold up to the ultimate scrutiny in a court of law. In the end, if they run contrary to the established principals, values and morals of society as established in the basic framework, then they are history. And that's a good thing because relying on politicians to set the moral pace of the nation is a frightening prospect.

 

[Cannuck]

Sort of right. The legal system applies itself to the laws written by politicians on the basis of morality.

Try and argue morality and the legal system without bringing "politician" and "lawmakers" into it. Betcha ya can't.

 

[SLM]

Try and argue morality and the legal system without bringing "politician" and "lawmakers" into it. Betcha ya can't.

That's what I said here:

It can't be compartmentalized that way. Challenges within the court system decide on the merit of the laws and the laws themselves are a direct reflection of societies values and principles, so in deciding on the merit of the law the system does concern itself with the values those laws were written to uphold.

Politics plays a role, precedents play a role, the courts play a role, the judiciary plays a role, the laws as written play a role. Big picture, it's all interwoven. It still all reflects societies values.

You said the statement had no basis in reality.

 

[L Gilbert]

And further, existing legislation also serves as a guideline for the drafting of future legislation. The most important ones of course being the charter and constitution. That would be the reason that some laws do not hold up to the ultimate scrutiny in a court of law. In the end, if they run contrary to the established principals, values and morals of society as established in the basic framework, then they are history. And that's a good thing because relying on politicians to set the moral pace of the nation is a frightening prospect.

That's for sure.

Try and argue morality and the legal system without bringing "politician" and "lawmakers" into it. Betcha ya can't.

Morality is relative. Everyone has their own version, but what counts is the morality in the entire population. And that is generally applied by lawmakers, law enforcers, and politicians. It's all connected.
Who gives a crap about your betting? I don't.

 

[Cannuck]

Who gives a crap about your betting? I don't.

Oops, looks like the discussion just got lowered to junior high school level. What's next, I know you are but what am I?

 

[gerryh]

I know you are but what am I?

There ya have it folks...... cannuck at his finest.

 

[Cannuck]

There ya have it folks...... cannuck at his finest.

I just knew once the discussion was brought down to the junior high level, Gerry would join in. Welcome aboard.