Fighting for the ideal

[shesulsa]

Debate. It is an element of friendship, negotiation, government, management, investment; you name it, it's there. How we debate seems to determine credibility. Many of us discuss what we call "facts" and "evidence" and others argue the emotional point of idealism.

I'm no lawyer, but I did work a short-term job for some and one point they all made very clear to me (over coffee) is this: in any case, any topic for debate, any trial, it is important to remember that the facts and the evidence just don't matter. What really matters is how the judge and jury feel about them and this is either a good or bad thing, depending upon how you can manipulate their feelings and spin the deed.

What does that mean? Does that mean we can toss facts and evidence out the window and engage in emotional diatribe to determine the fate of those in question of right and wrong or life and death? Shall we, instead, input evidentiary data into a computer and allow simple logic functions to determine the outcome for each criminal, each civil suit, each traffic ticket? How do we decide the fate of our nation - write some code and put an array of Crays to work on the abortion issue?

I think we can lose the forest for the trees when we examine facts too much. There comes a time when we must step back and remember our ideals, our foundings, general morality and common sense, else we fail in the grand experiment of democracy, spirituality and just plain life. It is when we lost track of the fact taht we are human beings living together that we shoot ourselves in the feet, betray our allegience and misplace our patriotism.

What say you?

 

[The Kai]

The legal system is somewhat off

OJ simpson, did not prove himseld not guilty, merely that there was a chance there might be a slim chance the evidence was flawed, remember guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt

In my divorce, the judge was a african american woman-my stoamch just sank-guess who got hammered?

the founding fathers could not have foreseen the technologic, cultural or moral chnages that would happen in the course of the last 200 years

 

[Gemini]

Debate. It is an element of friendship, negotiation, government, management, investment; you name it, it's there. How we debate seems to determine credibility. Many of us discuss what we call "facts" and "evidence" and others argue the emotional point of idealism.

I'm no lawyer, but I did work a short-term job for some and one point they all made very clear to me (over coffee) is this: in any case, any topic for debate, any trial, it is important to remember that the facts and the evidence just don't matter. What really matters is how the judge and jury feel about them and this is either a good or bad thing, depending upon how you can manipulate their feelings and spin the deed.

What does that mean? Does that mean we can toss facts and evidence out the window and engage in emotional diatribe to determine the fate of those in question of right and wrong or life and death? Shall we, instead, input evidentiary data into a computer and allow simple logic functions to determine the outcome for each criminal, each civil suit, each traffic ticket? How do we decide the fate of our nation - write some code and put an array of Crays to work on the abortion issue?

I think we can lose the forest for the trees when we examine facts too much. There comes a time when we must step back and remember our ideals, our foundings, general morality and common sense, else we fail in the grand experiment of democracy, spirituality and just plain life. It is when we lost track of the fact taht we are human beings living together that we shoot ourselves in the feet, betray our allegience and misplace our patriotism.

What say you?

I think we have done what we always do. We are capable of both and therefore build systems that require, or can accept manipulation from both. No matter how stringent something may be spun in its conception, it always seems to work itself back to that same place.

 

[shesulsa]

What I'm talking about is balance.

When we argue facts and logic, all we wind up with is a bunch of 1s and 0s that anyone can turn to anything they like, really. Evidence can always be presented and it can always be argued, denied or disproven. A mass of data.

When we argue purely emotionally, feelings, opinions, all we wind up with is blather without purpose - a cry fest or rage fest or just shapeless goo.

I think it's important to include at least both of these facets into debate to make it productive towards the ideal.

Does this make any sense to anyone else?

 

[Bigshadow]

I prefer the logical over the emotional. One of the things I see in the world is there are a small number people who have a very high capacity for compassion, so much in fact, it is at the expense of their own well-being. To me this is illogical. Especially when there are exponentially more people who have a small capacity for compassion and could care less about their fellow humans. Both of these are out of balance. Sometimes doing what is right does not feel good, but may be necessary to ensure the best of the future for everyone. On a very small level this can be telling the "truth" rather than perpetuating a lie.

In the case of courts, I think it should be without emotion. Also, beyond that the laws are flawed. However, that is all we have, so we continue to use it.

BTW... 1s and 0s are pretty finite.

 

[Gemini]

Does this make any sense to anyone else?

Absolutely. What I was saying is you really have no choice. Any discussion, argument, debate is only going to get so far out in either a logical or emotional extreme, before the other pulls it back in. Basically because the one debating is going to do use whatever tool is available to present their argument. If you and I are in a dialogue for whatever reason, and you're gaining the upper hand by tapping into other's emotions, why wouldn't I use logic to derail you. If I can't gain favor by using one method, I, as anyone, wouldn't hesitite to change the playing field.

Where you want to create light, I want to engulf in shadow. Where you present a clear image, I want to murk up the water.

 

[Bigshadow]

Where you want to create light, I want to engulf in shadow. Where you present a clear image, I want to murk up the water.

Darn... Didn't you say you were a trial lawyer? j/k

 

[Gemini]

In the case of courts, I think it should be without emotion.

You're 100% correct. Our court systems are designed to be based soley on evidence. All logic,. No emotion. Ironic that to dismiss emotion from the equasion would be so "illogical".

Also, beyond that the laws are flawed. However, that is all we have, so we continue to use it.

That is all we have, because that is what we have created. That's why I say, we have no choice. We develope systems based on our ability to manipulate them. Dialogue is no different.

 

[heretic888]

What say you?

It depends on the purpose of the debate, really. Are you trying to convince someone of your ideas? Or, are you simply debating for the sake of truth itself?

If we want to get at the truth (as conditional and finite as it may be), then we need to just work with raw facts and data. That data can be manipulated or distorted is no reason to shy away from empirical research. Rather, it gives us even more reason to investigate and research phenomena as honestly, thoroughly, and critically as possible.

At the same time, if we wish to convince others of our position --- outside of scientific journals, that is --- then we must phrase and voice ourselves in such a way so as to be receptive to their particular preconceptions, inclinations, and biases. As a general rule, most individuals are not willing to expand their conceptual bubble more than 10% at any given time, so it is important to have a message that your audience can relate to in the first place.

This dichotomy, in fact, is a fundamental principle within social psychology. The central route to persuasion is that which uses information and data to convince its audience of its claim (i.e., use raw information to sell a car); it has greater long-term staying power. The peripheral route to persuasion, by contrast, is that which appeals to the interests and favoritist inclinations of one's audience, typically through superficial mediums (i.e., use sex to sell a car); it is generally more powerful in the short-term, but lacks staying power.

But, in the long run, I'd say that the facts will win out in the end. You can only mask the truth with bias and emotionalizing for only so long.

Laterz.

 

[Phoenix44]

You're 100% correct. Our court systems are designed to be based soley on evidence. All logic,. No emotion. Ironic that to dismiss emotion from the equasion would be so "illogical".

Maybe that was the intent, but it is definitely not the reality. Perfect example: Tom DeLay demanded (and won on this point, I believe) that the judge assigned to his case be removed because he had contributed a total of $2,000 over a 5 year period to Democratic and liberal causes. So he was saying that there was no way a Democratic judge could preside over his case. What if a Republican judge presided? Is that any more "logical"?

In a divorce case, the lawyers hope that they get a "good" judge. That is, "good" for THEM. In a logical system, there should be no "good" or "bad" judges.

A know a lot of lawyers, and they're not concerned with a fair trial at all...they're concerned about winning.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Debate. It is an element of friendship, negotiation, government, management, investment; you name it, it's there. How we debate seems to determine credibility. Many of us discuss what we call "facts" and "evidence" and others argue the emotional point of idealism.

I'm no lawyer, but I did work a short-term job for some and one point they all made very clear to me (over coffee) is this: in any case, any topic for debate, any trial, it is important to remember that the facts and the evidence just don't matter. What really matters is how the judge and jury feel about them and this is either a good or bad thing, depending upon how you can manipulate their feelings and spin the deed.

What does that mean? Does that mean we can toss facts and evidence out the window and engage in emotional diatribe to determine the fate of those in question of right and wrong or life and death? Shall we, instead, input evidentiary data into a computer and allow simple logic functions to determine the outcome for each criminal, each civil suit, each traffic ticket? How do we decide the fate of our nation - write some code and put an array of Crays to work on the abortion issue?

I think we can lose the forest for the trees when we examine facts too much. There comes a time when we must step back and remember our ideals, our foundings, general morality and common sense, else we fail in the grand experiment of democracy, spirituality and just plain life. It is when we lost track of the fact taht we are human beings living together that we shoot ourselves in the feet, betray our allegience and misplace our patriotism.

What say you?

Lawyers do that because they engage in pure sophistry. What they would say if they were talking over beers, instead of coffee, is that what they are REALLY trying to do side-step the truth, and enter in to a world where the truth is whatever benefits them and their clients. Defense attorney's for example, live in the world of "What if" and "Isn't it possible". If the facts don't benefit their clients, then they pull out the fantasy world where It wasn't really their client, it was an alien clone or the police framed them, or it's all a grand conspiracy...whatever.

The point is, the pursuit of truth has very little to do with what happens in a court room.

Are you suggesting that we should ignore the pursuit of truth in the rest of the world as well and replace it with some vague emotionally driven idealism? I'm not sure i'm following what you're suggesting.