Originally posted by inimalistNeural differentiation > perception. 313
lol. An aside about the educational credentials stuffI don't think a whole lot of emphasis should be put on how many degrees people have and in what. Some of the smartest people I know barely made it out of high school. The most well read person I know makes bongs for a living.
Also for a measure of intellectual honesty, I am only a neuroscientist in the most technical of ways. I do work as a research assistant to one of my profs in a perception lab at my university, and thus am a practicing neuroscientist. However, in reality I am just a 2nd year honors psych student.
Has Yip-Yap the Starsquawk ever really responded when asked what actual year of his illustrious decade long law degree, amidst all his appeal to authority bullshit?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Neural differentiation > perception. 313
Neurodegeneration > perception. 131Has Yip-Yap the Starsquawk ever really responded when asked what actual year of his illustrious decade long law degree, amidst all his appeal to authority bullshit?
Cut out the insult names, WD has already told you guys.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Neural differentiation > perception. 313
Neurodegeneration > perception. 131Has Yip-Yap the Starsquawk ever really responded when asked what actual year of his illustrious decade long law degree, amidst all his appeal to authority bullshit?
haha, ya, the biology of the brain is stupidly amazing and fascinating. My eventual specialty is going to be more cognitive, so perception is closer to that then the more heavily bio stuff.
I don't think he has mentioned his year, or what his first degree was in prior to law school. Not to sound overly rude, but we can probably assume he hasn't gotten to the point where they teach people how to make a case for something.
Originally posted by inimalist
haha, ya, the biology of the brain is stupidly amazing and fascinating. My eventual specialty is going to be more cognitive, so perception is closer to that then the more heavily bio stuff.I don't think he has mentioned his year, or what his first degree was in prior to law school. Not to sound overly rude, but we can probably assume he hasn't gotten to the point where they teach people how to make a case for something.
3rd year and a bachelors degree in Ancient History. And these people are not the ones I need to convince, they are too emotionally charged against it. Even the people in my class who are anti-death penalty are less fanatic then these guys. The ones I need to convince are politicians and the supreme court and I'm not worried about that.
But nice to see your getting into the petty insult game, I just it eventually spreads to everyone like a virus.
Originally posted by Starhawk
3rd year and a bachelors degree in Ancient History. And these people are not the ones I need to convince, they are too emotionally charged against it. Even the people in my class who are anti-death penalty are less fanatic then these guys. The ones I need to convince are politicians and the supreme court and I'm not worried about that.But nice to see your getting into the petty insult game, I just it eventually spreads to everyone like a virus.
There is a point where it isn't an insult anymore
You have failed to provide one single reference/author/philosopher/theory/moral reason for your point.
I know you are going to say "I've been over it". But that kinda is related to the point I'm making, its hardly a convincing argument to say that you have said something before that we just pick up on. Again, not to elude to something more rude than I am trying to say, but put up or shut up.
Originally posted by StarhawkThis is my thought, if you were not concerned in trying to convince us then why were you concerned about using legal terms that “we” wouldn’t understand? Yes you were trying to convince us of your view, you say that you don’t need public support but in fact you do, without it any politician is not going to throw a vote your way if the majority of the public doesn’t agree, at least in a democratic society.
3rd year and a bachelors degree in Ancient History. And these people are not the ones I need to convince, they are too emotionally charged against it. Even the people in my class who are anti-death penalty are less fanatic then these guys. The ones I need to convince are politicians and the supreme court and I'm not worried about that.But nice to see your getting into the petty insult game, I just it eventually spreads to everyone like a virus.
As far as being fanatical I haven’t seen anyone here except you that is, most of us have issue with your mentality and the reasons that you give for it. As I have said I don’t have problem with the death sentence, there are many that I feel deserver it but I have a problem with the current system of law and trying to impose it.
There are 3 types of lawyers in this world, those that research, debate/trial and teach and you can’t even do any of them. The researchers know all the facts and can quote case laws from memory and you have shown none of that. The other is debating and trial in presenting the law to the public or in court and you have failed and presenting your argument and any rational manner. The other is teaching and you have failed at that as well.
Originally posted by StarhawkYou have said many times before that you have extensively studied this topic so why would you need to prepare your statement? Do you really think you would have time to “research” the question that a judge asked you, you should have this information in the forefront.
LOL yup. "Patience is a virtue", "Good things come to those who wait." Take your pick, but I will gather my case together and PM it to you.
Originally posted by ThePittman
This is my thought, if you were not concerned in trying to convince us then why were you concerned about using legal terms that “we” wouldn’t understand? Yes you were trying to convince us of your view, you say that you don’t need public support but in fact you do, without it any politician is not going to throw a vote your way if the majority of the public doesn’t agree, at least in a democratic society.As far as being fanatical I haven’t seen anyone here except you that is, most of us have issue with your mentality and the reasons that you give for it. As I have said I don’t have problem with the death sentence, there are many that I feel deserver it but I have a problem with the current system of law and trying to impose it.
There are 3 types of lawyers in this world, those that research, debate/trial and teach and you can’t even do any of them. The researchers know all the facts and can quote case laws from memory and you have shown none of that. The other is debating and trial in presenting the law to the public or in court and you have failed and presenting your argument and any rational manner. The other is teaching and you have failed at that as well.
LOL you've never seen how an election is run have you? A pro-choice candidate would never walk into a room of pro-lifers and try to convince them to change their minds. Same here, I intend to win this by making an argument that appeals to pro-death penalty judges and mustering enough political support to deal with the anti-death penalty lobby. It might not end up being a clean win, but I will take it however I can get it.
Originally posted by inimalist
please doFrom what I've seen it seems like you are somewhat Hobbsian on this view, right?
He's not my favorite philosopher, but I do agree with many of Hobbes' theories on the nature of man, not the least of which is the fact that people only do the right thing when it's already in their best interest to do so.
Originally posted by Starhawk
He's not my favorite philosopher, but I do agree with many of Hobbes' theories on the nature of man, not the least of which is the fact that people only do the right thing when it's already in their best interest to do so.
ya
as someone in the field of human behaviour, I have a lot of issue with any "philosopher" who claims to understand how people work. Anything before the 1970s is limited, even early psychology.
I think the biggest problem that I have seen with your argument is the assumption that it is correct and best. The fact you would be willing to undermine the system of government to achieve your end reveals a pretty strong moralistic statist streak in you. I find those ideas to be insulting to humanity in general, especially in light of the fact that we are one of the few societies in human history where people are able to access the government.
Originally posted by StarhawkWhat the hell does that supposed to mean? Why would you need to convince someone that is already for the death penalty? You don’t have enough votes so you need to convince the ones that are not and you would fail miserably. Yes I know how an election is run and I was voting while you were still in grade school or the equivalent in Canada.
LOL you've never seen how an election is run have you? A pro-choice candidate would never walk into a room of pro-lifers and try to convince them to change their minds. Same here, I intend to win this by making an argument that appeals to pro-death penalty judges and mustering enough political support to deal with the anti-death penalty lobby. It might not end up being a clean win, but I will take it however I can get it.
Originally posted by ThePittman
What the hell does that supposed to mean? Why would you need to convince someone that is already for the death penalty? You don’t have enough votes so you need to convince the ones that are not and you would fail miserably. Yes I know how an election is run and I was voting while you were still in grade school or the equivalent in Canada.
I don't need to convince them, I need to make an argument they can stand by. And no, I don't need to convince the anti-death penalty crowd, just enough political support to pacify them.
Inimalist gets what I mean, and on that note, sometimes the people need a little hand holding to get them down the right path.