Originally Posted by Oswald Bastable
So now it's bad to admit I was wrong?
No wonder so many people here end up in arguments, I didn't realize that once I was shown to be mistaken I should continue to argue that I was right all along.
Either way I think it's still wrong to run. If what he did was right then he has little to fear. We have juries.
And we have the 21st Century version of der Fuhrer...what's to fear?
Yes, the wisdom of Solomon is indeed weak in this one...
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
Obama doesn't get to sit in jury boxes.
I ain't perfect...Yes, the wisdom of Solomon is indeed weak in this one...
Just closer to it than some people.
And farther from it than others
(That wasn't a personal dig toward anyone in particular, just to be clear)
That you aren't clear, is to be expected.
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
Eh, I don't normally get complaints about that. But I will try harder to be clear.
Riddle me this...
Would you have been able to say..."split the baby in two"?
Be honest...none of your namby, pamby gray area wishy, washy sophistry...
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
Sorry, I can't give you a simple yes or no answer, and it appears you don't want me to answer any other way. Kinda seems like you don't want an answer.
But, so as not to appear glib, I'll answer the best I can and you can take it as you wish.
I think I would do what Solomon did, which was to order the baby split in two with no actual intention of doing it.
Solomon made the choice of not making a choice, that's something I am a big proponent of. I think that's actually why I rub so many the wrong way here. A lot of people have this...I'm not sure what to call it "strength of conviction" or "Emotional response"...could be either, where they chose a side and stick with it in the face of nearly any evidence.
Personally, I like to flip back and forth, consider all sides, sometimes come to a conclusion, sometimes not.
People don't seem to realize that *most* of the time there is no real reason to pick a side.
Like the Zimmerman trial....I'm not on the jury, I'm not talking to anyone on the jury, none of those people are my family, so why not explore both sides?
Now, obviously you can't do this with everything. There are things one needs to chose a side on, but in actuality those are few and far between.
I understand that some people can be annoyed by this, but that really isn't my problem. I'm happy to discuss pretty much whatever, and hear whatever point of view, and argue for or against it either way.
Don't mistake this for having no convictions, and certainly don't mistake it for having no morals. There are things I feel strongly about, mostly revolving around not harming other people, but there are hundreds of little things that are of no consequence.
I do believe pretty strongly in our legal system, actions have consequences. Sometimes that consequence is only that one must endure the trial and be found not guilty. I think a lot of people would have voted not guilty, he had a good chance...until he ran. And him obviously not caring to where he runs, aside from it not being a place that will extradite doesn't sit well with me.
It was a fairly simple question.
Your response, unequivocally states you're incapable of any thought process even resembling that of the wisest man (well...bar one, if you're Messianic) who ever walked on the planet...
Why am I not surprised?
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
To a person who doesn't examine things maybe.
It's not a question like "Are you tired?"
Solomon chose the way he did knowing he would have to make a choice without having the correct facts.Your response, unequivocally states you're incapable of any thought process even resembling that of the wisest man who ever walked on the planet...
He essentially chose not to decide. He did it in the hopes that events would then play out in a way to ease the decision and make the facts evident.
Nothing I can do or say in this case will effect the outcome, so this is just conversation.
Actually, this part of the conversation would be better suited to the Zimmerman threads where I have less of an opinion. Here I actually do have one, I don't like when people try to evade the law.
In the end of course Solomon got punked by his bitch so maybe he wasn't so wise
I'm guessing it's mostly a case of seeing what you want to seeWhy am I not surprised?
I'm not 100% sure of this, but if he's going to be tried as a spy, I would guess that would be held in a Federal/military court, not a regular court. If this is the case, I don't blame him for running. There's no way he would get a fair shake in any Fed/military court in the land.
As far as his running to an "unfriendly" country, he didn't really have much choice in the matter; all the "friendly" countries would bow to US pressure and extradite him back here.
I don't know all the particulars in the case, but I really doubt the Fed/military courts would look on him as a "hero."
Obamination had promised an open and transparent government. He's had 5 years to do that. So far, I have yet to see this from his administration.
Snowden showed him to be lying. Obamination can't stand to be shown up for what he is.
Obamination is a vindictive person and would never let Snowden get a fair trial no matter what court he was tried in.
I don't know if he's a hero or a traitor, and I really don't care, but I can see why he went where he went. To me, that's not a sign of guilt, but rather common sense.
"Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris."
Commucrats are most efficient at converting sins and crimes to accidents or misunderstandings.-Oswald Bastable
Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.
Freedom isn't free.
"Attitude is the paintbrush that colors our world." TV Series, Haven.
My Spirit Animal has rabies.
I'd rather be an American than a Democrat.
"If you can make a man afraid, you can control him" Netflix Series, The Irregulars
Unbefuckingbelievable...To a person who doesn't examine things maybe.
It's not a question like "Are you tired?"
Solomon chose the way he did knowing he would have to make a choice without having the correct facts.
He essentially chose not to decide. He did it in the hopes that events would then play out in a way to ease the decision and make the facts evident.
Nothing I can do or say in this case will effect the outcome, so this is just conversation.
Actually, this part of the conversation would be better suited to the Zimmerman threads where I have less of an opinion. Here I actually do have one, I don't like when people try to evade the law.
In the end of course Solomon got punked by his bitch so maybe he wasn't so wise
I'm guessing it's mostly a case of seeing what you want to see
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
Ok, well, that is a good point.
Traditionally it's still been in regular criminal court, but now after the Patriot act and whatnot, I think that is a reasonable fear.
It could be mitigated, he could probably pretty easily make a deal where if he comes back any trial would be a jury trial.
I think there are some in the "middle ground category". Hong Kong probably makes more sense in that light. And Russia nowadays isn't the same as cold war Russia, but still, I think he could have chosen better.As far as his running to an "unfriendly" country, he didn't really have much choice in the matter; all the "friendly" countries would bow to US pressure and extradite him back here.
Even Canada won't extradite on a potentially capital case.
Try harder.
LOL
while a government sniper sets on a roof top across the way waiting for the moment to put a bullet between his eyes...... no he's not going to be safe in america right now.. he made a smart choice
Last edited by silentkilla; 07-04-2013 at 02:52 PM.
only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you..1 jesus christ..2 the american soldier.. one died for your soul the other for your freedom ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Frankly I think if the government wanted him dead that badly they would have no problem, might ever prefer, doing it on foreign soil.
You're the one who needs to try harder.
Solomon didn't make that call because he was indecisive. He made that call because he knew it would expose the fake and reveal the true mother. Contrary to your post, he took a very decisive action that enabled him to gain the information he needed to ultimately make the right call.
I've heard this tale from a lot of different sources and no one ever has portrayed Solomon's ruse as him being indecisive. He was never once presented as "too scared to make a choice". Are you kidding me?
This is King #$%*@&! Solomon we're talking about. Thousands of wives, more money than God, built the "Temple of Solomon", conjured and captured 72 deamons (the royalty of hell) and bent their power to his will, wiser than that old turtle in The Never Ending Story, KING #$%&*@!# SOLOMON and he wouldn't even blink at dropping the hammer on some "he said she said" dispute among the peasentry.
In fact, that's exactly what he did. Boldy cut to the heart of the issue and delivered justice like a BAWSS.
The way you tel it, it sounds like he squirmed around on the throne for a while, let out an exasperated whine and flipantly ordered an atrocity because he just didn't want to deal.
That is so far from the point of the parabel it's not even funny. I mean, the works may be interpreted in any way you want, but your take is so totally alien that it contradicts not only the story in question, but pretty much every other King Solomon legend as well. Meaning, "that ain't cannon".
Last edited by Dr. Gonzo GED; 07-04-2013 at 09:04 PM.
No shit Sherlock, that's what I said.
He didn't want to have to make the choice between the two women, because he knew he didn't have the right facts.
It wasn't decisive, decisive would have been if he had cut the baby in half and handed them each a chunk. Or picking the right mother right away.
He chose not to decide on one woman or the other, and set up the situation where he might learn the truth
de·ci·sive adjective \di-ˈsī-siv\
Definition of DECISIVE
1 : having the power or quality of deciding <a decisive battle>
2 : resolute, determined <a decisive manner>
3 : unmistakable, unquestionable <a decisive superiority>
#2 would seem to apply here, suggests nothing of "cut the baby in half and handed them each a chunk". More of a resolute decision that would "cut to the heart of the matter and resolve it".
You know...like definition #2.
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
I hear you, but the point was he couldn't decide between the two women so he found a different way. One where he wouldn't have to decide between the two with imperfect information.
By the way, do you know the true moral of the story? It only took me a minute when it was first told to me by Mrs. Levin, the Rabbi's wife, in Sunday school.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks