Painful.I concede.For Daniel - if it is legal - it is ethical. Since the actions I mentioned that I felt were CLEARLY unethical - his response was that they were legal, and no one was punished - so 'no harm - no foul.'Of course - when the USSR decided to 'collectivize' farms in the Ukraine - the kulaks resisting were starved out. Over 7 million died - but it wasn't illegal - in fact - it was legal government action. By Daniel's standards ...legal is ethical. Nothing wrong then.What Nazi Germany did- was legal. By my standard - not ethical....but I guess by Daniel's standards - it is ethical. Nothing wrong.I mentioned that Andrew Weissman fabricated new law out of pieces here and there - and he destroyed a company - 20,000 US American jobs lost. For Daniel - it was legal because he wasn't sanctioned. "No harm/No foul" - because the Supreme Court reversed the decision - and even though tens of thousands lost jobs, savings, retirement funds, etc.....that is ethical per Daniel's standards.Justice [ "a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people" synonyms: fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, equitableness, even-handedness, egalitarianism, impartiality, impartialness, lack of bias ] What Daniel worships is not justice - but a 'legal system' - and if the legal system does not offer justice- that is okay with him. Only if Daniel worked for Arthur Anderson Accounting and lost HIS job and lost HIS retirement might he then express dismay and claim that the government over-reached and did not act 'ethically'. Many times in the past, Daniel has taken a position that 'rights are not inherent' - there are no 'inalienable rights' - and therefore morality must be subjective. I am seeing the fruits of this now. In his responses - I must show that a person was subject to criminal proceedings and found guilty - and that proves unethical behavior. By his standards - he has as much suggested that Hillary did nothing criminal -because she was given a pass by a corrupt DoJ. People who believe in integrity, ethics, morality - would see the evidence against Hillary and see lots of unethical behavior - but not Daniel.I concede the debate to Daniel - since by his definition - ethics and integrity don't matter - just a legal system. AND - if the legal system is run by people who (according to MY values) act 'unethical' - I must back down and apologize for judging them...and accept them as 'fair and just'. Isiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!I see that in Daniel....good is evil and evil is good -for he has no moral basis and no standards of integrity or ethics.
@mvineyard No, you contended that the Mueller team was unethical, which you could prove if you showed that their previous actions had gone outside of the accepted standards of the legal system. But if they had operated according to their legal requirements (which they did) then there is nothing unethical about how they have behaved. Your criticism is not against the actors. Your criticism is against the system. You can't go calling lawyers unethical for behaving as the legal system expects. And also the US system works about as well as any system in the world so it's a silly criticism in the first place.
@sharkb8 I stand by my statement. You believe legal is ethical...even if people are hurt. Nothing you said suggested that you think ethical requires 'justice'. You focus on legality. As I said - the extreme example is the Holodomor....7 million Ukrainians starved because they resisted Stalin's collectivization. Since it was legal - no problem - per the arguments you used. Someone loses their job (Stevens) - because of improper behavior - no problem to you. Your morality is subjective - and based more on 'laws' than justice or ethics.I realized that I might as well be talking Swahili - because you obviously don't care about terms like 'integrity', ethics and justice. No -the system DOESN'T EXPECT bad behavior - it 'tolerates it'. AND - with people like you on the sidelines cheering the results (harm tends more often to conservatives and not leftists...) - why would the system change. If Obama had been the target in the same fashion -leftists would have screamed to high heaven, demanded changes, would have held rallies in DC....and would have called those 'bad actors' racist. BUT - let bad actors go against Trump - and moral relativism says - he deserves it - and it is okay because it is legal.I realize that I won't change your mind - because you don't believe in absolutes, morality, and integrity.
@mvineyard You made a claim that the Mueller team were hacks who should have been disbarred and not allowed on the team. However, your points you made in an attempt to prove this were just the standard complaints lawyers have about their opposition. If we are to disbar every lawyer who's opposition complained about them, we'd have no lawyers.So in order to actually say that a lawyer did something that would disqualify them from further consideration, we would need to show that the attorney in question deliberately and intentionally acted in a way that was contrary to the laws they are required to operate under. You did not do show this (nor has it actually happened). Mueller and Weismann have always operated according to the laws of the US. There's nothing unethical about either of them, or about the current US laws governing these issues.None of that has even the slightest thing to do with moral absolutes. Ironically, you're actually the one who's using entirely subjective criticisms (one lawyer's complaints about their opposition) to try to make an objective conclusion.
@sharkb8 Got it. You want to keep making the point you made -and I conceded. Legal is legal and legal is ethical to you. Acting in bad faith and harming innocent people does not concern you - and therefore is not unethical. How many times to I have to repeat that and concede the point. As I said - integrity and ethics just don't mean the same to you as to me. To me - very important. To you - irrelevant - since if it is legal - not a problem, regardless of how many innocent lives are screwed up.
The issue seems to be about disagreements of fact, which the audience is left to research themselves. I'm not going to do it, because I don't find these scandals that interesting. Facts aside, Vinyard loses in my view because of his constant strawmanning of this opponents position. He is claiming that Con is committing an appeal to the law fallacy, when he never does so. As I realized after I attempted to debate Vineyard, this should have been a timed debate. Vineyard just likes to hear himself talk. "okay, here is the problem with your first point...yadda yadda...""What about this or that??" Then wastes time restating what he already said earlier."I was getting to it. The problem there is ...yadda yadda...""What about this or that???" Restates what he already said.In the end, it takes con the entire debate to be able to summarize his first rebuttal because Pro keeps interrupting him to restate the same crap he already said before Con has a chance to get to it. Old fool just likes to hear himself talk. He should just start his own vodcast, instead of pretending to have debates with people. Then he can talk the entire video and I can not bother to watch it.
(28 minutes) total rudeness and acting like a child from Vinyard. I'd vote con a second time at this point if I could.