"Human Rights" --European Court

[worm]

You said "A justice system is not above justice, it is bound to it."

[worm]

"A notion of righting wrong is not above a notion of righting wrong, it is bound to a notion of righting wrong."

Edited February 8, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

A system of righting wrong is not above what is right and wrong as it is bound to it.

Or in other words, meaningless drivel

corrected for you.

[eFestivals]

My whole point was that you're using justice synonymously with a justice system when it isn't the case, and yet here you are continuing to do so.

I'm not, that's merely what you think I'm saying, cos for once you've swallowed the real dictionary rather than your made-up one.

All of the convo about "justice" in the way it's been used thru-out this thread is in relation to the justice system. For someone to now talk about their personal idea of justice they'd have to stipulate they were talking on that personal basis.

[worm]

All of the convo about "justice" in the way it's been used thru-out this thread is in relation to the justice system.

[worm]

corrected for you.

[worm]

I'm not.

[eFestivals]

You are.

You can't see the difference between the outcome of a system of justice and justice.

One is a personal view, and the other is not (necessarily).

But when someone talks of justice it's meaningless twaddle just as it is when someone talks about what is 'fair' - it's a personal opinion, and different in everyone. It only starts to have meaning once you start to define what justice means to you by giving specifics - something you've done none of. There is no such thing as justice, there is only a personal opinion of what you believe is justice in a certain case.

[worm]

One is a personal view, and the other is not (necessarily).

[gratedenini]

f**k me! I only been out for some sausages and a bit of ice-cream (tuesday is ice-cream day) and I`ve been well and truly spangled and wormed..with a topping of diddly-dee and a squirt of monkeys blood (tonto).

I told you Spangles-- I`m a soft sensitive type and you upset me so with your totally untrue accusation that I wish for "them" to be sent back to be killed.

Maybe I write like I speak and just say what I feel...and for that--you could say I was guilty...but the likes of you Spangles--are conversely guilty of being quite the opposite.

Your words by comparison are saying that it seems ok to do such horrible things.

I`m consistent in that, going back to the fire extinguisher lad..I also think that was a bad deed and he deserved nick.

I maybe do listen to these things and base my opinion on what i hear at the time...but thats what I`m posting isn`t it?

I`m not "adding" to it...apart from my opinion. I do care though.

If I was in the pub with you--afaic..it would come down to this simple thing....

"But Spangle.. you just cannot tell me that its right. I dont f**kin care what happens to him if he gets sent back. He didnt go through the proper system..he`s commited all those crimes...its not right he should stay here. Now I`m off for a piss.. dont touch that vodka right! I`ve heard about you!"

I know its turned out into this one issue.. but its really a wider thing I was meaning by my opening post.

Me sausages were quite sparkling btw.

den

[worm]

Maybe I write like I speak and just say what I feel.

[worm]

I'm reminded of a quote by Miles Davis, in response to John Coltrane's unbelievably long solos, and Miles' advice to John to a query of how to end a solo... Mile said "you just take the horn out of your mouth"

[eFestivals]

Rubbish!

One is an ideal of righteousness, whereas the other is a system trying to administer that ideal of righteousness.

f**k me, are there no dots you can't join up?

Yes, it's a system trying to administer an ideal (not "that ideal" ) of righteousness, and the ideal of righteousness that it tries to administer is not an individual's personal view but (supposedly, in a democracy) the common view of a society.

Justice means righting wrong, as I've said numerous times. So they aren't talking meaningless twaddle at all, they're talking about the ideal of righting wrong. Therefore, they clearly believe that something or someone has been wronged and that it hasn't been righted. That isn't meaningless at all, it means justice.

"Righteousness", like "justice" or "ethics" or "fair" is an empty word. It means nothing at all in any reality until such time as specifics are given to the idea of "righteousness", "justice" or "ethics" or "fair" a person is talking about. If someone speaks about "wanting justice" they might as well be saying they want a drink of water until they explain what they exactly mean by justice, as in how justice is administered in their personal view.

As for the idea of "righting wrong", it's an impossibility. Unless you're able to tell me how a murder victim is brought back from the dead?

What there isn't is a system of administering justice because there is no definitive sense of right and wrong.

I await the logical following words to this, that lawyers should get other jobs, as should judges, and the courts and prisons should just pack up and go home.

Edited February 9, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

Yes, it's a system trying to administer an ideal (not "that ideal" ) of righteousness, and the ideal of righteousness that it tries to administer is not an individual's personal view but (supposedly, in a democracy) the common view of a society.

[eFestivals]

If they say that they want justice it means that they desire that a wrong be righted. If they say that they are ethical it means that they have decided to act in relation to their conscience. If they speak of fairness then they refer to the desire to find a mutually beneficial outcome in relation to proceedings.

This is what they mean and you're spouting retarded rubbish.

Oh really? Then please do tell me what exactly is meant by "righting a wrong", or by "they have decided to act in relation to their conscience" or by "the desire to find a mutually beneficial outcome in relation to proceedings" - they are all completely meaningless without specifics. They are just meaningless noises.

So you believe that justice is an impossibility.

No, what some people like to think of as justice is an impossibility.

I'm vaguely aware of the case that den mentioned in his starting post. As far as that father is concerned, the only justice would be for him to have his daughter back - something which is impossible.

So he has no workable idea of justice, he has a completely misplaced idea of what justice is or can be. All of his upset about not having received 'justice' stems from his misplaced idea of what can be justice.

I simply want you to admit that there is a difference between justice (the ideal of righting wrong) and a system of justice (how a society or individual has decided to right a wrong).

I can't work out what is more stupid of you - you thinking that I don't get this, or you asking this question because you think I don't.

I also want you to see that the ideal of justice is as real as a court room building and ultimately that you were wrong to say that justice is nothing but the outcome of a judicial process.

care to show me how justice can be achieved outside of a moderated process?

You might say "by a person taking things into their own hands and making their own justice", but unless a consideration is made of how the other side of that action feels about it and is acted upon, it's not justice it's merely revenge.

[worm]

Oh really? Then please do tell me what exactly is meant by "righting a wrong", or by "they have decided to act in relation to their conscience" or by "the desire to find a mutually beneficial outcome in relation to proceedings" - they are all completely meaningless without specifics. They are just meaningless noises.

Edited February 9, 2011 by worm

[worm]

is that possible?

to right a wrong....

[eFestivals]

No Neil. They are ideals without which you couldn't have specifics. Watch....

A brown (specific) car (ideal).

A stupid (specific) idea (ideal).

A system (specific) of justice (ideal).

You are referring to a system of justice, not justice. The system of justice requires a specific, the ideal of justice does not.

They are ideals which are empty meaningless noises without specifics.

Who doesn't want justice? Who doesn't want an ethical world? Who doesn't want things to be fair? No one. They are ideals we all share, and because there is no difference from those ideals - remember, you're the man who says that difference is where we get meaning - they cease to have meaning.

They need specifics to have meaning.

Let me get this this completely wrong

corrected for you.

....Justice is the ideal of righting wrong, which you say is an impossibility as a system of justice because people can't agree on which one is right, or indeed, what is right and wrong.

No, it's an impossibility to fulfil some people's ideas of what is justice. Because they have irrational and impossible ideas of what is justice, their ideas should be ignored.

We can only work from the possible to achieve the possible.

All very well and good, but it doesn't take away from the fact that a system of justice is not the only definition of justice, as you so incorrectly said. As I keep saying, if it was, we wouldn't be able to call the outcome of a system of justice into question.

It's only able to be called into question via the specifics - which is why a non-specific mention of justice is meaningless.

[worm]

Who doesn't want justice? Who doesn't want an ethical world? Who doesn't want things to be fair? No one.

[eFestivals]

But according to you Neil, these are empty and meaningless words as you haven't been specific. Yet I still understand what you're saying as I understand what they mean.

You understand the concepts, you don't understand what I'm meaning thru just those concepts.

Of course they aren't empty and meaningless without specifics, as proven by you using them meaningfully in a sentence.

You know I'm referring to the concept of justice, you do not know what I mean by justice. That requires specifics.

And justice is not justice because it is a specific type.

yes it is.

You cannot say what is justice to you without reference to specifics. 'right' and 'wrong' can mean an infinite number of things (sometimes totally conflicting with your ideas of those things), and need specifics to have meaning in the real world.

If i say "I'm going to ensure justice", the whole world cheers. When I specify exactly what I mean by that it doesn't, because the world now REALLY understands what I mean with those words. Without the specifics it's not possible to have an understanding of what I mean - and so they are ultimately meaningless (but nice sounding) words.

You mean system of justice. Justice always means righting wrong.

which means nothing without reference to the 'wrong' and how it might be 'righted'.

Without reference to the specifics it's words that we all buy into. When given those specifics it's something that we do not all buy into.

No, you mean they have irrational and impossible ideas of how to right a wrong (to systematically apply justice).

justice only exists thru the application of justice.

No it isn't, it reveals to someone that they believe that a wrong must be righted.

but without the specifics it means nothing - it is impossible to understand what is meant by those words. What the speaker means by right or wrong is absolutely necessary for those words to have an applicable meaning beyond them being just nice noises.

As ever, you will not accept that there is a difference between justice and a system of justice.

oh do f**k off you very very small minded moron.

[worm]

You know I'm referring to the concept of justice, you do not know what I mean by justice. That requires specifics.

Edited February 9, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

I do know. I know that you're referring to righting wrong rather than, say, building a house.

A house is always a house (tho it might be big, small, tall, wide, green or have pink spots). It's a dwelling, a place for a person or people to live.

Yet if you know that I'm referring to "to righting wrong", then you must also know what I mean by 'right' and 'wrong' to understand what I mean - yet you don't.

Is 'right' always 'right' and 'wrong' always wrong? If my idea of 'right' is your idea of 'wrong' (and vice versa) then you don't know that I'm referring "to righting wrong" because to you I'm wronging right.

Some words are so subjective in meaning ('justice', 'fair', etc - but not 'house') that they only gain a real meaning with specifics. You cannot understand what I mean by justice without those specifics.

I know what you're referring to when you say a car, but I don't know that it's brown. That requires specifics.

The colour does not change a car from being a car.

What is my idea of right and wrong changes my idea of justice into injustice in your eyes if you have different ideas of what is right and wrong. You cannot know what a person means when they talk about justice unless they give specifics.

[eFestivals]

Anyway ... back to the actual subject (tho of course this gets to show that what is meant by 'justice' is not a universally fixed thing ) ... today the commons are voting on giving prisoners the vote, something that's come about because of the European Court.

Why are people so scared of allowing these people a say? Do they somehow think that murderers will back candidates who want murder to be legalised, and they'll be enough support from the population at large that it'll happen?

Prisoners lose their liberty as a result of their crime. They do not lose their humanity - and having a say in how the society a person lives in is a part of their human right.

[worm]

A house is always a house (tho it might be big, small, tall, wide, green or have pink spots). It's a dwelling, a place for a person or people to live.

Edited February 10, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

You mean right and wrong.

so do please tell me EXACTLY what that means, what I mean. You can't. It's undefinable by you. And so you're saying words without meaning.

Justice isn't subjective in meaning, just as the ideal of a house is not subjective. Type of justice and type of house are.

one is tangible and from that definable, the other is not without specifics.

If justice is simply the outcome of a system of justice and nothing else then how can you call into question the justice of that system?

because what is 'justice' is defined by the outcome of a justice system (even if hypothetical). There is no other way it can be meaningfully defined.

Using 'right' and 'wrong' does not work because they have the same level of absolute subjectivism to have a meaning beyond any individual to themselves. They communicate nothing meaningful because to have meaning in communication you need to know with specifics what I mean by right and wrong.

f**k me it's not difficult.