re: New Orleans native named top leader at ICE, deepening Louisiana's ties to the agency

quote:

---

The bottom line is that I can acknowledge that the people responsible for administering justice in this country are human and can be (and frequently are) influenced by a myriad of circumstances and factors that often distort "justice."

---

There is no "bottom line" there are a mess of false claims (Human Dignity being compromised by legal punishment, Catholic Doctrine, Aquinas, Casey Anthony's legal funding etc...)
When confronted you have failed to in every way take acknowledgement of your misinformation. Is that justice? You are advocating for justice openly using falsehoods, that's ridiculous

quote:

---

Your position is that the thousands of people who administer justice are objective and the government gets things right except in extremely rare occasions.

---

Which I have backed up with data, we convict over a million people a year, you seem to work with a few people on parole who give you a good minstrel show as you demand. Those people are not fundamentally honest with you, especially if you have a position of power that can negatively impact them.

Do you really think any of those people are going to honest with someone from the government? Do you imagine that they trust you? That these anecdotes are not intended to paint the picture they believe will benefit them the most?

quote:

---

And you cite Casey Anthony's volunteer attorney (not public defender) as evidence that our system is not broken.

---

Uh you brought her up, I corrected your wildly false claim about her legal team funding.

quote:

---

If an attractive white woman was able to obtain a pro bono private legal expert

---

Wow... that's racist. You don't even care that she probably was a child killer, or that she was poor, it's about race.

quote:

---

every impoverished minority will surely also be that lucky, proving that our system is in fact objectively just for everyone.

---

There are not attractive minorities? I mean I guess not to you, but there are plenty of good attorneys who are minorities...
Like Casey Anthony's Lawyer!

quote:

---

And I will also acknowledge your many unnecessary and inflammatory attempts to psychoanalyze and fabricate all kinds of narratives about me my personal life and history to prove your point about our system being just.

---

It all boils down to a nice way to say why are you lying so openly and unashamedly.
It's almost as if my confronting you about your privilege is exactly how a critical theorist would approach a rich white person who talks down to poor minorities, "I pay my maid more than you make", or "Heaven forbid you be exposed to a viewpoint that didn’t come from some comic book."
Again, I'm not shocked that I appreciate critical theory more than you do, did you read it with a "I have to read it" view? I read it with a "why do these people think this way, what is their underlying logic"

For someone who says everyone is biased, you sure cannot admit when you are biased. For someone who rants about how others should admit they are privileged due to skin color or beauty, you cannot admit how privileged you are with unearned wealth (which is a real privilege).

Some people would take it that maybeee they need to do a little more thought and checking when they post things.

but...

quote:

---

Heaven forbid you be exposed to a viewpoint that didn’t come from some random stranger’s Twitter feed.

---

Because if I do expose you to something new, you are going to convince yourself that you must hold onto your world view at all cost and tell me to...

quote:

---

You can honestly go kick rocks at this point.

---

You really need to think about why you act like this.

I haven't called you names, I haven't declared hate to you, I haven't accused you of terrible moral actions, I haven't said you aren't a nice person in person.

I've just confronted your falsehoods and inconsistencies.

quote:

---

The bottom line is that

---

You continue to refuse to simply admit you are wrong about things that are so easy to verify.

Your refusal to admit you are wrong about things that are settled and proven facts makes it that much harder to take any of your views on things that are open to interpretation seriously.

Just admit you are wrong.

quote:

---

Refuses to admit when wrong.

---

There is a reason that the threads she starts are the longest. You just put your finger on it in the above. She is not worth the trouble to debate. Just make caddy responses to her and she goes away.

quote:

---

Negative?
WTF?
That you are wealthy and spend a ton of time with your PhD program?
That's negative?

---

When you invented those narratives in order to dismiss my claims outright, yes, that’s negative.

quote:

---

Clearly stated claims that are completely unsupported by anything other than "I think it should be this way because I think this is unfair"

---

Can you link or quote the post of mine that utilized that line of thinking? This is just one more example of you mischaracterizing my valid arguments. You’re reducing my argument to “I think it’s unfair,” which is convenient, but false. My claim is that unequal power, incentives, and access to resources predictably shape outcomes in the justice system.

quote:

---

That has a simple response, the vast majority of the country is satisfied with our judicial system, your position is extremely uncommon except in far left circles, it's badly stated and will convince no one except people who agree with you.
Democracy rules, unfair is your opinion, nothing more.

---

Democracy determines who governs and how laws are passed. It does not determine whether outcomes are just.

Assuming the vast majority of the country is satisfied with our system - does popularity determine what is just? Does popularity dictate morality?

You’ve now shifted from saying my argument is “completely unsupported” to saying it’s merely “far left” and therefore dismissible.

quote:

---

the only other people here are for you not me.

---

quote:

---

Hoping that you have a moment of clarity where you go oh... he's just...

---

He's just... ignoring my actual arguments unless he can mischaracterize them to have a gotcha moment (a la Casey Anthony's volunteer legal experts) and fabricating entire fictional narratives about my personal life to undermine my credibility.

I just don't understand your motivation for doing this. Maybe this is how you always "discuss" topics, but I don't remember you being this condescending and unwilling to consider alternative perspectives.

quote:

---

When you invented those narratives in order to dismiss my claims outright, yes, that’s negative.

---

Invent?
You bragged about paying your cleaning woman $40 an hour to not show up (significantly more than the average, plus you can't even make up your mind how much you pay her), you then mocked others about it.

You constantly bring up your PhD program and talk about arguing with your advisor.
Your topic according to you is "Justice" You happen to bring that up quite a bit here.

There is nothing invented here, as far as negative... I guess when you referred to Casey Anthony as

quote:

---

an attractive white woman

---

, you were being negative?
Beauty, Wealth and Education...

quote:

---

Can you link or quote the post of mine that utilized that line of thinking?

---

Not once here have you successfully defined justice, you actually agreed with me that

quote:

---

You are correct that justice collapses into mere preference without God.

---

However you then started saying things deeply untrue

quote:

---

Catholics believe that life should be cherished from life until natural death. There are no exceptions based on race, gender, hair color, achievements, aptitude, "goodness" or "badness." US law conflicts with that through its tolerance of capital punishment.

---

After the long discussion you admitted

quote:

---

You’re right about one thing: I should not have followed the theological pivot as far as I did. My claim is narrower and hasn’t changed. There is bias at every layer of the American justice system because humans, with unequal power and resources, operate it. That claim does not require rejecting law, theology, or moral standards.

---

Which now having given up any theological defense of your view of justice (noting God has the death penalty everywhere, and you agree he is perfect), your views are "mere preference".

But, knowing you will do things like claim

quote:

---

You’ve now shifted from saying my argument is “completely unsupported” to saying it’s merely “far left” and therefore dismissible.

---

When I was establishing how a discussion would have gone if you were unable to link your views of Justice to anything more than your "preference".

And knowing how you only read things as you want to read them.
I spent several posts switching sides with you
Because...

quote:

---

He's just...

---

Holding you to the same standard for bias that you would hold our Justice system in.

1. You work for the government in part of the justice system.
2. You have in your own words much privilege and quite a bias against certain people (I mean disliking Casey Anthony for her looks is like disliking Hitler for his mustache)
3. You angrily deny any accusations of bias, you snap back that you are a good person, that others are trying

quote:

---

to undermine my credibility

---

4. But somehow you think that your exact same attack on the many biases in our justice system and that these people (Who are trained, and are some of the most upstanding members of our communities, people who take their calling seriously, having studied many years to reach that level of knowledge) and all of our checks and balances, reviews and appeals, is unable to create a system that is legitimate?

See, you refuse your own argument as soon as its others accusing you of bias, not you accusing every other person in the justice system.

I've hinted about it a number of times, I'm honestly shocked that you didn't get it earlier, but you got so angry about it.

Now have some empathy and realize that my accusations about your privilege and bias are at least as valid as yours are about the rest of the justice system. People who have worked hard to uphold the law, a system that is legitimate and deserving of respect.

Don't agree with me?
You can argue with the last couple pages of yourself.