6033970
So now I'm not allowed to say anything about a finished court case at all if I'm not planning on starting some sort of organized social movement. Brilliantly reasoned.

6033980 I think we should solve problems systematically. Court cases are a good example of that. Apparently, they are not sufficient. Do you think we need another entity besides a court that would determine guilt? Do you believe yourself to be that entity?

6033984
Imagine this conversation was being had after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery in 1857.
Now to wait for people to make objections about it not being the same thing, continuing to show that they have absolutely no self-awareness.

6030718
I don't think prayer is working too well.

6034835 It wasn't opinionated regular people who then abolish the slavery. The decision was made systematically with already existing entities.

If we kept talking about the same things over and over again without the means to reach any kind of resolution, humanity wouldn't get anywhere.

Besides, can you really blame us for putting some trust into the courts, which were established precisely for handling the problems like the one presented in OP?

6034835

Now to wait for people to make objections about it not being the same thing

Actually I'll object by saying there's a lot more common sense today than there was then, a lot more things better understood and generally accepted. Things change, and as such so do decisions. I could also just bring up the whole Supreme Court ruling for same-sex marriage that was a lot more recent (like a lot a lot more recent) but I think that'd just be a bit of a cheapshot and would turn into a match of "who can find the most supreme court rulings that side with what I have to say" and that'd be no fun.

continuing to show that they have absolutely no self-awareness.

Well shit there goes any chance I (or anyone) was gonna actually enjoy debating with you. "Now watch as people probably argue about what I think they'll probably argue about, demonstrating that they're actually retarded and I'm not because I said so."
:V

6034911

If we kept talking about the same things over and over again without the means to reach any kind of resolution, humanity wouldn't get anywhere.

Again, you insist that I can't say anything if my goal isn't part of some plan to change humanity. Your comments here certainly aren't doing anything like that; why not criticize yourself for failing to say something that changes the world? I never made any claim that I was trying to do such a thing; that's all you.

Besides, can you really blame us for putting some trust into the courts, which were established precisely for handling the problems like the one presented in OP?

“Put some trust in the courts” and “it was a court, so you can't disagree with it” are very different positions. I'm fine with the first one; you're pedaling the second one.

6034914
You demonstrated exactly what I expected: Complete unawareness of what my point actually was, manifesting in objecting that they aren't exactly the same situation. Since I'm feeling charitable, I'll break it down for you:
Argument: If a court comes to a ruling, then we must accept it without question. (“The bottom line is, the court found the doctors to be innocent.”)
Refutation: I can point to court rulings that you (‘you’ being any particular person in the conversation) would agree we should not accept without question. (In this case, an 1857 ruling in favor of slavery by the highest court in the country.)
This is called a proof by counterexample. Bad Dragon made an argument, I showed the argument to be flawed. This is how rational thought works. Your comment focused on things that were irrelevant to the logical construction under scrutiny.

6034923 Is your goal in this thread merely to throw a tantrum and vent? If that's the case, you win. Nopony can stop you from having an opinion. Then again, you also aren't likely to change the viewpoint of anypony.

6034927

Is your goal in this thread merely to throw a tantrum and vent?

Is your goal in this thread merely to throw a tantrum and vent? If no, then consider that your reason for replying to me might be similar to my reason for commenting. If yes, then at least you're logically consistent.

6034923

manifesting in objecting that they aren't exactly the same situation.

I didn't really say that though. I was just objecting in a different way - the way you saw. I never claimed the court was perfect. I mean it's staffed by people that are exactly like us, so none of it is ever going to be perfect. It could be staffed by AI and it still wouldn't be perfect. Does that clear my point up a bit? I was just saying that, from the time that the court rules for slavery to now, a lot has changed. I wasn't really even proving by counterargument, I was just making a separate claim altogether. Chill.

6035412
No, it doesn't really clear up your point. Your reply to my comment was voiced as an objection to something I said; you even said “I'll object”. To then double back and say that you're “making a separate claim altogether” only indicates that you don't know what objecting means. If you aren't addressing anything I've said, then why are you replying to me?

6030718

The world is full of idiots. If you do not believe mw, just check your email and see all of the idiots committing wordcrimes and meetooing like braindead aolers or check out YouTube and see all of the videos made in portrait-orientation. We should stop mollycoddling them and make them responsible for their actions. She made her bed and she has to die in it.

6258812

If you do not believe me...

All the proof I need is the fact you just replied to a five month-old thread :^)
hue