Where's your ETHICS, kiddies?

a reply to: namelesss

That's a very interesting thought exercise.


-- If a burglar broke into a home and found ten kids tied up in the basement, then reported it to the police, should the homeowner be charged?

After all, the discovery of the crime was made during another crime.

Can crimes cancel each other out?


Interesting concept.

a reply to: 200Plus

Legally, the whole thing would be fruit of a poisoned tree.

Morally the homeowner should be taken from their residence and put in a deep hole for this entire eternity, or turned into mulch to feed some vegetables somewhere, so that their existence has at least one positive outcome.

a reply to: TrueBrit


As a father, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the fertilizer option.

(ethics go out the window in certain situations I believe. Crimes so heinous demand retribution, not punishment)

My point was, as I'm sure you're aware, evidence discovered during a crime can/will/should be used as evidence.


Mild brain damage doesn't allow me to get the words out as eloquently as I would like.

a reply to: namelesss

So you demand ethics from us and none from those you want to lead.

a reply to: 200Plus

I know what you are getting at.

I just think that with the wrong lawyer in the room, the fact that such evidence as exists was discovered by a criminal act, might result in a disagreeable outcome.

WOW! talk about ethics... Impressive move by a hollywood liberal!

Go susan!

a reply to: namelesss

By your own rationale, EVERYTHING, and I do mean everything we read on the internet, listen to on the radio, read in a book, or watch on tv new is HEARSAY. Unless you have 1st hand knowledge and were there at the time of the event you are taking somebody elses word and interpretation of the events for granted. So get off your ethics soapbox.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: namelesss

By your own rationale, EVERYTHING, and I do mean everything we read on the internet, listen to on the radio, read in a book, or watch on tv new is HEARSAY.

Not only by 'my rationale', please feel free to look up any dictionary definition of 'hearsay'.

Unless you have 1st hand knowledge and were there at the time of the event you are taking somebody elses word and interpretation of the events for granted.

One only takes the words of others for granted as evidence and inspiration to run off and go DO something (usually TO someone else), when one hasn't the intellect to understand that it's all hearsay on the media.
Trump whines about something, and his mindless despicables go off to intimidate voters and burn churches...
Just because someone said so.
That sounds like insanity, to me.
If someone, and I don't care who your idol is, yells that the sky is falling, I'm seeking corroborative REAL evidence before barricading myself in the cellar!
The rest of you have been eating each other in your cellars for three months already.
And the sky never fell, afterward.
And look at the carnage that you 'believers' went off and did! *__-
Can you understand the metaphor?

Having 'ethics' means that you don't just go running off to commit horrors, just because your 'idol' says to!
Ethics are inner guides, guided by Love and intellect.
It appears that few there are, anymore, that have 'ethics', much less even know what it is!

So get off your ethics soapbox.

Why does the subject of 'ethics' bother you so?
You could have just moved right past this thread.
But you felt the need to defend yourself, and bid me begone.
(Rhetorical questions, btw)

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: namelesss

That's a very interesting thought exercise.

-- If a burglar broke into a home and found ten kids tied up in the basement, then reported it to the police, should the homeowner be charged?
After all, the discovery of the crime was made during another crime.

Can crimes cancel each other out?

Interesting concept.

An eyewitness report is sufficient for a warrant and investigation.
Depending on the results, the homeowner will be charged, if warranted.
I imagine that the burglar didn't waltz into the station, declaring his burglarhood as a foundation for his presence and witnessing!
If he did, they would both be arrested!

Wait, are you being facetious?

originally posted by: tetra50
hey nameless: I'll offer this: a lot of us are perhaps waiting for official arrests and legal charges.

I wouldn't hold my breath.
Do you think that Trump will do time for his crimes and misdemeanors?
It is the rare politician that is so careless and 'secure' that he ends in the slammer!
Prediction;
After this is finished, there will be no arrests, no charges.
Drink the champagne now! *__-

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: namelesss

i burried my ethics in a lead lined flask - it made life simpler

I guess that (and I realize 'facetious' when I see it) 'simplicity' is more valuable to some, then the Love (which remains unknown/un-experienced), which is the foundation of Ethics.

originally posted by: namelesss
A simple question;
If innuendo and illegally attained 'evidence' (ex; wikileaks) is inadmissible in a court of law, why do you all accept it so readily?
Have you no ethics?
You condemn on evidence tainted, and obviously biased.
Is it all about emotion and validation of our biases?
All 'pathology'?
Is there no ethics left?
A jury won't be allowed to even hear, much less to take tainted, illegal 'evidence' into account.
It is assumed that they have no ethics, and they are protected.
Not so us.
How many of you are ready to hang Hillary (for example) on such illegal and unethical (immoral?), 'leakage'?
Or Trump on the mere assertions of his narci$$istic sexual deviancy sans legal proof/evidence?

Probably because at at he end of the day what most people really care about is truth.

Truth is, or should be, the basis for our ethics.

And most of us aren't lawyers...

Hope this helps.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: namelesss

But it wasn't illegally obtained by the FBI. It was made public by a 3rd party.

If the FBI had hacked the email that would have been illegal.

What nonsensical quibbling!
It was illegal the moment it was offered!
Tainted evidence!
I was not faulting the FBI (though that would be easy to do), I am 'faulting' all you who took the tainted 'evidence' and are acting on it.
Rather like insider trading...

Your thread is baseless and uninformed.

Then I'll have a beer and watch your felucca recede down deNile..
Sure seems to be a lot of interest for such a useless thread, though.
Bye...

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: namelesss

Ok...
The act of removing that data and sharing it with the press, was illegal.

Fact: It was NOT unethical for him to do so.

Don't waste your time screaming about 'facts', I know better!
Just because you say so does not make it a 'fact' to anyone but you!
And I am not discussing Snowden's 'ethics', or lack thereof (perhaps you might re-read my OP?)!
For YOU to read stolen private email, and act on it, is unethical.
It might be good strategy, good politics, but politicians have no record of being hampered by any sort of ethics.
Hell, it's even immoral!

Conclusion: That which is illegal is not always unethical.

It is not illegal for you to read all the stolen emails (you HAVE read them, right?).
It is unethical.
Would YOU want other unethical people to read YOUR stolen emails?

Ethics is that "we do not do to others what we don't want done to us!"
Real simple...

When a persons ability to make an informed choice, depends on factors of which they are unaware, those who have the ability to give them the information they need to make good choices, have an obligation to ensure that such information as is required is distributed as broadly as possible, REGARDLESS of what the law says, precisely because the laws pertaining to that action are written to prevent or dissuade the ethical person from acting.

You're just dissembling and making excuses.
Ethics is that "we do not do to others what we don't want done to us!"
Real simple...

And now we are finding that some of the 'stolen evidence', all one sided, by the way, as if that, in itself, is not sufficient for an intelligent person to ignore it for lack of credibility, is FORGED!
Go figure...
Lay with dogs, wake with fleas...

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: namelesss

No, the 'problem' is that the 'evidence' is illegally obtained, and therefore an Honest person wouldn't pay them any attention in the first place.

wow...interesting.

An honest person would be interested in the TRUTH.

An Honest person would be an 'ethical' person, unwilling to 'sell his soul', give up his ethic, for anything parading as 'The Truth'!
With no Honesty and ethics, that conundrum never arises.

originally posted by: Snippythehorse
a reply to: namelesss
The evidence that was illegally obtained, merely led to investigations which found legal evidence....which invites a grand jury ....simple

But that's not what I'm talking about.
Simple.

And no judge or jury would brook a 'legal investigation' on illegally obtained evidence!
Thrown out of court!
But, that is not the topic.

a reply to: namelesss

I would sell my body for the truth. In a world of lies...nothing else matters.

The problem is...nobody is willing buy this body.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: namelesss

I want Clinton prosecuted on the evidence that the FBI has legally obtained.

2nd

That is not the topic.
That's up to the prosecutors and the judicial system, who have vastly more info than you.
By the way, I 'hear' that you are ready to hang her, how much of the 'legal evidence' have you actually examined?
How many 'emails', even, have YOU already read and examined?
How much of your rush to judgment is just biased kneejerk reaction?
We gonna lock up Trump, also, for his crimes and misdemeanors, or is your Republikkkan hardon just for Hillary?
My guess?
None.
I hear mob mentality.
But that isn't the topic, either.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: namelesss

I want the truth and since the people we elect are professional liars

"We"?
I don't think so.
I do not vote for liars with no ethics, liars with no ethics vote for liars with no ethics!

we need to get it by any means available.

That you only claim to want the 'truth' about Hillary and not Donald belies your claim to want 'truth'.
What you seem to really want is 'justification'!
Like your politicians.

I'm hearing that all you 'Republikkkans' lack the Honesty and ethics that your (and all) politicians also lack!
So far the only responses to my post has been obvious Repubs. making excuses for their lack of ethics.
'Information', at any and all cost, sounds a bit like the Inquisition, a bit like the government and the Republikkkan penchant for torture!
A bit like it lacks any semblance of Ethics!

If I were YOU I would be more concerned with the nature of the evidence than where it was obtained.

The 'nature' of the 'evidence' is dishonest, illegal, unethical, one sided, touted by unethical people and obviously has no credit for/to an Honest person!

The entire deck is stacked against "We the People" and I am glad we have some means of taking down the corrupt a-holes that think they own us.

I hear your frustration and anger.
I suspect that much of the anger has been 'programmed' into you.
Manipulated.
How many of Trump's speeches have you watched? *__-

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: namelesss

Ah, I've proven you wrong and you would like me to leave your discussion. Fair enough. I'll let someone else take over.

Dude, you are hallucinating.
Whatever...
Bye