Freeper logic...

[Puzzler]

And I quote these pearls of "wisdom" from the FreeRepublic site today (re the verdict)

____________________________________________________________________


Its a mockery of justice.

Of course it is.

But you have to understand that liberals literally have a different meaning for the word "justice". I highly recommend reading A Conflict of Visions, by Thomas Sowell. He explains this point very well.

Essentially, liberals define "justice" by the outcome, not by the process. If their guy, their cause, their goals aren't victorious, then there was no "justice". The way that "justice" is brought about is entirely beside the point. It's about who wins.

Liberals will declare that "justice" was done in this case, because their cause was victorious. The symbolic victory--Cheney is who they're really after--is theirs. What ever cheating, violations of rules or blatant bias existed in the courtroom, that's "justice" by the liberal definition of the word.

Conservatives, by comparison, define "justice" by the fairness of the process. If all the rules were followed, and everyone did their jobs honestly and to the best of their abilities, then justice was probably done. At least, it's the closest imperfect people can get to it.

The correct outcome usually follows the correct application of "justice" in the process.

That's just not the way a liberal sees it.


________________________________________________________________________________

Sigh :(


-P

[Richard Steele]

1. It's called "projection", and it's one of the FReepers' biggest hobbies. nm

[helderheid]

9. You called it. n/t

[Mz Pip]

2. Oh good grief.

Nearly 10 days of careful deliberation and the freepers don't feel justice was served? They didn't get the verdict they hoped for so it's time to trash some liberals. Do they honestly believe there was not one conservative on that jury? The defense must have been really awful to allow that to happen. :eyes:

If I am ever on trial for anything I would hope to have a jury as thorough and thoughtful as this one.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[meegbear]

3. If all the rules were followed ...

and everyone did their jobs honestly and to the best of their abilities, then justice was probably done.

Yep, Clinton was found not guilty by "the fairness of the process", right? Right?

[BOSSHOG]

4. Oh Sure

I'd turn to Uncle Tom Sowell for guidance on justice. You betcha.

[librechik]

5. Why should Howell speak for what liberals believe? He is their enemy!

It's the RWers who have no clue about what justice means. That's why they let Habeas go--doesn't mean anything to them--that's why they are quiet about the Kangaroo courts for detainees. They don't understand justice.

[jobycom]

6. Geeze, he can understand the argument but not understand the flip-flop

of identities? That's exactly the argument Dems have made against Repubs for years. They only care about winning. They don't mind torturing people if the outcome proves the person tortured was a criminal. They don't mind sending people to jail on false evidence because they just know for sure the person was guilty. They whine every time a "liberal" judge throws out evidence that was collected illegally.

But somehow in this case they suddenly get that the process is important, not just the outcome? Fine, then. I agree with the idiot poster. Now, idiot poster, explain to me how in this case justice was denied during the process? Use facts, logic and law. I'll even let you use a dictionary to look up those words. I'll be waiting...

[Autonomy]

7. He's right about one thing.

Justice IS defined by the outcome, not by the process. Conservatives OTOH seek to circumvent the process in order to circumvent justice.

A contrarian process, where each side lies and spins in order to fool 12 people better than the other side fools them, is not in itself something to celebrate. That this process sometimes results in justice IS something to celebrate.

[azmouse]

8. That's funny. The Freeps didn't worry about the process

of the stolen election by which the idiot in the WH got there. All they cared about was that their chimp 'won'.

[EC]

10. Thomas Sowell - no wonder they are so skrewed up

I try reading his columns, but they are so illogical and slanted I never finish...

He comes across as angry that the Liberals stopped him from being a Supreme....he'll always be an angry man...

[Hosnon]

11. Both of those definitions of "Justice" seem immature to me.

Apparently, liberals basically define justice in reference to the ends and conservative in reference to the means.

The better definition combines both. Justice is served by being aware of the means and the ends when choosing a course of action.

[baldguy]

12. They have a skewed vision of "justice"

Getting a blowjob is a "High Crime" and an impeachable offense.

Lying to start a war & murdering 1 million people is right & honorable.

[karlrschneider]

13. Yeah, well those damned "activist juries" are at it again...

:eyes:

[Darkhawk32]

14. He's right about one thing. My target IS Cheney. n/t

[ComerPerro]

15. So I am sure that this freeper feels that OJ Simpson is completely innocent

and that justice was served in the criminal trial, right?

[distantearlywarning]

16. Interesting.

I have observed exactly the opposite - conservatives, especially the RW nutty religious variety, are MUCH more likely to be interested in the kind of "justice" that results from an outcome they like (even if someone had to cheat, steal, or lie to get there) than with the kind of justice that comes from a fair procedure, regardless of whether the outcome matches what they really want or not.

I have seen liberals be interested in outcome justice also, but not nearly to the kind of scale that a lot of conservatives are.

What's really funny here is that the poster in question is angry precisely BECAUSE the court didn't return the verdict he wanted. He's not angry because he thinks something was unfair in the courtroom, or that the procedure wasn't followed, nor does he offer any examples of how this might have been some kind of kangaroo court. No, he's just angry because Libby was found guilty - he's essentially saying that because the outcome wasn't what he thought it should have been, injustice has been served. Which is an example of being interested in outcome at the expense of procedure (i.e., he's a hypocrite and is so ignorant he doesn't even realize it).

This kind of thing just makes me shake my head sometimes. These people are unbelievable.