5 ms·

When a guy running for one office uses the power of his current office to smack down critics, then it gives off a bad smell. Think about this: if the AG was so

by psranga 16y ago

When a guy running for one office uses the power of his current office to smack down critics, then it gives off a bad smell. Think about this: if the AG was somebody other than Candidate Corbett, would he have started this inquisition? Highly unlikely, imho.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I'm happy not knowing. Perhaps you have already passed judgment. Let's assume that the guy responsible for enforcing laws at the state level is doing a good job. Should he refuse to prosecute people that have committed a crime against him simply because it might look bad on the internet? If so, he's not doing his job and should be fired. I think people are responding to this based on a preconceived pattern in their heads -- big guy with lots of power tries to use his power to silence critics. If that's what happened, then lets all call him out for it. He might even be breaking the law himself and deserve to go to jail. Do you have proof that this is the case? Or is this just a witch hunt? Because I haven't seen proof yet, and the default position when not seeing proof is agnosticism -- I don't know. Something wrong with not knowing? Or is this the internet, where any kind of story must be commented on by people taking on an air of expertise, no matter how flimsy the data or preliminary the information? I'm not taking you to task personally. Hell, I offered an opinion myself. But my opinion ends in "Beats me", as it should at this point in the game. My opinion was also offered in hopes of persuading people that there are usually two sides to every story. Or put another way -- I am naturally drawn to condemn this man and be outraged. Because I am naturally drawn to this response, I make very, very sure that I make a devil's advocate case and see how it sounds. Once I did this, I'm thinking there is much to be learned, and in those cases I try to default to giving people the benefit of the doubt. Isn't this just common sense? (There is another question about ethics -- if it looks bad it is bad. I'm considering that out-of-scope. My intent was to think about this in terms of legality. This was a thought experiment, after all)

by psranga 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I'm happy not knowing. Perhaps you have already passed judgment. Let's assume that the guy responsible for enforcing laws at the state level is doing a good job. Should he refuse to prosecute people that have committed a crime against him simply because it might look bad on the internet? If so, he's not doing his job and should be fired. I think people are responding to this based on a preconceived pattern in their heads -- big guy with lots of power tries to use his power to silence critics. If that's what happened, then lets all call him out for it. He might even be breaking the law himself and deserve to go to jail. Do you have proof that this is the case? Or is this just a witch hunt? Because I haven't seen proof yet, and the default position when not seeing proof is agnosticism -- I don't know. Something wrong with not knowing? Or is this the internet, where any kind of story must be commented on by people taking on an air of expertise, no matter how flimsy the data or preliminary the information? I'm not taking you to task personally. Hell, I offered an opinion myself. But my opinion ends in "Beats me", as it should at this point in the game. My opinion was also offered in hopes of persuading people that there are usually two sides to every story. Or put another way -- I am naturally drawn to condemn this man and be outraged. Because I am naturally drawn to this response, I make very, very sure that I make a devil's advocate case and see how it sounds. Once I did this, I'm thinking there is much to be learned, and in those cases I try to default to giving people the benefit of the doubt. Isn't this just common sense? (There is another question about ethics -- if it looks bad it is bad. I'm considering that out-of-scope. My intent was to think about this in terms of legality. This was a thought experiment, after all)