Then i realized, it is often impossible for us to be both prosecutor and judge.
Most of us cannot accuse and be open to the accused simultaneously.
Man cannot tear down walls and question why they were put up. Such is history. Such is humanity.
Printable View
Then i realized, it is often impossible for us to be both prosecutor and judge.
Most of us cannot accuse and be open to the accused simultaneously.
Man cannot tear down walls and question why they were put up. Such is history. Such is humanity.
I believe you intended for this to be posted in Senseless Banter. Or so I hope.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
:banana:
I take that as a yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
thats not necessary
the idea is if you are judging someone, the problem isn't the other person, the problem is you! your own ego.
when someone has a need to tear down a wall, there is also a wall in them, one they don't realize is there. the fundamentalist and the atheist arguing are both tearing and building up the same wall. both are showing the same egotistical trait to be right.
you can notice a problem in someone, in a completely non judgmental way. here, you separate the problem from the person. and you are no longer playing judge. and since you are able to separate a problem from the individual, you can do so with yourself. now you can see your own problems easier, when you stop needing judge others.
LOL!
This topic is so synchronus....
So true....
Fuck that. If a bunch of retards try to bring down Western society with violence and mass murder, the problem isn't my ego. The problem is THEM being deluded retards. Fuck, I hate this "anti-egoistical" talk. I LOVE selfishness, it's the pillar of an open society and the marketplace of ideas. I'd like to see you getting attacked by a group of Neo-Nazis and "separate the problem from the person". Fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Of course, hence we have defence, prosecution, judge, and sometimes jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjm121
This is actually a problem with minor offences in the lower courts with no juries. The judge will hear one side ask that a certain piece of evidence should not be allowed as evidence. Even if he agrees that it should not be allowed as evidence, he has still heard it! He then has to make a judgment without taking into account that evidence, but still having heard it!