|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| i wish i could fly. i need to think more happy thoughts or something.
oh waaait, i think it's already too late, i'm an adult now. shucks. | | |
| Even though Going to Jury Duty was a bit of a waste of my time, it did eventually become a sorta muse for this entry.
During the process of selecting the panel for the case, the Judge had said something along these lines; "I apologize for your time--we will finish the selection as soon as possible so that we may move on and finally do some justice."
At the moment that he said the word "justice", my otherwise blank mind was disrupted. Justice? No way I was going to take that word seriously. "Justice" was a word used in theatrics, spoken dramatically as such--"With God as my witness, Justice shalt be served!" or "Allow me to deal some Justice to those scallywags." Justice was never, in my mind, anything more than an image of a disgruntled old man shaking his fist in the air--and here we are at this courtroom, and this thing called "justice" was uttered from this Judge. Yeah, right, Justice.
More importantly, though, that incident is what would allow me bring up the following topic--words that I can not take seriously. "Justice" is just one of these, but I'd also like to mention that "goodness", "right", "evil", and "equality" are all words that I just can't perceive as being wholesome and complete. In other words, all of the mentioned words, and many more, represent (in my opinion) arbitrary ideas that can be defined in so many different perspectives that it's impossible to settle on an universal truth. What IS Justice? What is "the quality of being just or fair"? I suppose in the eyes of the Judge, Justice is exercised by the laws and rights from which our Constitution is derived. Mostly, however, Justice falls under the pattern of "Man is accused of a crime, Man gets convicted with sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt, Man receives punishment" & "Man is accused of a crime, Man is pardoned with sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt, Man is free to go." The quintessential problems with justice are One, who are the rest of us to judge? and Two, the level of importance placed on tangible and intangible evidence.
For example, a man had to kill a group of people to save many more; however, there is no evidence to prove this motive. He is prosecuted by the Jury's and the Judge's verdict, and dealt with the death sentence. However, who are we to judge?
Or in another example, a man who has actually committed murder can be dismissed because he had carefully schemed the crime, wherein all the evidence is carefully disposed of, any motive tactfully dispelled, and all alibi cleared. He walks free as a bird.
Are either examples Justice? Yes, in the face of the United States Constitution. Not so much for the eyes of omnipotence, though (although of course in reality, we do not see everything in the eyes of the narrator).
What IS goodness, what's right, and what's evil?
What IS equality? For decades we've struggled with the meaning of equality. Even today, with the ongoing conflict in sexism and homosexual union.
It's precisely because these words can be arbitrarily used by many in justification of certain actions that Religion becomes a convenient instrument in defining them. Anytime Religion comes into play, however, things are downtrodden, grim, and sensitive. I really resent religious self-righteousness in defining heavy words, because oftentimes the thick underlying hypocrisy bleeds through; it not only enrages me, but also depresses me to an enormous extent.
Therefore, I choose not take any of these words (of an arbitrary-nature) seriously.
| | |
|
... with arresting people for owning child pornography?first of all, which part of downloading child pornography is illegal? the fact that he was downloading, or the fact that it was child pornography?
there are several discrepancies with this incident. first of all, can child pornography possess copyright issues in which downloading it would constitute "internet piracy"? my assumption would be no. since it is illegal to make, child pornography should not have the same value as regular film clips, and therefore the clips do not reserve the right to copyright.
second of all, if it's not about the "downloading" -- how is "owning" child pornography illegal? shouldn't "making" child pornography be illegal? since when did "owning a clip of something being done illegally" become "illegal"? since when did personal sexual preferences become illegal? if he's not manipulating children to have sex with him or making child pornography, what's the deal here?
i'm not condoning child pornography at all in this case. i just don't understand what he was arrested for. if it's for downloading, fine (but that still doesn't solve the issue of whether internet-circulated child pornography can be "pirated" if it's not supposed to exist in the first place). but if it's for owning child pornography, then i believe there is something rather unconstitutional here. in my opinion, by this example, anyone who downloads clips of women getting raped and people getting murdered would be arrested for owning them. i don't know, man, this may be the first small step to censorship.
| | |
|
|
