Justinian I
"I meant to say that of the set of all political organizations with any relevance in Washington that receive public funding, at least 95% of them are corrupt."

I didn't realized Planned Parenthood was primarily a political organization.

You haven't given any examples of other organizations which are escaping prosecution, you just repeatedly insist they exist and this is 100% political. I don't misunderstand your reasoning; you choose not to respond to mine. I'm arguing that there should be more prosecutions of every organization which evidence convicts on the facts. You're arguing that nobody should be prosecuted because it might not be fair because some organizations get away with it.

You claim this is a failure to understand your reasoning. You'd state your point more succinctly if this was the case. Instead, we get vague references to "types of justice" as if anybody but you is talking about something other than the law. Instead, we get "prosecution is hypocrisy" as if you're proposing an alternative to the  US criminal justice system which we're all talking about.

Since you're neither proposing an alternative nor discussing proper action by the system (which you broadly condemn, so it's incapable of any proper action), we have nothing else to discuss with you. What of your "reasoning" doesn't anyone understand? You haven't proposed an alternative system. We're discussing what should be done in the system; you're vaguely saying this system is 100% wrong no matter what it does in this case. They're different discussions. You have no input on this case beyond complete condemnation of the system, and we're only talking about this case. What's hard to understand? We're talking about different things.

Wait.... Wait Wait Wait Wait

Omg

Wow

*catches breath*

I think we all missed something here.

Justinian said he has faith. He is not applying a scientific rule, he is not quantifying with evidence. He said he has faith. No empirical data, no historical comparisons, and no scientific validations.

This, my fellow posters, is a significant event on IC on par with my voting for Democrats only, Zarf trolling only, xeno listening to all counter arguements and fully acknowledging any damages they do to his theories, and Chris Balsz running for a Government position.

One of the most common posters, one with a dogma as strong as there can be... has... converted!

He also seems to be relying on some idea of morality. The word "shouldn't" ambushed his vocabulary in post #11 without a practical explanation of why not, other than perhaps his sense of right and wrong!

No no no NO!

You do not get a pass here!

You have always measured twice, cut once. You are always on about empirical evidence!

I can provide evidence that many Democrat Politicians are corrupt, and back it up. I can also provide evidence that they are by far more corrupt than what can be identified in the Republican Party.

But for the first time ever... you used the word faith.

I am calling you out on this!

Yes... actually, that is an important admission. 

"I think Zarf just proved you weren't even bothering to comprehend what I stated."

No. Taking you at your word that you're just having faith, we have established that we have nothing to discuss. I was clear about this in my last post. If you're not going to read my posts, then I'm just going to make fun of you like this. Don't act like Xeno. Are you retarded? Legit question. Are you retarded? Because I cannot think of a reason to post such juvenile nonsense.

I understand your vague condemnations of 100% of the system and everything it has ever done. We're discussing that system. We obviously understand your position and obviously have nothing more to discuss with you on it. What part of that is hard for you to grasp? This is a really stupid point to get stuck on repeatedly.

"So I quite agree with you. If you aren't going to bother understanding my position, then we have nothing further to discuss."

Your position is that the system is 100% corrupt and it can do absolutely nothing right. You have failed to provide a solution or alternative, though I have asked you several times.

"I think transparency could be improved enough to make those corrupt sleazeballs have an incentive to at least be adequately accountable."

While you've here started to actually provide alternatives which can be discussed, I'm V.Kemp and discussed means rubbished. So let's do this.

We already know who they're prosecuting and what evidence they produce at trial. That the people and the media are too lazy and apathetic to hold local leaders and attorney-generals accountable is on us. They already give us all the relevant information on what they're doing. That we don't care whether they do an honest job is on us. Obviously the dishonest ones aren't going to hold themselves accountable.

You're vaguely blaming the system for its people's failing. When there's levels of corrupt bureaucracy in justice departments, the solution is not to add more bureaucracy to oversee operations. The solution is for the people to care and hold them accountable. Nothing can substitute for this. The people not giving a damn, being bribed with their own tax money, and repeatedly electing trash into office isn't the fault of any justice system lacking "transparency."

"Whether or not you agree with me that the law is being selectively applied in the case of Planned Parenthood, do you agree that transparency is an effective way to expose corruption and can be greatly improved upon?"

You seem be to asking for somebody to hold your hand. We already know who they're prosecuting and on what charges with what evidence. If there are others who should be prosecuted, it's the people's (the media's) task to expose such hypocrisy and demand (with their votes) accountability and justice.

Unless you want everyone and every organization investigated 100% of the time, it's the task of the media to point out shortcomings of and hypocrisy of justice departments and the people's task to vote in change.

You vaguely call for "transparency." What do you mean by this? What do you want to know that you do not have access to now? We already know who they prosecute, why, and on what evidence.

They obviously can't share evidence they collect and do not prosecute on. They'd ruin it for future use and cause harm to innocent people and organizations.

So what are you asking for? It's not any district attorney's job to investigate everyone and explain why he didn't prosecute particular people/organizations. If you allege real crimes being ignored, you need to back it up with real facts and examples. Your "I take it on faith" basis for your position again hinders discussion. You want transparency, but you don't describe what information you seek and you provide 0 examples of where it'd be/have been useful.

"But more importantly, I was shocked anyone would demand evidence that most politicians and the individuals and organizations associated with them are scum."

The point made earlier was that prosecutions rely on evidence. While I agree there's a ton of corruption in the US (everywhere, really), acknowledging this fact is not a solution. Just prosecutions require evidence. In the absence of evidence, we're just vaguely whining and making generalizations which don't point to real solutions. Seems a little childish.

People do and should demand evidence that a politician and the people/organizations associated with them are scum before prosecuting them. And that's the point that was made to you earlier. The poster wasn't saying they needed evidence to support your position, but that evidence is needed to prosecute. Posting that you have faith they're all (19/20) dirty (let's be honest, they probably are) is a far cry from having evidence to prosecute. You clearly did not comprehend what they stated.