Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?
Please advise.
Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?
Please advise.
You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.
Is that too nuanced for you?
Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?
Please advise.
Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?
Please advise.
and perhaps we should not leave out pro premptive invasions and war.
So when you compare and contrast the two, you find that a “true” liberal believes that:
* There should be zero chance of any suffering for even the most heinous criminals while they work toward the ultimate goal of having no executions.
* There should be zero consideration of any suffering for babies in the womb while they work toward the ultimate goal of having no abortion restrictions.
Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?
Please advise.
You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.
Is that too nuanced for you?
Interesting question though, which I think the innocence / guilt thing sidesteps a bit too neatly.
If the jury says someone is guilty, the law provides that they can be executed. The law also says that a woman can have an abortion. I guess as always it comes down to whether one agrees with a particular law, which generally comes back to a moralistic / religious standpoint.
Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?
Please advise.
You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.
Is that too nuanced for you?
Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?
Please advise.
You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.
Is that too nuanced for you?
I suggest you reconsider your comment PC. See: The Innocence Project - Know the Cases
Jury's don't always get it right, investigators and prosecutors don't always disclose potentially exculpatory evidence, and defense teams don't always offer the best defense.
You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.
Is that too nuanced for you?
Interesting question though, which I think the innocence / guilt thing sidesteps a bit too neatly.
If the jury says someone is guilty, the law provides that they can be executed. The law also says that a woman can have an abortion. I guess as always it comes down to whether one agrees with a particular law, which generally comes back to a moralistic / religious standpoint.
1. The period during which abortion is legal is, I believe, related to the time the foetus is viable....
So, Bob, if science pushes back the time of viability, should the law, at some point elimate the right to abortion?
2.This may be as different direction from the OP, but the punishment of the guilty is an obligation of a just society.
It is of more than passing interest to me that the death penalty for murder is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.
The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.
Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?
Please advise.
Good question, Marc.Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?
Please advise.
Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?
Please advise.
You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.
Is that too nuanced for you?
I suggest you reconsider your comment PC. See: The Innocence Project - Know the Cases
Jury's don't always get it right, investigators and prosecutors don't always disclose potentially exculpatory evidence, and defense teams don't always offer the best defense.
Well, then how about we limit the question to those proven and admitted guilty...would that be satisfactory?
Perhaps the reason some people are pro life and pro death penalty at the same time is the difference between one life never having been given a chance to succeed or fail and a life given the chance to succeed or fail but decided to fuck it all up and destroy many other lives in the process.
People are not perfect, judges, juries, prosecution and defense attorneys are not perfect - but those who put themselves in the position of being considered a suspect might not have been considered a suspect at all if they had kept their nose clean in the first place.
You silly fellow...one is innocent, the other guilty.
Is that too nuanced for you?
I suggest you reconsider your comment PC. See: The Innocence Project - Know the Cases
Jury's don't always get it right, investigators and prosecutors don't always disclose potentially exculpatory evidence, and defense teams don't always offer the best defense.
Well, then how about we limit the question to those proven and admitted guilty...would that be satisfactory?