Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


reply to S_engineer

Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live

Facts? You mean exceptions to the GENERAL RULE. On your basis, whenever an exception exists, the forefront is no longer true. Taking your statement one step further basically means that the statistical anomalies serve as the norm. Sigh.

Second, what the hell does your example have to do with anything? Precedence is set by prior legislation and ruling. Where none exist, a trend is set when cases are heard. Ie, if none exist, the judge making his or her first ruling sets the tone. Once again, this DOES NOT mean this tone has to be followed by others. Law is an opinion, not fact. History, on the other hand is concrete.

Chicago, IL
If precedence is set by prior legislation...then that makes it law. is fact, not opinion. And while history may be concrete, history is full of people that chose, as you say, not to follow those tones. Does that make them right, No!
You seem to be picking and choosing which opinions, or laws, that you want to conform to. If everyone did that we'd have anarchy.
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone


Law IS NOT FACT. Law is opinion and changes with various rulings and time. What one society deems as law, might be modified or rejected by another. To further complicate law, what a society follows changes gradually over time. Hence, Law is something that is ever metamorphosing into new territory. Even law ruled as supreme are not without changes. So therefore, law is neither fact or concrete. It is merely an opinion that we follow until such time society deems new guidelines necessary. Therefore, your basis for reason here is pure fallacy and conjured crap.

Once again, History on the other hand is fact, though with bias. History is written by the victor, but that is true of anything. One who wins usually slants things towards making themselves look good. It does not mean that what they wrote cannot be verified, it just means its best to compare with other source,s to get a true tell tale picture.

Now back to my argument, you need to take reading 101. I never said what the guy stated was fact. I said it was MOSTLY CORRECT which stands to be accurate in terms of his analogy. While there were SOME free blacks, they were the exception to the rule.