Stone Chapter 13: Facts - 19 views

• 
  #1 nsamuelian on 19 Nov 11

   

  1- Stone explains in her chapter that "moral ideas and social conventions about behavior and language give us some standards for judging names as more or less close to the truth." Would you say this applies to everyone? Why or why not?
  
  2- Stone claims that we find it difficult to "draw the line between two things- say beating and unnecessary force (in the Rodney King example)- does not mean there are no significant differences between the two or that we should abandon trying to make decisions." Going back to our talks about con artists, is this a form of conning? How can politicians use this form of persuasion and is it effective?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">1- Stone explains in her chapter that "moral ideas and social conventions about behavior and language give us some standards for judging names as more or less close to the truth." Would you say this applies to everyone? Why or why not? <br /> <br /> 2- Stone claims that we find it difficult to "draw the line between two things- say beating and unnecessary force (in the Rodney King example)- does not mean there are no significant differences between the two or that we should abandon trying to make decisions." Going back to our talks about con artists, is this a form of conning? How can politicians use this form of persuasion and is it effective?</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #2 magen sanders on 19 Nov 11

   

  i dont think we shoudl abandon trying to make decision sometimes government, politicians and the polis need to act and make a choice in order to get anything done or make things better however these choices are not black and white there is some truth and some untruth about almost everything whether it be policy or a candidates position or campaigne nothing is hard cut and honest but that doesnt mean we cannot make the best educated decisions just like sstudents do when taking a test. you make an educated guess, not saying we should guess what to do but we shouldnt give up all together. people or politicians however may in a sense "con" people to believe their side or their opinion is truth. to make things black and white in a grey world takes some manipulation and conning

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">i dont think we shoudl abandon trying to make decision sometimes government, politicians and the polis need to act and make a choice in order to get anything done or make things better however these choices are not black and white there is some truth and some untruth about almost everything whether it be policy or a candidates position or campaigne nothing is hard cut and honest but that doesnt mean we cannot make the best educated decisions just like sstudents do when taking a test. you make an educated guess, not saying we should guess what to do but we shouldnt give up all together. people or politicians however may in a sense "con" people to believe their side or their opinion is truth. to make things black and white in a grey world takes some manipulation and conning</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #3 Felecia Russell on 20 Nov 11

   

  Well,finding it hard to define between two things does not mean we should stop making decisions. By making the distinction between the two can be better for the polis. For instance, the Rodney King example was obviously unecessary force(even though Stone suggest otherwise, claiming posecutors had to use slow motion and freeze frames to argue unecessary force) and if the courts did not spend the time defning between the two, then it would happen more than usual. We cannot abandon making decisions because they bring order to society. Like Stone suggest, it is often hard to draw bright lines between social phenomena, especiall bright lines about moral and value differences, but it does not mean we should abandon rying to make distinctions. Politicians can use this form of persuasion because the clear lines will be hard to define completely and they can leave it undisputed and say that they will come back to that issue and try to solve it!

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Well,finding it hard to define between two things does not mean we should stop making decisions. By making the distinction between the two can be better for the polis. For instance, the Rodney King example was obviously unecessary force(even though Stone suggest otherwise, claiming posecutors had to use slow motion and freeze frames to argue unecessary force) and if the courts did not spend the time defning between the two, then it would happen more than usual. We cannot abandon making decisions because they bring order to society. Like Stone suggest, it is often hard to draw bright lines between social phenomena, especiall bright lines about moral and value differences, but it does not mean we should abandon rying to make distinctions. Politicians can use this form of persuasion because the clear lines will be hard to define completely and they can leave it undisputed and say that they will come back to that issue and try to solve it!</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #4 Jonathan Omokawa on 21 Nov 11

   

  I think that 1) we do need to make decisions and 2) they are not black and white. In many cases I think people worry about making the wrong decision especially in court cases where finding precedence is key. If they view Rodney King as necessary force, then where is line drawn for unnecessary force. Many times, prosecutors have to find the balance between two words that may mean different things to different people.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I think that 1) we do need to make decisions and 2) they are not black and white. In many cases I think people worry about making the wrong decision especially in court cases where finding precedence is key. If they view Rodney King as necessary force, then where is line drawn for unnecessary force. Many times, prosecutors have to find the balance between two words that may mean different things to different people.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #5 Eric Henderson on 21 Nov 11

   

  for question 2, I do not think that there is a decisive dividing line between everything. In many and most cases, there is a lot of gray area, like that in the Rodney King case. As a society, we need to outline the gray area in a way that works better in the court system than just how the jury views the force that the police officers used. Unfortunately though, it is not that easy to just unanimously define a gray area because the people deciding on this issue will most definitely not have the same views, therefore creating a disagreement. The true challenge in society on this issue is compromising to create a definition of a gray area.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">for question 2, I do not think that there is a decisive dividing line between everything. In many and most cases, there is a lot of gray area, like that in the Rodney King case. As a society, we need to outline the gray area in a way that works better in the court system than just how the jury views the force that the police officers used. Unfortunately though, it is not that easy to just unanimously define a gray area because the people deciding on this issue will most definitely not have the same views, therefore creating a disagreement. The true challenge in society on this issue is compromising to create a definition of a gray area.</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top