Do you have something to offer here than merely repeating the contrary of what I said? E.g. "It is very relevant. What is "ethical" in the context of civil and criminal cases is very different."
This is not evidence for your contrary stance, it's merely repeating the status quo: "For example, in criminal cases a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A lesser standard is considered unethical. In a civil case, the bar is lower--proof by a preponderance (simple majority) of the evidence."
I offer evidence for how things are treated in other parts of the law because I'm analogizing to other things that are considered ethical in our society (and have been for centuries). I can't be charged with guessing that you consider these other things unethical too.
You're playing an absolutely ridiculous game of "hide the ball" here. In your head you clearly have some specific assumptions about what is "ethical" but you're not forthcoming with those assumptions. Instead, you claim I'm being dishonest for not divining the hidden rules you've laid out in your own head.
I'm going to guess you're some sort of libertarian or possibly anarchist, playing the usual game of implicitly arguing from a non-mainstream value framework without acknowledging that to be the case, then getting upset at people for not acknowledging your unstated unconventional beliefs.
You are contradicting my point without offering an argument, which amounts to you simply repeating your view over and over in varied forms (as you just did yet again), a basic logical fallacy.
Comments
Do you have something to offer here than merely repeating the contrary of what I said? E.g. "It is very relevant. What is "ethical" in the context of civil and criminal cases is very different."
This is not evidence for your contrary stance, it's merely repeating the status quo: "For example, in criminal cases a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A lesser standard is considered unethical. In a civil case, the bar is lower--proof by a preponderance (simple majority) of the evidence."
I offer evidence for how things are treated in other parts of the law because I'm analogizing to other things that are considered ethical in our society (and have been for centuries). I can't be charged with guessing that you consider these other things unethical too.
You're playing an absolutely ridiculous game of "hide the ball" here. In your head you clearly have some specific assumptions about what is "ethical" but you're not forthcoming with those assumptions. Instead, you claim I'm being dishonest for not divining the hidden rules you've laid out in your own head.
I'm going to guess you're some sort of libertarian or possibly anarchist, playing the usual game of implicitly arguing from a non-mainstream value framework without acknowledging that to be the case, then getting upset at people for not acknowledging your unstated unconventional beliefs.
You are contradicting my point without offering an argument, which amounts to you simply repeating your view over and over in varied forms (as you just did yet again), a basic logical fallacy.