Moderator: Club Operations
DC:
Objection!
DC:
DA is attempting to bypass the trial and go straight to the punishment. L-man, chill with the trigger finger. He must be found guilty first.
DA:
The accused party (TBK) being guilty of violating the 1st, 4th, 9th Amendment of the IPC Constitution
DC:
We must do our best to uphold the principles under which IPC was founded by its Founding Fathers…aka Ahreeman. I do not believe that it was his intent to limit the freedom of the existence of those such as TBK.
DA:
Objection you Honor. Speculating on behalf of someone else.
DA:
If rules and laws are meant to be "ideals" that society should strive for then we would be living in a lawless society. Dear members of the jury, why do we have laws in our society? Why do we for example deem rape to be illegal and something that should be punished? We have laws to uphold the rule of law and we enforce the law in order to deter people from breaking it and for punishing those who break it. Breaking the law jeopardizes the peaceful society, which we seek to live in. If we were to allow people to roam around free doing as they wish and "advising" them to "follow ideals" there would be utter chaos! Some individuals might not want to strive for any ideals such as the accused party in this trial. If a rapist was advised to follow an ideal, but knowing that if he didn't there would be no repercussions, do you members of the jury think that would deter him from carrying out his crime? No it wouldn't; it would in fact encourage him and other criminals to increase their illegal activities. The very same can be applied to spammers and those who seek to disrupt freedom of speech.
DA:
With that having been stated defense council has chosen to interprete the "Nothing here is sacred!" sentence within Amendment 5 very literally. Members of the jury, can we not conclude what is reasonable and what is not. If we take the "Nothing here is sacred!" sentence literally then rape, murder, spamming etc would all be allowed would it not?
DA:
Since it's the interpretation of the Constitution that has been brought into question here it is imperative for IPC Office or the Founder to take to the stand and set the record straight once and for all, as it is clear the Constitution is being interpreted in different ways.
DA:
Again I beg to differ with Defense council's take on this. TBK started off with one username to spread his agenda as has been outlined by the DA. Today TBK has 3 different (known) usernames which defense refers to "a limited number". So the defense council believes that it is the right of his client to have different usernames to pursue his agenda of disrupting and sabotage?
DA:
Honorable members of the Jury, is it too much to ask TBK to have one username?
DA:
As we can infer from TBK's trackrecord these usernames will multiply and so will his agenda of sabotage on this board. The accused party needs to be held accountable for his/her/it's behaviour!
DC:
I hereby challenge the enforceability of IPC's Constitution. I claim that the Constitution can be interpreted not as a minimum standard which would require electrocution by anyone failing to reach its demands, but as an ideal for which its members ought to strive.DC:
However, if we view these Amendments as "the mission" of this club then we can be proud of this mission
DA:
Here I would like to call for an official representative of IPC Office to set clear what Amendement 1 of the IPC Constitution entails and other amendaments whose interpretation have been brought into question.
My Good Fellow Iranians,
Are We Iranians or Sheep?
From this moment, you can speak only in a civilized manner and when you are cross-examined. The only exception to above, will be that you can speak, only if you must absolutely bring something important to the attention of this court. No remarks, pranks, anime, jokes, insults or other misfits or you will be gagged!
I request that judgement be reserved on this case until I am allowed to call to the stand a key witness: Ahreeman.
I certainly agree with DA that laws are there for a purpose and cannot be overlooked. However, my argument was not attempting to condone anarchy. My point was that the IPC constitution, as a whole, is not a set of laws. They are not laws, but ideals and mission statements. The only amendment in there that can be viewed as an actual law is A8, as I previously noted.
So constitution of IPC is a mission statement and it may not be completely enforcable unless in an ideal society, yet if we agree that this constitution must be the ultimate goal to achieve betterment and higher society, then we must try to enforce it as much as we can.
To reach these goals, we must have a shinning example amongst the Iranian media and Communities. This shining example cannot be reached by creating a Zoo in IPC! When one (defendant or alike) attempt to create Chaos, anarchy and a zoo in IPC, then you must answer some questions:
Can we allow it?
And if we do, then will we be able to reach our destined goals, our mission statement and our utopia in which Ahreeman proposed and IPC operation members passed?
To walk the path to that shining light, we must set a worthy example that we deserve to walk that path. Can we walk that path with minutely interruptions, disruptions, spam and chaos? If so, then will we turn to another meaningless Iranian forum?
DA:
With that having been stated defense council has chosen to interprete the "Nothing here is sacred!" sentence within Amendment 5 very literally. Members of the jury, can we not conclude what is reasonable and what is not. If we take the "Nothing here is sacred!" sentence literally then rape, murder, spamming etc would all be allowed would it not?
DC:
If the IPC constitution is a set of laws, then either all of it or none of it can be taken literally.
DC:
I once said that freedom without direction, a sense of self, and intellect is only an illusion of freedom. I still say that. Someone like TBK can never be free, because his mind is not capable of making any meaningful choices. He can never be free, no matter what we do or not do to him. His freedom never existed, and we therefore can never take it from him. But by executing him, we take away part of our own freedom.
Isn't it ironic that DC is now fighting for the opposite belief of what he preached to the webmistress?!
In the past, DC had argued and preached exactly the opposite of what he must now defend (with the webmistress)! Irony, what goes around, comes around in Twilight Zone (IPC)!
DC is tasting a taste of his own medicine which he handed to the webmistress (in the past)!
Accident? Or did we plan it to occur? Just another test in IPC! Mystical and Mysterious IPC!
I once said that freedom without direction, a sense of self, and intellect is only an illusion of freedom. I still say that. Someone like TBK can never be free, because his mind is not capable of making any meaningful choices. He can never be free, no matter what we do or not do to him. His freedom never existed, and we therefore can never take it from him. But by executing him, we take away part of our own freedom.
Crime
Punishment
_________________
Intellectual Poverty and Chaotic Behavior (Criminal Negligence)
Warning - probation (as requested by DA) - conditional existence in IPC - close surveillance
Criminal Fraud and Grand Ignorance 2 (Manslaughter 2)
Take away BK's privilege (not right) to post in IPC. To post in IPC is not a right, but a privilege. All BK's present/future screennames will be able to only read IPC in silence but not able to post.
Criminal Fraud and Grand Ignorance 1 (Manslaughter 1)
Delete all BK's posts by all BK screennames.
Spam and Sabotage 2 (Murder 2)
Ban BK temporarily (Ban all present/future BK IPs/screennames for a limited period as will be decided)
Spam and Sabotage 1 (Murder 1)
Ban BK forever (Ban all present/future BK IPs/screennames forever)
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewtopic.php?t=1077
Objection. Speculation.
How does the DA know the intent of TBK? His behavior is nothing short of retarded, but his intent cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Objection. DA is misrepresenting DC’s statements. DC never acknowledged that his pet committed a crime. Can the court clerk please read back the DC’s statement please?
DC acknowledged that TBK is guilty of violating these Amendments. But as I contend, these Amendments are not laws but mission statements. If they are not laws, their breach does not constitute a crime. And if no crime is committed, no punishment can be imposed.
Return to Comments on IPC Club Room
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests