Harley Breite - Appreciation thread

[chaos]

I have a question for those constantly slating Harley. This idiot that Harley is defending obviously this disgusts you all. My question is what is the alternative? Would you rather live in a society where there is no legal framework to target criminals? Surely somebody has to state his case or we start to regress as a society and what then? Do we act as a lynch mob and start hanging those deemed beyond the pale?

Interesting to watch the twists and turns of this thread, it's ironic how the defense attorney appears to be the one on trial.

Who has slated Harley here? Questioning him on how he rationalizes his choice of clients is hardly slating someone. Not much different than asking him how he chose the color of his car.
Difference in your scenario is that Harley has a choice of who he can defend and the fact that he stated if he has no problem getting someone off on a technicality. My opinion, people that harm children and animals are the lowest form of life and people that defend them are their equals.
End of.

[hazbin]

Who has slated Harley here? Questioning him on how he rationalizes his choice of clients is hardly slating someone. Not much different than asking him how he chose the color of his car.
Difference in your scenario is that Harley has a choice of who he can defend and the fact that he stated if he has no problem getting someone off on a technicality. My opinion, people that harm children and animals are the lowest form of life and people that defend them are their equals.
End of.

yup.  and knowing damn well they did it and bragging about getting them off.  there's a difference getting someone a reduced sentence and acknowledging they are guilty, and letting them go scott free when they intentionally hurt someone.

[SF1900]

Is Harley doing his job the best to his abilities? Sure, but that doesn't mean he can't be questioned regarding his morals. In my opinion, getting a known child molester off on a technicality, is absolutely atrocious. Basically, Harley is allowing this person to go free, in order to harm other children, so he can win another case and fill his pockets. How does Harley rationalize this? Its an important question. Its obvious that Harleys morals and ethics are DIRECTLY CONNECTED to his job.

Guess what? MOST jobs are connected and directly intertwined with moral and ethical decisions, including doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers, judges, and, yes, EVEN lawyers, etc. Most of us would be beside ourselves if we let a known child molester off with a technicality, only to find how he raped and murdered a child. In Harley's eyes, he just did his job. However, there is something to be said of someone who can shrug this off as "oh well, I was just doing my job." Most of us would feel extremely guilty, yet, Harley does it with zero conscience. That 100% says something about his personality and who he is as a person.

Now, on the one hand, Harley is just doing his job. However, on the other hand, from a purely moral point of view, and based on what we know about morality, his behavior would be considered immoral. Just because something is part of the legal system, it doesn't mean its not immoral. Many legal matters are immoral, despite them being legal. For instance, in some cultures an adult male can marry and have sex with an 8 year old. Its legal. However, there is enough evidence to suggest that young children suffer from all sorts of issues when they have sex with adults. So, sleeping with an 8 year old may be legal, but Id still deem it immoral. Similarly, Harley is not doing anything illegal and he is doing his job; nonetheless, in my opinion, Id still constitute it as immoral behavior.

People keep saying, "Well, he is doing his job within legal parameters." Great, but as I stated above, actions deemed legal by the law can still be immoral. Its quite obvious that many aspects of law are not based from a moralistic perspective.

[Rascal full]

Who has slated Harley here? Questioning him on how he rationalizes his choice of clients is hardly slating someone. Not much different than asking him how he chose the color of his car.
Difference in your scenario is that Harley has a choice of who he can defend and the fact that he stated if he has no problem getting someone off on a technicality. My opinion, people that harm children and animals are the lowest form of life and people that defend them are their equals.
End of.

I totally agree about people that hurt children and animals, you are 100% right. The problem is I just can't see a fair way we can unravel crimes committed and proportion blame without someone stating the case of the accused. It is a mucky job but in a civilised society someone has to do it.....don't you think?

[Sokolsky]

Is Harley doing his job the best to his abilities? Sure, but that doesn't mean he can't be questioned regarding his morals. In my opinion, getting a known child molester off on a technicality, is absolutely atrocious.

Yet it is exactly this that will ensure the system works properly the next time.
If prosecutors weren't caught on technicalities, what about the next time? How can you ensure they don't fuck up? How can you ensure the next time the sentence is actually correct? Hell, people might get off because the prosecution starts to become careless.

Yes, if a guilty person gets off on a technicality, it sucks. End off.
Yet it is what happends afterwards, the checks-and-balances that ensure the next time, the same person, or a much worse person, will not be able to get off.

Yet those attacking Harley assume that just because he does his job, he automatically sets aside his humanity.
No, he does not. If a child molester gets off on whatever grounds, and then goes on to continue his practices, ofcourse it has an impact on everyone involved in the previous trail. To blatently assume Harley feels nothing is just ignorant. He's doing a job, during which he needs to remain unbiased. It does not mean he cannot have his opinions about a person during/afterwards, so long as it doesn't impede his work.

someone who can shrug this off as "oh well, I was just doing my job." Most of us would feel extremely guilty, yet, Harley does it with zero conscience. That 100% says something about his personality and who he is as a person.

Where has Harley ever said he can just shrug it off? That he would not reflect on his role?
You assume that winning a case on a technicality automatically means Harley is devoid of any further feelings.
Hell, he's even stated he receives death threats often, do you really think a trial is over for Harley when the hammer sounds?

People keep saying, "Well, he is doing his job within legal parameters." Great, but as I stated above, actions deemed legal by the law can still be immoral. Its quite obvious that many aspects of law are not based from a moralistic perspective.

As Rascal already mentioned, you want to go back to lynchmobs?
Economics aren't moral, you want to abandon economics?
Politics aren't moral, you want to abandon politics?
And so on.

Morality ends where the law comes in. Those are the norms established that you should live by to be a part of society as a whole.
Nobody cares about your morality.

[Princess L]

I totally agree about people that hurt children and animals, you are 100% right. The problem is I just can't see a fair way we can unravel crimes committed and proportion blame without someone stating the case of the accused. It is a mucky job but in a civilised society someone has to do it.....don't you think?

I have a question for those constantly slating Harley. This idiot that Harley is defending obviously this disgusts you all. My question is what is the alternative? Would you rather live in a society where there is no legal framework to target criminals? Surely somebody has to state his case or we start to regress as a society and what then? Do we act as a lynch mob and start hanging those deemed beyond the pale?

Interesting to watch the twists and turns of this thread, it's ironic how the defense attorney appears to be the one on trial.

Agree.  Someone has to do it, but then that someone is someone of questionable character.  How else can they live with themselves and sleep at night?  It is a choice to accept these types of cases.  Surely there are plenty of cases out there involving innocent defendants or at least, less blatantly horrific.  

Who has slated Harley here? Questioning him on how he rationalizes his choice of clients is hardly slating someone. Not much different than asking him how he chose the color of his car.
Difference in your scenario is that Harley has a choice of who he can defend and the fact that he stated if he has no problem getting someone off on a technicality. My opinion, people that harm children and animals are the lowest form of life and people that defend them are their equals.
End of.

Is Harley doing his job the best to his abilities? Sure, but that doesn't mean he can't be questioned regarding his morals. In my opinion, getting a known child molester off on a technicality, is absolutely atrocious. Basically, Harley is allowing this person to go free, in order to harm other children, so he can win another case and fill his pockets. How does Harley rationalize this? Its an important question. Its obvious that Harleys morals and ethics are DIRECTLY CONNECTED to his job.

Guess what? MOST jobs are connected and directly intertwined with moral and ethical decisions, including doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers, judges, and, yes, EVEN lawyers, etc. Most of us would be beside ourselves if we let a known child molester off with a technicality, only to find how he raped and murdered a child. In Harley's eyes, he just did his job. However, there is something to be said of someone who can shrug this off as "oh well, I was just doing my job." Most of us would feel extremely guilty, yet, Harley does it with zero conscience. That 100% says something about his personality and who he is as a person.

Now, on the one hand, Harley is just doing his job. However, on the other hand, from a purely moral point of view, and based on what we know about morality, his behavior would be considered immoral. Just because something is part of the legal system, it doesn't mean its not immoral. Many legal matters are immoral, despite them being legal. For instance, in some cultures an adult male can marry and have sex with an 8 year old. Its legal. However, there is enough evidence to suggest that young children suffer from all sorts of issues when they have sex with adults. So, sleeping with an 8 year old may be legal, but Id still deem it immoral. Similarly, Harley is not doing anything illegal and he is doing his job; nonetheless, in my opinion, Id still constitute it as immoral behavior.

People keep saying, "Well, he is doing his job within legal parameters." Great, but as I stated above, actions deemed legal by the law can still be immoral. Its quite obvious that many aspects of law are not based from a moralistic perspective.

^

There really isn't anything else that can be said.

[SF1900]

Agree.  Someone has to do it, but then that someone is someone of questionable character.  How else can they live with themselves and sleep at night?  It is a choice to accept these types of cases.  Surely there are plenty of cases out there involving innocent defendants or at least, less blatantly horrific.  

^

There really isn't anything else that can be said.

The problem is that people keep relying on the argument, "Well, its the law." When people do that, it really shuts down any discussion about how to make things better, well, you know, because its the law. Its the way it is.

The law is not always set up for the benefit of mankind. Something can be lawful, and still be immoral.

Further, laws are not the "norm." Laws are established by a select few people, and DO NOT always represent the majority of people. A few people in very high positions deem X to be immoral and, therefore, it becomes a law.

At the current time, its the best system we have. But it doesn't mean it can't be improved on or made more moral. It doesn't mean we can't improve the way things are done.

Again, I don't automatically equate a law with morality, which, in my opinion, is directly connected to well-being. Of course, I have to follow the law, but I don't necessarily have to think that X law is the best moral position. I just have to suck it up and deal with it, because I am really not in a position of power to change laws.

[Grape Ape]

SF1900 and PL uniting around a common cause in this thread.

[SF1900]

SF1900 and PL uniting around a common cause in this thread.

Lol! It must be done for the greater good!!

[Simple Simon]

The problem is that people keep relying on the argument, "Well, its the law." When people do that, it really shuts down any discussion about how to make things better, well, you know, because its the law. Its the way it is.

The law is not always set up for the benefit of mankind. Something can be lawful, and still be immoral.

Further, laws are not the "norm." Laws are established by a select few people, and DO NOT always represent the majority of people. A few people in very high positions deem X to be immoral and, therefore, it becomes a law.

At the current time, its the best system we have. But it doesn't mean it can't be improved on or made more moral. It doesn't mean we can't improve the way things are done.

Again, I don't automatically equate a law with morality, which, in my opinion, is directly connected to well-being. Of course, I have to follow the law, but I don't necessarily have to think that X law is the best moral position. I just have to suck it up and deal with it, because I am really not in a position of power to change laws.

Laws tend to be made and decided by people with the loosest morals.

[stuntmovie]

BE THERE, That's an interesting statement. Can you give some examples?

[Sokolsky]

When people do that, it really shuts down any discussion about how to make things better, well, you know, because its the law. Its the way it is.

The judicial system is not a static system.

The law is not always set up for the benefit of mankind. Something can be lawful, and still be immoral.

Something immoral isn't always detrimental to mankind.
Hyperbole argument.

Further, laws are not the "norm." Laws are established by a select few people, and DO NOT always represent the majority of people. A few people in very high positions deem X to be immoral and, therefore, it becomes a law.

Empowered through elections, at least in the civilized and democratic world.

At the current time, its the best system we have. But it doesn't mean it can't be improved on or made more moral. It doesn't mean we can't improve the way things are done.

Define morality. What is moral to one, isn't moral to another.
The system in place has been established through bargaining to ensure majority 'morality'.

Again, I don't automatically equate a law with morality, which, in my opinion, is directly connected to well-being.
Of course, I have to follow the law, but I don't necessarily have to think that X law is the best moral position.
I just have to suck it up and deal with it, because I am really not in a position of power to change laws.

If you don't equate law to morality. Then why call into question the morality of those working in the judicial system?
You just undermined your own position.

[Sokolsky]

The major issue here appears that people don't agree with the workings of the judicial system.

That's fine.

Don't attack a single person on his 'morality', simply because you're inept at performing the same task without remaining bias.

Harley is a human being, and as such has his reservations, I'm sure. His job does not turn him into some devoid of emotion computer.
He, like others of the same profession, is making sure the system works.
Basic checks-and-balance.

So that you, when you may get in trouble, or harm may come to your family, you can have faith in the system delivering the right judgement.
But clearly, it's the system people are not satisfied with to begin with.

[Simple Simon]

The major issue here appears that people don't agree with the workings of the judicial system.

That's fine.

Don't attack a single person on his 'morality', simply because you're inept at performing the same task without remaining bias.

Harley is a human being, and as such has his reservations, I'm sure. His job does not turn him into some devoid of emotion computer.
He, like others of the same profession, is making sure the system works.
Basic checks-and-balance.

So that you, when you may get in trouble, or harm may come to your family, you can have faith in the system delivering the right judgement.
But clearly, it's the system people are not satisfied with to begin with.

This isnt Question Time on the BBC, its a bodybuilding forum.
If you expect intellectual stimulation you are in the wrong place.
This is a forum where people hurl insults and rip the piss out of people, Harley has clearly demonstrated with his comments that he is a target for any such behaviour.
He has also shown a total weakness to any criticism, in other words, hes fucked.
Over a hundred pages of people blowing smoke up his ass and hes strutting around like a peacock, I think he did well to last as long as he did, although it only took around 4 people to call him out and his asshole impolded.

[Coffeed]

The biggest problem Harley has is that he's actually an accomplished human being who has an interesting life.

If it wasn't for that, nobody would've bothered.

[SF1900]

This isnt Question Time on the BBC, its a bodybuilding forum.
If you expect intellectual stimulation you are in the wrong place.
This is a forum where people hurl insults and rip the piss out of people, Harley has clearly demonstrated with his comments that he is a target for any such behaviour.
He has also shown a total weakness to any criticism, in other words, hes fucked.
Over a hundred pages of people blowing smoke up his ass and hes strutting around like a peacock, I think he did well to last as long as he did, although it only took around 4 people to call him out and his asshole impolded.

Exactly. To be honest, I don't know much about the legal system. I've said this plenty of times, that my knowledge about politics and law is limited. But like you said, this is getbig. :-)

[SF1900]

The biggest problem Harley has is that he's actually an accomplished human being who has an interesting life.

If it wasn't for that, nobody would've bothered.

Not true. This is getbig. Anyone is up for being questioned, no matter how famous or successful they are.

[Princess L]

If you don't equate law to morality. Then why call into question the morality of those working in the judicial system?
You just undermined your own position.

Nah ah  There's the "law" issue and the "morality" discussion.  Two separate issues.  Some of us are a more unwavering in our position.

[Simple Simon]

The biggest problem Harley has is that he's actually an accomplished human being who has an interesting life.

If it wasn't for that, nobody would've bothered.

is that you sucking his tit in your avi?

[Sokolsky]

Nah ah  There's the "law" issue and the "morality" discussion.  Two separate issues.  Some of us are a more unwavering in our position.

Dear PL,

Ignoring the 'law issue'.

Do elaborate where morality comes in when practicing a profession?
Harley does not have any history of mal-practice as far as I am aware. If you have information to the contrary, do provide.
As such, he is morally conducting his obligations and services.

If you wish to discuss Harley's morality off-the-job, please refer to his earlier statements.

[chaos]

Suckcocksky taking over the job of carrying Harleys backpack from Las Vegas in this thread.

[SF1900]

Suckcocksky taking over the job of carrying Harleys backpack from Las Vegas in this thread.

 

[Sokolsky]

Suckcocksky taking over the job of carrying Harleys backpack from Las Vegas in this thread.

Solid observation there, Chaos.
Are you also the type of guy that shows up 5 days late to a party?
Or do you only decide to show up 10 pages late?

[SF1900]

Harley, where are you? Please come back to getbig and answer for your transgressions! You dont want to be in the bad grace of getbig. Answer for your immorality and crimes against humanity!!

[chaos]

Solid observation there, Chaos.
Are you also the type of guy that shows up 5 days late to a party?
Or do you only decide to show up 10 pages late?

I thought I'd clarify for those on the fence about your ball gargling skills.