Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: OneMoreRep on January 12, 2018, 11:16:36 AM
-
I know not everyone agreed with Harley, but I thought this man was a good addition to the board.
At the very least, I know a good number of our members sought out legal advice from him and they received it for free.
I think that some of the best material on this video above actually occurs within the first 21 seconds prior to Harley even speaking.
"1"
-
Do we have an update on Harley?
-
Do we have an update on Harley?
I haven't heard from him in a while. I will vouch for the fact that I did speak with him over the phone and he was very happy to be a member of GetBig and share some of his stories.
"1"
-
Harley Breite... a genetically deficient man.. unfamiliar with morality, to be sure
-
He would rather defend a pedophile than an animal abuser.
-
He would rather defend a pedophile than an animal abuser.
Technically, he is free to defend whomever he wishes to defend, right?
Not to say that I believe either of those aforementioned criminals deserve defending, but Harley can choose whatever case gives him a hard on.
"1"
-
Technically, he is free to defend whomever he wishes to defend, right?
Apparently not; everybody felt the need to take some morality stance on the matter and he couldn't handle the criticism.
-
Technically, he is free to defend whomever he wishes to defend, right?
Not to say that I believe either of those aforementioned criminals deserve defending, but Harley can choose whatever case gives him a hard on.
"1"
Yes, and I am free to say that he has no morals and he is absolutely disgusting.
His right to defend whomever he wants doesn't preclude my right to call him out.
-
Apparently not; everybody felt the need to take some morality stance on the matter and he couldn't handle the criticism.
He was perfectly happy when getbiggers were singing his praise. Once he was called out, he bolted.
-
Yes, and I am free to say that he has no morals and he is absolutely disgusting.
His right to defend whomever he wants doesn't preclude my right to call him out.
Would you also say that the vast majority of lawyers that practice criminal defense are also without morals and absolutely disgusting?
If a surgeon saves the life of a pedophile, rapist or terrorist, does that also imply that the surgeon has no morals and is absolutely disgusting by way of the fact that he/she chooses to save the life of a criminal?
I am not arguing against your stance, simply trying to understand the thought process behind it.
"1"
-
He was perfectly happy when getbiggers were singing his praise. Once he was called out, he bolted.
Lol this is 100% accurate.
He was a good member and could take some heat but, oddly enough, he had no justifiable defense for his stance.
-
Would you also say that the vast majority of lawyers that practice criminal defense are also without morals and absolutely disgusting?
If a surgeon saves the life of a pedophile, rapist or terrorist, does that also imply that the surgeon has no morals and is absolutely disgusting by way of the fact that he/she chooses to save the life of a criminal?
I am not arguing against your stance, simply trying to understand the thought process behind it.
"1"
I'd say the doctor example is a bad analogy. They save people day in and day out. Most of the people they save are likely not criminals to that extent. Further, a doctor cannot know who is a pedophile just by saving their life. If a person comes in with a gunshot wound, there is no way for the doctor to know if the person is a pedophile or not. They may find out AFTER the fact, for whatever reason. Doctors are not required to do a background check before performing emergency surgery. Are doctors required to know a patients criminal record before seeing them for care? I really do not see your point. ??? ???
That is much different than someone like Harley who defends those types of people all day along, knowing full well the extent of their crimes.
-
Would you also say that the vast majority of lawyers that practice criminal defense are also without morals and absolutely disgusting?
If a surgeon saves the life of a pedophile, rapist or terrorist, does that also imply that the surgeon has no morals and is absolutely disgusting by way of the fact that he/she chooses to save the life of a criminal?
yes. both sustain evil.
-
Lol this is 100% accurate.
He was a good member and could take some heat but, oddly enough, he had no justifiable defense for his stance.
Exactly. Then, when the heat was placed on him, he stopped posting.
But, boy, did he love getting praised.
-
I know not everyone agreed with Harley, but I thought this man was a good addition to the board.
At the very least, I know a good number of our members sought out legal advice from him and they received it for free.
I think that some of the best material on this video above actually occurs within the first 21 seconds prior to Harley even speaking.
"1"
First, warm greetings to OMR! My man!
Second, let the record show that I remain a staunch advocate for Harley D. Breite, JD, LLM, and ass-kicking, Renaissance man-about-town with flowing silvery locks!
-
I'd say the doctor example is a bad analogy. They save people day in and day out. Most of the people they save are likely not criminals to that extent. Further, a doctor cannot know who is a pedophile just by saving their life. If a person comes in with a gunshot wound, there is no way for the doctor to know if the person is a pedophile or not. They may find out AFTER the fact, for whatever reason. Doctors are not required to do a background check before performing emergency surgery. Are doctors required to know a patients criminal record before seeing them for care? I really do not see your point. ??? ???
That is much different than someone like Harley who defends those types of people all day along, knowing full well the extent of their crimes.
Depends on the setting.
If you're a doctor/surgeon that works for a city's correctional facilities, then yes, everyone who you treat or operate on will have a criminal record, does this mean that these doctors/surgeons are without morals and disgusting, because they chose to work for the city's correctional facilities where they would be catering to the worst humanity has to offer?
Not to mention that if you have ever spent enough time within any of New York's city hospitals (think Bellevue, Elmhurst, Kings County, Woodhull etc), you'll notice that a reasonable percentage of patients that are brought in are actually brought in by the Police Department and are usually handcuffed to the bed while awaiting treatment. In any of these cases, the doctor/surgeon who provides these clients with treatment, be it lifesaving surgery or regular medical care, knows very well that they are treating a criminal. Does treating these criminals substantiate them as being people without morals and absolutely disgusting? Or does it simply suggest that they are good at a role and enjoy tackling cases that are difficult with an added twist (the criminality aspect of it)? Remember, these doctors/surgeons can legally refuse to treat these patients by claiming that they fear the interference of their emotions in the treatment of the patient.
I guess what I am trying to figure out is why you would see Harley as morally reprehensible and disgusting due to his wanting to perform his job by serving people that are morally bankrupt. I am not a close friend of Harley, nor have I ever met him in person, but I do like to try and understand what mechanisms people use when casting judgment upon others. I know you probably have a load of psychological reasons, hence why I specifically ask you (you're more prepared to answer than most).
I have many friends that practice criminal law. They seem like good people from where I sit. They participate in their communities, usually have good families ties and try their best to be helpful to others. Maybe there is more to them than I am able to see. Maybe they have a dark side that might be in line with what you possibly see in Harley. In any case, I just wanted to know what thought process led you to labeling Harley as someone that is disgusting and without morals.
Due to the pony tail, I can understand if you find him fashionably reprehensible, but the rest, I am not sure..
"1"
-
First, warm greetings to OMR! My man!
Second, let the record show that I remain a staunch advocate for Harley D. Breite, JD, LLM, and ass-kicking, Renaissance man-about-town with flowing silvery locks!
Kahn,
You crazy SOB!!
How are you man??
"1"
-
Kahn,
You crazy SOB!!
How are you man??
"1"
Very well, my friend.
LOL on the video. Gunga Din News on Nose Candy looks tweaked out, while the wind kisses through Harley's magnificent mane. Also, I am heartened to think of how much fun some Getbiggers would have dancing and playing bingo at Harley's Kids.
All the best for a happy 2018!
-
Depends on the setting.
If you're a doctor/surgeon that works for a city's correctional facilities, then yes, everyone who you treat or operate on will have a criminal record, does this mean that these doctors/surgeons are without morals and disgusting, because they chose to work for the city's correctional facilities where they would be catering to the worst humanity has to offer?
Not to mention that if you have ever spent enough time within any of New York's city hospitals (think Bellevue, Elmhurst, Kings County, Woodhull etc), you'll notice that a reasonable percentage of patients that are brought in are actually brought in by the Police Department and are usually handcuffed to the bed while awaiting treatment. In any of these cases, the doctor/surgeon who provides these clients with treatment, be it lifesaving surgery or regular medical care, knows very well that they are treating a criminal. Does treating these criminals substantiate them as being people without morals and absolutely disgusting? Or does it simply suggest that they are good at a role and enjoy tackling cases that are difficult with an added twist (the criminality aspect of it)? Remember, these doctors/surgeons can legally refuse to treat these patients by claiming that they fear the interference of their emotions in the treatment of the patient.
I guess what I am trying to figure out is why you would see Harley as morally reprehensible and disgusting due to his wanting to perform his job by serving people that are morally bankrupt. I am not a close friend of Harley, nor have I ever met him in person, but I do like to try and understand what mechanisms people use when casting judgment upon others. I know you probably have a load of psychological reasons, hence why I specifically ask you (you're more prepared to answer than most).
I have many friends that practice criminal law. They seem like good people from where I sit. They participate in their communities, usually have good families ties and try their best to be helpful to others. Maybe there is more to them than I am able to see. Maybe they have a dark side that might be in line with what you possibly see in Harley. In any case, I just wanted to know what thought process led you to labeling Harley as someone that is disgusting and without morals.
Due to the pony tail, I can understand if you find him fashionably reprehensible, but the rest, I am not sure..
"1"
I don't think the issue was with defending criminals per se, it was the fact that he said hed defend a child molester but would never defend an animal abuser.
The bigger issue is who is of more value innocent children or innocent animals? By his statement Harley was saying the animals were of more value, which is an interesting take given his philanthropic work with Harleys Kids.
I think SF1900 would feel the same way if a prison doctor said I'll see anyone who committed any crime except animal abusers.
People are complex. Criminal lawyers are needed for the falsely/wrongly accused and even for the real scum of the earth. People are complex and so are the decisions we make.
Harley seems like a decent dude overall, even if we disagree with his stance.
-
I wasn`t a fan of his thread.
-
Yes, and I am free to say that he has no morals and he is absolutely disgusting.
His right to defend whomever he wants doesn't preclude my right to call him out.
Lawyers are scum, pieces of shits that need to be hung from the balls
-
I'd say the doctor example is a bad analogy. They save people day in and day out. Most of the people they save are likely not criminals to that extent. Further, a doctor cannot know who is a pedophile just by saving their life. If a person comes in with a gunshot wound, there is no way for the doctor to know if the person is a pedophile or not. They may find out AFTER the fact, for whatever reason. Doctors are not required to do a background check before performing emergency surgery. Are doctors required to know a patients criminal record before seeing them for care? I really do not see your point. ??? ???
That is much different than someone like Harley who defends those types of people all day along, knowing full well the extent of their crimes.
So what if the doctor DID happen to know he was saving a pedophile?
-
Sleep is death without the responsibility. But no matter who you are, one day you're not gonna wake up. Better a clean conscious than a dirty wallet.
-
I'd say the doctor example is a bad analogy. They save people day in and day out. Most of the people they save are likely not criminals to that extent. Further, a doctor cannot know who is a pedophile just by saving their life. If a person comes in with a gunshot wound, there is no way for the doctor to know if the person is a pedophile or not. They may find out AFTER the fact, for whatever reason. Doctors are not required to do a background check before performing emergency surgery. Are doctors required to know a patients criminal record before seeing them for care? I really do not see your point. ??? ???
That is much different than someone like Harley who defends those types of people all day along, knowing full well the extent of their crimes.
I would hardly say that Harley defends "those types" ALL DAY LONG but the nonetheless this is an excellent point that both you and OMR bring up. OMR's point is valid in a hypothetical sense for the sake of argument. But there are indeed occasions when a doctor will be knowingly called to save someone's life that he may not want to save or have qualms about saving. Palestinian terrorist injured while trying to kill Israelis are routinely treated and saved by Israeli doctors even though they know that they will still come back and try to kill them when they get a chance. My guess is that the doctors compartmentalize the issues and separate what they feel is their job and duty, i.e., saving lives; and leaving the legal and/or justice aspects to others or for a different time. I'm not crystal clear how I feel about that. I remember I did not like World Vision taking care of the Hutus during the Rwanda genocide even though they vowed once they recovered and reorganize they will continue killing the Tutsis. World Vision argued that it was not their job to judge who was right and who was wrong but just to help people in need.
Really?
In Harley's case what bothered me was not that he was defending people who he believe were indeed guilty. Everyone, good or bad, deserves a fair trial. And that's what he should have argued. But he was
more focused on the winning/losing aspect of the proceedings. That if he got a guilty person off then he
felt he did a good job. He considered his job not so much as seeking justice but rather winning cases. I even asked him how he would feel on his deathbed looking back on his life knowing he let a pedo, murderer, or rapist free and he said it wouldn't bother him. That was his job.
Really?
The Nazis tried to argue that they shouldn't be held accountable for what they had done as they were just instruments of the State. They were doing their jobs following the laws of their government. This is where religious beliefs plays a role. A religious man looks to the laws of God as the ultimate arbiter of justice and is personally responsible for every act that he commits even if it is directed by someone else or the laws and authority of that time. Even a State executioner still has some moral responsibility for the execution even though it is under the direction of the government in full accordance with the existing law at that time.
Perhaps if Harley believed that one day he would have to stand before God when asked why did he free a murderer, pedophile, or rapist it might ring a bit hollow if his only reply was, "It was my job."
-
To be fair to Harley, he said he'd want to help someone if he could find the "nerve" to do it. It doesn't mean he's pleased with the nature of the crime in question. Not for one minute, does it mean that.
His own personal experience is going to control him in that sense (as it does to everyone, each one of us -- no way around it, for better or for worse). All we have, when push comes to shove, is our own experience. We can't escape that fact. TMK, he's given care to pets his whole life, loved them dearly, but he's not been a parent to this point.
That little bit of "give" has allowed him the room to do what he's done in that area, when otherwise he wouldn't have been able to do that. No question about it.
Just as his experience, up to now, removes him from defending those accused of abusing pets. He's concerned about choking up, due to his own inescapable history, and he understands his limits. He's a good guy, and he knows what he's doing.
-
He came across really well during that interview. It was also good to see him teach the black children that they have to take responsibility for their own lives, rather then adopt a victim mentality and blame their failures on a "racist" society.
However, he seems to think that the young delinquents are capable of being as smart and as successful as he is.
Does he really believe this or is it just words of encouragement?
-
DID HE POST HERE?
-
DID HE POST HERE?
Oh yes. Hope you've got nothing else to do this weekend ;D
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=578368.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=578368.0)
-
Let me start off by saying that:
1) My moral relativisim is just that. I am a product of my own history, which includes beliefs, ideals, and values.
2) I recognize that everyone will have a different opinion on this matter.
3) I recognize that I could be flat out wrong regarding certain assumptions, given that prison/jail system and the medical industry are not my area of expertise.
4) I am willing to learn.
Depends on the setting. If you're a doctor/surgeon that works for a city's correctional facilities, then yes, everyone who you treat or operate on will have a criminal record, does this mean that these doctors/surgeons are without morals and disgusting, because they chose to work for the city's correctional facilities where they would be catering to the worst humanity has to offer?
No, I do not think these doctors are more reprehensible. The primary reason being is that after they treat the inmate, he/she, for the most part, will still remain in custody, unable to harm innocent civilians. Of course, there may come a day when the person is released and harms someone else. But, I think that is more of a failure (or success--if you're Harley and get them off) of the criminal justice system when compared to the actions of the doctor. The end result of a prisoner being released or "let off" is (often) solely the product of the criminal justice. The doctor has no say in whether or not the criminal will re-enter society (unless it's a Forensic case and a Forensic Psychologist is called in to testify). So, really, it has to do the with the end goal: the end goal of a doctor is to save lives--the end goal of the criminal justice is to incarcerate/release prisoners (ad hopefully rehabilitate). When a child molester is let free on a technicality, and goes and abuses another child, I blame the criminal justice system (lawyers, judges, etc.), not the medical doctor who treated him for the flu 6 months ago.
Not to mention that if you have ever spent enough time within any of New York's city hospitals (think Bellevue, Elmhurst, Kings County, Woodhull etc), you'll notice that a reasonable percentage of patients that are brought in are actually brought in by the Police Department and are usually handcuffed to the bed while awaiting treatment. In any of these cases, the doctor/surgeon who provides these clients with treatment, be it lifesaving surgery or regular medical care, knows very well that they are treating a criminal. Does treating these criminals substantiate them as being people without morals and absolutely disgusting? Or does it simply suggest that they are good at a role and enjoy tackling cases that are difficult with an added twist (the criminality aspect of it)? Remember, these doctors/surgeons can legally refuse to treat these patients by claiming that they fear the interference of their emotions in the treatment of the patient.
I think my above answers sort of answers the above statement. No, I do not think they are reprehensible because it is is not their duty to either incarcerate or let free convicted killers, rapists, or sex offenders. It's been proven time and time again that the criminal justice is pretty much a "revolving door" for criminals--you have child molesters barely doing any time in jail. While the medical industry also has it's problems, its sole purpose is not to incarcerate/let free a criminal. When that occurs, the burden simply falls on the criminal justice system.
I guess what I am trying to figure out is why you would see Harley as morally reprehensible and disgusting due to his wanting to perform his job by serving people that are morally bankrupt. I am not a close friend of Harley, nor have I ever met him in person, but I do like to try and understand what mechanisms people use when casting judgment upon others. I know you probably have a load of psychological reasons, hence why I specifically ask you (you're more prepared to answer than most).
As Dave D, perhaps some of it has to to do with the fact that Harley stated that he has no problem defending a child molester, but will not defend an animal abuser. When I read this, I had an instinctual gut reaction to this. According to Social Psychologist, Jonathan Haidt at NYU, we often make moral decisions based on "instinctual gut reactions." Afterwards, we then seek evidence to confirm our instinctual gut reaction (not the best way to go about forming a value judgment, but we are human--humans, by nature, are biased creates--we form values based on cognitive heuristics and limited experiences). To a great extent, my reaction was very instinctual. Of course, given my own history, I do find that morally reprehensible, but of course it does not indicate an objective stance. Further, we all exhibit transferential and countertransferential reactions to others--perhaps there is something about Harley that triggers me. Would I be this disgusted by another criminal defense lawyer? Maybe, maybe not.
I have many friends that practice criminal law. They seem like good people from where I sit. They participate in their communities, usually have good families ties and try their best to be helpful to others. Maybe there is more to them than I am able to see. Maybe they have a dark side that might be in line with what you possibly see in Harley. In any case, I just wanted to know what thought process led you to labeling Harley as someone that is disgusting and without morals.
They may be experiencing some level of cognitive dissonance after getting off a child molester--but perhaps the money helps.
Due to the pony tail, I can understand if you find him fashionably reprehensible, but the rest, I am not sure.
Is ponytail is reprehensible.
Again, these are just MY assumptions based on my own history.
-
So what if the doctor DID happen to know he was saving a pedophile?
Again, I think its all about the end goal.
The doctors end goal is to save a life.
The criminal justice systems end goal is to keep the public safe.
When a child molester is released after 6 months on some technicality, I blame the actions of the criminal justice system, not the doctor.
Again, as I said above to OMR, I am not an expert on prison or the medical industry, and recognize my biases.