|
|
Transcript:
---------------------------------------------------------------
0342– 2167/07/07/10:15 - Rosenthal College, Phi building, classroom 1248
HA: ...and if we sentence Socrates to this vile fate, are we any better than the youths they supposedly corrupt?
OT: Ah ah ah, Mezzer Appleby, you’re supposed to be defending your client from the charges brought against them, not arguing the morality of the penalty itself. Don’t worry, they’ll beat that out of you by the end of the semester.
HA: Sorry. I... uh… I rest my case?
OT: Well done, have a seat.
----------------------
OT: Okay, very well argued by both sides, thank you Mezzers Appleby and Zimmerman. Nothing left to do now but render our verdict!
OT: Now, remember: for hypothetical situation purposes, we’re operating under the assumption that Athenian law is just and that the gods exist. Did Socrates commit one or more of the crimes as presented?
OT [electronic communication]: Vote here: [ ]
----------------------
OT: And the verdict is……… a tie? Someone abstained?
CP: I… uh… I d-d-d-don’t feel th-that I can… that we sh-should… th-there’s too much unknown. No surveillance, no eyewitnesses… W-we don’t have enough evidence to d-decide one w-way or the other.
OT: Hmm. A bold stance of not taking a stance. I guess we’re deadlocked, then!
LC: Uh… point of order? Is that the right thing to say? Point of order?
----------------------
OT: Go ahead, Mezzer Caldavera?
LC: You didn’t say we had an odd number of people, you said we had an odd number of voices, and that’s not quite correct.
OT: Ah, indeed. What opinion does your Emotional Support Aid have about our little trial?
Zoa: The Emotional Support Aid thinks that according to the schedule, we were supposed to have moved on to Aristotle by now...
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
