|
Wheat Loaf posted:I don't believe so, no. So why is it OK with slaves in other countries?
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
Maybe puho: I eat my eggs over medium with salt, black pepper, and a little ketchup, then I use toast to sop up any yolk/ketchup until the plate is clean
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So why is it OK with slaves in other countries? I don't believe that's acceptable either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I think the key is to appoint someone who didn't seek the position, and hold them accountable if things go south. As far as unpopular opinions goes, I honestly think that a completely random lottery between the eligible voters would on average produce better members of parliament and government, than the career-politicians we get through referendums.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I don't believe that's acceptable either. But it depends on individual consumer choices to reduce foreign slavery, so presumably it's not a serious enough issue to warrant a revision of the no regulation ideology of free trade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:But it depends on individual consumer choices to reduce foreign slavery, so presumably it's not a serious enough issue to warrant a revision of the no regulation ideology of free trade. That seems like a logical conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:Maybe puho: I eat my eggs over medium with salt, black pepper, and a little ketchup, then I use toast to sop up any yolk/ketchup until the plate is clean Ketchup on eggs is disgusting, you disgust me sir
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:That seems like a logical conclusion. What is the logical conclusion? That a change needs to happen, or that everything is peachy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I think the key is to appoint someone who didn't seek the position, and hold them accountable if things go south. The checks and balances exist for that exact purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What is the logical conclusion? That a change needs to happen, or that everything is peachy? Oh, I haven't the foggiest, to be honest with you. Change certainly can happen if people want it to happen and make it happen. The European Union (which I am very sorry we in Britain will be leaving) managed to ensure tariff-free access to a common market founded on the principles of free movement of goods, services, capital and people while simultaneously enacting a raft of legislation which has demonstrably improved the rights of working people. I don't think the concepts are mutually exclusive, though of course others may not agree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Dang, 156 new replies? I wond
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Grandmother of Five posted:As far as unpopular opinions goes, I honestly think that a completely random lottery between the eligible voters would on average produce better members of parliament and government, than the career-politicians we get through referendums. i don't think an idea this radical for reducing corruption would ultimately produce a better system tbh, largely because these days government systems are so complex that they require significant expertise to successfully navigate; i mean i know there's pages and pages of legislature and other legal documentation to know but one also needs to be aware of the proper protocols, conventions and even the language used since this field has produced its own terminology, all that makes it difficult to even know what tools you have at your disposal, let alone how and when to use them - you essentially need to be specialist of some kind to be able to take an active role in government and that implies taking the time to be a career politician* or at least having the benefit of being surrounded by careerists it'd be like selecting random citizens to act as prosecutors or defense attorneys rather than jurors under the idea that career-lawyers sometimes make decisions more for the benefit of their careers than for the benefit of maintaining legal integrity - a career-prosecutor might, for example, vehemently pursue a conviction against someone despite only having weak evidence (and then succeed only to find that 10-20 years later that a wrongful conviction was produced) just because it was better for their future prospects to act that way (likewise a defense attorney might successfully defend someone they might personally know is guilty), whereas someone with no personal stake would theoretically make more ethical decisions than these careerists but a regular person isn't going to be able to navigate a courtroom in an active role where they need to assemble evidence in such a way that it meets standards for admission while following all the necessary protocols to ensure due process, at best regular people can just evaluate the results of these more active agents *of course i'm aware President Trump still snaked in despite his inexperience but perhaps his business expertise will be enough to help him administrate, besides as of this post we only know that he's successful at campaigning, we don't really know of his ability to administrate a country yet
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Uh, this seems ill advised, but I'm going to try and lighten the mood here. Eddie Murphy was never good and the Beverly Hills Cop movies were his high point and were still crap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
His stand up was alright, I don't have an opinion about movies he's in
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Leavemywife posted:Uh, this seems ill advised, but I'm going to try and lighten the mood here. Trading Places is a fantastic movie, and Eddie Murphy is a large reason why. He was indeed good, he just made a lot of crap later in his career.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Trading Places is a fantastic movie, and Eddie Murphy is a large reason why. He was indeed good, he just made a lot of crap later in his career. Coming to America also wasn't bad. He's like Adam Sandler where he made a couple really good movies early on and then forgot how to be funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
Grandmother of Five posted:I don't really get the point of striving for a one world government. Any system, or group of interlocked systems, will need checks & balances in an attempt to prevent an ultimate consolidation of power, I think. Just because there is "one" government, that doesn't mean that the system will be any less complex or free of strife than a system of multiple nation-states. A system consisting of one government, or one party, doesn't remove the need for checks & balances, at all. Have checks and balances sure. Also have a body of government that has the interests of the whole world at heart, instead of individual countries trying to steal from and exploit each other. steinrokkan posted:You know a politician who believed it was his duty to derve the nation, and who saw himself as a sort of sacrificial lamb at the altar of government, making the hard decisions at a personal cost? Nixon had some good points, policy wise. He created the EPA, for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
Congress created the EPA. Nixon signed off on it. Unpopular opinion: ketchup is perfectly fine in its time and place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
gleebster posted:Congress created the EPA. Nixon signed off on it. Ketchup and mayo are both really good on a lot of things, especially combo'd with each other and/or sriracha.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
hard counter posted:a defense attorney might successfully defend someone they might personally know is guilty
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
that's certainly one interpretation of their purpose that some people would be in favor of but you would definitely find others who would consider it a slight against judicial integrity if the defense attorney personally knew his client was guilty and was aware of the evidence but managed to either block it from use in the courtroom or was lucky enough that the prosecution overlooked it, those greyer areas also exist alongside obviously corrupt actions like evidence tampering that someone might undertake when they indirectly have personal stake in the outcome
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
hard counter posted:that's certainly one interpretation of their purpose that some people would be in favor of but you would definitely find others who would consider it a slight against judicial integrity if the defense attorney personally knew his client was guilty and was aware of the evidence but managed to either block it from use in the courtroom or was lucky enough that the prosecution overlooked it, those greyer areas also exist alongside obviously corrupt actions like evidence tampering that someone might undertake when they indirectly have personal stake in the outcome Neither of those are on the defense attorney though. That's on the prosecution for either not obtaining that evidence legitimately or overlooking it. The defense's job is essentially to force the prosecution to do theirs properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
hard counter posted:i don't think an idea this radical for reducing corruption would ultimately produce a better system tbh, largely because these days government systems are so complex that they require significant expertise to successfully navigate; i mean i know there's pages and pages of legislature and other legal documentation to know but one also needs to be aware of the proper protocols, conventions and even the language used since this field has produced its own terminology, all that makes it difficult to even know what tools you have at your disposal, let alone how and when to use them - you essentially need to be specialist of some kind to be able to take an active role in government and that implies taking the time to be a career politician* or at least having the benefit of being surrounded by careerists I think you vastly over-estimate what is required and necessary for politicians to know about legislation. Members of parliament, ministers and others, do need to adhere to professional rules of conduct, and it is important that they do, but isn't any more complicated than that a host of other jobs require. Those rules of conduct are not at all comparable to something like a years-long education required by a prosecutor to practice law. Professional rules of conduct for members of government, really aren't more complex than the very basic stuff that social workers, medical personnel, and a ton of other jobs have to adhere to when it comes to proper conduct. I'm not saying that being a doctor or a social-worker aren't jobs that require skills, but it is not because it is difficult to learn the professional codes of conduct. Learning rules of conduct is comparable to something that can be taught as part of a very basic on-the-job training, like a health safety class or getting a truck certificate. There are good reasons to not use a lottery system, but that there is a great barrier of knowledge that separates career politicians from regular people, just really isn't true, I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
i suppose the analogy wasn't as good as i'd hoped then, but i'm definitely the type of person who'd want to hold people with relevant knowledge to some kind of account for explicitly sitting on it when at minimum they could have submitted an anonymous tip - if i knew my friend were guilty of a serious crime and i knew of the evidence and had direct opportunity to submit it i would have trouble arguing that i had no ethical responsibility for putting it forward - i'm not sure on the specifics from country to country but i'm aware that kind of non-disclosure (if provable) can carry a contempt of law charge in some places, imuo it'd be odd for that to not apply to persons legally involved anyway the analogy wasn't tight so i'll just stick to the original point that i don't think a random lottery would select people with the required skillset or the specialist knowledge required to navigate a government office, design complicated policies (economic, foreign, defense, etc), or measure up to other tasks even though you could argue that random people would be less prone to the type of corruption the sometimes plagues career politicians
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
If a defendant can't trust their attorney, then the entire legal system breaks down. It was a terrible example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
hard counter posted:anyway the analogy wasn't tight so i'll just stick to the original point that i don't think a random lottery would select people with the required skillset or the specialist knowledge required to navigate a government office, design complicated policies (economic, foreign, defense, etc), or measure up to other tasks even though you could argue that random people would be less prone to the type of corruption the sometimes plagues career politicians Just to elaborate a bit, because I don't think we really disagree about the importance of elected government officials being knowledgeable in their fields: Part of my point is that I think that politicians basically don't have that knowledge, really. A minister of agriculture or a parliament member can't possibly know what they need to know in advance of being presented with individual law-proposals and issues that needs to be fixed. A career politician being appointed as a minister of foreign relations, or agriculture, will not know what they end up needing to know about Turkey or pesticides, or whatever else in advance. Being in the position as s legislator requires a massive on-the-job, constant education, I think, that far out-weighs the usefulness of any one trade or skill that elected officials have prior to being elected, career-politicians or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Politicians should mainly be ideologues. They can command their hired underlings to actually know and do stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Grandmother of Five posted:Just to elaborate a bit, because I don't think we really disagree about the importance of elected government officials being knowledgeable in their fields: Part of my point is that I think that politicians basically don't have that knowledge, really. They can't know everything they need to know but having a strong foundation in the relevant fields helps in adapting to prevailing circumstances when they're aware of the underlying theory or other details of the system that will have an affect on the outcome of certain decisions. Ideally someone shouldn't need a crash-course in the basics while also taking on other on-the-job education, especially a random someone whose talents may simply be in other areas, like music. Having an acquaintance who worked in domestic counter-terrorism a whiles back I know government workers often work in large interdisciplinary teams having people with differing backgrounds like psychology, political science, economics, international relations, etc bringing their knowledge together to work on an issue from as many relevant angles as possible along with a person with a legal background specialized in governance law who can wring a coherent, practicable proposal out of these efforts. I expect that a team like this would be under the direction of someone whose own experiences produced a vision that was agreed to by an elected person who may have campaigned on solving a certain problem a certain way and thus is the best judge of what proposal best meets those requirements. I see that you expect the random person to acquire a massive amount of education anyway but I think you may be underestimating how much one needs to acquire to meet existing standards for usefulness in an environment already filled with specialists brought in for their expertise, assuming we could always pick someone with the ability and drive to learn this much over the period of their office. This is mostly relevant to changing or new situations, you can elect a cat or a dog to be mayor so long as things can run themselves and no special input or vision is needed to expand existing services to meet new demands like, say, re-zone undeveloped land to meet projected expectations for growth, or handle any other sort of public mission.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:If a defendant can't trust their attorney, then the entire legal system breaks down. It was a terrible example. yeah i should have stuck to more obvious and common corruptions like evidence tampering that someone with something on the line might consider, instead of an artificial example of the guilty admitting their crime and providing evidence of it to their attorney but still asking them to build an innocence case anyway (but still playing by the rules otherwise), a weirdly specific scenario which only i find ethically appalling
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Read Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or Time Enough for Love for some interesting and novel viewpoints regarding trial justice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
hard counter posted:yeah i should have stuck to more obvious and common corruptions like evidence tampering that someone with something on the line might consider, instead of an artificial example of the guilty admitting their crime and providing evidence of it to their attorney but still asking them to build an innocence case anyway (but still playing by the rules otherwise), a weirdly specific scenario which only i find ethically appalling Your analogy also doesn't work because, at least in my country, if I know a client is guilty, I can't argue their innocence. I can defend them and even get them off, but I can't tell the court they're innocent if I know for a fact they are not. One of the things that gets drilled into you at law school is that your most (or one of the most) important duties is not to mislead the court. It's why lawyers will never outright ask their client "did you do it?" No good comes from knowing the answer (you're going to try harder to defend someone if you know they're innocent? Besides, how do you know they're not lying and covering for someone else?), but a whole lot of bad can come from it. If they insist on running a trial constructed around innocence and you know they're not, you're meant to recuse yourself. Now if you want to argue this doesn't happen and lawyers knowingly mislead the court then fine, but that's different to the thing you're complaining about, which is already against the rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
I wouldn't make it one case as a defense attorney without going full And Justice For All ending.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
I'm smart
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Heath Ledger's Joker is dumb as hell. "You wanna know how I got these scars?" No, not really. Edit: I should mention that Health Ledger did the best he could given the script. But the script was dumb (and really, superhero comic movies in general are stupid). AutumnDDP has a new favorite as of 05:35 on Apr 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
His performance is overrated, maybe. What makes it pop is how different is from Romero and Nicholson. His Joker is mainly gross and insane, instead of campy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
The human race should take a ten year period of no one reproducing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
We Know Catheters posted:The human race should take a ten year period of no one reproducing. For some, this will mean much less reproducing For others, much much more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
What would English graduates do without daycares and primary schools to work at?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
Make frappucinos
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:One world government is the only reasonable way forward. Dividing people into countries just encourages never-ending conflict. Yeah, one world Caliphate
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 17:39
|
|