The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has published a report claiming “Unrestricted footage review places civil rights at risk and undermines the goals of transparency and accountability". This is because "an officer’s memory of an event may be altered by watching body camera footage, doing so will likely alter what officers write in their reports".Civil Rights organizations once demanded body cameras for all police. Now they are demanding that police not reap the benefits of having body cameras, namely that they should not be able to review what happened when writing reports. Do you agree?http://www.newsweek.com/police-body-camera-incident-report-memory-civil-rights-minority-711584
Some on CD seem to think that the UN rules the world. They think that the UN has jurisdiction everywhere, including matters of domestic policy. They think that the US is subject to this foreign power and thus has lost its sovereignty. Do you agree? Does the UN rule the world or do nations rule themselves? Is the UN the worlds sovereign, or is there national sovereignty?
I don't expect this Debate to remain in place for long, as I will likely delete it after a while. But am I the only one under troll attack? I mean literally long posts of "feces" repeated and sent in multiple private messages.
What happens in the world if the US military ceases all operations and brings all of its land and sea forces home, closing all bases in all countries, and refusing to deploy troops except for dire and direct US interests.
FactMachine prefers to downvote arguments rather than take them on. When the downvoted opponent persists, he bans them. At least this was the case for me. I created this debate, not to be petty, but to hold FactMachine to account for the answers to my simple questions: what do you think free will is? and why does causality preclude free will?The answers to these questions should not be difficult for a person whose position is that free will is precluded by causality.He may not answer these questions, but neither will he downvote or ban in lieu of an answer.
Liberal Sam Harris
believes there is “a kind of authoritarianism emerging on the Left, really
exclusively, that is preventing free speech”. In his podcast "Facing the Crowd" he quotes from the Economist to
illustrate how insane the new left is. This is where ANTIFA comes from.
professor Lucia Martinez Valdivia, who describes herself as mixed-race and
queer, asked protesters not to demonstrate during her lecture on Sappho last
November. Ms Valdivia said she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and
doubted her ability to deliver the lecture in the face of their opposition….After
her speech, a number of them berated her, bringing her to tears.
Demonstrators said Ms. Valdivia was guilty of a variety of offences: she was a “race traitor” who
upheld white supremacist principles by failing to oppose the Humanities
syllabus. She was “anti-black” because she appropriated black slang by wearing
a T-shirt that said, “Poetry is Lit”. She was an “ableist” because she believes
trigger warnings sometimes diminish sexual trauma. She was also called a
“gaslighter” for making disadvantaged students doubt their own feelings of
to Ms.Valdivia, many of the students “don’t believe in historicity or objective
facts (they denounce the latter as being a tool of the white
The Empire modeled after the Ronan Republic represents tradition, loyalty, traditional religion, and law and order. The Stormcloak (Stormfront?) resistance is ultra nationalist, militant, and racist. It's the Right VS the Alt-Right.
I just watched the video and did a very brief review of the facts provided by Newsweek.First; a vehicle is a lethal weapon. One which Smith (the suspect) had already illustrated he was willing to use recklessly. After he crashed into a marked police squad car, he turned and nearly ran over two police officers in an attempt to escape. This reckless behavior caused Stockley to fire his weapon multiple times before the chase ever ensued. This lawful lethal force is not in question.Second; during the chase, Stockley can be heard (if barely) saying "going to kill this (expletive), don't you know it." according to court documents. It cannot be distinguished if he said I, we, they, or anything else. It cannot be determined that this is a statement of intent rather than a statement of apprehension for what happens at the end of the chase. Given Stockley's behavior at the end of the chase, the latter may be inferred since...Third; At the end of the chase Stockley approaches the vehicle and is seen on video talking to Smith through the car window. He doesn't go in guns blazing, he didn't even approach with his gun actually drawn. According to Stockley, the talk was him giving commands to Smith who was busy reaching around inside his car and failing to comply. This reaching around caused Stockley to draw his weapon. When Stockley observed Smiths demeanor change, he believed it was due to him locating the gun that Stockley was afraid he had. This is when Stockely shot and killed Smith. Later, a gun was located between the front seat and the center consol by Stockley who ejected the chambered round rendering the gun safe and placed them on the front seat. Fourth; the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Stockely must be shown to have committed murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Fifth; I forgot to mention the skin color of the persons involved. That's because bullets aren't racist.
A friend recently told me that she thinks most of the socio-political-economic divide can be explained by the differences in these two perspectives. She equates collectivism with most left leaning positions and individualism with most right leaning positions. So which perspective do you most often alone with? Which direction do you lean? Which perspective is better, more realistic, or more practical?
A common lens through which people often frame societies issues is in terms of oppressors vs oppressed. While this lens has important and applicable functions, a problem often arises when justice is sought for the oppressed. While entire classes of people can be oppressed, entire classes of people cannot perpetrate oppression. Thus, when retribution is sought against the offending class, individuals within that class who never oppressed are held equally liable for oppression. When the innocent individual proclaims their innocence, they are pronounced guilty anew, for perpetuating the oppression for which they are accused.