- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
It would make sense if one of the authors stated that it is unknown for sure. They said right in their intro that this is merely the first national estimate concerning the issue. The methodological challenges to the paper are called "tenuous at best" by detractors, but without an explanation other than that survey respondents probably accidentally hit the wrong response. I find that challenge tenuous at best, given that challenge undermines every survey ever.
primarily conceived to benefit the elite and keep the slaves and peasants from taking back the fruits of their own labor.
You’re always so fucking stupid. It’s hard to take your historical misreadings as honest ignorance. It’s a contradiction to pit property rights against fruits of labor, which is another concept you can’t grasp as demonstrated in your miserable loss in the debate on Marx’s labor theory.
“Hunter gatherers” were not a singular culture, but on the whole, their lives were much nastier, more brutish, and shorter, bullshit Rousseauian sentiments notwithstanding.
humans will go from having no social constructs
Language is a social construct, and even pre-humans have it. I wonder if you will ever understand the terms you use.
to having them and then one day replacing them with reason.
“Social construct” doesn’t mean “lacking reason”.
You will be a speck of horse feces trapped under the horseshoe of history, as it is removed from old Silvester the social construct steed and hung as a decoration in the motor vehicle of reason which will run you over and then back up on you.
That’s entirely unreasonable.
don't snigger and brag about it like it's something you're proud of
The first part of your post suggests I do what I want, but the second part suggest I will do what you want. I won’t. Nor will I pretend the UN is worth a damn. It’s not.
Rule of law talk is pretty rich coming a guy who can’t understand property rights.
You can't reneg on a legal contract whenever you feel like it.
UN members are bound by a treaty. We can and have broken those. And the consequences are the same as for any other diplomatic breach. That’s because the UN is a tool of diplomacy and nothing more.
What, you thought the King of the World would order a US President to jail? Only if we allow it.
We are subject to our treaties because we say so. We can say otherwise whenever we choose. Signing a treaty has never served to relinquish the sovereignty of any nation. That’s not how treaties work. Besides the US is the teeth of the UN. They are all bark (or hapless fuckups) unless the US decides otherwise.
But, when they added the words "under God", it EXCLUDED me because I don't think a belief in God is REQUIRED to proclaim your allegiance to your country.
It’s meant to articulate sovereignty. Under whom/what does the US fall? Under the crown? No. Under the UN? No. The US is one nation under none but the highest conceivable authority, whether or not you believe the authority conceived of actually exists.
That's EXACTLY what it means...
You suppose the system is only imperfect on conviction? No, that’s NOT what that means
The appeals court is made up of judges - not a jury.. And, they grant new trials based on MISTAKE, not on how tough or lenient the sentence was..
“After a criminal trial ends in a conviction, the defendant can file a motion for a new trial. Courts grant these—though rarely—to correct significant errors that happened during trial or if substantial new evidence of innocence comes to light.”
How would you know that a jury wrongfully acquitted an offender?
Because I know why the jury decided to find “not guilty”, and it wasn’t because the person was not guilty.
IF a jury found somebody INNOCENT after a trial, then according to our system, he IS innocent..
People are found “not guilty”, they aren’t found “innocent”. And again, if you think a finding of not guilty is 100% valid, but findings of guilt are not, you’re inconsistently naive.
IF a jury acquits someone KNOWING that he committed the offense, that's called jury nullification. It's LEGAL
I didn’t say it was illegal. You know that an incorrect finding of guilt is also legal right? Are system doesn’t allow for a “guilt project” for retrying those wrongly acquitted. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
I’ll try to use it more often.
“you need to understand that this is an example of a sentence adverb, not an adverb of manner or an intensifier. That means that it applies not to a single verb, adjective, other adverb, or preposition, but rather to the entire sentence as a single syntactic constituent.”
“The sentence adverb is clearly a grammatical structure to native speakers”
Not for anything he did so far.
Mueller was asked point blank if his investigation was interfered with in any way, and he said no. No obstruction occurred.
Mueller was asked point blank if they found that Trump colluded and he said they didn’t have enough evidence in a 2 year investigation to determine any kind of Trump collusion.
But yeah, if he commits a crime and there’s prosecutable evidence, he can go to jail after leaving office.
Like I said, perhaps the death penalty needs a different threshold of proof. Some cases have certainly used DNA and other modern techniques for prosecution. You won’t read about them on the innocence project, because there’s no changing their case.
You mentioned progress. Better evidence is progress, so that’s good. I don’t see how letting criminals free is necessarily progress. Given high recidivism, it may be the opposite of progress. Crime reduction would be progress, but I don’t see that coming out of these reforms. Maybe Trump is just as regressive on reform as he is on the death penalty, making him not schizo.
If children are innocently put in timeout, the problem isn’t time out. If an adult is incorrectly issued a speeding ticket, the problem is not traffic fines. If anyone is punished to any extent when they are innocent, the punishment isn’t what’s wrong. The innocence project uses DNA and other new methods to introduce reasonable doubt to criminal cases. That tells me that we can now be more sure in some cases than ever before. Though perhaps the death penalty needs a different threshold of proof. The evidence project uses some very useful tools to meet that threshold.
Getting better at finding evidence doesn’t equate to throwing out punishment. It can be an argument in favor of it.
You’re still overlooking the importance of the fact that all of your suppositions come from a position of ignorance (non-omniscience). Not only can you not know what an omniscient god would know, but you also can’t know the nature of omnipotence or omni-benevolence. Why should all-powerful mean impossible power? Why should all-goodness mean goodness according to mortal you?
You seem to suppose the the most powerful being should be so powerful that they can do what’s impossible, rather than merely all things that are possible. You seem to suppose that an omni-benevolent god would do good according to your mortal estimation. But “good” according to your mortal estimation requires logically impossible things, and there is no reason to suppose that “all-powerful” means “beyond all-powerful”. There is similarly no reason to think an all-knowing being would know what a round square looks like.
I believe these suppositions are rooted in an idea of god as magical, rather than god as ultimately natural. Magical god tends to be the target of atheists, while ultimately natural god is often god to theists.
If omnipotence means powerful enough to do all possible things, then impossible things are irrelevant. Perhaps creating a universe according to god’s own logic is the most powerful and good thing a god can do. Perhaps this is the best of all possible worlds, and your mortal preferences against bad things are merely mortal preferences. This would mean that it is better that people can murder than if people could not. Only an omniscient god could know all the consequences of disallowing evil in a universe where disallowing consequences is logically impossible and thus a non-alternative.
I’m not arguing about existence. I’m saying that Paul never knew the living Jesus. His biblical interaction with Jesus comes after the crucifixion. That’s the same as Joseph Smith, who is not an accepted figure outside of Mormonism. My contention is that Paul should not be accepted either.
Much of what Christians believe comes from a guy who never met Jesus. Much of what Mormons believe come from a guy who never met Jesus.