Wow, I thought this kind of thing was done away with years ago

[Jester]

OMG! I feel duped. I bet they put those in hoping for an insane reaction. Me = busted. :)

But... If I see Mickey M. Mouse then we'll know something is henkie!

These are names that were specifically asked for in information requests. They weren't put on the list by the White House. So if anybody visited the White House, even for a tourist's tour, and had that name, here they are.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

If I am standing outside in the street and start insulting random people using deseases, their family, their faith, there is a good chance that I will get my but kicked. Because for some people insults will hurt more, I guess more than half of the population would agree that the person that hit me was right to do so. In other words, a law could be made in which it is legal to hit somebody when he insults you.

I don't know how it works in other places, but here in the USA, the freedom of speech is only in relation to the government. This has come up before and has been discussed before. An example is this Lounge. There are some things, like advocating cheating, which are not allowed here.

Also, insults directed at an individual in his presence are verbal assault. I don't know how much leeway the law allows for 'self defense'.

--Pete

[Zenda]

One big example ...

The best example is undoubtly that Mr. 'Freedom' Wilders tried to get a book legally banned (the Koran), just a few years back. And he had the same reasons as the UK had, when they refused him last february (inciting hatred).

[kandrathe]

These are names that were specifically asked for in information requests. They weren't put on the list by the White House. So if anybody visited the White House, even for a tourist's tour, and had that name, here they are.

-Jester

Ah, I see. I thought it was too much of a coincidence that the list just happened to have those names. I wonder if they checked for Osama Bin Laden.

[Zingydex]

Hi,
I don't know how it works in other places, but here in the USA, the freedom of speech is only in relation to the government. This has come up before and has been discussed before. An example is this Lounge. There are some things, like advocating cheating, which are not allowed here.

Also, insults directed at an individual in his presence are verbal assault. I don't know how much leeway the law allows for 'self defense'.

--Pete

Dunno about the US, but Canadian law doesn't seem to have any respect for self-defense anymore, even if someone's life is at stake.

[ShadowHM]

Dunno about the US, but Canadian law doesn't seem to have any respect for self-defense anymore, even if someone's life is at stake.

Reference please?

[Delc]

Dunno about the US, but Canadian law doesn't seem to have any respect for self-defense anymore, even if someone's life is at stake.

US law does, and I'm sure Canadian law does. I believe the rule of thumb is that you are allowed to use 'reasonable' force.

[Jester]

US law does, and I'm sure Canadian law does. I believe the rule of thumb is that you are allowed to use 'reasonable' force.

I believe the rule of thumb is that you are allowed to respond in kind. No bringing a gun to a fist fight, but if someone is attacking you with a gun, you're in the clear.

The rules up North.

However, as should be quite apparent by now, this is not about the actual law, so much as the perception of society's "softness" to drug violence enforcement. I would say this perception, though widespread, is largely false. But I don't have handy data to back that up, so maybe that's just countering bias with bias.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I believe the rule of thumb is that you are allowed to respond in kind. No bringing a gun to a fist fight, but if someone is attacking you with a gun, you're in the clear.

The rules up North.

From the reading of those rules, it seems that escalation within the law is very possible.

However, as should be quite apparent by now, this is not about the actual law, so much as the perception of society's "softness" to drug violence enforcement.

Thread crossover? Will this lead to thread macramé? I hope not -- I can't even keep up when things stay on topic:)

Kidding aside, it seems that there is enough leeway that a jury could easily vote the charisma of the attorneys.

--Pete

[Jester]

From the reading of those rules, it seems that escalation within the law is very possible.

How would that square with 35.c, that you decline further conflict or retreat from it as far as is feasible before the necessity of self-preservation occurs? If you escalate a conflict, you're moving yourself towards, not away from, the risk of bodily harm.

Thread crossover? Will this lead to thread macramé? I hope not -- I can't even keep up when things stay on topic:)

Yeah, that was me forgetting which thread we were off on this tangent in. Still, I see them as related.

Kidding aside, it seems that there is enough leeway that a jury could easily vote the charisma of the attorneys.

I agree. But a charismatic attorney can, at least occasionally, argue his way out of the laws of physics, at least as far as a jury is concerned. This is not a problem with laws, but with juries.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

But a charismatic attorney can, at least occasionally, argue his way out of the laws of physics, at least as far as a jury is concerned. This is not a problem with laws, but with juries.

Too true. The jury system evolved when things were much simpler. Nowadays, how many jurors out of twelve would understand a case based on statistics? One, maybe? How many are qualified to look at two pieces of computer code and determine if one was plagiarized from the other? Heck, how many can even follow a simple argument and spot the fallacies?

It's past time to adopt some kind of a professional juror system. People trained in law, logic, forensics, etc. who are licensed and paid to be jurors. But that's another thread. :whistling:

--Pete

[Zingydex]

Reference please?

Most recent example in my area is the case of a man charged with assault after firing a shotgun at ATV riders attempting to run him over. Can't get hold of the articles themselves (it was in our local news for several days) because anyone carrying the story wants a fee for access to news more than a day old.

The gist of the story is that several ATV-riding hooligans were rampaging over this guy's private property on a regular basis at all hours, despite all efforts to get them to leave. The man eventually confronted them, and they attempted to kill him by means of the hundreds of pounds of steel each was riding on. He fired a shotgun in the air, which accomplished nothing - the assault continued. The gun fired again, this time hitting one of the riders and causing minor injury. They backed off, finally - and the homeowner found himself in court on assault charges while his assailants got off scot-free.

[ShadowHM]

Most recent example in my area is the case of a man charged with assault after firing a shotgun at ATV riders attempting to run him over. Can't get hold of the articles themselves (it was in our local news for several days) because anyone carrying the story wants a fee for access to news more than a day old.

The gist of the story is ... the homeowner found himself in court on assault charges while his assailants got off scot-free.

Sorry, but that would be still qualify as an anecdote, not a reference. You don't say where 'your area' is. You don't name names or court dates or anything else that would allow for an independent assessment beyond your own opinion of what the facts in the case might be. Just because your google-fu is weak doesn't mean others are so handicapped.

[Delc]

Most recent example in my area is the case of a man charged with assault after firing a shotgun at ATV riders attempting to run him over. Can't get hold of the articles themselves (it was in our local news for several days) because anyone carrying the story wants a fee for access to news more than a day old.

The gist of the story is that several ATV-riding hooligans were rampaging over this guy's private property on a regular basis at all hours, despite all efforts to get them to leave. The man eventually confronted them, and they attempted to kill him by means of the hundreds of pounds of steel each was riding on. He fired a shotgun in the air, which accomplished nothing - the assault continued. The gun fired again, this time hitting one of the riders and causing minor injury. They backed off, finally - and the homeowner found himself in court on assault charges while his assailants got off scot-free.

That would probably fall under escalating the violence.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Sorry, but that would be still qualify as an anecdote, not a reference. You don't say where 'your area' is. You don't name names or court dates or anything else that would allow for an independent assessment beyond your own opinion of what the facts in the case might be.

Yes. And even if he supplied all that data, it would still just be an anecdote. And the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. :whistling:

--Pete

[kandrathe]

And so does capitalism. I think the big difference is that communism always went hand in hand with dictators while capitalism is mainly practised in democracies.

You don't really understand capitalism then, do you?

In its purest (and probably most heinous) form, capitalism would be anarchist, where everything has a value and is negotiable. I'm thinking of the most barbaric and brutal of cultures where slaves, women and children are bought and sold like livestock. After the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, there was a time when they came close to this most perverse form of capitalism. By and large, the trafficking of slaves is done away with in most Western nations.

But, in order for capitalism to actually thrive, and therefore improve peoples quality of life, you do need a smattering of laws and a communal form of governance meant to protect peoples lives, liberties, and property.

So now, how do you equate capitalism (e.g. private ownership of property) with a religion? I believe that people can worship wealth, and may mistakenly fawn over rich people. If that is what you meant, then there are plenty of other Mammon's in this world.

[eppie]

You don't really understand capitalism then, do you?

In its purest (and probably most heinous) form, capitalism would be anarchist, where everything has a value and is negotiable. I'm thinking of the most barbaric and brutal of cultures where slaves, women and children are bought and sold like livestock. After the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, there was a time when they came close to this most perverse form of capitalism. By and large, the trafficking of slaves is done away with in most Western nations.

But, in order for capitalism to actually thrive, and therefore improve peoples quality of life, you do need a smattering of laws and a communal form of governance meant to protect peoples lives, liberties, and property.

So now, how do you equate capitalism (e.g. private ownership of property) with a religion? I believe that people can worship wealth, and may mistakenly fawn over rich people. If that is what you meant, then there are plenty of other Mammon's in this world.

Capitalism has always been preached as being the one and only true 'way-of-life' in many countries.
Things were good, because they were following the rules of capitalism. You can destroy the rainforests because you can make money from it.

To make capitalism really work without any of the negative outcomes you might need just the amount of government involvement that communism needs.

In that sense, they can both be seen as a religion.....but I must admit, my answer on Jesters comment was not really correct. Also because I didn't see communism as religion in the first place. So the comparison between capitalism en communism is the thing I wanted to say....not the religious aspects of it.

[Jester]

In that sense, they can both be seen as a religion.....but I must admit, my answer on Jesters comment was not really correct. Also because I didn't see communism as religion in the first place. So the comparison between capitalism en communism is the thing I wanted to say....not the religious aspects of it.

Karl Marx is quite obviously the founder (prophet?) of Communism. Pretty much all Communist doctrines trace their origins back to him, usually but not always through Lenin. Various schisms give their particular interpretations (Trotskyites, Maoists, Guevarists, Neo-Marxists, etc...) but all owe their fundamental belief structure directly to Marx. Antecedents exist, but are generally ignored.

Capitalism is a much broader thing. Where does capitalism start? You could say Adam Smith, but he was only writing about the spirit of something that was taking place during his time, the unification of markets and specialization of labour in Britain, spurred on by increasing international commerce. That commerce, and the banking that made it possible, were innovations that go back long before, to France, to Italy, to the Netherlands (always the Netherlands!) and so forth. Being a "capitalist" does not require belief in much more than the functioning of markets and the relative importance of private property. It doesn't even strictly exclude being some stripe of socialist - I would consider myself to have both strong capitalist and socialist influences.

In short, one can talk about big-C "Communism," but only about little-c "capitalism."

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Karl Marx is quite obviously the founder (prophet?) of Communism.

Marx was probably the most misunderstood philosophers of that era, so much so that at one point he declared in response to French revolutionaries, "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist". I don't believe Marx would have been a supporter of the Soviet model, or its meager shadow in Cuba. Capitalism goes back to that point at which the first person decided to trade to another the first bauble for something the other "owned".

[Zenda]

Capitalism is a much broader thing.

As you point out, Capitalism is a large concept and certainly lacks many of the 'religious' aspects of Communism. But there is the 'mantra' that Everlasting Economic Growth will bring happiness. Simple logic indicates that it leads to depletion of resources at best, but 'Religions' are seldom bothered by logic, is it not? :whistling: