Total posts: 618
-->
@Username
Honestly what's absent from the discussion of police brutality is the magnitude of the problem and the impact it has on communities. The impact of the problem should be measured when it comes to making policy changes. I suspect that it's not a very significant problem in most jurisdictions and that the real problem is overraction to the incidents.Police brutality scares me conceptually (as I'm sure it does for many others) as it is the state abusing it's power. Any nation where police violence goes unchecked is creating a huge problem in the future.But when it comes to protesting on a national level - I just don't see the issue as rising to the level where the response is proportionate.I get the feeling that people are protesting about more than they say they're protesting about. Overpolicing + corruption from within in the police force and also the material disadvantages that black people face in America make people angry too, I imagine. Here's a good video about police accountability. His humor is kind of annoying but it's a good repository of info for how fucked American policing is.
The youtube video was helpful. The data necessary for policy decisions doesn't exist and there are problems with records of misconduct and impartial oversight. This is something that's easily solvable with a federally administered national database of incidents and investigations; A file for each particular officer and liability risk for local departments for negligent hiring if such records aren't reviewed and considered reasonably during the hiring process. Disposing of local control and sovereign immunity is essential for success. Not saying do that specifically but something like that may go a long way toward preventing incidents from happening because it would get rid of a lot of the bad apples.
Created:
-->
@Username
Honestly what's absent from the discussion of police brutality is the magnitude of the problem and the impact it has on communities. The impact of the problem should be measured when it comes to making policy changes. I suspect that it's not a very significant problem in most jurisdictions and that the real problem is overraction to the incidents. I don't intend to imply that officers should just get away with shit. They shouldn't because justice demand that they be held responsible for violations. But when it comes to protesting on a national level - I just don't see the issue as rising to the level where the response is proportionate.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Yes, I'm sure. Polling likely voters has superior predictive value because it is more directly related to the event being predicted.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Accurately Predicted 25 out of 27 Elections
False. When you predict something you are making a statement about the future. Norpoth developed his model in the 90's. His model predicted 5 out of 6 presidential elections correctly. The rest of the cases are not predictions but applying the model to elections of the past. There is no "prediction" in that. Further, this thing comes across as cherry picking. Polls are much better predictors of outcomes than statistical models. Performance in a primary is a poll in a sense, but it's indirectly related to likely voters. Polling likely voters directly is superior.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The mistakes are a two way street, but I would imagine the most mistakes would likely be made about distinguishing deaths caused by flu-based pneumonia and covid-19.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
There exists credible scientific evidence that masks are effective at reducing the spread of COVID-19. Whether or not the masks filter the virus or are designed to isn't relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
why does it seem pretty much everyone is going with option one or two?
Because the userbase is polluted with paranoid conspiracy theorists who don't trust public health authorities and won't bother verifying the claims thereof. They're probably die-hard birthers, deep state folk, and the like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So now you say it's unsettled law. What happened to this stuff:
Don't think that would pass the innocent until proven guilty and other rights, it would totally work in every other country but not the u.s. you don't balance rights like that, just privileges[...]I can wear what I want because it falls under freedom of speech, which includes NOT wearing something demanded by the government. My employer can have a dress code and if I choose to work for them I'm agreeing to follow their rules because I have the right to NOT work for them.
Btw, and from ACLU of Texas (i.e. constitutional law lawyers), not some guy on youtube:
Are stay-home and mask orders constitutional?
Likely, yes. Although there are pending lawsuits challenging certain provisions of stay-home orders, most courts have so far upheld their constitutionality when they are based on guidance from public health experts and not implemented in arbitrary or discriminatory ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Your source was some guy on youtube. When confronted with your source's credibility problem you did not address it, but instead changed the subject from the constitutionality of the COVID-19 restrictions to the practical problems with their enforcement. Should I be disappointed that you're arguing this poorly or was it my mistake to have any hope in the first place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Looks like you got nothin'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Your source is not credible. I provided you with an opinion of a federal judge. Your source is self described as "IT engineer, husband, dad, friend, carpenter, author (maybe one day), avid outdoor enthusiast..." www.facebook.com/tommyjordaniii
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
"A man who gives up his freedoms and liberties in exchange for safety and security deserves neither"
The real Ben Franklin quote is "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You were talking about the interplay between federal constitutional rights and COVID-19 restrictions. Those issues are directly addressed by what I referenced. The answers are there, ready for you to read. If you don't want to read them I can only surmise that it's some form of information avoidance. It is true that some COVID-19 restrictions have been struck down, but I haven't seen that happen on federal constitutional grounds. From what I have seen when the COVID-19 orders get thrown out by courts it has been due to state-law issues, sometimes procedural problems.unfortunately I don't have time and I'm not going to try and do it on my phone, but I believe the courts have struck down laws making masks mandatory, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure I heard that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Start reading at "III. Likelihood of success on the merits"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Don't think that would pass the innocent until proven guilty and other rights, it would totally work in every other country but not the u.s. you don't balance rights like that, just privileges
If the crime is not wearing the mask in certain situations all you have to prove is that they didn't wear the mask in that situation. It could be prosecuted just as any other crime would be (e.g. not wearing a seat belt). I don't see much of a problem in that department.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Negligent transmission of diseases has long been actionable. I see no reason why it should be any different with COVID-19.because you can't prove it unless it's intentional, they either did or wanted to decriminalize not telling someone you have HIV before sex so.... The people who have intentionally coughed at someone or similar have been arrested because that's a threat even if they aren't infected.if someone isn't infected how could they be arrested? right to privacy, HIPAA laws etc how would anyone know?
Negligence is generally not intentional and can be proven in some cases. It would be difficult to prove negligent transmission of COVID-19 because it is difficult to prove when, where, and how someone caught the disease. What is very easy to prove is whether or not someone is wearing a mask.
Arresting people is simple. You have a policeman (or a citizen performing a citizen's arrest, as the case may be) who does that. Make it illegal not to wear a mask in certain situations and failure to obey that law is the actionable offense.
I think what this really boils down to is balancing the interest of preventing the spread of COVID-19 against the personal freedom of people to not wear masks. I don't see wearing masks as overly burdensome when weighed against the potential harm. They are inexpensive, take little time, don't cause any significant injuries that I'm wear of, and are easy to use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Negligent transmission of diseases has long been actionable. I see no reason why it should be any different with COVID-19.
Created:
More specifically it's a proposal to vote on the issue. The issue is ripe for a referendum, but I would vote against it because racism is unfair in general. Repealing prop 209 would be especially unfair to asian parents who moved to California and setup roots because they believed that prop 209 would protect their children from racist policies in college admissions.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
TBH what struck me as the hardest part of the case was proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the knee to the neck caused death. For all I know he was having a heart attack before the police showed up and would have died anyway.
CASE TITLE: CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION[...]II. Natural diseasesA. Arteriosclerotic heart disease, multifocal, severeB. Hypertensive heart disease1. Cardiomegaly (540 g) with mild biventricular dilatation2. Clinical history of hypertension[...]Cross sections of the vessels show multifocalatherosclerosis, with 75% proximal and 75% mid narrowing of the left anterior descendingcoronary artery; 75% proximal narrowing of the 1st diagonal branch of the left anteriordescending coronary artery; 25% proximal narrowing of the circumflex coronaryartery; and 90% proximal narrowing of the right coronary artery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I had imagined that the problem would mostly be at the line where the officers on the other side could back them up if shit hit the fan. I don't know that it had ever been tried before. Yes, you can't arrest someone for simply having a water bottle. I had contemplated that there would be video evidence and perhaps the culprits could be identified by their clothing and such and the description and location could be communicated over radio and the video files transmitted to the arresting officers, or something like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
TBH I think there should be a way to deal with the bottle throwers and other trouble makers without necessitating clearing out all the other people who aren't causing trouble. Like, maybe a separate group of officers that patrols from the other side and arrests the trouble makers. They tell everyone exactly who they're arresting and why and have it on video so they can show people who are asking about it on the spot. Or maybe something else that avoids having to plow through everybody.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The SCOTUS case you were citing doesn't seem applicable to the facts here because here there is no license or permit etc. required to be protesting. (at least not that I'm aware of) That's what I was talking about.I don’t think you understood my analogy. A Supreme Court case is broader than the scope of what was challenged in Court. That’s why Supreme Court precedents exist. And actually you do need a permit. Take a look at Section 1.6 in Title 36.I also said that POTUS doesn't have the authority to make the laws. Whether it was Trump or Barr isn't really that significant to what I was saying. (and really, it isn't knowable due to the adminstration's low credibility, esp. after the bullshit about the use of tear gas) They are both executive branch officials, and I was talking about the separation of powers.They didn’t make a law. They executed the law. The regulations made were present before both Trump and Barr. And there were smoke canisters and pepper bullets used after the protestors refused to move back. They weren’t there to stop the protesting. They were there to just move it back a block to protect a piece of federal property.But really, I don't believe him because I have seen no evidence to support what he is saying and I have seen evidence to suggest that what he is saying is false. His credibility is pretty low after the tear gas bullshit anyway.Why not? The church was vandalized. Police have encountered water bottles being thrown at them. Federal law requires a permit to be able to protest which they didn’t get. Sections 1.5 and 1.6 should help you. It’s one thing if the permit was rejected, but they never asked for a permit in the first place...You don’t believe Barr, because you don’t want to. You want to believe Trump tear gassed protestors for a photo op, when the order was given long before. If conservatives were doing the same thing, I would support Barack Obama doing the same thing. It’s the job of the President to enforce the law.
I looked at those sections. They don't say that demonstrations require permits, which typically aren't required anyway for spontaneous demonstrations. Beyond that, the protestors were mostly on the streets and sidewalks surrounding the park, at least that's what I saw in the videos, and those areas are DC local territory where DC local regulations apply and Title 36 does not. You haven't done the work necessary to construct a case. I don't seriously consider poorly supported position. That's pretty much what everything is on this site, unfortunately. Just a bunch of people yacking and sticking to their guns no matter what. They're loyal to their camp regardless. Post-truth politics and tribalism are stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property. President wasn’t even involved in this. AG Barr wanted time move the perimeter back in the morning after the vandalism of the church the night before. Protecting public property falls within the realm of the federal government. And the judicial precedent is set regardless of how it was set. For example Marbury v Madison established judicial review, but judicial review doesn’t just apply to court appointment processes.
The SCOTUS case you were citing doesn't seem applicable to the facts here because here there is no license or permit etc. required to be protesting. (at least not that I'm aware of) That's what I was talking about. I also said that POTUS doesn't have the authority to make the laws. Whether it was Trump or Barr isn't really that significant to what I was saying. (and really, it isn't knowable due to the adminstration's low credibility, esp. after the bullshit about the use of tear gas) They are both executive branch officials, and I was talking about the separation of powers.
There are 1,699 regulations in Title 36. https://gov.ecfr.io/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1c9838ccc2469ef3bcdc74620bd59bed&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title36/36tab_02.tpl There's no way to know which you are referring to.
The larger issue, which I wasn't even talking about, was whether or not the actions taken were legally and morally justified. Perhaps they were, if what Barr said on Face the Nation is true:
BARR: They were not peaceful protesters. And that's one of the big lies that the- the media is- seems to be perpetuating at this point.MARGARET BRENNAN: Three of my CBS colleagues were there. We talked to them.BARR: Yeah.MARGARET BRENNAN: They did not hear warnings. They did not see protesters--BARR: There were three warnings.MARGARET BRENNAN:--throwing anything.BARR: There were three warnings given. But let's get back to why we took that action. On Friday, Saturday and Sunday, OK, there were violent riots in- at Lafayette Park where the park police were under constant attack at the- behind their bike rack fences. On Sunday, things reached a crescendo. The officers were pummeled with bricks. Crowbars were used to pry up the pavers at the park and they were hurled at police. There were fires set in not only St. John's Church, but a historic building at Lafayette was burned down.MARGARET BRENNAN: These were things that looters did.BARR: Not looters, these were- these were the- the violent rioters who were- dominated Lafayette Park.MARGARET BRENNAN: But what I'm asking about--BARR: They broke into the Treasury Department,--MARGARET BRENNAN: --on Monday when it was a peaceful protest.BARR: I'm going to- let me get to this, because this has been totally obscured by the media. They broke into the Treasury Department, and they were injuring police.
But really, I don't believe him because I have seen no evidence to support what he is saying and I have seen evidence to suggest that what he is saying is false. His credibility is pretty low after the tear gas bullshit anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The police didn’t say stop protesting, they said move back. The right to peacefully assemble is not absolute.“Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety.”I think it’s pretty safe to say a curfew is a time and the prior night’s events constitute concerns for public safety.They can’t stop you from assembly, but they can say where and when you can assemble.
In that case there was a law that made it illegal to do what they were doing. POTUS doesn't have the authority to make laws. Some protestors were blocking the street which may have been a violation, but I didn't see anything beyond that.
Created:
From a personal choice and public health standpoint legalizing and regulating prostitution is an easy case to make. The issue of public morals and cultural impact has to be addressed. What's "wrong" with it? Nothing, and yet something. It's something that feels wrong but isn't really wrong, and that's the worst kind of wrong because you can't convince someone to feel a certain way about something by presenting evidence or making arguments. And, in any case, how should one feel about it? Further, does legalizing this conduct tend to normalize it? Will normalizing this behavior cause our daughters be less disinclined to consider prostitution as a way to support themselves?
Created:
Posted in:
TBH I like pastebin because it's so dry and featureless. It's distilled thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't think that type of tolerance has political relevance.I think it has with the 2nd amendment. Whether people accept it or not free speech is not protected in the US in all cases. Just like tolerance it can only go so far.
I guess somewhat. It doesn't seem very difficult to rassle to me though; You know, to the point where there's a paradox. We generally tolerate things so long as they don't case problems. Once there are problems then it becomes a policy issue where a cost/benefits pros/cons analysis is done. Or, at least that's how I look at things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
--> @Death23When people speak of tolerance in political discourse it's often in reference to the tolerance of ethnic minorities (e.g. the "Museum of Tolerance") rather than tolerance in general. It's not paradoxical to advocate for tolerance of ethnic minorities while simultaneously being intolerant of racism and bigotry.I wasn't using that definition. I was using the one when tolerance is without limit.
I don't think that type of tolerance has political relevance. Why post in the politics forum? I mean, what I see often is people attacking political correctness, and often the attack made is an appeal to hypocrisy argument. (e.g. "X advocates for tolerance but X does not tolerate intolerance"; and tu quoque is the hallmark of the propagandist) I'm just hoping this is not that.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't see any purpose to it. The mods are defacto community leaders anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
There is no paradox. When people speak of tolerance in political discourse it's often in reference to the tolerance of ethnic minorities (e.g. the "Museum of Tolerance") rather than tolerance in general. It's not paradoxical to advocate for tolerance of ethnic minorities while simultaneously being intolerant of racism and bigotry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Created:
Airmax has returned and has vowed to overthrow Juggle and rebuild DDO "from the ashes".
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
Anything other than a professionally administered intelligence test has credibility problems. Problem is they're expensive.
Created:
RM has indicated that he left because he "had an addiction to online debating, a real genuine addiction." This petition may be pressuring an addict to relapse.
Created:
Virt did the most I think. I think Bsh and Mike did a bit more than nothing based on the contents of my PMs. Can't really show you those though as it would be a breach of trust.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Eh if he comes back he'd be spotted. Plenty of peeps here got MAR radar. Unless he's truly changed, in which case perhaps we should welcome him back.
Created:
Your comments and Ram's on various parts of the site were helpful in painting the picture and directing me toward the evidence. It was all there. It was simply a matter of presenting it concisely and in a way that left little room for doubt. Bsh Virt and Mike all did a lot of work on it too. Virt's enthusiasm and excitability reminded me of a time when I gave a shit about things other than money or revenge.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
I didn't want any credit. I wanted him to suffer.
Created:
I surmised that it was something from DDO
Created:
The user's alleged experiences were very different from mine. I had a difficult time viewing the allegations as within the realm of reasonable possibility, but after reading some of YB's posts I can see that she is likely to be the subject of abuse. It looks like bsh did delete the debate eventually. I've observed him being unusually hesitant to act, but other than that he seems to be a reasonable moderator. I think he doesn't like me. IDKY
Created:
“This site is a right wing bully forum.” Review of DebateArt11/3/18I was told by two Christians that I don't have the right to live. I was sent a debate saying I should die. bsh1 an alleged moderator refused to do anything, and blamed me. Here is the debate, if it is still up: https://www.debateart.com/debates/235
But then:
“They told me I don't have the right to live.” Review of debate.org7/6/18I was told by several neocons that I don't have the right to live, and that it would be better if I could die instead. I bet some of these people claim they are making America greate again.
Looks like the same review posted twice with minor alterations. The coincidence isn't believable. The linked to debate doesn't exist? Not even on Google cache or the wayback machine.
Edit: He/she also posts bad reviews with sob stories too frequently to be believable. All of this happened to one person? Doubt it. https://www.sitejabber.com/users/yeshuab
Created:
-->
@dylancatlow
The man recklessly caused a panic for no legitimate purpose. He was not within his rights to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'd stay away from news companies other than the associated press or reuters except for investigational purposes (i.e. I wouldn't rely on articles from news companies to construct a case). Most news companies (e.g. NBC, Fox, CNN, etc) have a recurring audience that likes to be told what it wants to hear. If a news company repeatedly deviates significantly from the desired narrative then the company risks losing the audience which it depends on for revenue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
- Dictionaries - Onelook.com will search all major online dictionaries for the same entries. Oxford, Websters, Collins, and American heritage seem to be the most reputable
- Encyclopedias - Britannica is likely the most reputable. Wikipedia as a secondary source, but it is important to pay attention to the underlying sources at Wikipedia and view the articles with skepticism.
- Non-partisan government agencies, both federal and state. Try googling with the filtering command "site:.gov" after your search.
- Universities and other academic sources: Try googling with the filtering command "site:.edu" after your search
- Court records - These may be useful when there are politically contentious issues. When evidence and argument are presented by both sides in court and a neutral fact-finder renders a decision with the whole world watching, there is some credibility there that can't be found elsewhere.
Created: