Total posts: 618
Posted in:
I don't see that Mitch has the votes because of a few GoP senators being potentially unwilling. He's probably got the votes though. Mitch's stance is clearly hypocritical, but it's not like anybody really believed him the first time. It's just so out in the open now, but when it comes to SCOTUS nominations the reputation damage is probably a small price to pay for the power of a life-long SCOTUS seat.
Created:
Maybe there's something in there that worries you, IDK what you worry about.
Created:
Posted in:
RFD for https://www.debateart.com/debates/2320-the-science-of-sex-appeal-makes-homosexuality-non-sense
Also in PDF format here - https://www.docdroid.net/Id4a2Qg/the-meaning-of-the-resolution-was-disputed-in-this-debate-pdf
Not sure about docdroid.net
The meaning of the resolution was disputed in thisdebate. The disputed term is "non-sense". Pro contends that themeaning is "doesn't make sense" or "ridiculous", orsomething like that. Con's provided definition is from a dictionary. Thiscreates, effectively, two competing resolutions. Ultimately though, undereither resolution, Con's arguments prevail. So, it isn't necessary for me todecide which competing interpretation of the resolution is correct, but I willdiscuss that anyway.
Resolution 1: "non-sense" using Pro'sdefinition
Pro provided no evidence that anything in thedebate made homosexuality "non-sense". Con more accurately summed upthe situation as "it merely neglected to explain why homosexuality makessense." (perhaps more accurately stated would be "it neglected todiscuss homosexuality") Which, from the gist of things, is really what I'mgleaning was going on with the documentary, at least based on Pro's statements.(e.g. "By the end of the documentary, you'll ask yourself a question.Something to the effect of " Well where does this leave homosexualattraction?"" - A viewer puzzled by homosexuality after watching thedocumentary suggests that the topic was passed over; "the science of sexappeal deals with explaining sexual attraction via biological, anatomical,physiological, hormonal analysis to the point where it leaves no room toascertain how homosexuality fits amidst the various analytical data." -This further makes it seem like there was simply no discussion of homosexualityin the documentary.
Ultimately I'm inclined to go with Con here,though it was close. Pro provided no evidence. Pro even admits there is noevidence. Pro states that the documentary thoroughly explained the heterosexualphenomenon and left him wondering how the homosexual phenomenon could possiblybe explained. An explanation for a phenomenon is not evidence that a differentphenomenon can't have an explanation or "doesn't make sense". This isn'tconvincing in the slightest.
Con doesn't present any evidence, either. Though,really, it's not like Con can prove a negative. Pro admits that the documentarydoesn't discuss homosexuality. So, there's really no purpose in Con watchingthe documentary or linking it. I would have liked to Con discuss this"Resolution 1" more thoroughly than he did rather than focus on thecompeting definition. Though, given Pro's lack of evidence, this is somethingthat seems like a default victory scenario based on burdens.
Resolution 2: "non-sense" using Con'sdefinition
Con's case using this resolution is clearly in hisfavor. Using Con's definition, the claim that "homosexuality isnon-sense" is saying something like "homosexuality isunintelligible". The falseness of such a claim isn't disputed by Pro, whoinsists on using his definition. It appeared that both debaters agreed thatusing Con's definition the resolution was false. So, not much RFD needed here.
Re: Correct interpretation of the resolution
I view resolution interpretation as something thatis not part of the debate and not subject to the ordinary rules of debatejudging. In other words, I'm not confined to the arguments and reasoning of thedebaters for or against particular interpretations.
I refer to CACI 314 and 315 (google-able)
314.Interpretation—Disputed Words
[Name of plaintiff] and [name of defendant]dispute the meaning of the following words in their contract: [insert disputedlanguage].
[Name of plaintiff] claims that the words mean[insert plaintiff’s interpretation]. [Name of defendant] claims that the wordsmean [insert defendant’s interpretation]. [Name of plaintiff] must prove that[his/her/its] interpretation is correct.
In deciding what the words of a contract mean, youmust decide what the parties intended at the time the contract was created. Youmay consider the usual and ordinary meaning of the language used in the contractas well as the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract
315.Interpretation—Meaning of Ordinary Words
You should assume that the parties intended thewords in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless youdecide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning.
[Name of plaintiff] and [name of defendant]dispute the meaning of the following words in their contract: [insert disputedlanguage].
[Name of plaintiff] claims that the words mean[insert plaintiff’s interpretation]. [Name of defendant] claims that the wordsmean [insert defendant’s interpretation]. [Name of plaintiff] must prove that[his/her/its] interpretation is correct.
In deciding what the words of a contract mean, youmust decide what the parties intended at the time the contract was created. Youmay consider the usual and ordinary meaning of the language used in the contractas well as the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract
315.Interpretation—Meaning of Ordinary Words
You should assume that the parties intended thewords in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless youdecide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning.
The usual and ordinary meaning is in Con's favor. So,unless there is evidence that a special meaning was intended, Con's definitionprevails.
There is evidence that a special meaning wasintended. In the debate description, immediately following the resolution isthe resolution paraphrased as follows:
This documentary, "The science of sexappeal", which I highly recommend you watch in order to really debate thistopic makes sense of heterosexuality. So much so in contrast, homosexualitydoesn't make sense at all .
The phrase "doesn't make sense at all"aligns closely with the resolution's use of the term "non-sense".Further evidence that such an interpretation was intended by Pro is that Con'sdefinition was so heavily in his favor that it would be somewhat strange forPro to have used it. Additionally, there is no mention of homosexuality being"unintelligible" or something like that in the debate description,while there is further implication of Pro's usage -
By the end of the documentary, you'll ask yourselfa question. Something to the effect of " Well where does this leavehomosexual attraction?"
Basically all of the studies in the documentarywere pointing to one thing. That is baby making.
Basically all of the studies in the documentarywere pointing to one thing. That is baby making.
The foregoing evidence of an intended specialmeaning was clear to me when I read the debate description for the first time.This special meaning was reasonably discernable from the debate description andCon was therefore on fair notice as to Pro's intentions. Accepting this debatein good faith would require using the objectively implicated special meaning.Ergo, Pro's definition prevails despite the fact that it is not consistent withthe usual and ordinary meaning of the word.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Geoengineering is cheap and doesn't require hundreds of nations to all agree. Too bad people are too chicken to do it.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Greater good > NAP / harm principle
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I don't really care about Kyle Rittenhouse. I care more about rushing to judgment and the distortion of facts for political purposes, which seems to happen often with these police incidents. (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/ ) This is one of the main reasons I don't like BLM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, there's probably going to be a lot of defamation lawsuits. Ayanna Pressley should probably be sued for https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Egb7hTbXcAA28md.jpg
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Yep, looks like a murder to me, plausibly politically motivated. Too bad it plays right into Trump's hands. The more protests, riots, and violence there is the more whites will vote for Trump out of fear of blacks. I expect Trump to intentionally foment racial tension as a reelection strategy. I see him going to Kenosha as part of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yes, he has been charged with violating the Wisconsin age restriction on carrying a firearm. Ownership of the weapon and the where and how he came in to possession of it aren't clear to me. The incident represents an escalation of things, and the Trump supporters' caravan through Portland and the later shooting today may represent further escalation. I think deescalating things, patience, and giving the courts a chance to do their jobs is the direction everyone should be taking rather than rioting and putting themselves in to situations which are likely to result in violence and further escalation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I saw a video which was purportedly of the shooting. It didn't look like protesters vs counter-protesters. It looked like two guys walking down the street started arguing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, it could matter in that way at a sentencing. He's got a lot of years to go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It may have an impact in that respect. I did some digging through Wisconsin statutes and case law and listened to some attorney video on the case. Though, if he's guilty of the first one, it's sort of moot as to whether or not he's guilty of the second. I mean, what's a murder conviction when you're already convicted of murder? It doesn't make it much worse.
Anyway, it'd be a lot of work to go figure that one out. Though, I'd direct you to the following resources as a starting point if you'd like to investigate it - https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMmCAbJT6U0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well, the angry mob said things leading up to the attack on Rittenhouse that make it objectively clear that their intention was very likely not to perform a citizen's arrest. "Get him! Get that dude! Fuck him! Get his ass!" etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The first shooting it was difficult to see the unarmed man chasing, and the plastic bag with the object being thrown, as being together sufficient justification. Thett pointed out that it was plausibly that first gunshot that changed things, and I think he was right. After the bag was thrown, there was the errant gunshot in to the air, and almost immediately after is when Rittenhouse turned around and fired 4 shots. You can see in the video that Rittenhouse was not looking behind him when the shot was fired. I wanted to know where it was because you can sort of tell what direction a shot is coming from when you hear it. If you take both videos of the first shooting you can find the guy. I plotted them on google earth and roughly positions of people based on videos. Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum, and the guy who fired the errant gunshot form an almost straight line. So, to Rittenhouse, it would have sounded like the guy who threw the object had opened fire. Given his obvious hostile intent, I don't think this would be an unreasonable conclusion.
Anyway, I have an upload here so you can see what I'm talking about. https://i.imgur.com/2M33geO.jpg
I mean, the chase, throwing the weighted plastic bag, and then the gunshot coming from that direction all taken together... if I was on a jury I don't see how I couldn't vote to acquit. The second shooting is clearly self defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I thought it was a molotov cocktail too, but it was a plastic bag with an item inside of it that gave it some weight. You can see it more closely in one of the videos. It only looks like a molotov cocktail because the overhead light is bright and reflecting off the white plastic, and the camera is probably adjusted for night time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I'm plenty familiar with them. Used to go to shooting ranges, actually shooting clay pigeons was my favorite gun thing to do. Haven't done that in years though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I did see more precisely where the errant gun was shot from. It was from some guy on the sidewalk where Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum had run past. Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum, and the errant gunner formed an almost straight line, and the errant shot was from approximately 20-40 feet (estimating) behind Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse probably could tell roughly the direction it was coming from, but he wasn't looking in that direction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
This one has two vids on it. https://www.youtube.com/c/RandRLawAZ/videos It's pretty detailed. I think Rittenhouse would likely win a trial, at least based on what I've seen so far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I'm actually pretty convinced that the gunshot in the air is what caused Rittenhouse to turn and fire, mostly because it immediately preceded Rittenhouse opening fire. The chase, the throwing of the object, and then the gunshot (which he may have assumed came from Rosenbaum) all taken together, may form a reasonable basis for an objective belief that great bodily harm was imminent. Especially if there were threats from Rosenbaum leading up to the event, then it may be more than enough for me to be convinced, I think. A little curious about the location of the muzzle flash in the photo. It's not clear what direction it was in or how far it was. Also wondering how easy it is to estimate distance and direction of gunfire using only your ears. The existence of gunfire would dispense with any alternative imo.
You can have all the private suspicions you want but the state won't be able to prove that to a jury
Yes, it is unlikely to be provable unless Rittenhouse left some messages or emails indicating it, or perhaps a witness he confided in or something. It should be investigated anyway, given the totality of the circumstances.
Who are the parents? What were they doing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
At 3m 57s - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P56g7RquD8&t=3m57s - he refers to a video where Rosenbaum was making threats at Rittenhouse. I have not seen this video. It is relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It didn't look like the person who fired the shot into the air was chasing Rittenhouse. It didn't look like a mob was chasing him. But yes, the shot in the air immediately preceded Rittenhouse opening fire. I hadn't considered that Rittenhouse may have thought that Rosenbaum had opened fire.
Definitely agree that his actions should not be emulated, and that he bears substantial moral blame for what happened. He was looking for trouble, and he found it. If anything, I begin to think he may have wanted to kill someone that night, and that he was baiting them. If that's the case, then self-defense doesn't apply at all.
A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48
Also, if anyone is interested, try Opera browser with private window and VPN enabled. It helps with paywalls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So you have him found guilty and convicted already....
No. Why would you think that? Would you have him found not guilty and released already?
can you find a case where the person was a 17 year old Male in a similar situation and what that outcome was so we have an idea for comparison?
This implies the use of subjective standards. Objective standards are used.
Wisconsin does have an objective portion to their self-defense law, so it is not a matter of what [Defendant] thought was reasonable entirely that's the issue. The issue is whether a reasonable person confronted with this situation would have acted in the fashion [Defendant] did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
He wasn't trapped by buildings. Those were cars, and there was apparently ample space between them from what can be seen on the video starting at 4:00. I did think about whether or not Rittenhouse was "backed in to a corner", but it didn't look like it.
The existence of alternatives isn't spelled out in the statute, but it goes to the necessity requirement. See, e.g., these jury instructions -
There is no duty to retreat. However, in determining whether the defendant reasonably believed the amount of force used was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference, you may consider whether the defendant had the opportunity to retreat with safety, whether such retreat was feasible, and whether the defendant knew of the opportunity to retreat.
I can't say in good conscience that something is "necessary" when there are reasonable alternatives. Kind of wondering whether or not Rittenhouse learned of Rosenbaum's true intention, which was to take Rittenhouse's gun. That may be sufficient in my eyes to show an objectively reasonable basis for a belief that great bodily harm was imminent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(14) “Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury.
In the link I PM'd you you can see the object that was thrown more closely in the video that begins at 4:00. It does look like a plastic bag with something inside of it. I don't think that being thrown is sufficient to have substantially changed things. Though, I mean, Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and trying to rob him, albeit apparently unarmed. Could Rittenhouse have continued to run? Could he have fired warning shots? I didn't see him yell for help. It did look like he could have continued to run.
I think it is obvious that Rittenhouse was defending himself from a threat. The issue is whether or not the significance of that threat rose to the level where the use of deadly force was warranted, and also whether or not there were viable alternatives. For example, it did look like Rittenhouse could have maintained the status quo of the chase by continuing to run. I also did not see that Rittenhouse attempted to yell for help from the people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
This article may provide context, though bear in mind that it's the prosecution's version of events.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You can see that one person was chasing him, but others were not. You can see that the person who was chasing him threw an object at Rittenhouse, and then continued to chase him. You can also see that the shooting started very shortly after the object was thrown. So, the thrown object was probably a big factor in Rittenhouse's thinking. If it had been a brick or a knife, I think that would signify an intent to inflict great bodily harm. Though, if it had been a pillow, I don't think that would be very threatening. The prosecutor says it was a "plastic bag", but I don't believe that. Maybe it was a newspaper in plastic? I mean, that's what's usually there.
Yeah, I can't really form an opinion on it either right now. There's just not enough context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yes, but you're talking about the second shooting when he was on his back being chased by an angry mob, with some of them tackling him and attacking. It is clear that he could not run because he was on the ground and that the angry mob intended to inflict great bodily harm upon him. They were out for blood after the first shooting. If you listen to what the mob was saying it was clear what their intentions were. "Get him! Fuck him! Get that guy! He shot somebody!"
I'm talking about the first shooting where he was being chased by a single person whose intentions seemed unclear. He fired when he was on his feet, not his back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I am mostly thinking about the first shooting rather than the second one. I think the self-defense privilege in the second one may largely depend on whether or not the first one was self defense, though I haven't double checked that. (It was the first shooting that "activated" the angry mob, which led to the second shooting)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that's a tough one imo, my current opinion is self defense, he was on the ground being attacked. there could be other charges for laws he might have broken, but from what I have seen/heard he was actually running or walking away, was pursued and being attacked while on the ground, I'm not sure how it could not be seen as self defense.
From what I've read, the standard for use of deadly force in self defense there apparently is that the use of deadly force must be objectively necessary to prevent "great bodily harm" (not just any harm). Ohio isn't a "stand your ground" state, but there's no "duty to retreat" either. Though, if you can get away safely, it is part of the things the jury considers when determining whether or not the use of force is necessary.
I'm having difficulty seeing that an objectively reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm can be formed based on what Rittenhouse observed. The first shooting is the one I'm having a hard time with. According to a witness, Rosenbaum began to approach Rittenhouse, who then began to running away and the chase ensued. At some point, Rosenbaum threw an object at Rittenhouse. It was shortly after the object was thrown that Rittenhouse began to turn and shoot. So, I'm thinking the Rittenhouse's decision to shoot rather than continue to run was heavily influenced by that object being thrown. I don't know what that object was. I can't tell from the video, and the prosecutor says it was a "plastic bag", but plastic bags don't move like that. (at least not the ones in the grocery store) Rittenhouse was close enough to see what the object was and the object was well-illuminated by the light. He was also looking in the right direction to see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yes, there are a lot of bad policies that increase cost of living in blue states. The utilities are too expensive importantly, in these tiered energy rates. It's all in the name of saving the environment, but you know, it's essentially a regressive tax, even more so because the poor tend to huddle many people in to a single household which drives up the utility usage. Cigarette taxes are very high. Housing costs are a supply and demand issue, and the governments implement policies which aren't conducive to the production of mass housing, nor does the government provide the housing. They'll dedicate some land to a local squirrel rather than build housing. When all you want to do is work and save, you'll be disqualified from the low income housing programs because you work too much, and then you'll be forking over 2.5k+/mo for a dumpy apartment. Hard to get ahead like that.
Created:
I'm in favor of creating a dumping grounds for the failures of society. Make a boat load of studio apartments in some backwater part of the state. Setup a clinic and food dispensary next to it. People can live there for free and get food and healthcare. The homeless would likely move there from the streets. This is cheaper on the state, substantially cheaper, than having them linger around downtown. Plus they wouldn't be in everyone's way. That, and their lives would suck a lot less, even though they would still suck.
Created:
Posted in:
Cost of housing is probably a factor. Though, homeless migrate to big cities for the services. Downtown has all your welfare, public transit, panhandling spots. Blue states got the big cities and medicaid expansion, and typically city police and prosecutorial policies are more friendly to the homeless. At least that's what I would think without reading more in to it. I don't see much of a connection to style of governance.
Created:
Posted in:
A disturbed mind. Might need medicaid expansion and free visits + free pills. Though, is he in a medicaid expansion state? If not, then maybe this is why our problem continues. A Republican governor did not expand medicaid in RM's state and now we are paying the price. Just one more reason to dump Trump.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Me2do me!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Man I was hoping it was true so I could finally satisfy my liberal atheist hunger for aborted baby flesh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What about that one time you changed the subject?
Created:
Posted in:
Hurricane Dorian just hit Alabama. Trump was right all along.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm concerned that conspicuously indicating the debaters' statistics may prime voters' minds for confirmation bias in favor of users with substantially higher ratings.
Created:
Supposing it's true, what's the point of pointing it out? That's the question that would be on people's minds. The fact that blacks have lower IQs on average is well-established scientifically. Then there's the nature/nurture debate about the whole thing. But at the end of the day, lets assume that it's all true, that blacks are, on average, naturally less intelligent and that the average asian is naturally smarter - What then? What is to be done with this information?
The policy implications are what is really at stake. It's about collective blame and responsibility. Say that blacks are inferior, then this justifies their inferior lots in life. It becomes "they deserve it" rather than "this is wrong". It is this line of reasoning that we must reject - That being naturally inferior means that you deserve to have a bad life. Even if it is true, it is still the right thing to do to implement social policies which provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The whole protest was over “systemic racism” in police departments. Where here do you see racism is what the thread is asking.Most people on the left don't actually care about systemic racism. It's just another forgotten buzzword to gain power.That's the real deal, the fundamental change of America.
I'd say a lot of them really don't care about it. Personally, I don't care about it. I don't use it as a tool to advance myself because it's too dishonest for me. A lot of progressive issues are disconnected from the public good because the public good isn't what's desired. Rather, it's the personal accumulation of wealth, power, respect, and socio-economic status that many are interested in, and advertising politically correct progressive positions is simply a means to that end. I wouldn't be surprised if the greater part of progressives were closet bigots who didn't give a shit about the environment nor the people.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I did not rush to judgment sir. See my post here - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4314/post-links/180602
Created:
-->
@Username
What was the point of this thread?
My best guess would be that OP is indulging in racial tribalism; attempting to diminish the social power of blacks by pushing the narrative that their grievances aren't justified.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The trust fund is just an accounting trick. At the end of the day it's all money in money out of the US treasury.
Created:
It became dysfunctional the moment Trump was sworn in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They are more likely to start their own businesses than native born people are, so they create more jobs on a per capita basis than native born workers. More jobs means more demand for labor, which means more salary for the workers.
Pew research says 10% more likely, which isn't very substantial. The economic impact of immigration is largely a transfer of wealth away from the workers and in to the hands of immigrants in the form of wages and their employers in the form of cheaper labor costs. Those are the two groups which benefit. Wealth and income inequality is pretty bad in this country right now. Opening the borders would make it worse, especially with regards to unskilled labor. The poorest in this country would lose. Closed borders protect their livelihoods. Remember that the government is to be loyal to the interests of its citizens, not foreigners who wish to enter and work. Their interests don't matter.
Occasionally there are bona fide labor shortages in particular sectors of the economy justifying the importation of labor, like healthcare workers, tech workers, or seasonal farmhands. Though, I'm rather skeptical whenever companies or special interest groups lobby for more immigrants. Bill Gates always wants more H1-B visas. Gee I wonder why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is bad for American workers, who, at 157 million are roughly half the population. People will migrate from low-wage economies to high-wage economies. Immigrants compete with the workers who are already there and depress wages. You've said that immigrants start their own businesses. Well, that's true, but they also work. Have you actually looked at the data and appreciated the impact that a flood of immigration would have on wages? I don't think you have. Who wants to compete with $5/day laborers from India? No thanks.
Created: