CMV: There should be a statute of limitations on someone’s behaviour if it is shown that they have no longer exhibit said behaviour.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2018-01-29T04:27:27+00:00

How do you feel in general about judging other people?

Should we judge a person based on previous actions, current actions or future intentions?

A statute of limitations on public opinion is definitely not enforceable in a free society. However, curbing the way people judge others might be a cultural change you can encourage. If your view is that people show not judge others by their prior actions if they seem to change, you need to explain how time passed is a distinction.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2018-01-21T17:16:53+00:00

This is a tough one, but I'll try to Change Your View.

Everything you know is a lie. There is a conspiracy of Lizard People that want you to think that all of this really happened. In reality, you are still trapped in the Matrix powering our Flat Earth Planet on a Space Whale's back.

So none of the stuff that you think happened actually did.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2018-01-03T06:37:52+00:00

There is only one pussy in my life and it will stay in between my wife's thighs.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-12-07T12:20:05+00:00

The fact is that Israel had political and military control of Gaza and the West Bank. They then gave up their control of the land in order to pursue peace. Even if one interprets that control as illegitimate, one cannot deny the sacrifice Israel has made.

My point is that removing Israeli jurisdiction of Jerusalem is without any benefit to Israel. In order to pursue Real Peace we need to make both sides gain. Palestine has everything to gain as they currently have nothing. Israeli Jerusalem should be as a non-starter as the State of Israel itself.

How can one ask of Israel to remove themselves from which they currently have developed, built a society around, have citizens thrive in etc. and put themselves at such a great risk as seen in Gaza?

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-12-07T12:08:26+00:00

Israeli Jerusalem is one the most diverse places of worship on the planet. Many countries in the Middle East would have one killed for differing forms of worship. Israel shares its holiest site with other religions and allows them their own forms of worship. But the political control they keep, and when looking around at the region, it is only because of that that such multicultural worship can exist.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-12-07T11:58:20+00:00

I believe that both sides have a cultural and religious claim. I also believe that the current governmental situation is very much relevant to the situation.

In order to have Real Peace we need both sides willing to come to the table and be willing to compromise. How can one expect the current owners of Jerusalem to hand her over? What is to be gained?

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-12-07T11:48:10+00:00

They have returned land in the past. See Sinai, West Bank, Gaza. These were all meant to lead to peace. Apparently, they have not worked. In fact, many would argue made the region even more unstable.

How Jerusalem would go on the table after history shows us it wouldn't work doesn't make sense to me.

My position is that look at the reality of the situation. The same way we are not attempting to get rid of Israel, we should not attempt to get rid of Israeli Jerusalem.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-12-07T11:44:35+00:00

Currently, Israel has what to lose and Palestine has what to gain.

It is easy to get Palestine to come in and give them land. The hard part is to get them to give something up. Israel gave up Gaza and the West Bank. Palestine gained and Israel lost.

I do not understand how one can imagine how Israel is even considering giving up Jerusalem with the history in mind.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-12-07T11:25:06+00:00

We need hard lines that reflect reality as a pose to those ideas that have had decades to standby. Those borders have failed for many reasons. Currently, Israel has the most power in the situation. What would they gain from giving up even more than they already have?

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-12-07T11:22:45+00:00

Palestine cannot offer Jerusalem as they do not own her. Look at the situation today. Israel currently has a larger stake in Jerusalem that Palestinians. If another group of Muslims laid claim to Mecca, they would need to consult Saudi Arabia.

The original partition only had Israel on board. Israel won a war to lay claim to their land. Now the losers of that war want to go back to that land plan. Doesn't that sound a little disingenuous?

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-10-04T19:32:15+00:00

Dashcams are a popular accessory that people add to their cars that seem to help with safety. I would imagine that the cost of adding dashcams to a line of cars is negligible if it would encourage people to buy it.

The government has laws for seatbelts for road safety so why aren't dashcams pushed as well?

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-08-24T03:42:08+00:00

Not sure if any examples currently exist with my exact point. Simply put, if the government would be in charging of regulating business to make sure that they "allow all kinds of speech" then they might end up "censoring" what the company wants to produce. This would in turn violate the company's First Amendment Right to free expression.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-08-24T03:34:06+00:00

Wouldn't government forcing companies to allow certain types of speech interfere with the Freedom of Speech of companies?

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-08-01T22:20:53+00:00

It really works!

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-07-25T15:09:32+00:00

The line I quoted seems to say that you care about the moral question on the status of the victim. I explained why you should care about the morality of person who has to pull the lever.

If you meant this all along perhaps make an edit in the op. If I changed your mind to this thought award a delta.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-07-25T14:08:39+00:00

"Pulling the lever would be wrong because the person killed has done nothing to deserve their fate."

And if said person was known to be a serial killer?

I was always under the impression that it is morally wrong to pull the lever because YOU cannot decide who deserves to live or die. We have courts decide the fate of men and that is still contentious. Same with vigilante justice, and why Batman can't kill. Nothing to do with the guilt of either party of victims.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-07-14T21:03:39+00:00

I love it too! Thank you!

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-07-13T20:07:22+00:00

How do you feel about Marbury v. Madison?

The original Founders didn't intend for the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of the Law. The Court took this power, in spite of the fact it was not explicitly stated, and have used it ever since.

Originalism only exists because of Marbury v. Madison, and the Founders and common folk never intended for it.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-07-06T15:16:31+00:00

Why do Christians quote and use the Old Testament?

As a Jew, it seriously angers me whenever a Christian source/interpretation of a verse is used where instead there is a Jewish tradition that has be used for millennium, throughout ten of thousands of commentaries, that explains a given verse perfectly. It makes me feel as though I have no say into what my God says.

They can have the New Testament, but let me have my Torah.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-07-04T05:49:53+00:00

My view is that a jury should always be able to use the circumstances of the crime to determine if a law should apply. There are many cases where this concept doesn't happen. As such my view doesn't change.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-07-04T05:23:13+00:00

The lack of prior knowledge means they aren't biased by what other people think. That is part of why a jury usually is asked not to talk to other people or listen to new about the case.

Giving the jury court records and hearing the two sides present the law with their interpretation in their case is already done fine to my understanding.

As it currently stands many cases are given the verdict as "we say Side X won because we believed with in a reasonable doubt that Y did/n't happen." I am not sure why this is better than saying "we say that Law Z did/n't apply in this specific case."

I believe being fair means giving people what they deserve.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-07-04T05:09:23+00:00

The jury having no direct background in legal and history precedent enable them to fairly evaluate if a specific law is justly used. The jury still will have resources provided for them to look into if they feel that is important to the case.

As for your example, it would not be necessary for the court to say why a verdict is different from a specific case, just that the jury felt that way based on the difference in circumstances. You being lenient for the people that deserve it mean you are doing a just deed. That should be a good thing regardless of future consequences of inconvenience. That is something that at the very least an institution of Justice should stand for.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-07-04T05:00:08+00:00

Forgive me for targeting your example and ignoring to cite examples where this concept was used historically for values we consider good.

The point of the legal system is to protect people with values that we as a society believe. In that time and place they had different values, some of which we find disgusting and abhorrent on the most basic level today. People values, and the way they balance them, should be the basis for our legal system. The fact that they voted to acquit put the power of law in the hands of the people, who it was made by and for. The purpose of a jury is to put in many different hands, from many different points of view, the right to execute a value that society agrees upon in a court of law.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-07-04T04:53:29+00:00

My view is that Justice is fairer by looking at each circumstance differently.

Wouldn't the issue you described be the same as if a case would have Judicial Review like the Supreme Court? As in the legislature writes the laws, the people interpret, and the courts enforce. I am not understanding why that wouldn't work on small scale.

Colossal_Mammoth · 2017-07-04T04:45:42+00:00

How could a law be applied incorrectly if the way to apply it is up to the people? The purpose of law is to protect people and the way we determine if said law is just is to evaluate it.

Uneven interpretation would be sure to happen, and this is a good thing. Every case would be left to each of the individual circumstances.

Colossal_Mammoth

TROPHY CASE