[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.6633[Reply]

File: 1599124401959.jpg (22.57 KB, 385x680, 77:136, Deon_Kay,_late_2nd_Amendme….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Black open carry activist Deon Kay was shot and killed in the Washington D.C. area Wednesday, September 2nd by police. While details are still sketchy and initial reports may be wrong, it's thought that officers stated that they feared for their safety after Kay had 'brandished' his firearm. They fired despite Kay, reports state, having his back facing them while fleeing the scene.

Besides being yet another story as a part of the broader 'Black Lives Matter' phenomenon, this gets to a major, core point in American politics. It's an issue with strong passions. Many questions but few answers.

>Why are only certain classes of people, in effect, allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

In the U.S. today, particular individuals, especially African-Americans, feel that they must be armed to defend themselves. And common sense seems to indicate that they should be able to do so. Yet broader U.S. society looks down upon people who carry weapons if they don't 'look the type'. This goes beyond skin color and tends to also include LGBT individuals, Jews, Muslims, and many others thought to not be welcome in terms of 'gun culture'. The National Rifle Association in particular has a membership known for hostility toward perceived dangerous interlopers. Why is this? And how can these double-standards and inconsistencies be solved?

Is there just a natural, innate viewer reaction to seeing the image here:

>

That wouldn't happen if it was a white open carry activist? If so, how do these perceptions get fixed? Or maybe they're not fixable?
26 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6820

>>6817
Well it is a factor, but OK, your'e right. We haven't discussed that yet. But the rest of my statement still stands.

 No.6826

>>6811
Things appear more complicated than that. It's not a "no, they aren't" denial so much as a "most gun owners aren't extremists and aren't in league with the NRA's minority-baiting, so what's happening is that the small fringe is spoiling the broader group's image". Which might be wrong. But there's a distinction.

 No.6833

>>6811
People say a whole lot of things. If you lsiten to the radical Christians, they will relay you their experience about how horrible homosexuality is. if you listen to extreme racists, they'll rant about how bad a given race is, and give you a pile of anecdotal instances where they were right about their prejudice. If you listen to a sexist, they'll tell you how every woman in their life was a callous gold digger.

I have little interest in such things. I prefer evidence. Especially if you expect me to judge people for your presumed experience.

>and when given the answer "because cops and 2A supporters tend to be racist", they respond "No they aren't."
If you ask me "Why is the sky blue", and I tell you "It is because of the tears of God", would you just accept that at face value, believe that is completely true?
I would hope not.
People will always, universally question claims.
Especially if those claims run contrary to their own knowledge.

I have not known 2A supporters to be as a group "racist".
I am not convinced there is a significant issue of racism in police.
I have seen no evidence to suggest that this influences black open carry.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.6803[Reply]

File: 1600633318536.png (87.62 KB, 659x706, 659:706, Capture.png) ImgOps Google

Should people who post things like this, either as original content or by the obligatory "copy and share if you believe" at the bottom of each edition, be allowed to vote?  Does their voice matter an equal amount?

Imagine there were only ten of you in a room and you were trying to decide something, perhaps about masks, and one of the ten people opened up with this diatribe.  At what point is it reasonable for the other 9 people to just say "That person doesn't get to influence our decisions."?
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6828

>>6825

Is democracy worth it?

 No.6830

"The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

 No.6831

File: 1600668478382.gif (31.06 KB, 116x126, 58:63, pointy-hand-guy-with-spark….gif) ImgOps Google

>>6828
>>6830
This is one reason why the American federal government is set up as a Constitutionally limited republic with elected representatives beholden to the separation of powers, what with a bicameral legislature and an independent judiciary. In contrast to a pure democracy. Those don't work out so well.

But, yes, I do think that our system is worth it, broadly speaking.


 No.6781[Reply]

File: 1600562653268.jpeg (69.07 KB, 1160x773, 1160:773, scotus-half-mast-2020.jpeg) ImgOps Google

This is a politics-allowed supplement to http://ponyville.us/pony/res/1055628.html

Please keep in mind the high standards of /townhall/.
7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6805

File: 1600634804720.jpg (1.89 MB, 1250x1700, 25:34, 1484967623141.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6795
I think a push for a 'right to discriminate' would more of a legislative push than a judicial push.  I don't think there is anything in the federal Constitution or any state constitution that would protect a supposed 'right to discriminate'.  Any judicial proceedings would be limited to whether existing statutes prohibit discrimination, not whether the legislature may enact new laws to prohibit it.

>>6800
>The Supreme Court is a stupid system that should be abolished. We have a council of 12 elders that get to decide who can get married.
I think you misunderstand the role of the Supreme Court.  The judicial branch is supposed to simply apply enacted laws to individual cases.  The justices on the Court aren't using their own policy preferences to decide things like who be able to get married to whom (or at least they aren't supposed to be; like all humans, the justices are imperfect and biased and sometimes make errors).  Ideally, you could have a judge who vehemently hates gays nevertheless rule in favor in gay rights if the law requires it.

Judicial nominees should be evaluated primarily based on their ability to even-handedly apply the law.  Nominees who are skilled at legal reasoning and who have the ability and inclination to set aside their own political preferences when judging would make good judges regardless of their party affiliation.

>>6800
>pretty bad for people of color. Just bad bad bad all around because of what the Republican party is and always has been.
Actually, back in the 1800s and early 1900s, the Republican Party was the party in favor of black rights, and the Democratic Party was the pro-slavery/pro-segregation party.  Things flipped in the 1950s/60s.

 No.6806

>>6805
Ok granted. But it seems needlessly nitpicky to point out that things were different hundreds of years before anyone using this board or maybe even anyone using this board's grandparents were alive.

You can add "always has been for the lifetime of most human beings alive today" if the wording really bothers you, but it appears to me you're just trying troll.

 No.6808

>>6805
What do you make of the strident libertarian notion that there's a reasonable-ish argument to be made, though, that the first amendment protects a 'right to discriminate' because of freedom of religion. If someone is, say, a fundamentalist Muslim who believes that Jews are the sons of apes and pigs, refusing to serve them at a certain company, isn't that a sincere expression of their innate freedom of expression? And restricting their discrimination means squashing their sincere religion? Is that really a good idea given the first amendment?

I'm not a libertarian myself, or at least not a dogmatic one, so I don't agree personally, but then I don't think it's an opinion that's necessarily to be dismissed out of hand.


 No.6777[Reply]

File: 1600493259723.png (468.49 KB, 795x618, 265:206, Vaccine.png) ImgOps Google

Given the maelstrom of politics around the coming vaccine's development and the numerous corners that have been cut with speed put over safety, will you feel comfortable getting the anti-coronavirus injection when it does come out?

Will you wait?

Or will you decide not to get it in a while, if ever?

Personally, I... I honestly don't know.

News Source: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/914513816/trump-now-claims-every-american-could-have-coronavirus-vaccine-by-april-2021
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6779

I'll probably have to get it for my job so my feelings about it are irrelevant, but I doubt enough will be available for me to get it before it's been in circulation for a fair amount of time.

 No.6780

It's only a deadly disease for really old people and for those with serious immune system problems.

The probability of death once infected is upper-estimated to be 0.2% or 1/500 on average in the US (Math: deaths (~200k) / confirmed cases (6.75m) (*10) to get lower estimate of actual cases = 0.002). It's significantly lower for those who are healthy and young.

Not to mention that by the time the vaccine is available, we'll already have basically reached herd immunity.

And on top of that, something that nobody actually acknowledges is that the virus isn't going away. Like... it's always going to be a problem, vaccine or not. Some evolved form of it will live on as just another strain that we'll get herd immunity to in the same way we do the flu.

The only reason its doing so much damage now is because it's new.

So if the vaccine becomes mandatory or free, whatever, I'll get it. But I don't see any need to.

There is one thing good that has come out of the virus: People have started washing their dang hands and wearing masks when they're sick, something I think the US should have been doing for a long time.

 No.6801

I'm not taking it until the long-term effects are known and it's been examined by scientific groups outside of Trump's influence.


 No.6774[Reply]

File: 1600488797501.jpg (31.4 KB, 720x717, 240:239, QiUk5NCh.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should drilling the third hole or growing certain plants really be felonies with significant prison time?  Are too many potentially benign things over-criminalized?

 No.6775

Over-criminalization is a serious problem and should Biden win, I'm glad that we're likely to get some movement on the issue. Step one is eliminating qualified immunity. Sue the living daylights out of government jackboots.


 No.6554[Reply]

File: 1598070039574.png (1.52 MB, 3696x3653, 3696:3653, All_Collatz_sequences_of_a….png) ImgOps Google

Do you believe the Collatz Conjecture is true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture                                                                                 
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6558

>>6557
2 -> 1 -> 4 -> 2 -> ...

 No.6560

>>6554
It appears to be empirically true.  I would have to think on it awhile.

 No.6762

File: 1600156566228.png (243.38 KB, 828x442, 414:221, Sleep.png) ImgOps Google

I've been working on trying to prove it for a few years now. Though I'm only really making progress on half of the proof so far, that half being proving that cycles are impossible in a hailstone sequence unless the only odd number in the sequence is 1.

The other half that will definitely be a much greater challenge to prove is the idea that an infinite sequence that just climbs up and up forever is impossible.

The difference between the two is that cycles can be defined in a compact manner as a functional relationship between a number in the sequence and itself. Infinite sequences can't be defined compactly so easily, making it more difficult to find any sort of rigid statement about such a sequence to grapple with.

However, despite all of this, my hunch is that the Collatz Conjecture is absolutely true. Just to give a rough probabilistic "proof", we know that 3n+1 always results in an n that is coprime to the previous n. Assuming that the prime factorization is basically random after every 3n+1, there is always a probability that the prime factorization will be composed entirely of 2's, at which point it's over.

I could go on and on about all kinds of features and patterns in the hailstone sequence.

For example, a fun little relationship between the definitions of different odd numbers and how many divisions by two come before it:

(Where N is a whole number)
- Any n that can be represented by 6N+1 is always preceded by an even number of divisions by 2. (except at the beginning)
- Any n that can be represented by 6N+5 is always preceded by an odd number of divisions by 2. (except at the beginning)
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.6727[Reply]

File: 1599868105659.jpg (140.77 KB, 960x960, 1:1, Liberty.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

On this anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, it's a question worth pondering. Should we miss President Bush? Do we miss him? Do we wish that he was somehow in office right now?

Personally, I'd say yes. I disagreed with the man politically on a wide number of issues. However, Bush didn't actively work to pit regular people against each other, inflaming divisions based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. Few thought that Bush acted to push for a civil war, and fewer still thought that he actually wanted a civil war. Unlike a good chunk of individuals today, Bush believed in honest disagreement: good people can have opposing views without wanting to destroy each other. I miss that.
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6752

>>6751
You mean the warmongering that Trump supported back when Bush was President and that has continued under Trump? Same thing with the erosion of privacy? How is that a difference? I agree that those things have been terrible, but they're bipartisan and trans-ideological to where Trump is the same or worse.

 No.6754

I do miss the pre-trump era of politics. Maybe it never existed, but blatant election fraud is expected from both sides at this point, it seems corruption is the rule instead of the exception. At least with bush, and Obama as well, in my opinion, there was the sense that they were well-intentioned people trying to make the country better and were willing to reach across the aisle to get things done. I really don't see that from trump. I'm all for a fairly high level of skepticism about our institutions, but trump seems to try to undermine anything and everything that is critical of him on a fundamental level, and i really don't think that's a healthy way for politics to be run.

>>6751
>The massive warmongering that got us in to the whole mess in the middle east?

What then, do you suggest, we should have done in response to the world trade center being destroyed? I'm genuinely curious. If that's not something to go to war over, i don't know what is. What exactly do you suggest the response should have been there? In any case, i think calling it "warmongering" to declare war after a major city has been attacked is quite the stretch.

 No.6756

>>6754
My trouble is, it wasn't an attack from any specific place. It certainly isn't some government-sanctioned bombing or anything like that.
If we're going to war over financing terrorism, we should've fought the Saudis by now.
We certainly shouldn't've invaded two nations and then sat on them for nigh on twenty years with not a single sign anywhere of improvement or practical effect I can see.

As to what I'd do, trace the money, find out who was involved, kill them. See Mossad and the aftermath of the Munich olympics event.
Though, personally, I wouldn't bother with such covert assasinations. I'll grant its effect, but, I'm a fan of the impersonal touch, for instilling fear and caution.
A drone, bomb, cruise missile, or well placed explosive is so much more direct, I feel. No theatrics about it. You're just gone.

A tactic like that would be, I'm quite certain, far more effective and far, far, far cheaper.
Again, it seems to have worked remarkably well for Israel.


 No.6685[Reply]

File: 1599628756255.jpg (81.45 KB, 680x542, 340:271, 118240329_592715561611507_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) analyzed more than 7,750 Black Lives Matter demonstrations in all 50 states and Washington D.C. that took place in the wake of George Floyd’s death between May 26 and August 22 and found that 93% of protests have been completely peaceful.

(https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/)

With this in mind, why have the more conservative and right-wing news outlets been so focused on the far fewer cases of violence and/or unrest?
10 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6723

Do we really have solid evidence that black people are disproportionately more likely to want to commit criminal acts and do in fact commit criminal acts disproportionately?

I'm asking this honestly. I've yet to see anything other than arrest and conviction data, which means little to answer the question since whatever X group is arrested the most will be whatever group that gets the most police attention in the first place. Putting the cart before the horse.

 No.6731

File: 1599874677905.png (49.89 KB, 890x477, 890:477, homicide-by-race.png) ImgOps Google

>>6723
>I've yet to see anything other than arrest and conviction data, which means little to answer the question since whatever X group is arrested the most will be whatever group that gets the most police attention in the first place

If we assume that (in America):
(1) homicides are almost universally reported, and
(2) intra-racial homicide is much more frequent that inter-racial homicide,
then we can look at the number of homicide victims who are black.

I think both of these assumptions can be supported by very credible evidence.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

 No.6734

>>6731
Ah, so the argument is that black Americans are disproportionately more likely to be both murderers and victims compared to their population status? I see. That does appear to come across in the data.


 No.6603[Reply]

File: 1598734674976.jpg (288.91 KB, 1080x1920, 9:16, Space-abstract-193.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Would you leave earth and inhabit another planet if you could never come back to earth and would never have contact with earth again?

There are also some conditions to it. You have to qualify to be one of the people that can leave, so you will need to have some basic skill-sets, such as be in physical shape, have some basic amount of intelligence/skill that would be beneficial to the other people you will go with. (Like you need to know how to fix some machinery and such if things were to break-possibly putting your life in danger).

You would also obviously need to be able to work with other people and not be prone to violence, or depression, etc. You also don't want to be taking any life long medicine, as you may not have access to it once you leave.

So assuming you make these qualifications and such, would you be one of those people that would leave everything behind to try and colonize another planet?
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6630

>>6628
I go where the work is.

 No.6631

File: 1599097887282.png (17.45 KB, 607x597, 607:597, 144109__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>6603
>You have to qualify to be one of the people that can leave, so you will need to have some basic skill-sets, such as be in physical shape

I'm out.  I'd never survive.

 No.6720

File: 1599811221095.jpg (421.38 KB, 2539x1535, 2539:1535, She swallowed burning coal….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'd love to.


 No.6609[Reply]

File: 1598845583418.jpg (85.09 KB, 800x449, 800:449, Portland-Police-Officer-At….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In a horrific incident in Portland, the rioting that has taken place for multiple weeks (partly alongside the, it must be said, the separate peaceful protests) escalated to the point that a far right militant was fatally shot by a person or persons unknown. Details are highly sketchy as the police are just starting their investigation Sadly, they don't appear to have that much evidence yet to go on.

>(Details) https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/30/907699226/1-killed-in-portland-amid-clashes-between-pro-trump-caravan-and-counterprotester

Do you expect that as time gets closer to the election, street violence between the far right and others will amp up? From regular people just in the wrong place at the wrong time to Black Lives Matter protesters to far left types actively looking for a fight (and others), incidents will fill up the news as the general mood of the country sours?

Is the danger of political killing exaggerated? Yes, one person died over the weekend, and every death is a tragedy, but this is still viewed as an aberration and the general public doesn't seem to expect it to become a 'new normal' for every day or so somebody to lose their life because of ideology.

Personally, I think that outright civil war or something like that is rather unlikely, but I'm concerned about a slow but sure rise of victims getting hurt or even killed in random-ish events. But maybe that's just falling for 'if it bleeds, it leads' news coverage that stresses division over people getting along?
41 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6712

>>6701
>It was clearly murder.
Serious, non-rhetorical question: Did you watch the video?  I don't see how someone can reasonably claim not only that it was murder, but that it was clearly murder.  He was being assaulted by a mob of people.  He was hit by a skateboard by one person and he shot another person who was drawing a handgun on him (and possibly would have fired if he didn't lose a portion of his bicep).  It is at least plausible that it was self-defense.  And personally, I'd say that the evidence very heavily points toward a verdict of self-defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZTDkjU-X5M

 No.6713

File: 1599688574190.png (266.91 KB, 625x428, 625:428, EgdH2qVU0AElj_Z.png) ImgOps Google

Gaige Grosskreutz (the man whom Kyle shot in the arm) allegedly admitted that he might have killed Kyle if Kyle hadn't disarmed him first.  Personally I'd say that Kyle has less than a 10% chance of getting convicted of first-degree intentional homicide (the Wisconsin equivalent of murder) -- and the only reason that I'd go as high as 10% is my lack of confidence in the justice system.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1299086141329563648?s=20

 No.6714

File: 1599688976215.jpg (126.7 KB, 903x1213, 903:1213, 1490382748840.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6701
>The entire police system is corrupt
If you mean the system considered as a whole (as opposed to all the officers considered individually), then I agree.

>its not a matter of "bad cops", but completely reforming the system.
I agree.  The police have too much unaccountable power and too little oversight.


 No.6638[Reply]

File: 1599170951924.jpeg (8.26 KB, 212x238, 106:119, images (3).jpeg) ImgOps Google

Defamation against non-civilians is bad but, as long as they are political opponents then outright willful lies are "political speech".

I understand that factual basis can be challenged, threatening any sort of free speech, but why do politicians get a pass on being dishonest pieces of shit due for the guillotine?

Secondarily, should the guillotine be used for political lies.  I'd love to see Gorsuch's head lopped off for the Trans-Am Trucking absurdity, even considering my neck would still go first.

Thoughts?  Do anons on this board even have thoughts of their own or just spout their masters' lies?
9 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6664

>>6663
Ah, I see. Still, if they can use it for things like this, it definitely should be axed.

 No.6677


 No.6679

>>6653
>That would be state law, not the federal statute at issue.  Not every tort is addressable in federal court.

If there is a federal question or other means of federal jurisdiction then absolutely every state issue involved in the matter is also under the jurisdiction of the federal court.

Further contract law is the opposite of torts and entirely different.  Just to correct your vocabulary.


 No.6559[Reply]

File: 1598310632042.png (776.74 KB, 713x531, 713:531, park.png) ImgOps Google

Two years ago, homeless people in my area (American city) started grouping together, first in a buffer between a highway and businesses.  This year, I think, is a year for increased homelessness and there are various camps in parks and around lakes.

I know people become homeless when they don't make 2.5 or 3 times the asking price for rent, have bad credit, or behaved in some way that make them uninteresting to landlords.  Or if they had a house owned by the bank, didn't make the bank happy.  Or something similar.  Few people like to be homeless, so it is part of the economic system for conditioning proper behavior.  So I understand all that, but I think I have what might be a stupid question.

Let's say someone becomes homeless.  If they do or can not fix the problem in one waking period, given most people need to sleep, they will need to sleep.  Where is the respectful place for good homeless people to sleep?  I gather these camps make people upset -- people complain and eventually police clear them by force and trash the tents.  I gather tent camps are not the way.  Where should the good homeless people sleep?
9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6607

>>6602
How many available jobs are there in the middle of nowhere, though? Or is the plan to look for jobs in larger towns and then ship the homeless off there to work? Where will they live once they get there? I really don't see how that's suppose to work...

 No.6608

>>6607
My experience, it's a lot easier to find work in rural areas, since they've usually still got a lot of stuff that needs doing, and a lot fewer people doing it.
That does depend on the kind of area, though. Has to have some business after all.

 No.6641

>>6559
I used a butterknife purchased at thrift to cut footholds into a muddy cliff to setup my own homeless camp out of view on a hill too unstable to subdivide.

Im not sure how anyone can stand pitching a tent where the cops can see you and dope fiends can rob you.  Thats just asking for further disenfranchisement.  If i didnt have a nice mountain to climb up and setup camp where i had a few months undisturbed to work on my life situation, i'd still be out there.

Also, while i was homeless it was not dope fiends but middle class white folks who stopped in to rob me, even trying to load my cart into his SUV claiming that it was abandoned while he tried to pry it out of my hands.


 No.6289[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1597379395724.jpg (45.41 KB, 600x438, 100:73, kamala-harris-170.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

BLM: "All cops are bastards"
Biden: *Picks a cop to be his running mate*

Interesting choice.  And yeah, Kamala Harris is actually a former prosecutor, not a cop, but it's close enough.  And she did have responsibility for bringing charges against cops who broke the law.  Query: During her tenure as prosecutor, how many cops within her jurisdiction engaged in unlawful violence, and of those, how many did she indict?

https://reason.com/2019/06/03/kamala-harris-is-a-cop-who-wants-to-be-president/
284 posts and 51 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6596

>>6593

Well it's obvious at this point that I disagree, but let's move to a slightly different question.

Rather than "as bad", is it "good"?  Or is that still bad, and just not "as bad"?

My fundamental claim was not the technicalities of what a belief is and what separates it from an action.  My claim is that the police state removes rights from people based on laws that the felon had no influence in making.  It's one thing for someone to agree to a contract and upon breaking that contract being penalized by the other side.  It's another thing entirely for someone to write a contract without direct input and then hold an individual to this contract whose existence they opposed.

To expound upon my first post, living under a police state is fine if you agree with all the decisions said police state has made.  If you support the police state, then there is likely no disagreement in what they are doing, and if one surfaces then it's probable that the fault doesn't lie with the state.

If you disagree with the police state, and then live out your life in defiance of the police state, an entity that has decided to enforce rules without your consent, then the fault lies squarely with the police state, and not the person who has simply attracted the social ire of the people the police state represents.

>>6594
>This said, though, it's a fairly different argument from whether or not the police are racist, as the initial trail went on

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.6597

File: 1598487242128.jpg (20.38 KB, 236x333, 236:333, df9640e5f16f7ffc2b03ffbd10….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6596
>Rather than "as bad", is it "good"?  Or is that still bad, and just not "as bad"?
I'd say it's still bad (assuming you're referring to criminalizing the pagan ritual in >>6591).

>It's one thing for someone to agree to a contract and upon breaking that contract being penalized by the other side.  It's another thing entirely for someone to write a contract without direct input and then hold an individual to this contract whose existence they opposed.
Personally, I lean towards being a moderate libertarian.  I feel individuals generally shouldn't be punished for acts that don't pose a significant risk of being harmful.  But things like driving recklessly while heavily intoxicated, or dumping pollution into a river, or building a nuclear power plant without modern safety features --- those things I think can be justly criminalized.  Also, I think some level of taxation can be justly imposed, and that tax evasion can be criminalized.  

 No.6598

>>6596
>Finding general solutions regardless of race should also solve any problems wherein the police use their position for racism.
I can definitely agree 100% there. Police reform should not require any specific consideration of race, as the entire point is to have law as fair and neutral, without the concern of the color of somebody's skin.

>But if anything falls short of that base level of agreement then maybe it doesn't have enough support to be considered "reasonable".
sure, but if you have that kind of support, you can probably get political change without breaking the law in that regard.
Though again, like I said, civil disobedience to prove a point is not inherently wrong.
There are plenty of cases of people doing that for good reasons. Like I said, I think the gym in new jersey is a good example, there's also the feminist I recall Trump posthumously pardoned who voted it legally, And I would say the activists painting over a political slogan in New York who as I understand it inevitably get arrested for vandalism are likewise, ultimately, justified in their civil disobedience.

It's just that, getting arrested for civil disobedience doesn't mean you aren't allowed to believe something. Nor does it mean you aren't allowed to push for something.
You are still free to say, and believe, however you like.
It's the actions that have consequences.


 No.5290[Reply]

As you've probably heard by now, a Minneapolis police officer kept his knee on George Floyd's neck until Floyd died (and didn't remove his knee until well after Floyd was dead).  Was it murder?  I'll await the autopsy report, but it sure as hell looks like murder from what I've seen.  What do you all think?

To quote from another site:
"""
This is a police officer laying his knee on this guys neck until he dies. It’s so fucking obvious that he’s going to die. And the cop still doesn’t move. It’s so obvious that the man has stopped breathing and is clearly not a threat because he’s literally a corpse.

Yet the officer still keeps his knee in the guys neck.

The people are begging these officers to just check his pulse. But he’s still just keeping his knee in his neck.
"""
64 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6464

>>6458
What studies? I'm curious.

 No.6466

>>6464
I remember reading a news story about this, but I couldn't manage it find it now.  The best I found was this:
>According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident.
(https://www.motorists.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/speed-limit-fact-sheet.pdf)

 No.6468

>>6466
I see. Interesting.


 No.6118[Reply]

Let me ask you a seemingly simple question: In an election with more than two candidates, if one candidate always wins against any other candidate in a head to head battle, should they be considered the winner?

This is known as a Condorcet winner, and it has caused a major paradoxical issue in today's voting systems. Largely because a Condorcet winner does not always exist. Anyone who has ever played a three-way game of Rock Paper Scissors should recognize the possibility of a no-win condition. But many people instinctively believe that any voting system should always choose the Condorcet winner if one does exist.


I was shown a wonderful article recently showing the flaws in different voting systems, and how ranked voting can have wildly different results depending on what system you use to count the tallies.
http://www.ams.org/publicoutreach/feature-column/fcarc-voting-decision
Additionally, all of these ranked voting systems introduce a measure of strategic voting, which always pushes voting toward a two party system where voters vote against the candidate they hate, instead of for the candidate they want.

Cardinal voting is often proposed as a solution to this problem, because it preserves independence of irrelevant factors, which many ranked systems do not. there is no penalty for voting up your favorite candidate, so this feels like a more fair system for finding a popular candidate.

Interestingly, none of the four most popular ranked voting methods today choose the Condorcet winner, or the winner who would win against any other candidate in a head to head battle, when using the proposed sample ballots in the linked article. Nor does cardinal voting under most conditions. and even more interesting, not all ballot conditions produce a Condorcet winner

This proposes an interesting philosophical dilemma. If crafting a voting system that always chooses the Condorcet winner if one exists is impossible, how important is it to always choose the Condorcet winner? Should this be our primary concern, or should we focus more on the most popular winner overall? This is a largely undecided philosophical dilemma, so all opinions are welcome in addition to facts and figures.
7 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6133

>>6131
>That sounds really hard to do in a way that isn't extremely susceptible to tactical voting.  

Hmm...perhaps.

 No.6146

>>6126
if only two candidates ever ran, you'd be correct, but in any system more than 2 running candidates, First-past-the-post voting nearly always forces a non Condorcet winner who more than half the population hates, and in some cases it grants victory to the Condorcet loser.

And yes, the minority should be able to have a voice, which is why ranked voting or even range voting would be better than plurality votes.

 No.6336

File: 1597524998218.png (46.96 KB, 323x254, 323:254, 1409709433720.png) ImgOps Google

Come to think of it, the presidential primaries probably would be a good place to adopt a Condorcet method.  It likely would have avoided selecting Trump as the Republican nominee in 2016.  (As I understand it, most Republican primary voters were against Trump, but they split their votes among many other candidates, so Trump got a plurality, even though he wouldn't have won in a head-to-head contest with any moderate candidate.)  And I think the parties, as private organizations, can just make this change themselves, without the need for new laws.  


[]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]