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

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1642207703789.jpg (101.89 KB, 835x657, 835:657, 2715092.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What current data do you think will be important in the future?  Especially data that you might be able to collect and store yourself?

Sometimes I think if you could put a Go Pro on a typical person from 3000 years ago for 24 hours or something, that would be a trove of information for historians.  So one answer to what additional data might be important is in terms of long-term posterity.

Now a lot of data is collected about us and the environment already.  Maybe too much, so it's possible there is no answer to the question, or a better question is what data should we delete to help future people understand what was really relevant.

Another way of answering the question would be in terms of your future self or family.

I'm struggling to state what I mean clearly.  In some part, it's about predicting what will change in the future, both long term and short term -- what we consider obvious today that will be obscure in decades or millennia.  Or just what might be fun to reminisce about.


File: 1642214245688.jpg (367.38 KB, 2500x1563, 2500:1563, wuhan-inst-vir.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>What current data do you think will be important in the future?
Data relating to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of SARS-CoV-2.


That does sound interesting.  I am ordered to take a test for SARS-CoV-2, which is connected to this topic a bit.  I am a long way from this facility, though.


File: 1640219840735.jpg (154.65 KB, 563x1024, 563:1024, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I was listening to the radio on the way home from my parent's place, and I think it was Tucker Carlson.  He was talking like China was America's enemy.

If China were an enemy, we'd no longer be able to legally offer any citizen of that Republic Aid and Comfort.  You could give them Aid or Comfort -- "I'm sorry you're having a bad day."  But if you do both, you are of course a traitor.

So the question is: who gets to decide who America's enemies are?  Radio talk show people?  Democratic consensus of American citizens?  The President?

And question two: who's on the list?
25 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>If I help out an elderly Asian neighbour, I deserve to be executed?
Only if (1) the neighbor is an agent of an enemy state, (2) you actually help the neighbor in his capacity as an enemy, and (3) your intention was to help him in his capacity as an enemy.

>People who support minorities tend to be seen, for example, as traitors.
Depends what you mean by "support".  Ultra-far-right white nationalists have said things like "Miscegenation is betraying your own race", but they are a tiny portion of the population.


Looking for a list of the current enemies of the US.  My assumption is the list is not empty, and that being such an important matter, it should exist.

>traitors deserve the death penalty
>speak of traitors in the more ideological sense
While the constitution should have added "in their capacity to make war" or something, I gather the intent in defining treason was to prevent people being executed for wrong-think.  I suppose the right wing is just using hyperbole, though.  Executing people in hyperbole is acceptable.

I don't think it's a valid political position of either party to have prejudice against protected minorities.  Other kinds of minorities may be hated, yes.


I suppose to you the left wing reaction to the January 6th protest just it didn't happen, then?


File: 1638792229941.jpg (21.52 KB, 500x261, 500:261, 9b35280744059c374c7e9dd6cd….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I hate that for weight concerns you get referred to a dietician charging 100 dollars per session just to take your weight and tell you you need to eat more greens and less sugar.
Or you get referred to a personal coach where you pay to set up an exercise session and a step counter or get the advise to sign up for a gym membership that costs even more money.

I feel like you can get a lot more people motivated to watch their diet and exercises if there would be a promoted dedicated schedule to meals and exercise, freely available, trustworthy and adjustable to the needs (time consumption and low on expenses and if possible a little mindful of the comfort) for the individuals.

I would guess those are already readily available, but I haven't really seen anyone being forwarded to those.

Show that losing weight can be manageable, comfortable and still light on the finances. You could really tackle the issue with obesity that way.
14 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1639733840171.png (245.39 KB, 425x422, 425:422, is this another interventi….png) ImgOps Google

> Nutrition is very complicated.  
One of the extra reasons why I find dieting "hard". You think you found some food that is good for you and tastes great and then some article comes along to tell you that that food item is the worst and here's why.
All the more reason, I feel, to have ready access to a diet plan and/or exercise plan from a reliable source.

> or example, low-fat yogurt
I have always wondered what to do with creamy yoghurts like Greek yoghurt. I like the taste of its creaminess and I suppose if it doesn't taste sweet, it isn't completely enriched with added sugars. But the texture does tend to feel like it may not be totally okay.
I suppose that is the fat yoghurt vs low fat yoghurt debate.
I have been informed one time that in cooking cream you better pick soy / low fat variations over the fatter ones.


File: 1640681367313.jpg (66.05 KB, 192x218, 96:109, 8788.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

It's one of those things where it gets harder to do the worse it is for you, which is unfortunate. Like, for me, I've kept myself in decent shape, I'm relatively active and fit, and my genetics so far have let me eat as much as I want without ever having to worry about getting fat, but there's people who put on weight a lot easier, obviously. As you put on weight, you become less inclined to work out, the less healthy you are, the more working out feels like a burden, and the more actual risk it poses to you. E.G. damage to your knees or having heart problems from over-exertion. So it's kindof of momentum problem.

And yes, there's scummy people who will prey on those looking to find solutions. Such, unfortunately, is life.

I wish more people had access to swimming. Swimming is a great way to work out if you're not in good shape. It's astronomically easier on the joints, it keeps you cool while you work out, it's a balanced workout, it's just great. Pools are expensive tho, and not everyone is in places where it's warm enough to do comfortable, so that's a real shame. Most important thing imho is just finding something that burns calories that you enjoy doing. Doesn't matter if it's not super efficient or whatever, the fact that you'll actually do it is the key.

There's some interesting new data about how gut biome effects cravings, too, which also leans into that vicious cycle. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-tell-their-hosts-what-to-eat/
The more you eat crap, the more you crave crap, but it can work the opposite way as well.

Ultimately, calories in, calories out for loosing weight. It's not that simple, obviously, but it's a very practical approach for the vast majority of people. Also eat better food.


File: 1640872826428.png (30.52 KB, 313x350, 313:350, Screenshot from 2021-12-30….png) ImgOps Google

Fortunately I burn a lot of calories.

Unfortunately, my diet is a lot of junk.  A few years ago I recorded everything I ate with MyFitnessPal and sodium was through the roof.  Sugar was pretty high, too.

I made some changes after that, but now I'm back to old habits.  Probably need to chart it again.  I find just having to record everything makes me make *slightly* smarter choices.  But it's hard to stick with it.

Sounds like maybe you're looking for something like a weight-loss mentor.  I'm not quite sure.  I do feel a bit overwhelmed when thinking about trying to eat healthy.  It's like, every food has someone who will tell you it's wrong.

When it comes to bringing salt down, I usually end up eating rice and beans, with some vegetables and low-sodium condiments.  Salt has no direct bearing on weight loss, so we have somewhat different goals, true.


File: 1640421295605.jpg (210 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Merry Christmas, Friendly Beasts of Townhall


File: 1638059009458.jpg (64.64 KB, 734x1024, 367:512, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I find myself thinking a lot about the idea of judging a person's value or skill based on their salary.

I think about it because in the fields of science and open source software, there is no clear market for the product, at least your production you share publicly.  When people make money, it's through side arrangements, and many greats in the field did not gain a great salary as a direct result of their work.

The other issue is that salary is typically confidential so even if you want to judge, you are judging based on a guess.  Which can get circular.

Perhaps the problem is these fields are simply weird.  If you trade stocks, I can imagine your return on investment is an acceptable measure of skill, although this is only a factor in salary and you'd need enough data to work out luck as an explanation.  But enough to say, where something is a great deal about money, you'd want to mimic people who are skilled in earning.

I guess my question is, where is judging people based on salary appropriate?  Maybe I'm not giving this strategy for assessing others its due.
9 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>That something has greater utility doesn't make the books balance any better at the end of the quarter.

Is this contrary to the notion that people are paid based on how much money their labor earns for their firm?  Company policy perhaps is meant to imply something arbitrary, like the color of a uniform?


>Is this contrary to the notion that people are paid based on how much money their labor earns for their firm?  
The value of the employee to the company is an approximate upper bound on the salary.  But if other people are willing to do the job for less money, then the position will be paid less.


>The value of the employee to the company is an approximate upper bound on the salary.
I can agree that if a company pays more out in wages than they make in profits, they will have a year of loss.  Few firms will do that for long.


File: 1637705066722.jpg (52.6 KB, 698x588, 349:294, 1637597916177.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you think that Kyle Rittenhouse has any viable defamation claims against those who falsely claimed that he was a white supremacist?

As a general matter, drawing a false conclusion is not defamatory as long as the factual basis is stated and true.  For example, saying "Kyle drank beer with members of the Proud Boys, and therefore he is a white supremacist" is protected speech.  But if the speaker implies the existence of undisclosed facts, the conclusion can be considered defamatory.  For example, if a speaker says "I have read Kyle's private diary, and from that I have concluded that Kyle is a white supremacist", but the speaker lied about reading the alleged diary, then there might be a viable action for defamation.
29 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation, so ideally, defamation lawsuits should only suppress lies, not truths.  Of course, in practice, sometimes wealthy persons use the threat of defamation lawsuits to suppress the truth, but defamation lawsuits are also be used to fight back against malicious lies.


Yea, hardly matters if you've "won" if you've gone bankrupt from needing to pay legal fees with a middle/lower class income... The wealthy have already won by inflicting emotional and financial suffering upon their victims.


True, but overly frivolous suits can get you the money for your legal expenses.

Though in this case anyway, Kyle isn't some wealthy financier.
The media corporations he'd be going after have far more money than he does.


File: 1638073384311.jpg (60.15 KB, 474x414, 79:69, The_Power_of_Learning.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In the discussion about school curriculum and current efforts by political conservatives to change not just what gets taught but also what books are allowed to be available in school libraries, the question keeps getting raised about "teaching the other side" in a much broader intellectual sense (beyond the whole Democrats versus Republicans angle).

Many people of the political center, left, and right alike have the general understanding that it's good and proper for schools to present an admittedly slanted view of history in which the U.S. armed forces are "the good guys" and oppositional forces such as the Confederates, the Kaiserreich, the Nazis, et al are "the bad guys". U.S. troops are presented in a manner often that describes them in positive terms as courageous individuals sacrificing for the greater good of promoting democracy and liberty. Enemies on the battlefield are often depicted negatively, with emphasis put on war crimes and other such acts. Both Democrats and Republicans have taken this viewpoint.

Critics of the American idealism approach have frequently brought up the case of adversaries such as the Confederacy and asserted that the demonizations aren't justified. Multiple Confederate leaders are said to have displayed significant intellectual talent and physical courage. Slavery is said to have been not as bad as commonly understood. The same applies to World War I and World War II: perhaps revisionist history has a point in saying that American children need to learn more about the positive aspects of those fought by U.S. troops, with those killing American soldiers admittedly having their own understandings of what freedom means.

Do you think that U.S. schools should work to maintain a kind of detached objectivity when discussing conflicts against the Confederates, the Kaiserreich, the Nazis, and others? How important is the perspective of those fighting against Americans? Or is it proper in terms of promoting democracy and liberty among the younger generations to teach a morally idealistic, liberation-minded view of history where "bad guys" and "good guys" exist? Can those taking up arms in defense of the Holocaust or of slavery really be said to have points of view worth delving that much into, risking muddling the ethical waters in instructing the young about right and wrong?
12 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Schools should be teaching facts, not making moral judgements to begin with.
Nobody ought be taught to be the "good guys" or the "bad guys".
The facts are more than enough


Yes, many instances of slavery are such that analyzing it now the conditions seem to be like active torture to the point that death might be preferable, the case of mining that you brought up being a good one.


The founding Americans of the south were often passionate about the subjugation of the black race to white masters.  Notable people were careful that the new government did not obstruct the practice of slavery in any serious way.


File: 1638075717223.jpg (1.55 MB, 2442x1661, 222:151, Wanda-Cooper-Jones-AP-Imag….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Bucking a trend of bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice going back over a hundred years, in my opinion, a posse of white men who lynched an innocent black man for traveling in the wrong neighborhood and thus being considered a dangerous criminal have been found guilty in Georgia. The deceased's name was Ahmaud Arbery. He died in February 2020. His life mattered.

It's not only a devastating defeat for the American conservative movement that demonized that innocent black man and his defenders just as they've demonized black victim after black victim in the past, in my view, but it's also a victory for both the Arbery family and the Black Lives Matter movement, clearly. I'll happily go beyond that and say that when it comes to the terminal cancer patient that is America, a country stuck in the midst of twenty years of sharp decline with no sign of that stopping, this represents a kind of eye in the hurricane of hatred to me. For once, democracy won. Freedom won. Justice won. Liberty won. The underdog with the world stacked against him whipped the odds in true Hollywood miracle fashion. That's my take.

A detailed article going through the entire case is here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wanda-cooper-jones-ahmaud-arbery-murder-justice-48-hours/

What are your thoughts? Do you agree with my take? Do you disagree? Do you sympathize with the defense being mounted that the killers were only acting in self-defense and that they've been railroaded in some fashion? Perhaps the men found guilty deserve light sentences? Or long ones? And what does this mean for future cases in the endless, waterfall-like flow of American situations in which white men claim to have killed minorities in self-defense?
46 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Given the time of day will likely be a bit until it's deleted or locked.


>I wish beyond words that you weren't such a brainless partisan ideologue who can't see reality outside of your bubble. God. What can one say?

So the whole thread was pretty questionable, but this is very obviously out of line.


>Personally, I'm of the stance there shouldn't be a 'hate crime' standard, as murder is murder. But I also feel the same for terrorism
I tend to agree, especially when it is used to cirumvent the rule against double jeopardy by letting both the federal government and  a state government prosecute someone for the same acts.

 No.10216[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1637358538861.jpg (128.23 KB, 1535x1023, 1535:1023, ritten-verdict-49.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I feel that this is a victory for the presumption of innocence and self-defense rights!  Do you agree?  [Edited in response to >>10217]

Edited to add (in response to >>10217): In this thread, please feel free to discuss:
(1) The Rittenhouse trial
(2) The presumption of innocence -- is it better than 100 guilty people walk free than 1 innocent be sentenced to death or life in prison?
(3) The right of self-defense, including what counts as provocation.
(4) Bicubic and bilinear scaling of images used as evidence in criminal trials.
(5) Any other related topics.
98 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


If you're interested in the facts, you could always check out the trial itself.
Most the videos I had posted prior were also shown there.
There were a few livestreams of the event as it went on, which turned up as evidence. Part of why the attempt at prosecution seems so egregious to many, the video existed early on and seemed to clearly show self defense


I suppose getting banned repeatedly for inflammatory and obviously inaccurate rants doesn't serve much a lesson for you,  huh?

Conservatives aren't invested in utopian nonsense.
That's directly contrary to the term to begin with.
I'm sorry the idea of your political enemies having rights offends you so much.


File: 1637702500899.jpg (63.71 KB, 650x844, 325:422, 1002098144-photo-u1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>(1) The Rittenhouse trial
Shouldn't have gotten this much publicity, nor gone on this long. Was pretty clearly self defense. Should he have been out there? Not really. But the people attacking a kid with a gun should've known better than to attack.

>(2) The presumption of innocence -- is it better than 100 guilty people walk free than 1 innocent be sentenced to death or life in prison?
Weird wording. Guilty of what, jaywalking? Possession of an ounce of cocaine? Sure, not really equivalent to a life. But because no perfect system exists we have to hope a jury of our peers makes the proper choice in these matters. That without a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. If the prosecution can't prove it then that's on them. Personally I hate any type of prosecutor that relies on emotion than actual evidence. Had to deal with Jury Duty twice with that.

>(3) The right of self-defense, including what counts as provocation.
Do I consider a kid helping put out fires and washing graffiti with a gun at his waist provocation? No. Did the protestors? Probably. But even if he did, they shouldn't have chased after him.

>(4) Bicubic and bilinear scaling of images used as evidence in criminal trials.


File: 1635804542060.jpeg (112.28 KB, 848x565, 848:565, Faith-And-Viruses.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Should religiously devout Christians who for faith-based reasons oppose vaccines as well as wearing masks and social distancing be able to defy laws against their behavior?

The Supreme Court recently decided against a group of legal challengers in Maine's health care system ( https://www.vox.com/2021/10/29/22753429/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-maine-does-mills-religious-right-exemption-liberty-constitution ) when it came to a vaccine mandate, but was that right?
24 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>If it’s a risk to,others due to overfilling of hospitals, the. Surely it ought likewise be mandated, restricted, and otherwise regulated, how one gains or loses weight.

Some would support this, to be sure.  Though I would personally say that the "obesity epidemic" had been going on for quite a while without filling hospitals to capacity.


We’ve built around it. Supply and demand. But when crisis hits, say with COVID for instance, suddenly they’re a problem.

I don’t like where these things go, should you apply consistent logic.
So, I would rather that be the individual’s choice. Simpler, and without moral onus on the state, which has a bad habit with such things.


It should be noted that we'd have a much better health care system were it not for invasive government policies making multiple problems worse, such as immigration restrictions preventing Americans from using drugs and services correctly labeled as safe overseas as well as preventing talented doctors and nurses from traveling here in the first place to deliver care.

It's rather stupid to generalize the situation as either "public sector = bad" or "public sector = good".


File: 1636313641215.jpg (36.22 KB, 515x333, 515:333, Vaccine-Injection-Image.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Why do people of the political center and the political right oppose mask-wearing and vaccination?

One can maybe understand why a lot of particular political views are held even if somebody doesn't hold them... this happens enough to be called something like 'The Ideological Turning Test' and studied scientifically. I try myself to put myself into the shoes of others constantly. I'm not particularly great at it, but I try.

Yet I'm sincerely not capable of understanding why giving someone a vaccine makes you evil and how that person choosing to get the vaccine also becomes evil.

Why is mask-wearing and vaccination associated with leftists, liberals, social justice warriors, the far left, and so on?

This frankly seems to me as if half the country decided that having blonde or red hair makes you evil and started campaigning for measures to crack down on illegit coloring, with Democrats becoming the equality party and Republicans becoming the darkness-up-top-supremacy party.

What are your thoughts?
28 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Your "reality" says that I must think Trump should be emperor for life.
Despite not even liking Trump much at all myself.

You do not live in reality. You do not use facts.
You live in a warped land of ideological delusion.


While it is ridiculous that the Covid pandemic seems so politically involved, I can't help but smirk to read that the local politician who now calls for a stop on vaccines and a distribution of Ivermectin has been known for very conservative stances on LGBTQ issues.


File: 1637344978128.jpg (27.06 KB, 417x500, 417:500, 1625286468075.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The following blog post may be enlightening (particularly the section "The Political Takeaway"):


File: 1637041342804.jpg (284.95 KB, 2500x1763, 2500:1763, binger-mn-1330-96f66c.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Remember the four basic rules of gun safety:
1. Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

And yes, these rules apply even if you're just using a gun as a prop.                                                                                                                                                                  
32 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Yea, i can get behind this. I consider myself a moderate libertarian, and the way police sometiems behave, and *especially* the awful shit police get away with is appauling, and i was on board at first, but when it quickly devolves into riots and calls for a communist state, that's when they lost me hard.

There's a very reasonable argument to be had about police culture and qualified immunity, but that's typically now what we get from BLM.


Same here. Police reform seems pretty vital, as the culture has major issues, not to mention the problem of revenue production causing constant conflicts with citizens.

I hate the racial justice angle, though. Group justice like that never pans out well, and cops are shitty to white folk as well, so I don't see why that can't be combated for all wrong action, without specific race playing a role.



The thing about group justice is there's no resolving it. Like, let's assume the govt agreed to give every black person 2 million dollars and build them a nice house. That should reasonably set anyone up nicely, and is reasonable compensation, but does anyone believe for a second that would solve anything in a meaningful way? Nope.


File: 1635373144065.jpg (58.96 KB, 464x343, 464:343, Wolf-Versus-Sheepdog.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Roughly speaking, the U.S. can be divided into three groups. First, there's those most at risk of political violence in general and especially at risk if the U.S. ever had a fully tyrannical government. Second, there's the broad mass of the general populace. Third, there's those least at risk of political violence whom would have it the most cozy if a tyrannical government took power.

One might think that gun ownership among civilians would be most concentrated among those with the most to lose. That is: Jews, Muslims, transgender people, Native Americans, disabled people, and the like. The types most likely to suffer the worse under a future tyranny.

That's absolutely not the case, though. In fact, the vast majority of civilian firearms are owned with the people having the least to lose and to which a tyrannical government would be the most kind to. The happier you'd be in a fascist America, the more likely you are to have an arsenal for such an occasion and the larger said arsenal would be.

This is most telling when comparing militant factions such as neo-Nazi clubs, Klansman associations, the Proud Boys, and such. Not only are they armed to the teeth, but they actively encourage individuals to brandish their weapons in public. It's a way of showing off at best and outright intimidation at worse.

When one looks at, say, the elderly Jewish protesters brought out by the Anti-Defamation League or other, ideological rivals on the opposite side... it's like imagining a battle between rabbits and foxes. Sheep and wolves. Cats and mice. Pretty clear imbalances.

To try to solve this, I've got a proposal. In short:

>'In a world full of wolves and lambs, bring in the sheepdogs.'

I propose a unified network of state by state and then county by county paramilitaries made up of well-trained gun owners who're straight white cisgender Christians who've made a sacred blood oath (I mean this quite literally, as in publicly swearing in the eyes of God and their peers as they use some kind of a cutting device to draw some blood from themselves ritualistically) that they will quite literally die, if necessary, to defend their neighbors who're non-cisgender, non-Christian, non-straight, non-white, and so on.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
36 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I'd ask.

However, you appear to have a total disconnect between what Republicans have done and said in the four years of Trump and since versus what you think that they've done and said in your mind.

So, I can bring up something like U.S. federal government registries stockpiling identifying information for people of supposedly inferior religious backgrounds, in which certain religious institutions as well are targeted for intense monitoring by security forces. The so-called "Jewish registry" and "Muslim registry", as the media put it, that was supported by Republicans as a core Trump measure that, thank God, failed but is still being promoted. Still supported by Republicans now. Something that will happen again immediately as a renewed fiasco if a new Republican comes into office.

A "Jewish registry"/"Muslim registry" is, yes, one of the historically well-documented 'steps of genocide' even if one doesn't like it: forcing people of a disfavored religious group against their will to be subject to state sanction including being on state-controlled lists documenting where they work and pray is a Fascism 101 level action.

This is not to even bring up the whole "Jewish ban"/"Muslim ban" when it came to travel and how even American citizens with full rights as people fucking born here had to worry about being literally forced out of America at gunpoint due to Republican policies. Which I can get into. If you want.

I expect your response to be something like "But Republicans believe in liberty and freedom for Americans" (no, they sure as hell don't, if you're not the RIGHT kind of American your civil rights mean jack shit) and "That isn't an actual Republican position" (yes, it objectively is, Google it).


Last I recall, Trump was pretty favorable to the Jews, had given quite a lot to Israel, and had a number on his staff, so I'm somewhat skeptical he'd ban them from travel here or anything like that.

Since you offer, I suppose I'd ask for a source for those, yeah. Sounds interesting at the very least.

>(yes, it objectively is, Google it).
The burden of proof would be firmly in your camp.
Such is the nature of assertions.


I'm not religious, so it wouldn't affect me directly, but sure, it would bug me.

Not sure where you're getting that insurance companies just straight up don't let minorities get insurance. I work with people of a lot of different races, and we just re-filed for insurance and talked to each other about it, so I have first-hand, hard evidence that what you're saying there isn't true.

You realize we use to be far more conservative in the past, right? Yet, conservative American soldiers stepped in and died for the rights of black people in the civil war, and jews in world war 2. So how do you figure a far less conservative population of people that define themselves as conservative want genocide of minorities? We already explained to you that it's a matter of state-dependence worry.

Your fear of genocide from the right it totally irrational. They don't want genocide, they want to eliminate government programs and then leave you alone. We've explained this. Their distaste for minorities is that of loss of their own cultural domination, and the way it's dovetailed into socialism by creating racial groups reliant on government aid. Both are sticky problems with no good solutions. Drawing the conclusion that conservatives are foaming at the mouth to genocide minorities is really illogical, and only one someone forms when they've been completely indoctrinated by propaganda from would-be communists.


File: 1637101503427.jpg (117.1 KB, 777x585, 259:195, Water-Distribution-Buildin….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Recent talk of expanding U.S. infrastructure in general has also meant talk specifically about Native Americans' access to clean drinking water getting improved.

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1054418311/tribes-hope-infrastructure-law-means-theyll-finally-get-clean-drinking-water

In the broader sense, do you think that access to clean water is a fundamental human right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Or perhaps not? It's not in the U.S. Constitution, of course, but should it be? How much of a complicating factor is it that multiple areas, specifically native tribal locations, are subject to different practical pressures making clean water difficult to get?


>In the broader sense, do you think that access to clean water is a fundamental human right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
Yes.  I don't think the government has ever criminalized accessing clean drinking water, but if it does, it would be a violation of human rights.


It's not a right, no.
However, it being necessary, and an item easily monopolizable, I think it's reasonable that the government ought provide it for free.

As to native amaricans, I think a huge part of that is the strange setup of their territory.
Really ought just be properly annexed. Get rid of the beurocracy and legaleese putting a massive wrench in the issue of maintaining and improving their infrastructure, not to mention plenty else.
Also gets rid of the bothersome, and I think largely damaging, common trouble of casino developers exploiting them for the particular legal loopholes.


File: 1636917381572.jpg (73.75 KB, 960x540, 16:9, rittenhousetestimonyvideo_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In US criminal trials, the jury has only two options for each charge: acquittal or finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Should juries have a third option, to chastise the prosecutor and award damages to the defendant when the evidence is strongly on the defendant's side?

Even the mere presence of this option may help avoid juries convicting innocent people.  In the current jury system, a jury may compromise by convicting the defendant on some lesser charges.  But if there is another option to chastise the prosecutor, then the compromise might be instead be fully acquitting the defendant but not chastising the prosecutor.
19 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The next Rittenhouse would simply defend himself when attacked.
That's not a wrong thing.
And, hell, every person Kyle shot was white anyway.


(Edited and condensed because I forgot to put my tag on, whoops.)

>P.S. Rittenhouse is an unrepentant murderer and political extremist who in a normal society with normal laws and a normal populace would be behind bars for a long-time, even though in current America his white skin and right-wing politics will both combine to make him free.

So already it's worth pointing out that this isn't really something /townhall/ needs.  The discussion was about something pretty specific, and despite having a picture of the guy in the OP, it wasn't about that guy.  If you wanted to discuss the trial as a whole it should really have its own thread.


This kind of hyperbole isn't really necessary here, either.  None of this contributes to discussion, it's just emotional pleas meant to upset people, I am warning you that if this kind of behavior continues on the board I will have to start handing out bans.  No more derailing threads into lanes that aren't even actual discussions.

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


Personally, I think you can chastise the prosecutor as much as you can place penalties on the defense attorney for defending a guilty party.

It's their job, so that's all here is.

Well, honestly, I'd wish less defense attorneys would try to release their clients on stupid technicalities, but I suppose that's why I need to swallow that defense attorneys need to do their jobs.

Unless we really have tampering with evidence and other obvious illegal issues.

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