|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 05 2014 12:33 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2014 12:14 zlefin wrote:On December 05 2014 12:02 IgnE wrote:On December 05 2014 07:37 zlefin wrote:
Re igne:
first, it wrongly conflates some cases, like Michael Brown, with cases of actual brutality.
If there was no racism at all in the slightest form, there would still be black people killed by white police officers, because crime would still be there.
The behavior's roots aren't in chattel slavery; police unaccountability has a history in the entire past of mankind, or at least everything past the small tribal stage. And it's certainly not unique to blacks, other groups have suffered as a result of it.
If the protests aren't about just a few incidents, it would be a lot clearer if they more frequently talked about the history of that, than about the few incidents. While mentioned some time, too much of the attention still seems focused on the few cases.
The system is getting better and more accountable, and has been for many decades, on the whole.
It's long been known that there are inequalities before the law (e.g. being rich, or well connected).
The goal is to work on them; it's a never-ending quest for improvement.
I question his assertion that blacks are assigned to worse schools, as opposed to simply being in the area with worse schools; but dont' have direct evidence, and would like to see his evidence for such an assertion.
Those are my main objections to the points in the quoted section, I'm sure other areas contain other objectionable points. It's good rhetoric, but its' connection to truth is only approximate. So you wanted an editorial about how the system is largely getting better and more accountable than it was, in what, like 1845? 1955? An article that started from the presumption that racism doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't since 1964? This isn't about police brutality in toto, as if police brutality happens regularly to white folks. This is about the difference in both the kind and number of cases where minorities experience police brutality. It seems like you are mostly just uncomfortable with the realities of the subject matter. Granted that "it's long been known that there are inequalities before the law," your unstated assumption that therefore we shouldn't be talking about it now, or that these recent cases are undeserving of our attention, is completely unwarranted. Your completely oblivious attitude towards racism's role in police abuse against minorities runs through all of your objections, and your conclusion that "it's connection to truth is only approximate" is based on erroneous assumptions about the "roots" of police brutality. you're posting nonsense now. So I will not speak to you. I answered the question you asked. You are making unfounded assumptions and strawman me and attack me nonsensically. I do not respond to rudeness (other than the notice that the other party is being rude and will not be receiving other response). That's fine. You don't know what a strawman is and seemingly haven't even thought about your assumptions.
Again, please stop talking to me. I do no wish to speak to you any more.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are expecting hyper rational responses from a historical underclass. why don't you rethink how rational that is within the context of history. getting angry at some silly tweets, and mischaracterizing protesters for the looters and other loonies, is far more silly here given the genuine problem with police behavior.
also if you genuinely have some trouble understanding my posts a while back please reread them again, starting with 'perception of fact'.
|
Interesting. Considering that Corporations are considered to have basic human rights etc...
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A chimpanzee is not entitled to the rights of a human and does not have to be freed by its owner, a New York appeals court ruled Thursday.
The three-judge Appellate Division panel was unanimous in denying "legal personhood" to Tommy, who lives alone in a cage in upstate Fulton County.
A trial level court had previously denied the Nonhuman Rights Project's effort to have Tommy released. The group's lawyer, Steven Wise, told the appeals court in October that the chimp's living conditions are akin to a person in unlawful solitary confinement.
Wise argued that animals with human qualities, such as chimps, deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment. He has also sought the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states.
But the mid-level appeals court said there is neither precedent nor legal basis for treating animals as persons.
"So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties," the judges wrote. "Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."
That, they ruled, makes it "inappropriate" to grant the rights of a human to the animal.
The Nonhuman Rights Project said it will appeal to the state's top court, citing other New York appeals court rulings it says are at odds with Thursday's decision.
"It is time for the common law to recognize that these facts are sufficient to establish personhood for the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus," the organization said, referring to characteristics of chimps it says are "similar to those possessed by human beings."
Source
|
On December 05 2014 13:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Interesting. Considering that Corporations are considered to have basic human rights etc... Show nested quote +ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A chimpanzee is not entitled to the rights of a human and does not have to be freed by its owner, a New York appeals court ruled Thursday.
The three-judge Appellate Division panel was unanimous in denying "legal personhood" to Tommy, who lives alone in a cage in upstate Fulton County.
A trial level court had previously denied the Nonhuman Rights Project's effort to have Tommy released. The group's lawyer, Steven Wise, told the appeals court in October that the chimp's living conditions are akin to a person in unlawful solitary confinement.
Wise argued that animals with human qualities, such as chimps, deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment. He has also sought the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states.
But the mid-level appeals court said there is neither precedent nor legal basis for treating animals as persons.
"So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties," the judges wrote. "Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."
That, they ruled, makes it "inappropriate" to grant the rights of a human to the animal.
The Nonhuman Rights Project said it will appeal to the state's top court, citing other New York appeals court rulings it says are at odds with Thursday's decision.
"It is time for the common law to recognize that these facts are sufficient to establish personhood for the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus," the organization said, referring to characteristics of chimps it says are "similar to those possessed by human beings." Source
Eh?
|
On December 05 2014 13:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Interesting. Considering that Corporations are considered to have basic human rights etc... Show nested quote +ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A chimpanzee is not entitled to the rights of a human and does not have to be freed by its owner, a New York appeals court ruled Thursday.
The three-judge Appellate Division panel was unanimous in denying "legal personhood" to Tommy, who lives alone in a cage in upstate Fulton County.
A trial level court had previously denied the Nonhuman Rights Project's effort to have Tommy released. The group's lawyer, Steven Wise, told the appeals court in October that the chimp's living conditions are akin to a person in unlawful solitary confinement.
Wise argued that animals with human qualities, such as chimps, deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment. He has also sought the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states.
But the mid-level appeals court said there is neither precedent nor legal basis for treating animals as persons.
"So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties," the judges wrote. "Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."
That, they ruled, makes it "inappropriate" to grant the rights of a human to the animal.
The Nonhuman Rights Project said it will appeal to the state's top court, citing other New York appeals court rulings it says are at odds with Thursday's decision.
"It is time for the common law to recognize that these facts are sufficient to establish personhood for the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus," the organization said, referring to characteristics of chimps it says are "similar to those possessed by human beings." Source I guess that supreme court case really got under your skin. I can conclude no less from this desperate connection.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not the best start with the choice of 'human' rights there. i don't really see the rights framework working all that well with animals.
|
On December 05 2014 13:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Interesting. Considering that Corporations are considered to have basic human rights etc... Show nested quote +ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A chimpanzee is not entitled to the rights of a human and does not have to be freed by its owner, a New York appeals court ruled Thursday.
The three-judge Appellate Division panel was unanimous in denying "legal personhood" to Tommy, who lives alone in a cage in upstate Fulton County.
A trial level court had previously denied the Nonhuman Rights Project's effort to have Tommy released. The group's lawyer, Steven Wise, told the appeals court in October that the chimp's living conditions are akin to a person in unlawful solitary confinement.
Wise argued that animals with human qualities, such as chimps, deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment. He has also sought the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states.
But the mid-level appeals court said there is neither precedent nor legal basis for treating animals as persons.
"So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties," the judges wrote. "Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."
That, they ruled, makes it "inappropriate" to grant the rights of a human to the animal.
The Nonhuman Rights Project said it will appeal to the state's top court, citing other New York appeals court rulings it says are at odds with Thursday's decision.
"It is time for the common law to recognize that these facts are sufficient to establish personhood for the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus," the organization said, referring to characteristics of chimps it says are "similar to those possessed by human beings." Source
Chimps cant bribe people the way billion dollar companies can.
|
On December 05 2014 16:13 oneofthem wrote:
not the best start with the choice of 'human' rights there. i don't really see the rights framework working all that well with animals.
Hardcore relativism knows no bounds.
|
On December 06 2014 02:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2014 16:13 oneofthem wrote:
not the best start with the choice of 'human' rights there. i don't really see the rights framework working all that well with animals. Hardcore relativism knows no bounds.
Keeping animals that are as close to humans as it gets in appropriate conditions is 'hardcore relativism'?
|
Shaking up his Pentagon leadership, President Barack Obama tapped policy wonk Ashton Carter to oversee the sprawling Defense Department Friday, heralding his new nominee as one of the nation's "foremost national security leaders."
Obama announced Carter's nomination during a ceremony at the White House. A Pentagon veteran who is seen as a centrist, Carter is expected to be easily confirmed by the Senate, putting him at the helm of a department moving back into military conflict in the Middle East even as it grapples with budget cuts.
In discussing the Pentagon post with Carter, Obama said he emphasized the need "to make smart choices, precisely because there are so many challenges out there."
Carter, a widely respected physicist and academic, has won praise from some Republicans, suggesting he'll face a smooth Senate confirmation. Carter would replace Chuck Hagel, who resigned under pressure last week after a bumpy tenure.
Hagel did not attend Friday's event. A defense official said the outgoing secretary did not want to distract from Carter's nomination.
The leadership shakeup at the Pentagon marks the only major change Obama has made to his national security team during his second term.
Source
|
(Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to renew a package of temporary tax breaks, known as the "extenders", including a wind production tax credit (PTC) crucial for turbine makers such as Denmark's Vestas.
The PTC will be extended for one year retroactively for 2014 if the Senate and President Barack Obama concur.
"People were expecting a two-year extension, so this is less than expected," Nordea analyst Patrik Setterberg said in a note to clients.
However, he said the Senate had previously argued it wanted a two-year tax package, leading him to conclude the final deal could still change.
"The outcome in the Senate and the final details of the extension, which are expected at a later stage, will decide whether it is a good or bad deal," Setterberg said, adding it was too early to estimate the potential impact on company results.
Source
|
On December 06 2014 02:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2014 16:13 oneofthem wrote:
not the best start with the choice of 'human' rights there. i don't really see the rights framework working all that well with animals. Hardcore relativism knows no bounds. Keeping animals that are as close to humans as it gets in appropriate conditions is 'hardcore relativism'? As apt as the term is in this case, it wasn't expected that adherents would embrace it.
|
|
|
I'm guessing a seven figure confidential settlement.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
personhood is a poor framework for giving certain entitlements to animals. it has nothing to say on the level that i think would matter, namely how cognitively complex the animal is.
|
Russian Federation3632 Posts
continuing in the proud tradition of Walter Duranty, Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, and Jayson Blair
I suppose some people take the Salem Witch Trials as a "how to" guide.
|
WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers threatened Wednesday to circumvent the Obama administration by releasing the Senate Intelligence Committee's highly-anticipated report on the CIA's torture program, after reports emerged that Secretary of State John Kerry had made a last-minute attempt to delay the document's public release.
"This report must see the light of day before Congress adjourns this year," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "And if the Executive Branch isn’t willing to cooperate the Senate should be willing to act unilaterally to ensure that happens.”
Bloomberg View's Josh Rogin reported Friday that Kerry made a phone call to Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) Friday morning, asking her to "consider" the timing of her report’s release, and implying that its imminent public revelation could endanger overseas personnel and international partnerships at a time when U.S. foreign policy is fragile.
According to Rogin's report, Kerry told Feinstein he still supports the release of the document, just not at this time.
Feinstein’s committee declined to comment on the Bloomberg report, which did not make clear whether Kerry had succeeded in convincing the senator to change her plans.
The administration on Thursday confirmed that a summary of the report would be released early next week. The intelligence panel's report details the findings of a 5-year investigation into the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques during the George W. Bush administration.
"Americans will be profoundly disturbed and angered when they read it," Wyden added. "But it’s important to get the facts out even if they make people uncomfortable, because that’s the only way to prevent the mistakes of the past from being repeated. It is the only way to make sure torture never happens again and make America’s intelligence agencies stronger in the long run."
Source
|
regarding ferguson and policing
I'm Pondering alternate solutions to issues.
One issue that causes things like this, is that having two police officers to a car means less police coverage/longer response times. But having just one means the officer doesn't have backup automatically, which can put him in danger.
I wonder if it would be possible to hire extra muscle to support the police for an in-between approach.
i.e. have one police officer, with one semi-officer there to support. The semi-officer wouldn't use the full standards and training for officers, and wouldn't have the full (or perhaps much of any) police powers; they would be there primarily to backup the officer (as well as doing other minor tasks I'm sure). They wouldn't be allowed to initiate things on their own, they have to follow the officer's lead about how to handle the situation.
It might be possible to pay such people considerably less than officer standard due to the lower requirements and training.
Looked up the average pay for security guards and bouncers vs police online; and it's quite a difference.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes339032.htm
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333051.htm
some other sites said bouncer pay was typically about the same as security guard pay (a little lower, but sometimes getting a portion of the tips at places).
|
Hey USA did you finally found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I mean I do not see any one go to jail so you did not lie did you?
User was warned for this post
|
Ironically there was weapons of mass destruction all along, partially because we were the ones they bought them from. They were keeping them a secret so they wouldn't fall into the hand of any terrorist orgs. They ended up temp falling into ISIS's hands but I guess they delt with that the way they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
