Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 203

On March 07 2015 09:44 oneofthem wrote:
GH is posing a legit question in a somewhat confrontational way. mebbe take this up later.

On March 09 2015 14:15 Najda wrote:
What do you do with all the random shit that you own? Like I have some random things such as calipers, camera stand, packages of rubber bands, camping hammock that folds into a little bag, textbooks/old notebooks (I don't have a bookshelf either) etc. I'm limited to places in my room and previously I just kind of piled them in a corner in a semi-organized way, but now I want to actually put them somewhere. Should I just throw them in a box in my closet?

On March 07 2015 14:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:


The core of his question is naive and he is causing headaches because he's not asking it directly.

The main core of his question is this: Is there absolute Justice/Truth and is that Justice/Truth perverted when the current legal system is unable to find it.

His example is of a Lawyer who "knows" that his client is guilty, but still wins the case. To him, absolute justice/truth has been perverted by fake Justice/Truth.

This is naive because it suggests that there is a better way of revealing absolute Justice/Truth other than proving it. If the accuser cannot prove its case to the accused, then the accused is innocent--by definition. There is no moral quandary in this matter. The moral quandary is only present in the specific example of a hypothetical lawyer who believes/knows (subjective really) that the accused is guilty. And only in the assumption that the evidence the lawyer is privy to is accurate (even if the client "confesses" to the lawyer, the client could still just be insane and happened to just say bullshit to the lawyer).

However, the quest for an absolute Justice/Truth is impossible because the only thing that matters is observable and perceivable Justice/Truth. If there is evidence for something, we assume it to be true until evidence suggests otherwise. Not having access to that evidence/inability to find that evidence does not give us the ability to simply dictate without proof whether something is true or false. Which is why GH is only able to bring the questions about from hypothetical abstractions of circumstances or situations.

I'm sure he knows this and just wants to explore the hypothetical in an abstract discussion, but when you start calling out people and their professions to dictate to them what you feel that Profession should or shouldn't do--that's when it gets annoying and insulting.

On March 09 2015 17:03 xM(Z wrote:

you start here : "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" but then go sideways, so i'll keep it short.
- if there is at least one person who not only heard the tree but also seen it go down (the perpetrator) and you fail to prove it, it means that your justice failed.

On March 10 2015 00:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Yep, and that's really what the core of applied statistics is. Finding the right balance between Type I and Type 2 error, based on how acceptable either is to you given the situation. In terms of the legal system, we want to minimize Type 1 error, and thus the Type 2 error is determined itself.

On March 10 2015 02:59 Acrofales wrote:

Assuming you can't improve the power of the test (which in this case is the entirety of police force and legal system).

On March 10 2015 09:01 ThomasjServo wrote:
This means my face and thus my body are going North, as Coppermantis said, same goes for any other direction though the only time you hear the phrase, "Northbound, Southbound," or what have you is on local traffic reports. You would sooner hear, "I was going up north, I was going down south or headed out east or west" than I was northbound. The phrase is relegated to a very narrow usage at as far as I hear it.

On March 09 2015 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:
.

You also can't go randomly accusing people for seeing trees fall if you have no proof that person ever seen a tree fall. People who want to wax philosophical on this only have two choices. A justice system that would rather have more innocent people punished or a justice system that has more guilty people go free. There is no system (other than an omniscient omnipotent God/Gods) that has neither. But if it falls on people, the accuser needs evidence to prove the accused is guilty. No evidence, no guilt. Justice has not failed if a man without any evidence as to his guilt goes free.

On March 10 2015 14:35 xM(Z wrote:
it's man made diamonds (aka synthetic diamond)