Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 203
Forum Index > General Forum |
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On March 07 2015 09:44 oneofthem wrote: GH is posing a legit question in a somewhat confrontational way. mebbe take this up later. 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. | ||
Najda
United States3765 Posts
| ||
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
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? In general yeah. put em in boxes label anything you think your going to want to remember and find a place to store em. If its stuff you don't want you can also donate it to some charity. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
Its all about the money. Then, you spend that money on buying cookies/stuff from a charity :D | ||
xM(Z
Romania5268 Posts
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. 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. | ||
Simberto
Germany11249 Posts
| ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
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. 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. | ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
| ||
Acrofales
Spain17735 Posts
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. Assuming you can't improve the power of the test (which in this case is the entirety of police force and legal system). | ||
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
- In the traffic going North - In the traffic coming from North ? | ||
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
| ||
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
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). That's a different philosophical discussion. Government has X money for Y projects. How much of X can the government spend on justice without being detrimental to the whole. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17735 Posts
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. It's not a common word, and in the context you give you're right, but a northbound train or southbound traffic is fairly common; probably as much as "the train going north" and "traffic travelling northwards". Other than that, it's used in songs and poetry. Also, for some reason, northbound and southbound sound okay, but eastbound and westbound sound really strange and my intuition is to use eastward and westward bound instead of contracting the words, as with north and south. Why is that? It's not like homebound, where the principal meaning is very different from "homeward bound". | ||
miky_ardiente
Mexico387 Posts
bonus: whats the "man made" hardest to break material ? | ||
xM(Z
Romania5268 Posts
| ||
xM(Z
Romania5268 Posts
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. you couldn't find any evidence =/= there isn't any evidence. also, do you really expect the government to fix the justice?. woaaa that's precious. imo, the people within the justice apparatus should fix it because they (should)know what's wrong with it (at least they should be the one pitching to the gov. the issues). all of them justice dep. suck-ups should be sent on a guild trip. the complacency is strong within them. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17735 Posts
On March 10 2015 14:35 xM(Z wrote: it's man made diamonds (aka synthetic diamond) 1. There's no molecular difference between synthetic and natural diamond, so just plain diamond. However, even if only looking at hardness, diamond is no longer the top material, boron nitride is. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16610-diamond-no-longer-natures-hardest-material.html#.VP7SzV6COSM 2. Hardness is only one aspect of unbreakability. Diamond is fairly easily broken, because it can shatter if strick the right way, with not much force at all. I would argue that materials like kevlar or spider silk are far more unbreakable than diamond-like materials... but then again, diamonds cut through that stuff pretty easily. So with unbreakable, what are you trying to do to break it? Punch it? Or cut it? | ||
| ||