12 of 13
12
Shermer on the humanist movement, and on libertarianism
Posted: 28 January 2010 07:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 166 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Occam - 27 January 2010 11:27 AM

That’s what voir dire is supposed to be for.  The lawyers question the prospective jurors to eliminate those with bias.  I just didn’t want to see liberals not even be called, or to be tossed off because of their philosophy rather than any perceived bias.

Ok, but who do you think should not be on juries?  What about creationists?  With many modern trials discussing things like DNA, I can see a case where creationists should not be on juries due to their complete lack of a basic understanding of science and the scientific method.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2010 01:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 167 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
Rocinante - 28 January 2010 07:26 AM
Occam - 27 January 2010 11:27 AM

That’s what voir dire is supposed to be for.  The lawyers question the prospective jurors to eliminate those with bias.  I just didn’t want to see liberals not even be called, or to be tossed off because of their philosophy rather than any perceived bias.

Ok, but who do you think should not be on juries?  What about creationists?  With many modern trials discussing things like DNA, I can see a case where creationists should not be on juries due to their complete lack of a basic understanding of science and the scientific method.

From what I have heard, creationist do not disbelieve in DNA. In fact you’d be surprised how many are using it in genealogy and paternity testing etc. A bigger problem is the ‘CSI’ effect, where juries refuse to convict UNLESS there is DNA evidence, despite overwhelming evidence otherwise. Apparently some people think DNA samples should be taken at every crime, whether or not it is appropriate (a car theft for instance).

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2010 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 168 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Quoting Rocinante:

I can see a case where creationists should not be on juries due to their complete lack of a basic understanding of science and the scientific method.

  I’m sure we’ve all met people beyond just creationists who think with their intestines, have no idea of the way logic works, and know nothing about science.  No, I don’t think they should be on juries, and in theory, the lawyers are supposed to reject all of those.  Unfortunately, lawyers try to choose people who either have views similar to what they are presenting, don’t understand the argument the other side will present, or seem likely to be easily manipulated.  If a lawyer has a case that’s a clear win for logic and science, s/he will try to stack the jury with those who demonstrate skill in those areas, and the lawyer for the other side will try to excuse those same people.

It’s a game where winning is often far more important than exposing reality (truth). 

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2010 04:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 169 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  352
Joined  2008-04-24
GdB - 27 January 2010 09:25 AM
George - 27 January 2010 07:48 AM
Rocinante - 27 January 2010 07:28 AM

You have to be like Spock.  grin

Or a psychopath.

Underline again.

A person who says he thinks logically and is not led by emotions is deluding himself (or others). When he really does, he is psychopath. Find out what modern psychologists and neurologists have to say about the connection of intelligence and emotions… But usually the first is the case and the person ist mostly just hiding his egoistic motivations. (It normally turns out that his logic is pointing in the direction of his interests. It is so easy: logic tells us how ‘truth propagates’. It does not say what is true independent of some other truth.)

So, yes, I think most political libertarians (free market ideologists) are just preaching for their own richness. At when you are rich, it is easy to give away something sometimes (as Ulster and Rocinante say again and again), but behold it becomes structural to help our fellow humans! (The opposite of course is true too: the poors tend more to the left side of the spectrum, because it is in their interest.)

Jee, I think I’ve thrown open a door that was open already…

GdB

what makes anyone think I am rich?  When I was making something like $300 every two weeks (as an E-2), I essentially believed the same things.  Anyone who preaches liberalism is usually deluding themselves.  It’s easy to be compassionate with other people’s money and resources. 

I wonder which liberal on here would give up their cable and computer, tv, the whole bit, to provide for one child in Haiti?  You could save thousands giving it all up, for just one year, and think of how you could help just ONE CHILD.

What is stopping you ? Don’t you care?

 Signature 

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (Democrat):

“It’s a free country; I wish it weren’t, but it’s a free country.” when speaking of a rally on the Capitol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2010 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 170 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  352
Joined  2008-04-24
Rocinante - 28 January 2010 07:26 AM
Occam - 27 January 2010 11:27 AM

That’s what voir dire is supposed to be for.  The lawyers question the prospective jurors to eliminate those with bias.  I just didn’t want to see liberals not even be called, or to be tossed off because of their philosophy rather than any perceived bias.

Ok, but who do you think should not be on juries?  What about creationists?  With many modern trials discussing things like DNA, I can see a case where creationists should not be on juries due to their complete lack of a basic understanding of science and the scientific method.

I don’t have any problem with liberals being on juries, or satanists.  I do have a problem with non-skeptics, people of whom evidence is demonstrated and yet they react either extremely emotionally, or seek some coping technique or denial.  Basically, lots of what I have seen on the Obama threads. 

The same kind of thinking that got us:  Crack = black = bad = long prison terms, Cocaine = white = somewhat bad = moderate prison terms, is exactly like the kind of thinking that says Palin and Qualye and Bush are idiots for any variety of missteps (some funny, for sure), but somehow excludes Obama from the same scrutiny.

The kind of thinking that tells us a brilliant man is a Harvard Law Grad (and “President” of the HLReview), who also happens to need a teleprompter to talk to a class of 6th graders.  The kind of thinking that refers pejoratively of the Bush family as a “dynasty”, but the Kennedy’s as “faithful public servants just doing the people’s business”.

Like I said, I’ve been stunned at the lack of skepticism in some of these posts.

 Signature 

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (Democrat):

“It’s a free country; I wish it weren’t, but it’s a free country.” when speaking of a rally on the Capitol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2010 05:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 171 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
UlsterScots432 - 29 January 2010 04:50 PM

.

You don’t know any of us, you do not know what contributions we make in society, you do not know what or where we donate our resources, what I see from you are assumptions followed by more assumptions from someone who holds most of the members of the forum whom he knows NOTHING about in complete disdain.

The kind of thinking that tells us a brilliant man is a Harvard Law Grad (and “President” of the HLReview), who also happens to need a teleprompter to talk to a class of 6th graders.  The kind of thinking that refers pejoratively of the Bush family as a “dynasty”, but the Kennedy’s as “faithful public servants just doing the people’s business”.

Like I said, I’ve been stunned at the lack of skepticism in some of these posts.

I am likewise stunned by YOUR disingenuous attempt to continue to promulgate the lie that Obama used a teleprompter to speak to 6th graders.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2010 05:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 172 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Ulster, one must not mistake one’s supercilious ego for intelligence.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2010 07:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 173 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  352
Joined  2008-04-24
Rocinante - 28 January 2010 07:26 AM
Occam - 27 January 2010 11:27 AM

That’s what voir dire is supposed to be for.  The lawyers question the prospective jurors to eliminate those with bias.  I just didn’t want to see liberals not even be called, or to be tossed off because of their philosophy rather than any perceived bias.

Ok, but who do you think should not be on juries?  What about creationists?  With many modern trials discussing things like DNA, I can see a case where creationists should not be on juries due to their complete lack of a basic understanding of science and the scientific method.

Rocinante:  People who do not understand the adversarial process are the ones that concern me, particularly in civil cases (because it is more common there I believe, although the consequences in criminal trials can be more drastic).  I think those of us in the legal or law enforcement field, take it for granted that people understand the elements of proof and rules of evidence.  Attorneys on both sides can use this lack of understanding to their advantage.  Particularly if the judge doesn’t step in.  Attorneys often claim things that were not substantiated by specific evidence during the actual testimony at trial (nor introduced by way of a witness) and they get away with it. They are supposed to be sanctioned for doing that, but it happens in closing arguments.  Some juries I believe wind up contemplating matters which were not properly introduced at trial.

I actually believe that the procedural rules and court process itself should be taught in High School. Not just that a court “system” exists, but how it actually works.  Granted, in my opinion, law enforcement is honest 99 percent of the time (people tend to forget how often the criminals lie in court), but when you have a juror who when going thru the Voir Dire process says something like “I figure he must be guilty, because he was arrested”, you know we have a lot of work to do. 

Skepticism itself should be taught in elementary school, but that would probably be too incongruent with the nature of public schools.

 Signature 

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (Democrat):

“It’s a free country; I wish it weren’t, but it’s a free country.” when speaking of a rally on the Capitol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2010 08:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 174 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17
Rocinante - 26 January 2010 07:03 PM

Regardless, Obama’s dependency on the teleprompter is a matter of record.

As is Palin’s elementary school dependency on her hand scribbles LOL !!!! I’ll take the teleprompter user anyday tongue rolleye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2010 11:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 175 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  352
Joined  2008-04-24

Amazing isn’t it? Thankfully she is not the president.  I still crack up when I think about Obama needing the teleprompters at a 6th grade class function (somewhere, Bill Clinton, a master orator, rolls his heavy eyes).  Watching Obama off the teleprompters is extremely painful (lots of uh, duh, uh, duh).  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Tg6gkKBVE or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Ju6kWfXEk&feature=fvw)

It’s very embarrassing that our President cannot speak without the assistance of such technology (when Reagan and Clinton clearly could speak off the cuff at a moment’s notice), and that he does things like bowing to the Asian-American mayor of Tampa (wow, that was VERY embarrassing, and a form of soft-racism), or that he doesn’t know that Austrians speak GERMAN !  How stupid can you get?  You expect this from a backwoods Palin, but a Harvard Law Grad, who had private eduction most of his life ! ? !  Who has traveled internationally, and he doesn’t even speak a foreign language (like Bush did)??

To see the President of the United States bowing to an US Citizen (Mayor of Tampa who happens to be of Asian descent..seriously, is this guy for real?):  http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100128/480/b07861589f354ce698c3bf88b741d692/

Oops…I forgot, you were talking about non-president Palin.  Proceed…

(sorry dude, you can’t win, she isn’t president, many of us did not vote for her and we don’t defend her beyond what defense she deserves…the president is an idiot if Bush ever was..face it)

 Signature 

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (Democrat):

“It’s a free country; I wish it weren’t, but it’s a free country.” when speaking of a rally on the Capitol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2010 12:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 176 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9280
Joined  2006-08-29

You forgot to mention, UlsterScots432, that Obama also has big ears. The Easter Island natives had big ears and their society ended up in a disaster. Lots of uh, duh, uh, duh plus the big ears cannot be a good thing for the U.S.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2010 12:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 177 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17
George - 10 February 2010 12:26 PM

You forgot to mention, UlsterScots432, that Obama also has big ears. The Easter Island natives had big ears and their society ended up in a disaster. Lots of uh, duh, uh, duh plus the big ears cannot be a good thing for the U.S.

You are so right. I never realised this big ear thing was so disastrous. Thankfully our Prime minister has medium ears. He has a big f’ing mouth !  but not big ears cool smirk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2010 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 178 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  352
Joined  2008-04-24
scepticeye - 10 February 2010 12:31 PM
George - 10 February 2010 12:26 PM

You forgot to mention, UlsterScots432, that Obama also has big ears. The Easter Island natives had big ears and their society ended up in a disaster. Lots of uh, duh, uh, duh plus the big ears cannot be a good thing for the U.S.

You are so right. I never realised this big ear thing was so disastrous. Thankfully our Prime minister has medium ears. He has a big f’ing mouth !  but not big ears cool smirk

LOL.  That’s a pretty stupid theory there George, I’ll stick to the facts of what the guy actually says and does smile  You can take that road (aren’t you the guy that claims obesity is a problem in the “poor” community because they lack food? LOL…now I remember why I had you on ignore).  Sorry, saw you quoted and couldn’t resist.  Skeptic, LOL.  Right

I like the title “non-president” Palin for Palin.  Hilarious.  How much better we are all off that she isn’t president (but instead a private citizen).  Too funny. 

Speaking of funny, what’s up with Iran, are they going to do something “big” tomorrow, as stated? (I am just glad that Obama’s offerings to them came to fruition…oh wait, that’s right..it didn’t).  Clown. 

2012 can’t get here soon enough !  Hopefully Wayne Allen Root will get the libertarian nod so we can set aside the clowns (I personally don’t think Obama is going to run again if polling shows he would lose).

 Signature 

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (Democrat):

“It’s a free country; I wish it weren’t, but it’s a free country.” when speaking of a rally on the Capitol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2010 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 179 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
UlsterScots432 - 09 February 2010 07:30 PM

I actually believe that the procedural rules and court process itself should be taught in High School. Not just that a court “system” exists, but how it actually works.

Absolutely!  Too many people get their “information” about such stuff from TV shows and movies. 

UlsterScots432 - 09 February 2010 07:30 PM

Skepticism itself should be taught in elementary school, but that would probably be too incongruent with the nature of public schools.

Critical thinking should be mandatory in elementary through high school with varying class topics taught in every single year of school.  Can you imagine how different our society would be after a couple of generations of people who are critical thinkers?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2010 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 180 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9280
Joined  2006-08-29
UlsterScots432 - 10 February 2010 12:43 PM

aren’t you the guy that claims obesity is a problem in the “poor” community because they lack food?

That would be: because they lacked food, in the past.

Profile
 
 
   
12 of 13
12