[RD] Berkeley Riots

[Farm Boy]

Oh, so we're back to the reason we have juries. Even though we know they're less accurate interpreters of the law than judges. Then subsequently have to invent terms like "finders of fact" to cover our tushes that, ultimately, it's just some schmucks deciding how things are going to go down, and that's the point.

Maybe we should just stick people with the rejection of violence in this case is the rejection of stupid things like "stand your ground" and that the advocacy of violence in this case is most of the way there?

Thank you for the summary, btw. I know those are annoying to do.

 

[metalhead]

If you ask a bunch of lawyers why we need juries, the vast majority will answer with, "Because I can manipulate them thusly to benefit my clients."

 

[Farm Boy]

Isn't that their purpose? Especially in conjunction with who generally gets to waive the jury process entirely?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I always thought it had something to do with folksy notions about community justice and being held accountable by your neighbors... "You stole my horse so I shot you dead" sounds so much less civilized than... "You stole my horse so a bunch of us talked about it, and we all agreed that you should be hanged. So you're getting hanged tomorrow."

And I can't agree with this as a blanket claim any more than I can agree with its counterpart, "mere belief can never be the basis for acceptable action." This would give "moral cover" to all those SS troops who sincerely believed they were defending Germany by shooting Jewish people. On the other hand, we have a moral principle that would basically condemn you to near-total inaction due to the Cartesian problem (all knowledge is ultimately unreliable, or to put it another way, human knowledge is actually just beliefs all the way down). There must be some middle ground between these two extremes.

Excellent point, and just the kind of substantive argument that I was trying to get us back on. Thanks Lex.

Thank you for the summary, btw. I know those are annoying to do.

My pleasure

 

[Farm Boy]

The purpose of the lawyers!

 

[Lexicus]

"You stole my horse so a bunch of us talked about it, and we all agreed that you should be hanged. So you're getting hanged tomorrow."

This could also describe a lynching. That's, I guess, the ugly truth about American notions of folksy community justice.

 

[BvBPL]

Do you really not? Sommer will explain it better than I can, but basically the human condition is such that a great majority of our behavior, perhaps nearly all of it, is based on 'mere belief'. So saying the standard for acceptable behavior should be more than "mere belief" is to say that probably the bulk of human behavior is unacceptable.

Okay...
So what does that have to do with the origin of hospitality?

 

[Sommerswerd]

The purpose of the lawyers!

Oh! In that case, the very foundational pillars of society as we know it!

 

[Sommerswerd]

This could also describe a lynching. That's, I guess, the ugly truth about American notions of folksy community justice.

My sentiments exactly

 

[Lexicus]

Okay...
So what does that have to do with the origin of hospitality?

Hospitality to strangers is behaving based on the pretty un-provable belief that a given stranger is not going to screw you over.

 

[BvBPL]

A.) How do you reckon that?
B.) What is the applicability of that to this discussion?

 

[Farm Boy]

This could also describe a lynching. That's, I guess, the ugly truth about American notions of folksy community justice.

That's why juries are supposed to be available per request of the defense(with a judge at least limiting some of the aspects of how they can be manipulated), and skipped entirely in favor of the judge alone per the request of the defense. The state is supposed to at least try to be better even as it recognizes its own foundations, no?

 

[Lexicus]

The state is supposed to at least try to be better even as it recognizes its own foundations, no?

Yes indeedly doodly, that's the point of the exercise as I see it.

 

[Lexicus]

A.) How do you reckon that?
B.) What is the applicability of that to this discussion?

What do you mean, how do I reckon that? The basic fact that strangers can't be trusted not to, at the least, knock you over the head and take your stuff has, I assume, been a pretty important point in human history for the entirety of our existence. It explains in general terms why we have so many of the institutions that have emerged since we started living in cities.

The applicability of that to this discussion is that we were discussing ways to act ethically in situations where the actor has incomplete information (ie, in any real-world situation). Obviously in some situations the information is more complete than others.

 

[Gori the Grey]

. It explains in general terms why we have so many of the institutions that have emerged since we started living in cities.

It explains why we have doors, with locks on them!

 

[metalhead]

Cue old codger - "Why back in my day, we never had to lock our doors!"

What grandpa doesn't tell you is that back in his day, your wife's handsy alcoholic brother who was always snooping around your kids' room was just considered a lovable eccentric. If the kids said a bad word about him, they got to go cut a switch. Or choose between the belt and the paddle.

 

[Farm Boy]

We don't lock them all the time now. And if you're talking about my Grandfather's generation, they had that one institutionalized.

 

[metalhead]

I guess it depends on the family. The Catholic church just sent 'em for "alcohol counseling."

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, they still went to go visit on the holidays and stuff. It was an illness, not a crime, you know. I mean, still life imprisonment, functionally.

 

[Hygro]

As I keep saying, if the post in question is "can you show me this evidence that you claim exists", then there is nothing to find credible or otherwise.

You're changing the subject away from your point that we should disregard someone's accumulated credibility, by virtue of treating each post atomically.