US Politics Thread

[Mr Kobayashi]

He did say only if they could provide evidence that two or more were involved in such activity could the lawyers use such terms.

In the UK, when the alleged victim is still alive complainant would be used, not "victim", not sure what else would be used other than "alleged victim", unlike the judge I have no issue with that term.

But it has to be pointed out he wasn't just making it up, he would be guided by the American/state equivalent of criminal procedure rules.

 

[domalino]

He did say only if they could provide evidence that two or more were involved in such activity could the lawyers use such terms.

In the UK, when the alleged victim is still alive complainant would be used, not "victim", not sure what else would be used other than "alleged victim", unlike the judge I have no issue with that term.

But he has to be pointed out he wasn't just making it up, he would be guided by the American/state equivalent of criminal procedure rules.

This falls down because he will allow them to be called rioters and looters despite them not being convicted of any of those crimes.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

This falls down because he will allow them to be called rioters and looters despite them not being convicted of any of those crimes.

It’s a catch 22 because unless they had prior convictions, Rittenhouse killing them mean obviously there's no chance of that. Although obviously the "victim" is not on trial here so allegations that one of them was a child sex offender are not relevant unless it has anything to do with his behaviour on the night in question.

Alleged rioter/looter and alleged victim is fair.

It is necessary to refer to them as alleged "rioter/looter" for the purpose of his defence.

Doesn't appear to be a black and white cae though, not really sympathetic with Rittenhouse (I've called him Shittenhouse, earlier). Regardless of whether he did or didn't shoot in self-defence he had no business being there- and who the fuck is hiring 17-yr olds with their own AR-15 style rifles as private security?

It's not the wild west.

He also shouldn't have been charged as an adult. America has this bizarre system of not having a fixed cut-off and allowing it to be decided ad-hoc. That's wrong.

 

[domalino]

It’s a catch 22 because unless they had prior convictions, Rittenhouse killing them mean obviously there's no chance of that. Although obviously the "victim" is not on trial here so allegations that one of them was a child sex offender are not relevant unless it has anything to do with his behaviour on the night in question.

Alleged rioter/looter and alleged victim is fair.

It is necessary to refer to them as alleged "rioter/looter" for the purpose of his defence.

Doesn't appear to be a black and white cae though, not really sympathetic with Rittenhouse (I've called him Shittenhouse, earlier). Regardless of whether he did or didn't shoot in self-defence he had no business being there- and who the fuck is hiring 17-yr olds with their own AR-15 style rifles as private security?

It's not the wild west.

He also shouldn't have been charged as an adult. America has this bizarre system of not having a fixed cut-off and allowing it to be decided ad-hoc. That's wrong.

It's not a catch 22.

You cannot claim they are not victims until he's found guilty and simultaneously allow them to be referred to as criminals for crimes they never got convicted of.

"Alleged..." might be fair but it's not what the judge has allowed is it? Hence the post.

It's a pretty black and white case. He illegally took a gun and went to a BLM protest to intimidate people and then he murdered 2 people and fled. He would be tried as an adult in every country.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

It's not a catch 22.

You cannot claim they are not victims until he's found guilty and simultaneously allow them to be referred to as criminals for crimes they never got convicted of.

"Alleged..." might be fair but it's not what the judge has allowed is it? Hence the post.

It's a pretty black and white case. He illegally took a gun and went to a BLM protest to intimidate people and then he murdered 2 people and fled. He would be tried as an adult in every country.

Sorry that's wrong. I didn't claim they weren't or couldn't be victims, but there is a possibility they did commit crimes and the reason they weren't charged is because they were dead. There is also the possibility that they didn't commit crimes or there is no evidence to substantiate the claims that they did. It is a loaded term usually barred from criminal proceedings until guilty plea or verdict.

The judge was right to say that the defence ought to provide evidence if they want to make accusations about the deceased.


Sorry it's not black and white if there is a mob chasing someone trying to disarm them, throwing stuff at him and trying to hit him over the head and he is confused and disoriented because of the darkness, adrenaline and because he is a stupid seventeen year old.

A stupid kid playing cop who shouldn't have been there.

But the assholes who burned property, rioted and looted on previous nights and on the night in question bare some responsibility for giving a veil of legitimacy to the idea that heavily armed vigilantes need to patrol the streets with rifles.

After watching this though, and all the other stuff I have read,(this may be a false impression, there will of course be more evidence) if I was sitting on that jury I'd vote to acquit on grounds of self-defense.

Both guys he killed were chasing after him trying to attack him, and the injured guy was holding a hand gun. He was being pursued by a mob of unknown people shouting to get him. If they had disarmed him they could have killed him with his own gun.

I'm pretty sure he knew there is no stand your ground law in Wisconsin. In both incidents he is trying to run away, and he only shot at men attacking him.

If there's evidence that proves it was all a ruse and it was actually Kyle setting a trap to hunt some "rioters" and stay within the confines of the law I'll retract the bit where I stated I'd acquit him.



But as I said numerous times he shouldn't have been there at all.

 

[SWP's back]

They’re the American Taliban

 

[paulsimpson]

They’re the American Taliban

Atheism is a religion . Hence the anti God post and the labelling

 

[JASR]

The concept of thinking that prayer achieves anything other than making the person doing the praying feel better… is so bizarre.

Even a group pray is just about the group patting itself on the back collectively, and still achieves nothing for anyone else.

the stories bigging up prayer eg ‘I was left alone in the desert, and i prayed to be rescued, and god rescued me’, pail into insignificance with the numbers of people who similarly died and being religious or semi religious must have still prayed to be rescued.

it’s just hope, luck, chance , cause and effect. Diddly squat to being affected by a prayer.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

Atheism is a religion . Hence the anti God post and the labelling

Oh dear

 

[Metal Biker]

Atheism is a religion . Hence the anti God post and the labelling

Atheism is, by definition, the complete absence of religion.

Atheism has no creed, no sect, no tenets, no rituals, no shared belief systems, no observed days of celebration or recognition.

As an example, it'd be like saying that someone who doesn't support a football club or even watches football still supports a football club; the non-football club supporters, which is nonsense.

 

[mancity1]

The concept of thinking that prayer achieves anything other than making the person doing the praying feel better… is so bizarre.

Even a group pray is just about the group patting itself on the back collectively, and still achieves nothing for anyone else.

the stories bigging up prayer eg ‘I was left alone in the desert, and i prayed to be rescued, and god rescued me’, pail into insignificance with the numbers of people who similarly died and being religious or semi religious must have still prayed to be rescued.

it’s just hope, luck, chance , cause and effect. Diddly squat to being affected by a prayer.

this is not to cast any judgement of the point you raise but billions of people will say to you that prayer is much more than what you allude to and many of them would want to discuss with you the reasons why.

 

[JASR]

this is not to cast any judgement of the point you raise but billions of people will say to you that prayer is much more than what you allude to and many of them would want to discuss with you the reasons why.

That's as maybe. But it literally does nothing for anyone, other than giving a sense of 'doing something' in the singular praying person's mind. or a nice 'group feeling' if praying together. Either way it has no affect outside the mental state (not in a derogatory way) of the prayee.

If prayer did anything , eg Trump would still be president, with the amount of prayers offered for that outcome. or Man United fans in the past 9 years on winning the PL

 

[mancity1]

That's as maybe. But it literally does nothing for anyone, other than giving a sense of 'doing something' in the singular praying person's mind. or a nice 'group feeling' if praying together. Either way it has no affect outside the mental state (not in a derogatory way) of the prayee.

If prayer did anything , eg Trump would still be president, with the amount of prayers offered for that outcome. or Man United fans in the past 9 years on winning the PL

I would have thought more would pray that Trump lose the last election (LOL) but its in the eye of the beholder and my only point was prayer means a lot more than an outcome for many that do.

Whether you or I believe it does nothing or achieves nothing is not the point.

I gather you don't pray.

Given this is a US Politics thread you would know that Joe Biden prays regularly.

 

[JASR]

Given this is a US Politics thread you would know that Joe Biden prays regularly.

..and it does diddly, other than signaling to Christian Democrats that he's 'right'.
Same as Trump having a (clear protesters with force) saunter to that Church and holding a bible - signalling to Christian Republican's that's he's 'right' .

It's purely for show, appealing to their Christian followers.

Eisenhower has a lot to answer for, supporting and pushing

In God We Trust - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SWP's back]

It's purely for show, appealing to their Christian followers.

Whereas we know Trump is an atheist who’s never been a regular church goer, Biden does seem to be a devout Catholic - at least he’s spent the last 40 odd years attending Mass every Sunday which strikes me as a waste of time.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Whereas we know Trump is an atheist who’s never been a regular church goer, Biden does seem to be a devout Catholic - at least he’s spent the last 40 odd years attending Mass every Sunday which strikes me as a waste of time.

Depends on what you get out of going to church. You could (and plenty do) say spending two hours watching footy is a waste of time.

Religion’s not an issue until you start invoking it as a rationale for doing ill to someone else, or claiming that the un-religious will face ills solely on the basis of their non-belief.

 

[journolud]

That's as maybe. But it literally does nothing for anyone, other than giving a sense of 'doing something' in the singular praying person's mind. or a nice 'group feeling' if praying together. Either way it has no affect outside the mental state (not in a derogatory way) of the prayee.

If prayer did anything , eg Trump would still be president, with the amount of prayers offered for that outcome. or Man United fans in the past 9 years on winning the PL

Not really the thread for it, we had a religion thread that got fairly heated as I recall.

I think you underestimate the power of prayer for the individual, goes a bit beyond a sense of “doing something” but if the effect it has is to enhance the well being of the person praying and gives them a sense of belonging to a particular group I would say that is a fairly decent end in itself.

Not good to ram it down people’s throats and try to convert non believers but atheists themselves can be a pretty strident bunch about something that doesn’t affect them in the slightest. As though they have to have a cause which is to undermine someone else’s

 

[JASR]

Not really the thread for it, we had a religion thread that got fairly heated as I recall.

I think you underestimate the power of prayer for the individual, goes a bit beyond a sense of “doing something” but if the effect it has is to enhance the well being of the person praying and gives them a sense of belonging to a particular group I would say that is a fairly decent end in itself.

Not good to ram it down people’s throats and try to convert non believers but atheists themselves can be a pretty strident bunch about something that doesn’t affect them in the slightest. As though they have to have a cause which is to undermine someone else’s

I thought I emphasized that prayer can be good for the individual - by getting them into a better mind set. Similar to meditation/mindfulness/doing good deeds. I was merely saying prayer does diddly for anything outside the individuals concious.

 

[journolud]

I thought I emphasized that prayer can be good for the individual - by getting them into a better mind set. Similar to meditation/mindfulness/doing good deeds. I was merely saying prayer does diddly for anything outside the individuals concious.

You did, I just emphasised it more because I thought you were damming it with faint praise. As for the impact of prayer outside the consciousness of the individual, well yeah as far as we know prayer never brought about a particular outcome like let United win the league or me win the lottery but in less tangible ways, like the other things you mention prayer can lead to an improvement in the self which inevitably has a ripple effect on interactions with others.

 

[paulsimpson]

Atheism is, by definition, the complete absence of religion.

Atheism has no creed, no sect, no tenets, no rituals, no shared belief systems, no observed days of celebration or recognition.

As an example, it'd be like saying that someone who doesn't support a football club or even watches football still supports a football club; the non-football club supporters, which is nonsense.

Webster’s dictionary includes a definition of religion with a nontheistic meaning: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”Atheists hold a worldview that fits this definition becuse they have a cause to promote, a naturalistic system of beliefs, and hold them with vigour and faith. So, as ardently held ,atheistic humanism, by definition, is a religion.
More recently, a US District Court in the 2014 case American Humanist Association v. US, concerning First Amendment’s provision against establishing a state church, that “secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes.” The U.S. courts recognize that secular humanism works as a religion


Also, according to atheism evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big bang—nothing exploded and became everything) that is what Atheism espouses. Matter comes into being uncaused on atheism. Then they assert (using their own definition of faith ) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution. So things ( matter) must pop into being uncaused . Then miraculously molecules come alive and become men over timeless endless ages impossible to be observed ; these are beliefs not based in empirical science, hence humanity’s place in the cosmos is being just another species of animal. Some have gone so far as to say that humanity is a parasite on earth, and advocate killing up to 90% of humanity.
Atheists believe they cease to exist after they die, but how can this belief be proven?
Atheists believe no God exists, but can they prove this tenet, unless they possess all knowledge? Since nobody could ever prove the nonexistence of God (unless that person had all knowledge -omniscience), atheism has to be a faith system and one with widely shared tenets.