ACLU
 

Problem? Do you think the “a preponderance of the evidence” guaranteed in the Constitution should be changed to “clear and convincing evidence”?

The US government uses "clear and convincing evidence" as the standard to meet the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments. For instance, that standard would have to be met before terminating parental rights, among other things. Due process is usually invoked in matters of life, liberty, and property. The question is whether or not an education has enough weight to make raising the bar appropriate.

OTOH, my understanding is that in the UK this intermediate standard isn't used as they hold that neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts.

My opinion is that, these days, an education is important enough for the bar to be raised and the nature of this beast is that many cases will involve people who weren't in complete control of their faculties. Entertaining emotional persuasion to determine likelihood by merely a preponderance of the evidence is insufficient.

Remember when the ACLU would defend the rights of Nazis to march through town? Take the hit for a principle?

Well, it's too far out of fashion now. The times they are a changin' and your deeply-held principles about rights must change too.

Being sort of serious it was easier to defend Nazis before they had a governing majority.

In all seriousness, I don't like seeing this kind of weakness from the ACLU. It's a case of the messenger being much worse than the message and they need to be able to sort that out.

Besides that, I suspect that the open-court system has a good chance of expelling more guilty parties than the behind-closed-doors system ever has. Yes, you have to face your accuser, and that can be traumatizing. But it's what you have to do if you're stabbed with a knife, too.

On the other hand, I think harassing someone who comes forward should be as big of a crime as the crime itself--most universities have a computer network as tightly-watched as any private corporation; if they wanted to know which student in which dormitory was sending death threats to the girl who accused their frat brother of rape, they certainly could find out.

"Problem?"
 

Not for me, no.

Keep in mind defendants are not the only ones who lie.

everyone lies
 

.

That.

Principles are good. They help guides us, by reducing the complexity of the world into something more manageable. We use principles to navigate real-life situations.

If a principle does not adequately account for the particulars a real-life situation, it isn't the duty of reality to contort itself until we're able to return to our comfort zone.


tldr: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," but the hammer is a third-grade civics book.

That wouldn't be my definition. I'd go with Oxford:

A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.

I agree, that's what principles are. Man's best attempt at describing a fundamental truth.

Impossible to do, of course, but comforting* when you come up with a really good one.

*and arguably necessary

I just stop replying, when I consider speaking with someone here to have become a kind of melee. If you're saying that's where we are, then please, the thread is yours.

Yes, that's the joke.

So how do we reconcile that principles are necessary but imperfect?

I think that America has developed a bit of a principles fetish. Perhaps as we've moved away from organized religion, we're looking for other fundamental truths to anchor our belief systems. Like political ideologies.

Apparently that's one of the main questions Nietzsche was asking (although I'm not smart enough to have read him myself): now as the Enlightenment proves the traditional sources of morality to be weak, God is dead; what are we going to replace Him with?

In the century after Nietzsche, the world answered that question with its own, formulated political ideologies. Between Communism and Fascism, they managed to kill about 100 million people.

So now, obviously the question is, if political ideologies are nothing short of a new source of meaning in our lives --

How are we going to stop ourselves from killing the next 100 million people?

The thread is yours.

Thanks?

I guess you could also say we worship money. We've even enshrined the power of capital into nebulous demigods whose whims rule over the fate of mortal men.

But anyway, if principles are an imperfect stab in the dark, can we really "throw them out" or do they just get updated when new information becomes available? How often do we do that and who gets to decide?

Is is necessary, we have billions and would hardly miss 100 million. As long as it's NIMBY.

You'll always have principles, they are simply what you believe is the best way to react to shit. I think principles will change from experience rather than just information.

Right, right, experience. Experience can show you things, like when a principle applies very well to one situation, but encounters difficulty when applied to a slightly different situation. So the "grouping of situations" is another very complex task that has to be assumed is accomplished with "fundamental" truths.

And once the fundamental principles and fundamental situations are established, we keep them that way forever-- that's why we still chop people's hands off for stealing.

ACLU comes down in favor of trans women competing against women in sports.

Sorry, women. You had your time, Title IX and all that, but it's over, now.

Fixed that for you. :yesnod: You're welcome.

If the new system, as it appears, means an *investigator* addresses the tribunal, then this appears to be yet another case of an organization (the ACLU) succumbing to "guilt as determined by the outrageousness of the alleged crime," rather than "guilt as determined by evidence."

In short, more tumblr-esque hysteria.

On the other hand, if the new system was introduced by Betsy Devos, I automatically distrust it and will withhold judgement, because there's going to be something awful buried in those new rules.

Okay, I've been looking at the article's author and some of his other work, and he seems legit.

If you want to be ill, read this old article of his.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...report/386887/

That dude is solid, and The Atlantic is always solid imo

Why are you surprised, this is common procedure most everywhere now. The citations are child's play compared to civil seizures when no one is charged with a crime. For the offense of carrying cash they'll take it away and challenge you to get it back through the courts. (hint, you can't). They'll take your car and house for bullshit claims of wrongdoing but not charge you with a crime. (again, you can't).

If a cop kills you? Too bad, so sad. If you escape your hand shackles, ankle shackles and belly chain then open the back door of the cruiser which has no inside handle, and jump out. Suicide, not our fault. Cop on duty found passed out in his cruiser, in gear, foot on the brake, blood alcohol 5 fucking times the legal limit, two weeks desk duty. Oh, and the myriad on cops on the scene all had body cam malfunctions.
I could go on for pages but butt-head in the whitehouse would pardon them all. :mad2:

Recently? We replaced him with Moloch.

What happened to his good friend Beavis? Did Butthead also fire him?