Real or Fake?

Step right up for 3-card Monte...
User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14495
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by JO 753 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:51 pm

landrew wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:30 pm
youtube.com/watch?v=8kOIUEm6-hE
Fake.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10863
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by landrew » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:17 am

JO 753 wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:51 pm
landrew wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:30 pm
youtube.com/watch?v=8kOIUEm6-hE
Fake.
Of course the video's fake JO, it's a parody.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:35 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: The Supreme Courts of Australia are required to follow stare decisis.
You really are an idiot. The High Court of Australia is the highest court. The supreme courts of each state have to follow the decision of the High Court of Australia. There is no such thing as "The Supreme Courts of Australia", as that would be federal and not states. Why are you so continuously stupid? :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Matt confuses this with the Supreme Court of the USA that like High Courts everywhere SET PRECEDENT,
There is only one High Court of Australia you complete idiot. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:41 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: The High Court instead make a ruling that differentiates the law in the particular matter at hand from the existing precedents and create a new ruling and thus commonlaw (case) law.
OlegTheBatty wrote:Nonsense. Any case that has been fully adjudicated, including Appeals or Top Court rulings would have no standing for a further appeal if the top court changed a ruling to adapt to changing times.
You just agreed with what I said. "Changing times" means the courts differentiating from previous decisions on the exact matter on hand. "Changing times" changes the matter on hand.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:40 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:22 am
Took 20 seconds to google (stare decisis in australia)
The High Court is not bound to follow its own past decisions,
The Supreme Courts of Australia are required to follow stare decisis. Matt confuses this with the Supreme Court of the USA that like High Courts everywhere SET PRECEDENT, they are not bound to follow it. Even a shallow read of a good dictionary would make this clear.......much more gaining a law degree....if one were paying attention, or understand common sense and other links provided afterwards.

https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionson ... precedent/
Dance monkey, dance.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14495
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by JO 753 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:29 am

landrew wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:17 am
Of course the video's fake JO, it's a parody.
Thats the joke - that sumwun woud need to call it.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11960
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by OlegTheBatty » Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:59 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:41 am
Matthew Ellard wrote: The High Court instead make a ruling that differentiates the law in the particular matter at hand from the existing precedents and create a new ruling and thus commonlaw (case) law.
OlegTheBatty wrote:Nonsense. Any case that has been fully adjudicated, including Appeals or Top Court rulings would have no standing for a further appeal if the top court changed a ruling to adapt to changing times.
You just agreed with what I said. "Changing times" means the courts differentiating from previous decisions on the exact matter on hand. "Changing times" changes the matter on hand.
Yes. What I objected to was the notion that such changes open the appeals process to cases already fully adjudicated.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:52 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:59 pm

Yes. What I objected to was the notion that such changes open the appeals process to cases already fully adjudicated.
Well...it "could." Supreme Court rulings that overturn old laws, set new ones, are often expressly stated to be prospective or retroactive in application. if not so stated, lawsuits often immediately follow to make that determination. Other laws also still apply like statute of limitations and so forth.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10863
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by landrew » Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:19 pm

The Jussie Smollett saga has been instructive and I think it will help our society evolve. It laid bare the unthinking tribalism that gridlocks and paralyses the process. It's becoming more obvious how silly it is to adopt an all or nothing attitude towards social change. To support everything you own side says, while rejecting everything the other side says is willful ignorance to say the least. "The facts are the facts" no matter which side they seem to serve.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11960
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by OlegTheBatty » Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:30 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:52 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:59 pm

Yes. What I objected to was the notion that such changes open the appeals process to cases already fully adjudicated.
Well...it "could." Supreme Court rulings that overturn old laws, set new ones, are often expressly stated to be prospective or retroactive in application. if not so stated, lawsuits often immediately follow to make that determination. Other laws also still apply like statute of limitations and so forth.
Courts don't set new laws, they, at most, reinterpret existing ones. The SCOC often suspends a ruling for a period of time, usually 1 year, to give parliament time to pass new legislation that does not contain the flaw the court is ruling on.

Interpreting existing law is the court's job, creating legislation is the legislature's job.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:47 pm

Ever hear of Constitutional Law?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11960
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by OlegTheBatty » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:36 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:47 pm
Ever hear of Constitutional Law?
Your point is too obscure to respond to.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10863
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by landrew » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:38 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:36 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:47 pm
Ever hear of Constitutional Law?
Your point is too obscure to respond to.
Even lawyers squabble about this without making sense.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:53 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:36 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:47 pm
Ever hear of Constitutional Law?
Your point is too obscure to respond to.
Oh Really? Seems like a very simple yes or no answer? Have you ever heard of it? I've heard of it...................................
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:54 pm

No lawyer squabble about whether or not they have heard of Constitutional Law. They either have, or they have not.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:25 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:54 pm
No lawyer squabble about whether or not they have heard of Constitutional Law. They either have, or they have not.
The UK doesn't have a constitution.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:52 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:25 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:54 pm
No lawyer squabble about whether or not they have heard of Constitutional Law. They either have, or they have not.
The UK doesn't have a constitution.
True and the reference to Parliament is a tip off. But Oleg mentions SCOC which I took to mean Supreme Court of Canada which does have a constitution. don't know how it operates within the laws/statutes/case law of Canada. You know Matt: stare decises where court decisions from 200 years ago must still be followed. Still, everyone regardless of anything else has either heard of xyz, or they have not.

........and re-reading, I will just guess that the same issues of prospective vs retroactive effects of new rulings still apply......to some degree in some way. For instance, one of my favorites: a new law is passed saying that mere possession of Marijuana is a misdemeanor. If you are in trial right now, of course the case is dismissed and you are given a citation that can be fought or not. But how about your brother who is doing 10-15 years for the same offense? Well......thats another lawsuit unless the law whether by statute or by case law ruling has made it clear.

"Principles" normally generally apply. The exact routes and labels vary by system.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10863
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by landrew » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:19 pm

Stare decisis is not all it's cracked up to be. Like many principles in law, it need an update. Old principles frozen in law are not necessarily the best ones. I'm certainly no expert in legal reform, but it's obvious that relying on precedent is not always necessarily the best decision. Some precedents are wrong, and should be discarded. And judging by the large number of proven wrongful convictions, the legal methods of proving guilt are not consistent with the scientific method. Just a layman's opinion.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:24 pm

Yep.....truly a laymans opinion as in: totally {!#%@} up.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10863
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by landrew » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:37 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:24 pm
Yep.....truly a laymans opinion as in: totally {!#%@} up.
A totally {!#%@} up opinion if I ever heard one.
You seem to hold your own in much higher esteem.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:29 pm

Why...............yes................I do. Based on the: .................................Dictionary.

aka; stare decises has NOTHING TO DO WITH proven wrongful convictions nor with the scientific method whatever loopy way that is supposed to be relevant.

Just a mish mash of unconnected issues. Yet..........you are allowed to serve on a jury. Hows THAT for the scientific method?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10863
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by landrew » Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:29 pm
Why...............yes................I do. Based on the: .................................Dictionary.

aka; stare decises has NOTHING TO DO WITH proven wrongful convictions nor with the scientific method whatever loopy way that is supposed to be relevant.

Just a mish mash of unconnected issues. Yet..........you are allowed to serve on a jury. Hows THAT for the scientific method?
If you care to read what I said, I mentioned two problems with the legal system, one being stare decisis, and the other one being the principle of "proving" guilt, which is inconsistent with the scientific method, and leads to wrongful convictions..
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:56 pm

landrew wrote:Stare decisis is not all it's cracked up to be. Like many principles in law, it need an update. Old principles frozen in law are not necessarily the best ones.
That is what the Europeans thought too under Napoleon. The French attempted to legislate every element of law. That's why the UK, Commonwealth and USA use stare decisis and the Europeans used Napoleon Codex. Napoleon Codex is really just an update of Roman Law.

As the French supported the USA rebellion, Thomas Jefferson wrote on the advantages and disadvantages of both systems but adopted all English commonlaw.

In reality, the two systems have sort of merged. Most larger European commercial contracts are constructed to allow for equity settlement is UK equity courts because they deal with novel concepts that no "code" (legislation) exists for yet. Most UK commonlaw is now judicial interpretation of modern legislation from parliament, anyway.

One way of looking at this is whether you prefer parliament (legislative) to create law or the judiciary to create law. As society is always changing is is probably better to have a mix of both these powers making laws. One wing of government may create a better law than the other, to deal with modern situations.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:04 am

landrew wrote:and the other one being the principle of "proving" guilt, which is inconsistent with the scientific method, and leads to wrongful convictions.
You are not "proven guilty". In criminal actions, your peers decide if "it is beyond reasonable doubt" that the evidence indicates you are guilty. (Civil law is "on the balance of possibilities")

The courts cannot be scientific, as all humans have implied equal rights. In science you don't have to work with the premise carbon has equal rights to oxygen or Newton's Law has the same rights as Lorentz Force.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18884
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:28 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:04 am
In science you don't have to work with the premise carbon has equal rights to oxygen or Newton's Law has the same rights as Lorentz Force.
Plus: science has no stare decises where you have to believe what the first scientist on an issue said. In essence, science has no stare decises and only goes by obiter dicta. In science, stare decises only applies if its your employers view.............. Here is a short applicable review

General Rules
•Each court is bound by decisions of courts higher in the same hierarchy.
•Decisions of courts in a different hierarchy (including overseas courts) or lower in the same hierarchy are persuasive, but not binding.
•Courts are generally not bound by their own decisions, but will only depart from them with reluctance.
•Only the reason for a decision (the ratio decidendi–‘Reason for deciding’) is binding.
•Other statements in a case (obiter dicta –‘passing remarks’)are not binding, but only persuasive.
•Precedents do not lose their force by lapse of time.

https://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/pd ... cedent.pdf
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11960
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Real or Fake?

Post by OlegTheBatty » Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:01 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:04 am
landrew wrote:and the other one being the principle of "proving" guilt, which is inconsistent with the scientific method, and leads to wrongful convictions.
You are not "proven guilty". In criminal actions, your peers decide if "it is beyond reasonable doubt" that the evidence indicates you are guilty. (Civil law is "on the balance of possibilities")

The courts cannot be scientific, as all humans have implied equal rights. In science you don't have to work with the premise carbon has equal rights to oxygen or Newton's Law has the same rights as Lorentz Force.
Also, courts need to make a decision and move on. Science doesn't. From Newton to the present day, we're still trying to understand gravity.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist