Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
A quick google suggests your position may have the support of the 2d circuit:

linky

I'm sure you can find the decision, but I can guess teh phrase "excessive entanglement" appears somewhere in it.

Very interesting.

I am surprised a council of Rabbis does not set up an independent board to certify things as Kosher. It strikes me this is something that doesn't necessarily need government involvement. I am certainly more comfortable with Rabbis figuring out whether my bagels are Kosher than I am with movie moguls figuring out whether a movie is PG-13 or not.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My point was somewhat deeper than the strict contract/criminal law divide you seek.

Your point was:

Posted somewhat earlier by Hank
its all moral line drawing. to tie the threads, why can't an adult marry a 13 year old? Its different, that's why.

Profound, perhaps, but not all that deep.

Burger is surely among the deeper thinkers here.

Too true. The rest of us watch him from the shallow end, hoping someday that we can cast aside our kickboards and think the sort of thoughts where our feet don't touch the bottom. The sort of thoughts where we're farther from the kids who can't be bothered to get out of the pool to go to the restroom. You know whom I mean.

Too often Ty you engage in focused practical reasoning, solid reasoning to be sure, but perhaps too focused on the here and now.

My three-year-old often often lodges the same complaint.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Your point was:

did you realize you omitted my Cambridge reference? I'm sure that was unintentional. My point was I went to Harvard. Don't fuck with about legal nicities.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Watchtower
Very interesting.

I am surprised a council of Rabbis does not set up an independent board to certify things as Kosher. It strikes me this is something that doesn't necessarily need government involvement. I am certainly more comfortable with Rabbis figuring out whether my bagels are Kosher than I am with movie moguls figuring out whether a movie is PG-13 or not.

Sure, but what about enforcement? I think that's the problem. There already is a rabbi who says Kosher/not Kosher. And then when there's a complaint that "waiter, there's a bacon bit in my soup" the state comes in, charges fraud, and bases its misrepresentation allegation on the rabbinical counsel's conclusion that kosher soup does not have bacon bits in it.

So, if you prevent the state from doing this, who does? You could have the same rabbinical counsel sue the porkers, but you hit issues of standing, jurisdiction, long-arm statutes, attorneys' fees and so on. Which is why the state had stepped in--how many consumers actually sue over their 450 calorie "diet frozen yogurt"?

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but what about enforcement? I think that's the problem. There already is a rabbi who says Kosher/not Kosher. And then when there's a complaint that "waiter, there's a bacon bit in my soup" the state comes in, charges fraud, and bases its misrepresentation allegation on the rabbinical counsel's conclusion that kosher soup does not have bacon bits in it.

So, if you prevent the state from doing this, who does? You could have the same rabbinical counsel sue the porkers, but you hit issues of standing, jurisdiction, long-arm statutes, attorneys' fees and so on. Which is why the state had stepped in--how many consumers actually sue over their 450 calorie "diet frozen yogurt"?

People would simply have to learn to look for the Rabbinical seal of approval, and if someone broke the rules, the seal would not be permitted to be used with their products. Must with throw them in jail for violating religious law?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
did you realize you omitted my Cambridge reference? I'm sure that was unintentional. My point was I went to Harvard. Don't fuck with about legal nicities.

Did you not catch my Oxford reference? I thought gentlemen were subtler about such things, but since you appear to have spent your time by the Charles instead of the Cam, one can see that you might not have learned such things.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by andViolins
And then I thought, "If they really do have the right guy."

aV

They have a fucking film of him taking her. He tried to do this once before with a woman by walking up to her and saying, come with me or I will cut you but lucky for her, a motorist intervened and saved her and lucky for him 12 ass clowns who had the same thought as you expressed above acquitted him.

If you need more proof than that, you are a raging fucking idiot of the worst kind.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
They have a fucking film of him taking her. He tried to do this once before with a woman by walking up to her and saying, come with me or I will cut you but lucky for her, a motorist intervened and saved her and lucky for him 12 ass clowns who had the same thought as you expressed above acquitted him.

If you need more proof than that, you are a raging fucking idiot of the worst kind.

Well, let's just send him to ol' Sparky now.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Did you not catch my Oxford reference? I thought gentlemen were subtler about such things, but since you appear to have spent your time by the Charles instead of the Cam, one can see that you might not have learned such things.

I'm surprised an Oxonian would suggest one can learn on the banks of the Cam.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
don't you pretend to be a Catholic here on the Boards?

No. I am an agnostic who believes that religion has done more harm to this world than it has done good. I openly ridicule those who engage in these superstitious practices.

I don't know whether there is a god or not and think those who think they do know are arrogant.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, let's just send him to ol' Sparky now.

Because 12 people with your mentality sat on the jury the first time he attempted to do this, he was free and emboldened to murder that child.

I hope the jurors on the first jury are at least smart enough to recongnize that. If I had their names, I would contact them and let them know myself what I thought of them.

The first time he tried to do this to a woman, his side of the story was that he thought he was preventing her from running into traffic. 12 jurors believed that.

I hope they can live with themselves.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me

The first time he tried to do this to a woman, his side of the story was that he thought he was preventing her from running into traffic. 12 jurors on a jury believed that.

Well, we should at least bar him from presenting a defense this time. I mean, why waste taxpayer dollars when we know they've got the right guy. After all, they always do.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, we should at least bar him from presenting a defense this time. I mean, why waste taxpayer dollars when we know they've got the right guy. After all, they always do.

That is just stupid. Of course someone is entitled to give their side of the story.

The problem is with jurors who seem to have checked their common sense at the door when they enter the jury deliberation room.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
That is just stupid. Of course someone is entitled to give their side of the story.

The problem is with jurors who seem to have checked their common sense at the door when they enter the jury deliberation room.

Sure. If you keep moving the ball you can keep making easy arguments. Now it's "we shouldn't allow sucky juries, but since we do, we should just get rid of them altoghether"?

Are there problems with our criminal-justice system? Sure. Are there problems with the methods by which jurors are selected, and, more importantly, rejected for jury service? Absolutely. Should we instead institute a system as in Iraq, with determinations of guilt and punishment decided by a half-wit child of the governor? Yeah, that's the ticket.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, we should at least bar him from presenting a defense this time. I mean, why waste taxpayer dollars when we know they've got the right guy. After all, they always do.

Aside from that whole pesky "right guy" issue, is the idea that you need to be able to give rational life explanations to your kids.

Kid: Dad, why is that guy in handcuffs?

Dad: Well, son, he killed someone.

Kid: Oh. That's real bad, isn't it? That's like a law.

Dad: Just as importantly, son, there are some ideas and beliefs that are accepted in almost all legal systems, in all societies, and throughout time, no matter what laws or religions or rules said, that define for us our concepts of right and wrong. These ideas are so univerally accepted and embraced that we can call them moral truths. These are things that you don't need rules or laws or commandments to know, within yourself, are true. You know, even without reading a rule, that you shouldn't beat up your sister - when you do it, you do it knowing that you are doing wrong. I don't go across the street and steal Al's snowmobile - I just know that's not right. But the biggest and most important of these truths is that human life is very important, and that the biggest wrong we can do is to kill a person. That's been an accepted and cherished value since . . well, forever, and in all places. So, what he did was the very worst thing any person can ever do.

Kid: Wow. What's going to happen to him?

Dad: We're gonna fry his ass.