Lurker > Kenri

DoomTheGyarados posted...

My take on Franken is pretty much "if it's good enough for the victim, then I don't see a point in me being self-righteous about it."

This is my feeling too, though tbh I sort of can't believe that someone who was assaulted in the way Tweeden was would accept an apology like Franken's.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

They are comparable. I'm sorry (but not surprised, it is one of the main liberal calling cards...) you are a hypocrite.

Explain how they're comparable in your eyes.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

Tell you what....you let businesses ban you for being against their religious beliefs, and then we'll talk on only unverifying conservatives....

1) They're not comparable and 2) aren't you in favor of banning people based on their religion?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

SSJBKK20Vegito posted...

They're Unverifying conservatives ONLY, and congress obviously needs to make what they are doing illegal.

i thought you conservatives were supposed to be against anti-business regulations?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

He needs to step down. If he's really changed he can prove it after he's not in a position of tremendous political power anymore.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

LMFAO

Including the watermark in the corner was a nice touch
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

FFDragon posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Is there a government that does not have laws against armed rebellion?

you're only criminals if you lose!

In the case of the Civil War, not even then for some bizarre reason!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

this is just the fuckboy version of snapchat's makeup filters lmao
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

It's a good result still though. All the news I saw beforehand was extremely pessimistic about yes' chances. Getting over 60%, and with such a high response rate, is incredible.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

Australia voted yes to marriage equality, 62% to 38%.

Congrats to any Aussies on the board!

This is slightly premature. The poll wasn't even binding. It just shows that there's a lot of public support (which is obviously a good thing) but it's not like you can go out and get gay married in Australia right now.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the Australian legislative system, in which case my bad.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

SmartMuffin posted...

Since Mr Trump was inaugurated the number of regulatory restrictions has grown at about two-fifths of the usual speed."

Isn't the amount supposed to be shrinking under Trump, not just growing slower?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Paratroopa1 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Meanwhile at Fox News...

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/11/13/mystery-deepens-over-whether-amelia-earhart-was-eaten-by-three-foot-crabs-with-claws-like-lion-jaws.html

This is the most Onion-y not-Onion headline I've ever read I think

I legit did not expect that link to work when I clicked it.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

Not really, if some of these same people are voting Obama and probably would've voted him (or Bernie) against Trump too.

Granted. I don't think there are many people who swap on Hillary->Obama, particularly among conservatives, but that's just me and I don't really have any way of proving it.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Hating Hillary as much as they do is actually a great example itself of towing the party line.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

gotta love adults who say things like "yes, 14 year olds can give sexual consent to adults"

definitely doesn't make my skin crawl and blood boil
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

This is a REALLY REALLY good title pun, Jakyl.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

CelesMyUserName posted...

Jesus fuck he seriously flipped to defending pervs on his political side. Are you god damn fucking kidding me Ulti you used to be one of the most adamant people against these sorts of garbage sub-humans.

He already defended Trump so idk why you're even remotely surprised.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Wait, there are things other than sucking dick to think about?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Vlado himself, because anyone else would require investigative effort that we know he's not capable of
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

lordloki12 posted...

Hot Take:

If the government has no problem with people paying their taxes online they should have no problem with them voting online.

Agreed, though taxes are a clusterfuck in their own way so they're not the most ideal model.

HashtagSEP posted...

So youre arguing that a system which takes votes over the phone somehow isnt less secure?

Nah it's probably about the same.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

Kenri posted...

nailed it, i'm definitely one of those people who believes 6 million fake votes were cast in california, you're right

...I... You literally said

Kenri posted...

We have those issues now with voting machines anyway, might as well make it easier for legitimate voters.

Is being stupid your new gimmick

Yeah, we do have "those issues" (electronic systems being hackable) now and yet fraudulent votes are still (despite what some people claim) incredibly rare, so as to basically be nonexistent.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

fwiw I never specified smart phones, and quite intentionally because I know those aren't within some people's budgets (though each year they become more and more so)

StealThisSheen posted...

Your argument is "Illegal voting already happens so who cares if it's easier to do so as long as more people in general can vote"

nailed it, i'm definitely one of those people who believes 6 million fake votes were cast in california, you're right
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

I like how "poor people" and "can vote from their phone" are used in the same sentence.

...yes? what about it. what other method is more accessible?

StealThisSheen posted...

I mean, if somebody keeps breaking through the lock on your door and breaking into your house, yes it's bad, but the answer certainly isn't "You know what? Cardboard doors."

great analogy dude, whatever argument you think i'm making sure is shot now
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Dancedreamer posted...

Too much security issues, tbh. Otherwise I'd agree with you.

Early in person voting would solve a lot of issues though.

charmander6000 posted...

Youre just asking for people to hack the system. Anything that is not showing up in person to vote is not desirable.

We have those issues now with voting machines anyway, might as well make it easier for legitimate voters. Though if elections were on weekends and voting days were holidays it would help a lot too so that's a short term solution.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

EmDubyaSee posted...

So you want to make it even EASIER to rig?

Guy on team "6 million fraudulent votes were cast in California for some reason": we can't change the current system or it'll be too easy to rig!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

It's only fair since he spends every other waking moment reminding the world of the evils of capitalism.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

It's 2017 everyone should just be able to vote from their phone, I don't know why this is even a debate.

But if it was easy then poor people would do it and we can't have that.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

EmDubyaSee posted...

Kenri posted...

Lopen posted...

It's particularly difficult to exploit these loopholes in a harmful way against someone who's truly not guilty of the crime they're confessing to unless the lawyer is incompetent or also corrupt.

You should uh... probably read into the issues with plea deals. It's not exactly the same thing but it's definitely in the area of "loopholes that punish the innocent disproportionately".

Can I get a link?

You can but tbh I'm very drunk right now so it's gonna have to wait til tomorrow lol

But lordloki explained it well if all you need is a summary
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

It's particularly difficult to exploit these loopholes in a harmful way against someone who's truly not guilty of the crime they're confessing to unless the lawyer is incompetent or also corrupt.

You should uh... probably read into the issues with plea deals. It's not exactly the same thing but it's definitely in the area of "loopholes that punish the innocent disproportionately".
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

EmDubyaSee posted...

MalcolmMasher posted...

I think that deciding whether a confession is valid or not is a matter for the jury, not for the police.

Edit: To be clear, when we're deciding whether or not a person accused of a crime has abrogated their legal protections, I think we should favor the accused, who the law has an obligation to consider innocent until they are proven otherwise in a court of law (or until they accept it as part of a plea deal, I guess). I don't want people to be disadvantaged because the police are more familiar with the proper legal terminology than they are.

Yeah. This is me too. It defeats the whole purpose of our protections. I personally know cause my family was reps and senators (who make the law) and military police and lawyers (who try the law) that you never ever EVER say anything to a cop short of your real name and address. Because it's just never gonna be an advantage to you without legal council. But your normal every day accuses drug dealer or escort isn't gonna know that usually. And they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of it.

MWC this might be the most reasonable and well-stated post I have ever seen from you and I just want to say that I wish you posted like this more often.

I agree completely with both you and MalcomMasher btw.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

You literally just said you'd take the the person who admitted to a crime 100%, while having an obscenely high minimum of what you accept for a confession, so...

Yup, that's the thing I said all right, you nailed it this time.

(I definitely do think that when rewards and threats enter the mix, confessions are basically garbage though.)
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

Kenri posted...

Lopen posted...

I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation

People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police

Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer.

I'll still take the "criminals" 100% unless you can ensure me that the confession was not reached in exchange for any benefit or favor, whether real or just perceived.

You atleast accept that this is definitely an abnormal view, right? Like, to side with a guy that admitted he raped a child, with no argument of "It was under duress," because you hate cops?

Yeah you're right that's definitely the thing I said here, I just fucking love rapists actually.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

I feel like when considering suspicion of institutions you should be weighing two groups in this situation

People who have openly confessed to crimes after being brought in for suspicion of a crime vs the police

Now personally while I don't entirely trust the police, when comparing those two groups it's a no brainer.

I'll still take the "criminals" 100% unless you can ensure me that the confession was not reached in exchange for any benefit or favor, whether real or just perceived.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

Even if you can't trust the police, can you trust a lawyer to take that approach is his defense if it's an approach to take?

No but at least in theory they're working for you and not against you, whereas the police in this situation are always working against you in both theory and practice (and regardless of whether they're doing anything outright scummy or not).

Lopen posted...

And if you can't trust the lawyers, then why the hell does it matter if the lawyer is present. Let's just assume all the criminals in jail are innocent and let em run wild.

i don't propose this personally but i'm pretty sure it's an actual idea within philosophy. I wanna say Kant but I'm probably wrong about that.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

So the first thing you should consider when thinking "well, the suspect deserved a right to a lawyer being present" is "was there any suspicion the police did anything outright shady during the interrogation process?"

Maybe our disagreement here comes from the fact that I believe in suspecting this from the start in 100% of cases just due to the power dynamics at play and the history of the police as an institution.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

If they had purposely ignored the request, or said something like "We don't have any lawyer dogs," then sure, I'd be on the other side

But they didn't. They followed up his non-request with basically repeating that he had the right to request a lawyer. And then he didn't, and he kept answering questions.

I just don't see anything wrong with that. They didn't mislead him or ignore him. They tried to get him to reaffirm and he chose not to.

Even better. You unambiguously say "I want a lawyer" and I say "Whether you get a lawyer or not is your choice" and then I hope you think this means a lawyer is coming, while actually I get to say it was ambiguous cuz you never requested a lawyer a second time.

And if you do request a second time, well, I can just do something else to pretend I didn't understand.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

"Get me a lawyer." (without a qualifier/question like "If you think I did it, why don't you get me a lawyer?")

"I want a layer."

"I will not speak further without a lawyer."

"I request a lawyer."

Do you want me to keep going

What's an alloyer and why do you want one?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Inviso posted...

"I want a lawyer before I answer anymore questions."

Haha man I get that, I want a lot of things in life.

So anyway where were you on the 17th of October?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

It's a fair argument. Since requesting a lawyer abruptly ends all legal questioning and for so long, requiring that it be clear isn't unfair at all.

provide to me a completely unambiguous statement asking for a lawyer and i'll admit you're right
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

Kenri posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

You can't just say "Lawyer" and then have it upheld that you requested a lawyer.

why not?

"The Supreme Court has created a rule that when you ask for a lawyer in the context of custodial interrogation, the interview must stop and cannot continue so long as you remain in custody (plus 14 additional days). Its the most powerful of the rights that originated with Miranda v. Arizona. The interview must end, and the police cant restart it, once you say you want to speak to a lawyer.

Because that is a pretty severe rule, the Supreme Court has required that the invoking of the right to counsel must be clear. If, in the middle of an interrogation, you stop and say, maybe I should talk to a lawyer, thats not enough. You need to make it clear that you are requesting a lawyer or the stop-the-interview rule doesnt apply. Of course, we can debate whether thats the right approach this being the Internet, thats to be expected but thats the gist of the Supreme Courts applicable decision in Davis v. United States. In the language of Davis, the suspect must unambiguously request counsel, "

Oh I thought you were making an interesting argument, not just describing the way our shitty justice system currently works
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

You can't just say "Lawyer" and then have it upheld that you requested a lawyer.

why not?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

it's pretty obviously the former, though the two aren't mutually exclusive i guess
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

As an addendum to Eddvs points

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/926258506084376576

basket of deplorables
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

SmartMuffin posted...

Like, how in the fuck do you not program a goddamn mouse cursor correctly in the current year 2017.

The invisible hand has decided it's unnecessary.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

I think this is dumbing down what I am saying, at least, btw.

I'd call it dumbing up personally but you're right that that isn't your argument and I apologize if I implied it was. I thought your argument was somewhat distinct from VI's and that was only in response to the latter.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

VeryInsane posted...

I mean you dont have to take my analogy literally but the point of the matter is that so many incidents on this board could be prevented if users just stopped talking to/about a user or just not saying anything. You can tell which users are the ones that get baited and seeing them continuously hitting their head/building the fire is just so depressing

Granted, there are times where you have to talk about something cause theres no way it can be overlooked (or theyre saying lies about you/other users), but you dont have to keep aggressively arguing with them

Oh yeah absolutely, I agree with all that, I was just being a dick.

I don't think you need an analogy though. You can just say "don't feed the trolls", there's a whole phrase for it.

Lopen posted...

If someone throws gasoline on a few candles and the house burns down who is more at fault though!?!

The house didn't burn down and the candle got put out. Yes, if things were different, I guess they'd be different.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

MenuWars posted...

Kenri used to be someone that went full PC on me at the drop of a hat but he's been way more chilled recently, I appreciate it, so thumbs up.

I don't feel like I've changed at all so maybe you just haven't given me reason to? idk but either way thanks

VeryInsane posted...

A good analogy would be a fire, if it was really small you can probably just ignore it and it would go out on its own.

Yeah, you know, like a candle, those items that famously DON'T have giant warning stickers on them about the dangers of burning them unattended.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

Keep in mind, since, you're having trouble grasping the actual point.

The core of the issue is

There are a few people here who like to antagonize the guy, or just disagree in a total douchey manner
Tim can't zone those people out, and they get him in a riled mood
Thusly, random people who aren't hostile to him to start sometime get him snapping at them

At that point, if you decide to fire back, the conversation is basically over.

wow when you put it like this he sounds like a great guy
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

I'm pretty sure there's no grey area for a teacher fucking their student. There is grey area for someone being killed by the police being murder vs not. That's the distinction you're not making.

There's gray area for all crimes: it's whether they were actually committed or not. This is true whether the crime is murder, rape, or whatever.

Why should we give benefit of the doubt to police but not teachers?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

If you give the police the benefit of a doubt, we're not talking about murder, though.

If you give anyone the benefit of the doubt then they haven't done anything wrong. What the hell kind of argument is this?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.