Importance of public trail by jury

[Athena]

It has been said that I accuse of moderators doing things they do not do, and from my point of view, moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing. For example trolling, and preaching. Isn't that really a personal judgement depending on ones point of view? I know I preach, and I question authority, yet it was argued I have not violated the rule, and should not be concerned about being banned. In another forum I was accused of trolling and was really offended by that. The point of a public trail is assuring justice and it gives the established power legitimacy. Like discussing our constitution and freedom of religion and freedom of speech, is about increasing political awareness, so too the subject of the importance of a trail. Were rulers in the past bad guys, or are there good reasons for having public trails with a jury of peers?

[Phi for All]

First, you're premise is flawed, this is not a democracy, it's a privately owned internet forum. Second, you're basically asking to be treated under a different set of rules than everyone else. Third, I'm not sure why you're suddenly going off on the mods here (in multiple threads, I might add). Has something happened to you recently that I haven't read, something you want a public trial for?

[doG]

OT: Trail/trial is a good example of why people shouldn't rely on spell checkers. It's an example of why today's kids should learn to spell without a spell checker and how to do math without a calculator.

[zapatos]

Were rulers in the past bad guys, or are there good reasons for having public trails with a jury of peers?

I have no idea how this is an either/or question.

[Greg H.]

Since you declared the correction of your (apparent) spelling error to be not on topic, I can only assume you actually meant to discuss public trails.

On the topic of public trails by jury, I believe that local planning commissions are probably more appropriate in determining the routes and obtaining the necessary land grants for the establishment of public trails. That said, the greenbelt space dedicated to these public trails can increase property values since that area (presumably) won't be developed and offers a view of some kind. That may not always be true though.

 

And contrary to your statements in the OP, the point of a public trail is mostly just to have a nice place to go walk or bike.

[zapatos]

I was hoping for more thoughtful replies.

I was hoping for a more clear question.

 

You said, "Were rulers in the past bad guys, or are there good reasons for having public trails with a jury of peers?". So either the first part is true or the second part is true.

So if I say yes to the first part, that rulers in the past were bad guys, then that means no to the second part, as in there are no good reasons for having public trials with a jury of peers.

 

How does it make sense to say 'rulers in the past were bad guys so there is no good reason for public trials with a jury of peers'?

 

Or why not, 'rulers were good guys, and it also makes sense to have public trials with a jury of peers'?

 

If you want me to put thought into the answer then you should put some thought into the question.

[Athena]

Since you declared the correction of your (apparent) spelling error to be not on topic, I can only assume you actually meant to discuss public trails.

On the topic of public trails by jury, I believe that local planning commissions are probably more appropriate in determining the routes and obtaining the necessary land grants for the establishment of public trails. That said, the greenbelt space dedicated to these public trails can increase property values since that area (presumably) won't be developed and offers a view of some kind. That may not always be true though.

 

And contrary to your statements in the OP, the point of a public trail is mostly just to have a nice place to go walk or bike.

 

Thank you. That was the most intellect reply I have read so far. I am so thankful for our lovely paths along a river bank, and think such paths are essential to having a healthy community. Perhaps this is worthy of scientific study? I believe there are things we can do to reduce crime and other social problems, such as community gardens and nature paths. I think such projects are well worth the expense, but because we are talking money here, we need more than an opinion. Acting on what makes a community better is ethical, right?

 

Good manners and protecting each others dignity is another way to improve our communities. Publicly shaming people, might lead to social problems? In another forum an older man speaks of working with German engineers shortly after the second world war, and how focused they were on perfection. He said it was delightful working with them, but he would not want his congressman to be like this. Our culture has changed and some of this good and some of this is not so good. I think we have become more concerned about technological correctness, than we are concerned about each other? The extreme of this leads to truck loads of naked dead bodies, but now this getting too far off topic.

 

What is the best way to handle the misfortune of the incorrect word being used in title? Could we perhaps delete the whole thread, considering nothing could be on topic? Or should people just graciously assume the word should be trials and not trails, and address the subject of why we have trials by jury? And perhaps if a person does not want to address the subject, the person might stay with being technologically correct and stay out of the thread, because really the quality of these discussions depends on the quality of the post, right?

 

 

I was hoping for a more clear question.

 

You said, "Were rulers in the past bad guys, or are there good reasons for having public trails with a jury of peers?". So either the first part is true or the second part is true.

So if I say yes to the first part, that rulers in the past were bad guys, then that means no to the second part, as in there are no good reasons for having public trials with a jury of peers.

 

How does it make sense to say 'rulers in the past were bad guys so there is no good reason for public trials with a jury of peers'?

 

Or why not, 'rulers were good guys, and it also makes sense to have public trials with a jury of peers'?

 

If you want me to put thought into the answer then you should put some thought into the question.

 

Yes, a thoughtful reply. Now I have to do some thinking, and that is why I come to the forums. Thank you.

 

You said, "How does it make sense to say 'rulers in the past were bad guys so there is no good reason for public trials with a jury of peers'?" I was in a rush when I posted, and I should never, ever do that, but it was such a short post, how could I screw that up? God, it is embarrassing when I screw up so badly in public. I am a terrible proof reader of my own writing, because I read what I think said, instead of what did say. The word "trail" should have been "trial", and the word "so" in the sentence should have been "or". I didn't get the mistake, until your more respectful reply demanded a thinking response., instead of flip reaction.

 

My understanding of our history is, the big issues were about a philosophical concept of human rights, and legal matters. We wanted policing but we also wanted to protect the individual from the errors of authority. We made laws to effect the protection of individuals. Like it wasn't okay for the king's men to take someone to England for a trial where the individual may not have a good, and just defense. We associated words like "tyranny" with the old order of authority. This is associated with arguments about legitimate authority. Laugh, now I feeling guilty as hell. This is the discussion I wanted to have, and it has everything to do why I am on the internet, but I feel like I have done something wrong, by controlling for what I want to discuss in a science forum. On the other hand, such discussions required educated and caring people, capable of such discussions, and that is hard to find. You guys are better than most, so even though I get totally frustrated here, I keep coming back, because you are better than what I find else where.

 

To be as condense as I can be, it is all about these notions of human rights and legitimate authority, and my terrible fear that we have not educated for this understanding, so we are no longer the democracy we defended in two world wars. I totally understand why forums are ruled they way they ruled, and I am okay with that, but does anyone understand the principles of democracy and such things as why we have trials by jury? Arguing these forums are not democracies, intensifies my fear that we are loosing the democracy for which our forefathers, and those who defended it in world wars, risked everything, including their lives. I am obsessed with a fear that we fought those for nothing. That all those people died for nothing. This is a years long search on the internet, for people who understand the principles of democracy. Does that makes sense? I am looking for evidence that I don't need to worry about our future and the direction our nation appears to be going, because really everyone does understand the principles of democracy, and will stand up for them, instead of argue against democracy and against doing things in a way that complies with the principles of democracy. Like if everyone argues against doing things in way that complies with the principles of democracy, who is going to defend our democracy?

 

One of the important things about trials is that they use evidence rather than innuendo. Since you seem hell-bent on doing this here rather than through official channels (e.g. reporting posts or PMs to staff), I would like to see your evidence. Has anyone actually threatened you with being banned? Provide links. Have you received warnings that did not explain what rule you were violating? Provide links.

 

As you said this is not the place for personal accusations and defenses. I am learning that what really matters to me can not be discussed in forums, because all moderators, in every forum, over many years, become defensive. I have been repeatedly assured I will not be banned and your assumption about what this thread is about is wrong.

 

I know every poster in this forum is proud of being non emotional and logical, but really, are you all sure emotions are not influencing what you think? Is giving someone a bad score without explaining why, a critical (meaning a matter of reasoning) reaction or an emotional one? Is hitting someone with no explanation something helpful?

Edited May 8, 2012 by Athena

[ewmon]

Were rulers in the past bad guys, or are there good reasons for having public trails with a jury of peers?

OMG, what are they teaching kids in school these days?

 

public = not performed secretly; allows public knowledge/record of proceedings and people involved (accused, witnesses, jury, judge, prosecutor, etc).

trial = opportunity to hear charges, listen to testimony, question witnesses and see evidence and to answer with testimony, witnesses and evidence.

jury = guilt or innocence depends on the decision of a small group instead of on the less dependable decision of one person.

peers = guilt or innocence is decided by those who live similar lives as the accused, so best know how the defendant should have felt, thought and acted.

 

Consider England's infamous Star Chamber:

 

The Star Chamber ... was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing [thus making it impossible for the accused to question the witnesses]. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.

source

 

Furthermore, until the separation of powers (into executive, legislative and judicial branches), the king/queen was lawmaker, police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all wrapped up into one person. Tongue in cheek, of course:

 

I, Queen Tyrannicus, hereby declare that anyone who questions the rules of internet forums shall be summarily shipped off into outer space (without an oxygen supply or parachute) on the next rocket launch. Hey hey, Athena, I arrest you, you didn't know about my new law? (aww, too bad for you), this piece of paper says you're guilty (so of course you are), I find you guilty (nope no appeals), and open the hatch, chuck her in, and light the rocket motors. Goodbye and good luck --- NOT! Oh, and by the way, I get to confiscate all your wealth and property.

Edited May 8, 2012 by ewmon

[JustinW]

Athena,

 

My understanding of our history is, the big issues were about a philosophical concept of human rights, and legal matters.

Sometimes this is where I get into it with others who have different thoughts on what rights are and where they come. Historically in the US our rights were defined as God given. The difference between the two is that a human right is only given by those which hold the power to give them (or take them away). A God given right (or natural right) are rights that every being is born with. Here is an example of what I mean by the difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_given_rights .

 

 

We wanted policing but we also wanted to protect the individual from the errors of authority.

We are still in this argument to this very day. "Who gets the authority, and how much. What is our freedom and whether we should give it up and why." These are some of the most argued political philosophies of our times, and I think will continue to be so for the rest of our existance. Some have implied recently that freedom is a mystical thing and that it is acceptable to give it up a little at a time in place of comfort or security, and that it's the public's vigilance that keeps authority from erring. Historically, this has not worked. If the vigilance of the masses was effective in this way, then we would have never had reason to fight in those world wars. So while we give authority to some, I think our founder's vigilance was more focused on keeping the authority's power limited so that the errors of that authority are inturn limited.

 

 

does anyone understand the principles of democracy and such things as why we have trials by jury?

I think ewmon answered this quite well in the above post, where it was said that a group of people can come to a far better conclusion than one person could. And that a group of people that live similar lives can pass judgement far better than someone who only enjoys the finer things in life. This is the reason that I think a trial by jury is ethically the best course for justice that we are bound to get at this point in time.

I also think that some people take the power of a democracy for granted. I have felt that some think that a democracy is a full proof way to avoid tyranny, all the while steering that same democracy in a direction that invites tyranny and abuse of power. Sorry for being a little off topic, my mind leads me in multiple directions.

 

 

 

Arguing these forums are not democracies, intensifies my fear that we are loosing the democracy for which our forefathers, and those who defended it in world wars, risked everything, including their lives. I am obsessed with a fear that we fought those for nothing.

I think that wanting these types of forums to be publicly democratic is right in one way, but I think it is also wrong in another since they are privately owned. Let's take your house for example. Not just anyone is free to come and go, and say anything that they want to in your house, are they? Why heck no. That's your house and what you say goes. It's your private property, where you let in who you want to let in, and kick some out if they disrespect you. These forums are the same in that regard. Although this is one that I think pretty fair in it's guidelines, it's as privately owned as you owning your house, so doesn't fall into the rules of democracy that have to be adhered to by government.

 

I'm also fairly certain that any bannishment is talked over and discussed with several different members of moderators before a decision is reached, so in that regard, is fairly democratic. Now in regards to defense of ones actions.... I can't claim to know if one gets a chance to defend against bannishment, but I would hope that would be the case, if only for the sake of fairness.

[Athena]

OMG, what are they teaching kids in school these days?

 

public = not performed secretly; allows public knowledge/record of proceedings and people involved (accused, witnesses, jury, judge, prosecutor, etc).

trial = opportunity to hear charges, listen to testimony, question witnesses and see evidence and to answer with testimony, witnesses and evidence.

jury = guilt or innocence depends on the decision of a small group instead of on the less dependable decision of one person.

peers = guilt or innocence is decided by those who live similar lives as the accused, so best know how the defendant should have felt, thought and acted.

 

Consider England's infamous Star Chamber:

 

source

 

Furthermore, until the separation of powers (into executive, legislative and judicial branches), the king/queen was lawmaker, police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all wrapped up into one person. Tongue in cheek, of course:

 

 

 

Thank you. I have heard something about the US returning to something like what you described through a homeland security act. I have concern that when we do not know history, we can repeat it. It is especially the history of Germany that concerns me, because we have adopted German institutions, and I am not sure how far this thinking will take us that direction, especially if we do not know history and the reasoning for things like public trials and peers judging and professional defense.

 

I hate to bring in my private life, but because my grandchildren were made wards of the state, I learned more about tyranny than I ever knew there was to know. I know children can be taken against the law, and the family can do nothing about this, because we react differently to the possibility that someone threatens a child, than we do to criminal charges. When a child might be threatened, nothing has to be proven. I know a father who was prevented from seeing his children for several years, because the mother accused him of molesting his daughters. It turned out, it was her boy friend who was molesting the girls, not the father, and when this was realized, the girls were given to the father. How awful. Especially grandparents had it bad, before we united and got laws and policy changed. And the practice of keeping records on people and judging them by what is a file, is very threatening! Those files are written to make the person writing them look good, and from there everyone judges the parent by what is in the file, and there is no defense. The children's defense attorney is a sick joke! They don't even make an effort to speak with grandparents. They simply process the cases.

 

We should not take our justice system for granted, because we do make exceptions. It is the reasoning for the exceptions that scares me. How many people know the reasoning for public trials by jury and care enough to fight for our legal protection? Or can we wake some day and have a more "efficient" justice system? Hum, right now there is an agreement that attorneys can get the accused to plead guilty to a lesser charge. People agree to this, because the greater charge could mean a prison sentence, and especially with careless attorneys, it is a far greater risk to go to trial on the greater charge. However, the lesser charge can mean, not getting jobs and housing, because we are judging people by what is in a file, and marginalizing them. We are creating a very cruel reality and we are not discussing this.

 

Athena,

 

Sometimes this is where I get into it with others who have different thoughts on what rights are and where they come. Historically in the US our rights were defined as God given. The difference between the two is that a human right is only given by those which hold the power to give them (or take them away). A God given right (or natural right) are rights that every being is born with. Here is an example of what I mean by the difference: http://en.wikipedia....od_given_rights .

 

 

We are still in this argument to this very day. "Who gets the authority, and how much. What is our freedom and whether we should give it up and why." These are some of the most argued political philosophies of our times, and I think will continue to be so for the rest of our existance. Some have implied recently that freedom is a mystical thing and that it is acceptable to give it up a little at a time in place of comfort or security, and that it's the public's vigilance that keeps authority from erring. Historically, this has not worked. If the vigilance of the masses was effective in this way, then we would have never had reason to fight in those world wars. So while we give authority to some, I think our founder's vigilance was more focused on keeping the authority's power limited so that the errors of that authority are inturn limited.

 

 

I think ewmon answered this quite well in the above post, where it was said that a group of people can come to a far better conclusion than one person could. And that a group of people that live similar lives can pass judgement far better than someone who only enjoys the finer things in life. This is the reason that I think a trial by jury is ethically the best course for justice that we are bound to get at this point in time.

I also think that some people take the power of a democracy for granted. I have felt that some think that a democracy is a full proof way to avoid tyranny, all the while steering that same democracy in a direction that invites tyranny and abuse of power. Sorry for being a little off topic, my mind leads me in multiple directions.

 

 

 

I think that wanting these types of forums to be publicly democratic is right in one way, but I think it is also wrong in another since they are privately owned. Let's take your house for example. Not just anyone is free to come and go, and say anything that they want to in your house, are they? Why heck no. That's your house and what you say goes. It's your private property, where you let in who you want to let in, and kick some out if they disrespect you. These forums are the same in that regard. Although this is one that I think pretty fair in it's guidelines, it's as privately owned as you owning your house, so doesn't fall into the rules of democracy that have to be adhered to by government.

 

I'm also fairly certain that any bannishment is talked over and discussed with several different members of moderators before a decision is reached, so in that regard, is fairly democratic. Now in regards to defense of ones actions.... I can't claim to know if one gets a chance to defend against bannishment, but I would hope that would be the case, if only for the sake of fairness.

 

Oh, oh, THANK YOU! I tried to do a thread about god and liberty and all I got was arguments that there is no god. Our liberty was protected by liberal education, and we stopped doing that in 1958. Cicero's understanding of God, is the God of which Jefferson wrote, when he said "the Laws of nature and Nature's God". Understanding this philosophical concept of God and morals is essential our liberty, and the reasoning of democracy.

 

There are two questions essential to our democracy- "how do the gods resolve their differences", and "to whom does God give his authority"? The answers, vital to democracy are, the gods argued until there was a consensus on the best reasoning, and God, gives his authority to everyone. THANK YOU, for explaining the danger of ignorance of the philosophy, is the loss of liberty.

 

However, Tocqueville argued the founders of the US didn't go anywhere near far enough in protecting in our liberty. His prediction of the new despotic government over the people, in 1830, and was very accurate! We did not go enough in protecting our liberty, but starting around 1840, we did rely on mass education, so everyone would understand the reasoning our institutions, and then in 1958, we replaced our liberal education with German's model of education for technology. Of course the change in change in education, has changed our reasoning and think their is reason to be afraid. Now we have a mass that understands the organization of atoms and molecules better than humans and human organizations. This is exactly what manifest the horrors Tocqueville feared was the future of Christian democracies.

In Athens, jurist were paid for exactly the reason you explained. So everyone, including the poor could serve, and with the belief that this better serves justice. It was politically very important to the balance of power.

 

May I argue your reasoning for forums not being more democratic with a question? How do we defend our liberty? I am thinking, either we live by principles or we do not. If our number one principle is, "this my cave and I am going to defend it", how far from the animals are we? Democracy and liberty are possible, only because we are different from the animals. This is why I question our knowledge of the principles and ask how do we defend our liberty? Without the necessary concepts, what makes different from pack animals?

 

May I ask what makes a group of mods better than England's infamous Star Chamber? Someone has been accusing me of very awful things, and even suggesting I am guilty of criminal charges. I suspect this person's thoughts of my wrongs, began with someone saying I was doing wrong things. It has been my experience, that when a mod becomes annoyed with someone, in a short time another mod finds that this person is violating rules. It appears that the group effort is to protect the group, regardless of what group, children service people, the police, or mods, and this over rides the protection of individuals. This is human nature, is it not? I am also thinking of the explanations I have heard about the need to protect police, instead of the citizen, since my granddaughter was arrested. Have we lost touch with our human nature? Have we become smart at the expense of wisdom, as one might say was the German problem when the Prussians took over? This is a deeply heart felt question. All around me I am hearing arguments for being efficient and needing policing, that trigger my fear that adopting German institutions and philosophy, is taking us down the wrong path. Our human nature is the greatest threat to our liberty and justice. Christianity without education for democracy is not the same as the reasoning that began our the US. We were not a theocracy, but a philosophically guided social organization. Christians and atheist without education for democracy is a disaster waiting to happen.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Athena

[Klaynos]

Let me split my comments into two distinct parts.

 

On moderators, if you have a complaint please provide some evidence, I'm aware you've been asked to in pm's, we do try and deal with issues users may have but I cannot help you if I don't know what you're talking about. The general process here is that a user will not be suspended or banned without first being warned to change their behaviour and pointed out what has gone on. As a staff team we do not act unilaterally for something serious like removing a users access we reach a consensus and act upon that. I cannot comment on other forums, they are private enterprises and are free to operate as they see fit. We try and be fair but are also mindful that we cannot let a single user downgrade the site for all of the others.

 

Now on rights and trial by jury. I've a few comments to make on this. My first comment is that it'd be nice if people put in their posts where they are from. Athena, I assume you are in the US, it is always worth bearing in mind that the internet is global. So I'm from the UK, as a British citizen I'm under no false pretences that I have any natural or god given rights. That isn't to say that I do not feel that people (all people) deserve certain rights, but they are a result of society and because if they have those rights then I also have them and that makes a better world for everyone. I feel some historic context and explanation of why I feel this way. Here we have no bill of rights as many other countries have but we can trace our rights back to different laws made at different times for different reasons. Take education, every child in the UK has a right to an education, this stems from the victorians and a need for a more literate numerate workforce, that was the driving force behind education rights. I'm afraid I cannot provide a good reference for that, but saw a very interesting TV show on some of the big poor schools in victorian times.

 

Now let us consider more broad rights and those more discussed above, say the right to a trial by jury, in the UK we point to the magna carta for such things (the last case was in 2008 with an attempt to introduce longer time incarcerated without charge for certain crimes). The magna carta was actually formed to restrict someone who claimed he had god given rights so therefore the basis of our rights in the UK is to counter the perceived god given/natural rights. Now, you'll say well in the US we have a bill of rights and that is just rights we see as natural, which is an interesting argument I guess but let us see what the US supreme court says on the matter, I cannot find the rullings themselves but there are many references that state similar things to this link http://www.magnacharta.com/bomc/magna-charta-and-american-law/ that the bill of rights stems directly from the magna carta... Rights are man made for the purposes for furthering humans. They are arbitrarily set and your upbringing will determine how you feel about them.

[Athena]

Easy there folks. From what I get from the conversation is, that although something may have happened with a mod at sometime, the intent of the conversation is not directed at mods in particular. The use of mods as an example is to lay out a scenario of what the issue is that Athena wants to talk about. In no way does she have to prove that a mod did something wrong, but has already supported her side of the conversation by conveying the thought that people today do not understand the general philosophy of a democracy. I think it would be better to encompass the context as a whole instead of breaking down each and every comment that is made. I think the conversation is a little deeper than mod bashing, and has nothing to do with mods other than establishing a scenario. I think we can have a more fulfilling conversation if given a chance.

 

Thank you, but I think this thread has been much ruined don't you? At least it is ruined for me. I dread checking it, because I don't like being put in the defensive as is happening here. This is not the critical thinking I am looking for. The thread about what effects our judgment has gone much better? I forgot I started that thread, and started this one. It is curious to me how this one has gotten so much more attention compare to the other one. Maybe people think this one directly involves them and the other one does not?

 

The mods who are attacking me for not presenting "evidence" have a valid point, and discussing it might be helpful to the subject. I can not present the evidence that triggered my concern about our liberty and the direction western civilization is going, without violating the rules. So now what? The mods can not be challenged so there is no chance of changing of their judgment, and no defense of the accused. I did not introduce the Star Chamber, but did think it was ideal for addressing the core issue. And I think another important questions are, how do we defend our liberty? If there are no answers to these questions, there is no point in continuing this thread. I really do not want to read through all the defensiveness and personal attacks, while being prevented from showing the evidence that is necessary to defending myself on this personal level. What is happening here is crazy, and painful to me, and it is not the higher level discussion that I really enjoy. If anyone wants me to read his/her post, it is a good idea to avoid beginning it defensively and attacking me. I seriously want to avoid the pain.

 

Let me split my comments into two distinct parts.

 

On moderators, if you have a complaint please provide some evidence, I'm aware you've been asked to in pm's, we do try and deal with issues users may have but I cannot help you if I don't know what you're talking about. The general process here is that a user will not be suspended or banned without first being warned to change their behaviour and pointed out what has gone on. As a staff team we do not act unilaterally for something serious like removing a users access we reach a consensus and act upon that. I cannot comment on other forums, they are private enterprises and are free to operate as they see fit. We try and be fair but are also mindful that we cannot let a single user downgrade the site for all of the others.

 

Now on rights and trial by jury. I've a few comments to make on this. My first comment is that it'd be nice if people put in their posts where they are from. Athena, I assume you are in the US, it is always worth bearing in mind that the internet is global. So I'm from the UK, as a British citizen I'm under no false pretences that I have any natural or god given rights. That isn't to say that I do not feel that people (all people) deserve certain rights, but they are a result of society and because if they have those rights then I also have them and that makes a better world for everyone. I feel some historic context and explanation of why I feel this way. Here we have no bill of rights as many other countries have but we can trace our rights back to different laws made at different times for different reasons. Take education, every child in the UK has a right to an education, this stems from the victorians and a need for a more literate numerate workforce, that was the driving force behind education rights. I'm afraid I cannot provide a good reference for that, but saw a very interesting TV show on some of the big poor schools in victorian times.

 

Now let us consider more broad rights and those more discussed above, say the right to a trial by jury, in the UK we point to the magna carta for such things (the last case was in 2008 with an attempt to introduce longer time incarcerated without charge for certain crimes). The magna carta was actually formed to restrict someone who claimed he had god given rights so therefore the basis of our rights in the UK is to counter the perceived god given/natural rights. Now, you'll say well in the US we have a bill of rights and that is just rights we see as natural, which is an interesting argument I guess but let us see what the US supreme court says on the matter, I cannot find the rullings themselves but there are many references that state similar things to this link http://www.magnachar...d-american-law/ that the bill of rights stems directly from the magna carta... Rights are man made for the purposes for furthering humans. They are arbitrarily set and your upbringing will determine how you feel about them.

 

Thankful splitting and making an argument that is worthy of the subject. Going on Greek philosophy, and my understanding of Athena, Athens patron goddess of liberty, justice and the defense of those who stand for liberty and justice, even the gods are subject to reason. Rights are not man made. Rights come with the laws of nature, not the laws of man. When man correctly understands the laws of nature, and lives by them, all goes well. When he does not, things go badly. That is what democracy is all about, coming to an understanding of the laws, which we put in words to live by (logos). Mind you, if we get this wrong, no matter how good our intentions, or how much we pray, burn candles, sacrifice animals, things will not go right. Man is not the ultimate authority. Wise men are humble, because they are not so sure they know it all.

 

I couldn't disagree more. It is grossly unfair to say someone in a small group of people on this site has done something wrong, then refuse to explain it or retract it. It is also disingenuous to say someone reading this has done her an injustice but that they shouldn't take it personally, and please just move along. Athena has suggested the mods lack objectivity and are politically motivated, and have accused her of awful things, but refuses to explain herself. If this is her behavior on other sites I am not surprised she has found herself criticized

 

The bulk of the OP discusses the mods. If Athena wants people to concentrate on 'the general philosophy of a democracy', then she should not include inflammatory statements. She herself seems to epitomize the worst of the Star Chamber.

 

Is it possible for mods to delete private messages? One of you should pm, zapatos and confirm those accusations were made in a moment of emotional distress, and later, when better judgment was resumed, you decided to take back those words. I can not forward a pm as evidence, when the evidence was destroyed, and I can not post it if I had it, because that is a violation of the rules. Check the rules and stop demanding I violate them.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Athena

[anotherfilthyape]

Yes, anotherfilthyage! " I could not defend myself because the mod did not want me to answer back his warning..". I thought I goofed when I said I could not present evidence because of the rules. Thank you for confirming I was not wrong. But my real reason for not showing evidence is I really don't know what I said that set off the belief I am attacking mods. Hey, and I really like your distinction between being a good scientist and a good engineer. This has everything to do with liberal education that includes science, and education for technology that is amoral and a threat to our democracy with liberty.

 

I have the impression that you are a traditionalist... I'm a liberal (if that term can apply to me, I'm not from the US or intersted in politics centred on a single country, but US liberals support gay marriage and abortion which I support), a social democrat, a direct democrat and a transhumanist... I believe it would be great if we advanced studies in cloning with no regard to what the church says... When I make the distinction between a good scientist knowing science and philosophy and a good engineer knowing science and more science is because I think that a good scientist must understand that scientific skeptism is a pragmatic approach to philosophical skepticism and a good scientist must understand ontology, philosophy of language, gnoseology, epistemology and philosophy of science... I dont think a good scientist needs, in order to be so, to know politics and ethics (it would help them but they can be good scientists without knowing either); knowing politics means they can better promote themselves, knowing ethics means they can participate in discussions of medical ethics, bioethics and other realms of study where science and ethics mix, but a good scientist needs to know ontology, philosophy of language, gnoseology, epistemology and philosophy of science to better understand their own work... Just like a good ethicist needs to know human sciences and ethology... I believe that even with crippling overspecialization modern people need to know beyond their own field of study, be some sort of polymaths, to be good and unique... But I dont think science needs to be controlled much... On the other hand I could argue that an engineer could benefit from ethics more than a scientist because he/she could realize that nanobots are a double edged weapon that can do greater harm than good if they fall on the wrong hands... But you can be a great engineer without understanding ontology, philosophy of language, gnoseology, epistemology and philosophy of science...

 

And well, I believe democracy can work without trial by jury... You know how many countries practice trial by jury? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_jury I tried confirming if Switzerland used it or not but I could not understand the conclusion... I think trial by jury is worse because I cannot trust laymen to be good peers and they are not always peers... A psychologist that kills a patient because the psychologist determined his patient had the power to decimate the city with a nuclear bomb and the psychologist could not betray his professional secrecy by revealing his patient's plan can be considered the peer of low class citizens that barely managed to finish high school? Can a dutch foreigner be considered the peer of US citizens? Who determines peerage? I prefer professional judges... Better said. I prefer a non-layman jury (a sort of bunch of under-judges) that follows principles of common law (their decision must change as newer trials are done) when the true and higher judge follows the principles of Civil law (his or her decision follows a stable constitution that can only be modified by the congress, point by point or by creating a new constitution from zero)...

[anotherfilthyape]

Hot damn that was one good argument! Personally, I have wondered why we don't use computers to do the judging. I could go on and on about the corruption of our justice system. I had no idea there was a possible good human alternative.

 

Any system can be corrupted... Computers can be hacked, and we would need them to have artificial intelligence and I bet that artificial intelligence implies personal interests and thus a mean to be bought... But if you keep the trials public and allow a professional jury to be analysed by detectives if they are suspicious you would have a measure to reduce corruption...

 

I believe our public trials are very important to democracy, but then my understanding of democracy is unlike anyone else's, and oh boy, here is where the charge of me preaching can be made. My understanding of democracy is all tied up with a belief about god and morals, and I talk about this every chance I get.

 

Then you are recognizing some religious bias on your part... Democracy has no need for religion, indeed the founding fathers of the United States, inspired in the French Revolution (such thinkers as Thomas Paine) were against any religious thought gaining hegemony over all others, some were agnostics, some were atheists and some were deists and deists are sort of "I believe in a deity but not in religion"... The Us has evolved a lot from the time the bible was used to justify slavery (parts of the bible justify it) to these tiems that the bible is used to justify homophobia... Other countries that lacked common law evolved by osmosis but I am pretty sure that the US is in no way the avant garde of freedom in the world...

 

During the golden age of Athens democracy, which was very short lived, jurist were paid for jury duty, to assure everyone had the chance to participate on the jury, and this was seen as essential to legitimate authority and protecting everyone's rights.

 

I dont know much about the history of law but as a person interested in ethics and politics and its history I know the Athenian democracy was very different from modern democracies... It was some sort of aristocracy... The demos against the laos was an elite.

 

But rather than me doing all the talking, I want to know about your system. How does your system work? How many judges hear a case? Do you have a prosecutor and an attorney for the defendant? Are these public trials or closed to the public? What measures are taken to assure justice?

 

The system my country uses is civil law... I cannot tell you much about it because I do not know much about law, I had the idea that the cosntitution had to be erased and something totally new be created and I expected to study a lot before determining what I would do to replace it... Therefore I think I will study that if I ever study political science which I hope I do because I am intersted in politics but I am still in the process of learning about law and its nature and system and determining goals for the new system... that is why I propose the civilized world to unify their courts so people like Roman Polanski (rapist) or George Bush Jr. (human rights violator) cannot escape the law the way they are doing and so people like Kim "Dotcom" Schmitz (German-Finnish person, did a bussiness in the UK, went to New Zealand and got forced to jail in the US) get a fair trail rather than a kangaroo court that does a mock trial to defend the interest of US companies outside their own jurisdiction (for a crime that is not terrible enough to deserve being enforced worldwide)... Another example of abuse by the US is how Lori Berenson (a terrorist that helped peruvian terrorists) got a better treatment that she deserved because the US was making pressure to defend their own ctiizen when they do not correspond that to our own citizens punished for lower criems in US soil. Power tilts the balance and fairness is not the current systme... The powerful get away with rape (as it happened with Polanski and with Michael Jackson) and the weak suffer more than they deserve... But the uneven system is perjudicial for everyone... Some places are so unruly and dangerous that the cops cannot enter in them unless they go in groups and during the day... This means that the same way poor and powerless people are treated unfairly in the courtroom and this causes a limitation of their freedom, wealthy people are also forced to suffer a limitation of their freedom in that they cannot go anywhere at their own whim because some places need them to hire extensive protection.

 

The qualities of a good scientist are a different subject. I have too many threads going or I would suggest one for exploring a possible need to control science and protect humanity. The religious and secular communities are at war with each other, and I believe the foundation of this war is justified on both sides. Considering all the science forums restrict discussion of religion, and that we have become amoral, I am deeply concerned. This is not good for democracy and liberty which is god and morals without religion. Which brings me to...

 

I hope your "democracy and liberty which is god and morals without religion" is a misspelling and you meant "democracy and liberty which is good and morals without religion"... But in the later case I wont be sure what you meant... So I will tell you something despite I admit that you are right to consider it a different subject the question of "what a good scientist is?"... There is more morality without god that morality with god... The biblical god, the abrahamic god is a pretty antiethical fictional tyrant... For instance there is a passage where a man is caleld righteous because he follows sacred hospitality to the point of giving his own daughters and wife to be raped in order to protect his guests (because sacred hospitality was an ancient custom of being a good host to strangers because in the future you could be such a stranger). Furthermore the idea that you have to follow rules for a reward you wont get in the life you can be aware of means that you are willing to follow any rule, no matter how illogical, that is why you get muslims being such fundies... We need to behave well, to behave morally because it pays in the life we can know... Cost-benefit analysis is all we have to do to determine our ethical gambles, our ethics and behaviour... Considering that failing in our ethical decisions makes people behave negatively against us and that is a high cost of being unethical and the cost reduces the benefit and that is the low benefit of being unethical. That power is spread among our fellow people. Read on transhumanism, that is what I think we have to conduct science to... (Politically I prefer primitivism however)...

 

Minor detail but isn't a person a "who"? Is a psychologist that kills, a person? That may sound picky, but it is about our humanness or lack of it. Sort of the difference between killing the enemy, or someone's son, bother and father. When we say "a psychologist that kills", we have dehumanized the psychologist and objectified him.

 

I said psychologist not so "psychologist" becomes a burden, an object that anchors the guy and makes him drown but as a pedestal, something that places him above what in the US "peers" seems to constitute; he or she is an specialist that understands better the human mind and therefore it may seem logical to him or to her that the person that intends to explode a nuclear bomb is a real threat even if laymen could underestimate the possibility...

 

I am not sure if discussing the psychologist derails the thread or not. I can see a connection between judging people and acting on our judgment of them and the question of this thread. Before I ask any more questions, I want to clarify, the questions are for the sake of thinking about what we think. They are about discussion, not right or wrong answers.

 

What is wrong with the psychologist protecting everyone by killing someone who has the power to decimate the city with a nuclear bomb? In the US we call these people who might harm us, dangerous terrorist and send out special forces to be sure they stop breathing. Isn't this the right thing to do?

 

What should the psychologist do? Why? Could this action lead to a problem?

 

I mentioned the psychologist as an evidence of how peers is hard to get across; Different people will be peer to the psychologist to different degrees; psychologists will serve as peers to a psychologist better than truck drivers or astrophysicists; psychologists that follow the same schools of thought that your psychologist are even better peers; psychologists that studied in the same university, specially in the same time period as the psychologist are even better peers but here you get a problem; the best peers are biased, they know the psychologist personally, they are his friends or her friends or her enemies or his enemies and are biased... See, the issue is that you cannot get good peers... On the other hand you could get specialists like you get specialist judges...

 

(As you see I have broken your points to place them in perspective... and analyse them one by one...)

 

 

[Athena]

name='anotherfilthyape' timestamp='1336886699' post='677557']

Any system can be corrupted... Computers can be hacked, and we would need them to have artificial intelligence and I bet that artificial intelligence implies personal interests and thus a mean to be bought... But if you keep the trials public and allow a professional jury to be analysed by detectives if they are suspicious you would have a measure to reduce corruption...

 

I love your effort to figure out how we might avoid human malice and human error to have fair trials, but I am afraid the only thing we can do is deal with our humanness. This is a matter of spirit. Oh, God, I am really going to get nailed for preaching now, because I am talking of our spirit.

 

Those who have been intent on accusing me of attacking the mods, are being mean spirited, and remind me of what Charles Sarolea wrote about what happened to the German spirit when the Prussians took over. We adopted German institutions and replaced classical philosophy with German philosophy, so the same thing is happening to us, and this thread is making me realize vividly the danger of the path we are on.

 

We can achieve perfection. Now what? Look in your heart. What do you feel? Never before have I realized so clearly, that is where we must begin. Look at the accusations and my efforts to defend myself. Don't the accusers look like angry people yelling at the witch? While, like Joan of Ark, I know it is my intentions to stand for that which our statue of liberty of stands, and that is not about accusing mods and it has been understood by my accusers. Does God speak to me? Am I possessed by the devil and should I burned as a witch? Technology is not going to resolve the problem of our humanness. I so understand what is happening here, as exactly like what happened when Jews or witches or lepors were persecuted. This is an experience of history I never dreamed I could have.

 

Professional judges will do better why? Professional judges will be different from the Star Chamber how? I don't mean to dash your hopes with no sensitivity to how awful it feels when our hopes are ruined, but we are human. What we think and believe is true, is so much a matter of our hearts, and it must never, ever become us against them. For the first time ever, I realize vividly why the jury must be us. For the first time I vividly see the problem we create when it becomes "us" against "them", you know those people who only want to make trouble. Awe the power and glory of being the guard against "those people" and should not all bow to them? Hegel, the state is God, and everyone should submit to the state. Or we can trust the professional judges, because they have been trained, and they sit above us like gods, and we are glad to leave the responsibility of judging to them.

 

 

Then you are recognizing some religious bias on your part... Democracy has no need for religion, indeed the founding fathers of the United States, inspired in the French Revolution (such thinkers as Thomas Paine) were against any religious thought gaining hegemony over all others, some were agnostics, some were atheists and some were deists and deists are sort of "I believe in a deity but not in religion"... The Us has evolved a lot from the time the bible was used to justify slavery (parts of the bible justify it) to these tiems that the bible is used to justify homophobia... Other countries that lacked common law evolved by osmosis but I am pretty sure that the US is in no way the avant garde of freedom in the world...

 

God is not religion until attempt to define God. Democracy is directly tied to a notion of God and morals. Read the classics and especially Cicero. Well that is perhaps too much reading, but at least goolge Cicero's understanding of God. It is really vital to democracy, and now I realize more than ever before, vital to our being less prone to make human errors. (I never expected to get so much from this forum, and it would not have been possible if were not for those made post that advance the discussion. Thank you. This is what democracy works and why we must have protected freedom of speech.) Literacy in the day of our forefathers might literacy in the Greek and Roman classics and this is vital to defending democracy. Without it, we are destroying our democracy and are not the good world neighbors, we once were. WE NO LONGER UNDERSTAND THAT FOR WHICH WE STAND AND THIS IS WHY THIS THREAD AND MANY OTHERS WERE OPENED. People are looking for technological correctness, and they need to look at their hearts.

 

 

I dont know much about the history of law but as a person interested in ethics and politics and its history I know the Athenian democracy was very different from modern democracies... It was some sort of aristocracy... The demos against the laos was an elite.

 

Oh the pain of it, I must run off. It is Mothers Day you know, and family calls. This discussion is so hot and so inspiring, I hate to leave it. Check our Tocqueville and aristocracy if you can. I don't believe aristocracy is a bad thing. Thank you, thank you, thank you for making this discussion happen!

[Moontanman]

Democracy is directly tied to a notion of God and morals.

 

 

I really don't see this Carol, in fact I see the opposite, for democracy to work and to have the freedoms we have religion had to be limited. Stops had tp be put on religion to prevent protestants burning Catholics at the stake. This is but one example, in fact before the US constitution protected us from religion this type of persecution of one religious group by another was wide spread here in this land we call the USA. i think that you and everyone else should have the freedom of religion but religion by it's very nature has to be limited by government or it will descend into the hell of religion fundamentalism and persecution.

 

We can see it today as the fringes of religion begin to flex their muscles and demand that their religious ideals be made law, they have in some cases managed to make the Holy Bible be taught as science instead of philosophy. We see it in the state where I live as a statewide constitutional ban on marriage between same sex couple was passed even though it was already illegal to do so. This amendment also punished single parents and opposite sex couple who just live together with out being married. This amendment was purely religious in it's scope, it was pushed by fundamentalist religion for no reason other than to show they had the power to do so. These anti gay laws have been passed in the majority of the US, religion continues to demand an erosion of our freedoms and the freedoms of women in particular. These fringe elements tend to drive the more mainstream religious thought but the scary part is they are becoming more main stream and driving out more moderate voices.

 

I do have to say i see little or no connection between current religious thought and the ideas of Cicero, I see no reason people cannot pursue an understanding of the universe as seen through the human mind in that manner but as soon as you make it mandatory and begin to persecute others due to your religious ideas you have become part of the problem and not part of any solution...

[Athena]

False. Please support that assertion.

 

Okay, democracy is an imitation of the gods, and humans can imitate them because they were made in the image of the gods. Of course that is mythology, but within the mythology is truth. The trick is, you have to want to truth before you can find it, and if you are intolerant, that is not possible.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I've split a number of posts from this thread that staff have deemed off-topic. This thread was started with what seems like an agenda, but regardless, it's either about the evil and wicked mod staff of SFN, or it's about public trial by jury. The two are not one and the same and thus, do not belong in the same thread. I've kept true to the title and removed as much of the comments about mod staff as I could without removing the continuity of the discussion about public trial by jury.

Comments about mod staff are not to be brought up again in this thread in the same vein as they were in the removed posts.

I am also about to close the other thread, as I do not think it's particularly fair that Athena and Athena's gripes with staff be the subject of an entire thread.

Please do not respond to this mod note (in-thread, elsewhere is fine).

[anotherfilthyape]

 

 

I really don't see this Carol, in fact I see the opposite, for democracy to work and to have the freedoms we have religion had to be limited. Stops had tp be put on religion to prevent protestants burning Catholics at the stake. This is but one example, in fact before the US constitution protected us from religion this type of persecution of one religious group by another was wide spread here in this land we call the USA. i think that you and everyone else should have the freedom of religion but religion by it's very nature has to be limited by government or it will descend into the hell of religion fundamentalism and persecution.

 

We can see it today as the fringes of religion begin to flex their muscles and demand that their religious ideals be made law, they have in some cases managed to make the Holy Bible be taught as science instead of philosophy. We see it in the state where I live as a statewide constitutional ban on marriage between same sex couple was passed even though it was already illegal to do so. This amendment also punished single parents and opposite sex couple who just live together with out being married. This amendment was purely religious in it's scope, it was pushed by fundamentalist religion for no reason other than to show they had the power to do so. These anti gay laws have been passed in the majority of the US, religion continues to demand an erosion of our freedoms and the freedoms of women in particular. These fringe elements tend to drive the more mainstream religious thought but the scary part is they are becoming more main stream and driving out more moderate voices.

 

I do have to say i see little or no connection between current religious thought and the ideas of Cicero, I see no reason people cannot pursue an understanding of the universe as seen through the human mind in that manner but as soon as you make it mandatory and begin to persecute others due to your religious ideas you have become part of the problem and not part of any solution...

 

Well said Tanman... But the bible does not deserves to be called philosophy, it is dogma and dogma means "doxa" that is "opinion"; philosophy is more objective than that. And Athena... I have read some bits of Cicero, Seneca and other roman philosophers, they pale against the greek philosophers that preceded them but they are certainly not christian philosophers and the worst philosophers of all times are the theologists (read; christian apologists) of the Middle Ages... I see a lot of emotion on your claim that we need peers but not enough justification... Everyone can be corrupted, peers and professional judges, but professional judges can be ranked on ability by the public and on how much trust they deserve, you never know who is going to get selected as jury... The person can be a fundie or a fool (and a fundie is often a fool)...

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Athena,

That doesn't mean you get to drag it off topic by bringing it back around to the mod staff again. Your comment has been moved to the closed thread.

[doG]

Okay, democracy is an imitation of the gods, and humans can imitate them because they were made in the image of the gods. Of course that is mythology, but within the mythology is truth. The trick is, you have to want to truth before you can find it, and if you are intolerant, that is not possible.

I asked you to support your assertion, not to drown us with another delusion.