Jump to content

Endy0816

Senior Members
  • Posts

    3606
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Endy0816

  1. 1 hour ago, Dropship said:

    The snooty Jewish priests never liked JC-

    1- "Just you stick with me chum"

    2- "Thanks JC, you're my main man"

    3- "Hey kiddo why do you bother talking to commoners like him?"

    4- "If you're looking for trouble Charlie, you've come to the right place"

    5- "My dad's got your number!"

    6- "Now get on your bikes and 'oppit!"

    rel-jesus-another-runin.jpg

    Logic it out mate, why would anybody sit down and write the gospels and risk getting throw to the lions? Motive

    There are a number of different religious texts out there. Whoever wrote them may have believed them factual, but that isn't something we can trust. At the very least they've been copied and recopied to different languages with inevitable errors and changes.

     

    We need something like the Roman tax records, mention of him in other texts or well a body(could be problematic).

    The closest we have are some lines possibly by Josephus, a Jewish historian in regards.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

     

    Keep in mind the main post-Christ bits in the Bible took place over a 300 year span. The persecutions weren't constant and conversions while relatively fast still took awhile.

  2.  

    2 hours ago, MigL said:

    It was 'justified' at the time by having the measure of a colored slave as a fraction of a man.
    In which case it was 'self evident' to them that slaves were not fully men, and therefore, not equal.

    Ironically the Slaveholding States actually suggested numerical equality at one point to give themselves more Representatives in the House.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise

     

     

  3. 53 minutes ago, mistermack said:

    Yes, it was always a question of degree, like everything else. From the outside looking in, it's amazing to see the open acceptance of political bias being wielded in a court of law. Of course it happens everywhere to some extent, but it's so blatant, automatic and accepted in the US. It's the public assumption that the next appointed judge will be leftward leaning, and will NEED to be, to counter the existing bias of right leaning judges. 

    Maybe it's more honest, accepting that humans are biased, and try to work with it? But I don't think so, I think humans, especially judges, should be able to rise above that. 

    It can be otherwise. In the game of golf, for example, professional players are expected to call a foul on themselves, if they accidentally move a ball. It's against all of your instincts, when you are doing all you can to win. But most pros call it, even if nobody has seen it. It's the same in snooker, here in the UK. People can be honest, when the peer pressure is united enough. But in legal cases, I guess there's enough grey area to hide behind. A golf ball either moves, or it doesn't, so the decision is just, do I cheat or not? On a legal bench, it's more complicated, and you can easily conjure up a justification for what you voted. And especially so, when you know perfectly well that the judges on the other side of the argument are going to vote politically, just like you. 

    Impartiality is definitely prized too, but SC Justices could be there forever and Constitution can be vague at times.

     

  4. 7 minutes ago, MigL said:

    As you yourself alluded to, and TheVat explained, the Constitution is a 'fluid' document, that changes with changing societal norms ( except for that pesky 2nd Amendment, which resists change ). 
    SCJ interpret these 'changes' in society and whether laws reflect and comply with those changes. This is, of course, strictly subjective, and the reason why it matters if a SCJ is a Conservative or a Liberal.After all, there was no such thing as abortions when the Constitution was written, so how can they be legal according to the Constitution ( as written ).

    Can legally amend the Constitution or even rewrite it entirely, so it is definitely a living document in that sense.

    There's nothing in it one way or the other regarding SC interpretation though. Personally agree it is necessary, but opinion varies.

     

    Various herbs historically have been used as abortificants.

  5. 3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    The fact there isn't a fracas every time ia judge is chosen does say something positive for the UK system. It feels like many US people look at the rules and see how they can game them to their advantage... this is not cricket, old chap. :)

    Chess game. Every piece on the board is in check to one degree or another.

  6. I'm of the opinion our courts are more like the UK's House of Lords in terms of their role in Society.

    Most UK citizens seem broadly supportive of them despite the politics involved.

     

    Is our law against singing while in a swimsuit unconstitutional? Case could be argued different ways. Despite many swearing oaths to it the Constitution has yet to say one word back, so who should decide?

  7. 7 hours ago, iNow said:

    Sadly these days, neither do the house or senate. /rimshot

    j/k… it’s mostly the senate that’s broken. House is okay, but screwed up due to gerrymandered districts and corrupted rejection of absentee ballots

    If a government is constantly keeping itself tied up in knots, it isn't setting up Tea Monoplies lol.

     

    Am puzzled by focus on nominations vs confirmations here(and in general).

  8. 4 hours ago, mistermack said:

    They should change the name of the US to the "Not-very United States" since they all seem to want different laws from the other states. That's why they need a political supreme court, making laws.

    In the UK, the courts are there to "interpret" laws made by parliament, not to make new ones.

    Popular Sovereignty vs Parliamentary Sovereignty.

    US Constitution(Law), is above both the State/Federal governments. It both grants and restricts their respective powers.

    Caveat: Constitution was designed to be a living document, so it can be changed.

    Like iNow said though SC doesn't truly do the job of the House or Senate.

  9. 6 hours ago, mistermack said:

    More people are killed by dogs. And trees. 

    Sharks are more scary than trees, because they have lots of pearly white teeth. 

    Yeah I honestly prefer chancing sharks than any number of other threats. Statistically have better odds of survival in comparison.

  10. 28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    It does seem though that the courts are dragged in an awful lot by parties. It seems to be an an accepted tactic to stall  legislative progress. The last time there was any major judicial input in the UK was Brexit, I think. I suppose this is an issue of having states with more autonomy than our county councils.

    Yeah the Federal government itself was only granted some powers.

    Lot of modern stuff was not even dreamed of back in the day, so we're left hashing things out at the State level with the legal challenges being part of that.

    Am jealous of the speed UK can act at times. Sometimes our parties join hands or one has enough control of everything but that's rare.

  11. 2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    Is that not a proper separation of powers?

     

    Checks and balances based system. House, Senate, Executive, Judiciary are each meant to check the powers of the others.

    They can't pass laws or execute them(or choose their own members), so separation exists in that sense.

     

     

     

     

  12. 57 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    The antithesis of UK SC selection then. Thank you for bringing the US judicial selection criteria to the fore.

    Also have life tenure with little chance of removal.

    With everything based upon their interpretation of the Constitution, what sort of person they are matters more than anything else honestly. There's not even any requirements for the position itself.

  13. 1 hour ago, Genady said:

    Well, this is where "unrealistic" starts IMO. To discover the sources of materials, first. We - not robots - cannot yet figure out water on Mars, after a long time trying, observing, experimenting, sending multiple probes, etc. On / in a next door neighbor. Can we program a machine to do something that we don't know ourselves how to do? I don't think so. That's even before smelting and refining you've mentioned. 

     

    Water is more problematic. It's likely to only exist as sublimation prone ice or brine. We've been playing it safe so far with landing sites and have barely scratched the surface of Mars digging.

    They may need some kind of AI along to deal with more complex situations, but I'm not convinced it'll need to be too advanced. We should have regular contact with them anyways and can provide them with directions if needed.

  14. 8 hours ago, Genady said:

    How / where from do they get materials needed to make another machine?

    From anywhere in theory. Probably asteroids and moons more realistically.

    I have to admit miniaturized-automated smelting and refining still seems implausible to me, but I also thought the same about 3D printing, artificial diamonds and the like.

     

  15. 2 hours ago, Genady said:

    I agree with this. Moreover, I don't see what is so special about being self-replicating. A machine X can be programmed to build a machine Y. This is a robot. As a particular case, it can be that Y=X. This makes it self-replicating. Big deal!

    Practically speaking their potential for exponential growth would be incredible.

    Concept has been around since the 40's now though. It probably won't seem quite as futuristic as we could just about slap together something.

  16. I look at them as simply an advanced form of automation, so don't see them as being particularly unrealistic.

    Should note,  making more of themselves from available materials to fulfill some purpose would probably be a better definition. Exploration may be that purpose, but something more realistic like automated colony building, resource extraction, and megaprojects is more likely IMO.

  17. 21 hours ago, studiot said:

    Interactions of highway users with both each other and the highway itself is extremely complicated in the UK, and far from entirely covered in the Highway Code (any edition)

    Ownership and funding of both highway construction and maintenance is also compllcated but surely off topic in this thread ?

     

    I would just like to thank Endy for posting that link.  +1

    It is ironic that Uk citizens (myself included) couldn't find it.
    It is even more ironic that the link to the official announcement states that the new rules take effect from 29 January, but that the new document will not be available until at least April, to buy in the shops.

    This is the sort of shambolic government we are now suffering from in so many areas.

    You're welcome. Anything major like this should definitely be better publicized by the government. For even a relatively minor change they do a full on media blitz here to ensure that everyone is aware.

     

    Was half thinking might be to standardize things for Self Driving vehicles. Having broadly the same rules could give UK an edge in the international scene.

    Could also be of course that whoever of the governing body is just thinks it is time for a change too.

  18. 4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    As are probably everybody outside your country. For discussion purposes, to which changed laws are you referring?

    Also, you're fairly vague about accidents rising, but extremely specific about 99% of people "giving way" (yielding?) and all cyclists being courteous. Even for political opinion, I'd like more rigor when it comes to assessing the behavior of large groups of people.

    Probably UK related.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022

    Seems odd timing and under publicized, but nothing much different than the local laws here in Florida.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.