Throwin out the big words there buddy? Makes you feel smart or something? Cause I couldn't give a single fuck about what you just said.Uzique wrote:
actually our legislative passed the laws that the judiciary implement. nothing to do with our government.
do you understand montesquieu's tripartite division of powers? because at the moment you are being stupid, not playing it.
Don't read the thread then.specops10-4 wrote:
Throwin out the big words there buddy? Makes you feel smart or something? Cause I couldn't give a single fuck about what you just said.Uzique wrote:
actually our legislative passed the laws that the judiciary implement. nothing to do with our government.
do you understand montesquieu's tripartite division of powers? because at the moment you are being stupid, not playing it.
I was just pointing out that the American understanding of Montesquieu's philosophy might be slightly different than a British understanding because our political systems are not identical. (America, after all, doesn't jail people for typing stupid things while drunk). The judiciary in America is appointed by politicians in the executive branch, confirmed by the legislative branch, and rules on laws passed through the collaboration of both. American's consequently consider the government to be a solitary entity comprised of these three elements, instead of just the executive branch. So while he clearly doesn't understand how the UK governs itself, (and neither do I, admittedly) that doesn't mean he doesn't understand the separation of powers.
I'm not going to argue the rest, because you aren't going to be convinced that your common law is flawed in allowing him to be imprisoned for his offense.
I'm not going to argue the rest, because you aren't going to be convinced that your common law is flawed in allowing him to be imprisoned for his offense.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2012-04-17 17:11:03)
Has there been a reduction in 'gangsta style concerts in the UK?.
big words? wow you are a class-a mong. have a good day, mouth breather.specops10-4 wrote:
Throwin out the big words there buddy? Makes you feel smart or something? Cause I couldn't give a single fuck about what you just said.Uzique wrote:
actually our legislative passed the laws that the judiciary implement. nothing to do with our government.
do you understand montesquieu's tripartite division of powers? because at the moment you are being stupid, not playing it.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
if you could give me a legal analysis to point out why our common law is flawed, i'd be all ears. right now you guys are trying to imply we have a restricted freedom of speech here - as if we're living in some grey dystopia. not really the case, is it? give me some good analysis to actually be impressed by rather than these empty gusts of windy american rhetoric. hurr durr free speech! the guy committed a crime by threatening people and disturbing the public order. i'm all up for a debate on whether or not the internet should be an arena for policing, but sadly i do not think you can really criticize the statutes in question.nukchebi0 wrote:
I was just pointing out that the American understanding of Montesquieu's philosophy might be slightly different than a British understanding because our political systems are not identical. (America, after all, doesn't jail people for typing stupid things while drunk). The judiciary in America is appointed by politicians in the executive branch, confirmed by the legislative branch, and rules on laws passed through the collaboration of both. American's consequently consider the government to be a solitary entity comprised of these three elements, instead of just the executive branch. So while he clearly doesn't understand how the UK governs itself, (and neither do I, admittedly) that doesn't mean he doesn't understand the separation of powers.
I'm not going to argue the rest, because you aren't going to be convinced that your common law is flawed in allowing him to be imprisoned for his offense.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I understand the separation of of powers but when you throw in the whole "montesqueieu's tripartite divisions of powers" you are obviously trying to come off as intellectually superior.Uzique wrote:
big words? wow you are a class-a mong. have a good day, mouth breather.specops10-4 wrote:
Throwin out the big words there buddy? Makes you feel smart or something? Cause I couldn't give a single fuck about what you just said.Uzique wrote:
actually our legislative passed the laws that the judiciary implement. nothing to do with our government.
do you understand montesquieu's tripartite division of powers? because at the moment you are being stupid, not playing it.
I am arguing about this on more of a philosophical basis anyways, although thats not where the thread started, it doesn't matter what happens in your country, so theres no point trying to explain your whole system.
how is referencing the exact principle under discussion an act of 'intellectual superiority'? i'd say basing a discussion in fact and actual reality is a good part of debating anything. being philosophical is all fine and well and all, but it needs to be tied down to something concrete in the real-world. we rely on a political/philosophical system best defined by montesquieu. hence i shall refer you to it if you wish to know anything more or to discuss any more. only an intellectually lame person would be intimidated by a reference to actual philosophy. shock, horror!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The statutes protecting public order are perfectly acceptable, because the whole point of a government is to restrict freedoms enough to have a functioning society, and letting individuals impose their will shouldn't be tolerated. The issue is that the statues consider the racist tweets to be threatening people and disturbing public order; I don't understand how they can be construed as anything other than the ranting of a drunken racist. He wasn't openly exhorting violence against black people, nor were the tweet direct threats to Muamba. The prosecutor himself described the comment as vile and abhorrent, and that the original detainment reflected public outrage. In essence, I don't see how the government needed to protect anyone here, because the comments simply weren't threatening.
It's obviously a matter of personal philosophy, hence why the argument is pointless.
It's obviously a matter of personal philosophy, hence why the argument is pointless.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2012-04-17 17:46:41)
coke wrote:
Don't read the thread then.specops10-4 wrote:
Throwin out the big words there buddy? Makes you feel smart or something? Cause I couldn't give a single fuck about what you just said.Uzique wrote:
actually our legislative passed the laws that the judiciary implement. nothing to do with our government.
do you understand montesquieu's tripartite division of powers? because at the moment you are being stupid, not playing it.
Look at how he says it. Such a sense of entitlement, thats what pissed me off.
That's Uzi. You will get used to him after a few months.specops10-4 wrote:
Look at how he says it. Such a sense of entitlement, thats what pissed me off.
a sense of entitlement about what? i know about my own nation's law. you replied to one of my posts discussing my nation's law with some stupid little inane comment about 'long words'. how the fuck am i entitled? entitled to what? a clear and cogent understanding of the topic at hand? yes, terrible, terrible entitlement. you are a moron. and so are you macbeth; you take any opportunity you can get to feel a little better about yourself or to one-up over someone else, despite being a lightweight yourself. just look at your shitty thread title. change the record buddy. go read some more books.
Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-17 21:14:45)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Keep going. You're really helping yourself.
why the fuck would i need to help myself in the eyes of someone like macbeth, the guy is suicidal and living at home. if he wants to take side-swipes at me to help himself, well then go ahead. i don't think i'm coming across as 'entitled' here. i'm quite forcibly trying to demarcate a line between factual rightness and factual wrongness. some of the statements you are making about the UK legal system are just factually, plainly wrong. there's no grey area - you're just making stupid comments. i am obviously going to quite doggedly maintain my position and correct you. "entitled"? i'm not really sure where my entitlement comes into a discussion about the uk legal system.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
You find proper language offensive?specops10-4 wrote:
Look at how he says it. Such a sense of entitlement, thats what pissed me off.
lol
formal language in a debate and serious discussion forum is somehow a showy display of 'intellectual superiority'. here's me just thinking it's a way of putting down your thoughts clearly and effectively. shrug.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Exactly.Uzique wrote:
here's me just thinking it's a way of putting down your thoughts clearly and effectively. shrug.
Debate isn't about 'putting down your thoughts' its about debating, theres a difference.
Last edited by specops10-4 (2012-04-17 21:49:39)
i am debating though, you're just getting hung-up on my language. which is entirely missing the point. drawing conclusions that i am somehow "entitled" because i care to phrase myself is to attack the person, rather than to attack the debate.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
uzi arent you attacking him for attacking you why dont you just attack his opinions lol
Nope, it simply bolsters the argument that freedom of speech laws, of which the US supposedly has the greatest, don't mean a thing.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Did you just learn about HUAC or something. It seems like you keep interjecting with, "b-b-b-but McCarthy!" Your time in DST can be summarized in once simple sentence - USA = hypocrites. Apparently I can't argue for free speech because some dumbass politician went on a witch hunt 50 years ago. Ask how present-day Americans look back at that time- most are ashamed.Dilbert_X wrote:
Free speech laws didn't do much to slow McCarthy or Hoover down.Jaekus wrote:
I find it kinda funny how the whole free speech thing is such a pedestal to stand on and harp on about, yet there's the National Defense Authorization Act...
LOL at these people holding onto this trivia as if it means anything, any more than the right to bear arms really means anything when you think about it.
If anything that episode bolsters the argument for a more relaxed free speech law- social/cultural attitudes were markedly different 50 years ago.
Govts can and do do what they like to whoever they like regardless of how great the citizens thing their supposed 'freedurms' are, and theres not much mileage in Americans crowing about constitutional rights when they've been shown to be null.
Fuck Israel
I really liked this post up to this point. Very well written and thought out. I may not know your system very well, but I do disagree that you can say the laws are not made by your government. I understand they can be made by a different, independent branch of your government that is isolate from politicians, but I also think WHOEVER creates AND WHOEVER enforces your laws IS your government. They would be the authority over your actions.Uzique wrote:
our judiciary are completely independent of parliament and their actions, i.e. the laws they deal with and the common law system that judges create and modify has nothing to do with political mandate. racism is a law of our land because the common sentiment and common law demands it. it is not outlawed because we had a politician at some point in our history who promoted a huge anti-racism agenda. he is trying to portray that this guy is locked up because of government over-control - that is simply not the case. he received justice. i'm willing to concede that he clearly got the short straw, here, and was sentenced with the harsher end of the sentencing tariff. however he broke the law and the government really had fuck-all to do with it.
I also agree the Orwellian crap is a farfetched sky-is-falling argument. I stick by my statement that this can be a slippery slope though. I am not saying it is wrong, and I never did... I am saying you need to pay attention to it and the people who DO write your laws need to be specific enough to avoid interpretation.
I have, in many threads here, talked about how badly our sex crime laws (specifically the sex offender registry) are screwed up. I think that example fits here too.
Originally the law was put in place to protect people from sexual predators. Good. No one would argue that is bad, just like no one would argue racism is bad. But then the case came up: What is a sex crime? This guy, afterall, didn't rape anyone, he just played with himself while making small children watch. Wow, that is horrible, that is nearly as bad as rape itself. Lock him up and register him. But wait, that guy over there showed his penis off to some kids too! Hey! Same thing! Lock him up and register him. Of course, that guy was just drunk and peeing in an alley that kids happened to walk by... Oh wait, we aren't going to stop now to differentiate, we are on a role. That guy over there showed his penis off too! Lock him up and register him! Yeah... but... he was peeing in a public restroom, and someone opened the door... and there weren't even any kids there... WHAT? Are you saying men and women can't be the victims of sex crimes now? Lock him up and register him.
And it spun out of control just that fast. It is ridiculous. It is flawed. But who wants to be the guy to strike down the sex offender act? Everyone would crucify the guy and say he was pro-criminals, and anti-YOUR-safety.
Now apply that ugly spiral here. Where is the line drawn? ONLY when applied to skin color? Or does race, religion, creed, etc all play a part? Is it bad to say a slur against a black person, but ok against a Jew? Only Jews by blood or Jews by choice? What about Germans? Is that a race or just a country? Why stop there? Why not make all insults illegal? Why is it ok to say those things to me if we are both white, but not if we are different races?
And that is just from this page...Uzique wrote:
the guy is suicidal and living at home
you are a moron. and so are you macbeth
only an intellectually lame person would be intimidated by a reference to actual philosophy
wow you are a class-a mong. have a good day, mouth breather
because at the moment you are being stupid, not playing it.
Where do you draw the line? Should you go to jail? Is insulting people in this manner ok, just because you didn't throw the "N-word" out there? Can you imagine if this caused a great public outcry and YOU went to jail for 56 days because of it?
And again, I am not claiming our country has the greatest grasp on racism. We did elect a black president... But half the people that I know voted for him because they were scared it would make them a racist if they didn't... That is what happens when you burn such anti-racism laws into someone... They over compensate. Hell there were many famous people and politicians alike that blatantly stated they were supporting Obama BECAUSE he was black... How is that not just as racist as if you voted AGAINST him because he was black? But it isn't putting someone down, so hey, it is publicly accepted. (Because to call THAT racism means you MUST be a racist).
In theory, in practise the system is routinely manipulated.our judiciary are completely independent of parliament and their actions
Laws on racism don't typically flow from common law, they are laws enacted by parliament - with much of the practical application and interpretation flowing from common law - IIRC
Fuck Israel
remove the "iirc" and go read some on how the legal process is here. "routinely manipulated"? some proof would be nice, please.
hitnrun if you want to take me to court because i called some people some names, that's your prerogative. have fun with the legal bills. i don't think there would be much of a case against me though, considering i'm simply informing people how dumb they are being about a topic that is out there on the internet for them to read and research. plus i'm not being a disgusting racist. nor am i disturbing the public peace. have fun fella.
hitnrun if you want to take me to court because i called some people some names, that's your prerogative. have fun with the legal bills. i don't think there would be much of a case against me though, considering i'm simply informing people how dumb they are being about a topic that is out there on the internet for them to read and research. plus i'm not being a disgusting racist. nor am i disturbing the public peace. have fun fella.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
So someone had to pay legal bills for the guy in the OP to be charged? Wow, your system is REALLY jacked up.Uzique wrote:
remove the "iirc" and go read some on how the legal process is here. "routinely manipulated"? some proof would be nice, please.
hitnrun if you want to take me to court because i called some people some names, that's your prerogative. have fun with the legal bills. i don't think there would be much of a case against me though, considering i'm simply informing people how dumb they are being about a topic that is out there on the internet for them to read and research. plus i'm not being a disgusting racist. nor am i disturbing the public peace. have fun fella.