Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Madiel]

To tie this all together...

The most insane thing here is that Florestan is actually relying on the distinction between "X happened" and "someone said X happened" to insist that people reporting that calculations have been done to make movies carbon-neutral is no kind of proof that anyone has actually done calculations to make movies carbon-neutral.

And yet he then goes on to utterly conflate "X happened" and "someone said X happened" into a single topic.

[Brian]

To tie this all together...

The most insane thing here is that Florestan is actually relying on the distinction between "X happened" and "someone said X happened" to insist that people reporting that calculations have been done to make movies carbon-neutral is no kind of proof that anyone has actually done calculations to make movies carbon-neutral.

And yet he then goes on to utterly conflate "X happened" and "someone said X happened" into a single topic.

Sometimes I think that his real enemy here is our time, and his real goal is to occupy as much of our time as possible. That would account for the continuous, arbitrary addition of new tangents, new irrelevancies, new fallacies, and new accusations.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Sometimes I think that his real enemy here is our time, and his real goal is to occupy as much of our time as possible. That would account for the continuous, arbitrary addition of new tangents, new irrelevancies, new fallacies, and new accusations.

Look, I can't spend three hours going through old posts to see what makes sense to me in this thread and what doesn't, but I have good reasons to consider Florestan a friend, and I resent this kind of personal gang-up some of you are indulging in — just as I resent the kind of gang-up visited on James when he has the guts to stick his neck out and say some unpopular things. Can't we stay above board and knock off the personal attacks?

[Ken B]

Well, maybe this contretemps is making more sense to some of you than it is to me, but as far as I'm aware it's always the plaintiff - no matter what the nature of the suit - who must meet the burden of proof, else the defendant is not guilty. If this is not the case in anyone's eyes, kindly explain.

I believe that is what I just said. The plaintiff is the one asking the court to act against another.

[Ken B]

Look, I can't spend three hours going through old posts to see what makes sense to me in this thread and what doesn't, but I have good reasons to consider Florestan a friend, and I resent this kind of personal gang-up some of you are indulging in — just as I resent the kind of gang-up visited on James when he has the guts to stick his neck out and say some unpopular things. Can't we stay above board and knock off the personal attacks?

If that question is meant seriously then the answer is clearly no they cannot. Even to the extent of imputing bad motives to a foreigner asking in his third language about hypotheticals in various branches of American tort law.

[Madiel]

Look, I can't spend three hours going through old posts to see what makes sense to me in this thread and what doesn't, but I have good reasons to consider Florestan a friend, and I resent this kind of personal gang-up some of you are indulging in — just as I resent the kind of gang-up visited on James when he has the guts to stick his neck out and say some unpopular things. Can't we stay above board and knock off the personal attacks?

I regard Florestan as a friend. But he's a friend who at least twice has apologised to me for the way he behaves when he gets into an argumentative frame of mind, being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

This is exactly why I referred to him being in "argumentative mode". And I didn't answer his rhetorical question about whether I'd known him to be any other way, but I will now: yes, I've known him to behave in other ways, most especially when he comes to his senses and realises what he's been up to.

[Madiel]

If that question is meant seriously then the answer is clearly no they cannot. Even to the extent of imputing bad motives to a foreigner asking in his third language about hypotheticals in various branches of American tort law.

Except no-one actually believes he's genuinely curious about American tort law. He's engaging in a rhetorical device. Am I the only one who remembers what was actually being discussed before Florestan managed to divert everyone into a discussion of American tort law?

This is actually a discussion about climate change, and Florestan is attempting to get people to declare the importance of proving things. Hence the horror if anyone suggests that something might not have to be proved. And he went to the law because he wants to get people to commit to legal levels of proof. He was then looking to apply those concepts to science.

It hasn't worked. Not least because I went to bed as promised. "You're a lawyer right?" was the opening bait, but I wasn't here to take it. This wasn't about discussing law, it was about attempting to force me along a line of argument that would have woven round to requiring proof on scientific matters relating to climate. Because I wasn't here, you all took the bait instead.

I'm not sure if Florestan is aware that as well as being "a lawyer", I have a Science degree. Though I hasten to add I am not a climate scientist.

[Ken B]

Imagine I say something damaging about you, that I claim is a matter of fact. You sue me. Here's a possible law: if you can prove that what I said is a factual claim and harms you then you win UNLESS I prove it is true. In other words, the only defenses are
1 I did not say it
2 it's an opinion
3 it is not harmful
Or
4 it is true

Is this an imaginable legal regime? I think so. It even seems defensible, doesn't it? I prefer our system because it defends speech rights more vigilantly, and I think that matters more than "reputation rights". But the reverse is defensible. AND IT MAY BE THE WAY OTHER LEGAL SYSTEMS WORK. I think it is closer to the law in the UK. It may be the way Roman law works or its descendant, the Napoleonic law, which governs much of the non Anglo world.

Just Asserting the burden automatically being on the plaintiff won't suffice here to justify our law. He has the burden to prove HARM and to prove it is a factual claim, and to prove it was made under certain circumstances. If the tort were not words that would suffice. If I keyed your car you wouldn't much. It is because we protect speech that we place the additional burden, and it is not brain dead to question it.

[kishnevi]

Note to self

Bring up the topic of climate change only when I want a thread derailment.

[Brian]

Look, I can't spend three hours going through old posts to see what makes sense to me in this thread and what doesn't, but I have good reasons to consider Florestan a friend, and I resent this kind of personal gang-up some of you are indulging in — just as I resent the kind of gang-up visited on James when he has the guts to stick his neck out and say some unpopular things. Can't we stay above board and knock off the personal attacks?

You should see how I treat my enemies!

(No; point taken. Intention is the hardest thing to assess in internet text talk.)

[Madiel]

Imagine I say something damaging about you, that I claim is a matter of fact. You sue me. Here's a possible law: if you can prove that what I said is a factual claim and harms you then you win UNLESS I prove it is true. In other words, the only defenses are
1 I did not say it
2 it's an opinion
3 it is not harmful
Or
4 it is true

Is this an imaginable legal regime? I think so. It even seems defensible, doesn't it? I prefer our system because it defends speech rights more vigilantly, and I think that matters more than "reputation rights". But the reverse is defensible. AND IT MAY BE THE WAY OTHER LEGAL SYSTEMS WORK. I think it is closer to the law in the UK. It may be the way Roman law works or its descendant, the Napoleonic law, which governs much of the non Anglo world.

Just Asserting the burden automatically being on the plaintiff won't suffice here to justify our law. He has the burden to prove HARM and to prove it is a factual claim, and to prove it was made under certain circumstances. If the tort were not words that would suffice. If I keyed your car you wouldn't much. It is because we protect speech that we place the additional burden, and it is not brain dead to question it.

It pretty well IS the way most legal systems work, so I honestly don't know where the rest of this comes from.

I'm not American. I'm certainly not here to defend the American legal system or its conception of free speech. And what you're saying doesn't help Florestan one bit.  All he's interested in is saying "you've got to prove everything", and there isn't a legal system in the world that works that way.

[Florestan]

Okay, guys, I am very sorry for mindlessly derailing the thread. Truth is, I was drunk, and when I´m drunk I´m even more of a contrarian than when sober. 

I guess I deserved all the remonstrations I got from orfeo and Brian, whom I consider as friends too. 

You won´t hear anymore "Roman Law" from me, I promise. 

[Sammy]

Getting back to the thread topic, what do you folks think of the proposed debate between Trump and Sanders?

[The new erato]

Getting back to the thread topic, what do you folks think of the proposed debate between Trump and Sanders?

It will be worse than this one here, and they're not even drunk!

[Brian]

Okay, guys, I am very sorry for mindlessly derailing the thread. Truth is, I was drunk, and when I´m drunk I´m even more of a contrarian than when sober. 

I guess I deserved all the remonstrations I got from orfeo and Brian, whom I consider as friends too. 

You won´t hear anymore "Roman Law" from me, I promise. 

All is forgiven! That is truly the best of excuses! I haven't always been a sober poster.

[Florestan]

It will be worse than this one here, and they're not even drunk!

Well, one is drunk with power, the other one is drunk with wild dreams.

[Wendell_E]

the other one is drunk with wild dreams.

I'm sure the that's what some thought about our founding fathers.

[(poco) Sforzando]

It will be worse than this one here, and they're not even drunk!

Trump has already withdrawn the offer. He's so consistent.

[Ken B]

Trump has already withdrawn the offer. He's so consistent.

I wonder if this wasn't a ploy. It boosts Sanders a bit. There is no way any nominee would ever debate a challenger who isn't the other party nominee, so this would never happen, but it suggests Sanders is closer to being the candidate than he is. To enhance the let down from his supporters when crooked Hillary (I like Trump's phrase more than I do Trump!) steals the nomination from him ( as many Berniers will feel).

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

A glimpse of hell (In no small part because it goes down in SoCal--a vile and disgusting hellhole):

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-trumpian-divide/484619/