Looking for intent is speculating about the content of someone's mind (non physical I would/symbolic?) Not analysing the crime scene. — Andrew4Handel

Nonsense. Intent can be deduced from circumstances and isn't speculation or you wouldn't ever be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt someone murdered another. Think of preparatory acts, like buying the murder weapon, lying in wait, etc.

As I said to in my last post to Javi killing someone does not entail murder or intent.

Someone could be shot in war, in self defence , in a hunting accident, by suicide, by a mad man etc. The dead body looks the same. — Andrew4Handel

Which is why you look for other evidence to prove intent.

That's not the full definition of murder which you need to distinguish it from other types of unlawful killing. The distinctions are legal and therefore have primarily legal effect.

Layman usage is pretty close to the legal meaning though and I'm pretty confident that societies without laws still can tell the difference between a natural death and someone dying from a knife in his back.

If your point is words mean what people agree what they mean then yes.

Still not an argument. You're really shit at this. You know that right?

I do think the right has marketed their position well with the "cancel culture" designation, and I do understand why you'd like to erase that from the vocabulary by declaring it non-existent. The problem is that it works, and it works because trying to stomp someone's views out, regardless of how morally repugnant you find them, doesn't work that well against 10s of millions of people. — Hanover

Except nobody is stomping anyone's views out, they are brought out in the light in all their stupidity and found lacking.

Still not an argument. And that letter was shit.

The framing of "cancel culture" is political correctness gone rogue. While examples of political correctness goen rogue do exist, the "culture" or "phenomenon" isn't about that, that's in fact about public accountability of companies, celebrities and politicians.

Political correctness could, but then this isn't about that, is it?

Not really. We need to assess independently whether what the mob wants is something agree with and if so join them.

The issue is often framed in terms a left wing attempt to limit free speech. To the extent that this is true I agree with the OP that it is a right wing lie. But I don't agree that cancel culture does not exist. Although the terminology is new, it has always existed in one form or another. — Fooloso4

Let me rephrase, cancelling as political correctness gone rogue, doesn't exist. I prefer public accountability instead.

I suppose the problem with throngs of folks angrily pursuing social justice over the interwebs is that things are often more complicated than most people think.

Take the curious case of the cancelation of Victor Arnautoff's murals at San Francisco's George Washington High School. The murals portray George Washington as a slave owner and a colonialist. They were made by a communist painter during the New Deal. They have historical, political and esthetic value. But the “Life of Washington” was hidden behind solid wood panels because it 'triggered' someone... — Olivier5

I think people are more and more actually organising. Unions, activism etc. And we can look at separate cases and find fault with some of them but I'm pretty confident that by-and-large what is happening is for the good. We need to be careful to say there's a problem with forcing public accountability because some turned out to be wrongful. That's kind of like saying not take complaints of rape seriously because some women make it up.

I'll just quote some of the stuff that has already been said before on this site as well:

The Harper's Letter was dumb as hell; a circle-jerk for the signatories, all of whom have immense platforms and each of whom can directly reach an audience that all of us combined are unlikely to ever experience. The letter was so pitiful that it couldn't even provide direct, unambiguous examples of people who have been "canceled" and the whole term, (which is extremely goofy, by the way) is primarily a concern for people of a certain class or occupation or politico-ideological beliefs that want to distract away from actual material concerns that a majority of people face. What's also exceptional to me, is that a number of signatories are prominent political scientists who are unable to grasp the fact that "cancel culture" is a fundamental component of liberal democracy, i.e., the ability to freely associate with a group of other individuals with a common identity (ideological, ethnic, class, etc.) and to defend/protect that collective identity, which will always be in tension with the freedom of speech insofar as the latter does or potentially harms the former, as is the case with say transrights (which signatories Jesse Singal and JK Rowling have done), or Black Americans (Haidt et. al. has defended race science), or Palestinians (Bari Weiss, who in fact become famous by trying to "cancel" i.e. fire a pro-Palestinian professor at Columbia). What the signers decry as a "force of illiberalism" is in actuality an element of liberalism, Freedom of Association, expressing itself. — Maw

For years, and even to this day, Marxist thought is all but banned in the US. They try to discredit BLM because a bunch of Marxists push a fucking conservative agenda (respect my rights and life!), totally ignoring what they stand for. Now a couple of rabid racists and their enablers are barred from a couple of shows, because - hello - racism is out of vogue (Fucking finally, right?!), and all of a sudden it's a problem. Those cancellations are profit driven and not ideological. It's not a culture war, it's marketing. Live goes on and the racists will retreat in their "cultural norms and values" code and how it's under threat from everything they don't like, which includes leftists and anything with pigment. — Benkei

Yeah, I'm not playing this game where you allude to that letter (again) without actually forming an argument. You tried that skit with Baden before. Make an argument, you know premisses and conclusions and all that.

I have no issue arguing with a bunch of writers. I'm not impressed. Chomsky would be fun. We'd probably end up finding common ground relatively quickly.

reddit.com/antiwork

You want to turn the woke agenda into a class agenda when class is the one thing it avoids mentioning at all costs. — Isaac

Your idea of woke and cancel culture is exactly how right wingers like to frame it, as "political correctness gone awry". If that's your take away then congratulations on being fooled by right wing framing.

It's one of those 'undisputed facts' we like so much that absolutely no-one ever fought a war over "transgenders, gays, lesbians, transsexuals". — Isaac

Not what I said. I said people will fight wars for justice. And I think this particular subject is exemplar for the general issue of disrespect of human dignity by politicians and corporations and the shills that keep defending it. I mentioned those probably because this was lifted from a discussion in the changing sex thread but the problem is broader and the anger is widespread. Just look at the US hiring crisis, the very public unionizing going on in the US to combat all the shit average US citizens have to deal with just to make a living wage. The downright injustice of elites thinking they have earned their millions over the backs of workers.

The fact that you've piggybacked off those conflicts to add your campaign de jour is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't just say that because some matters are beyond reasonable discussion, any matter you care to raise can be put into that pot. — Isaac

I don't think it's piggybacking and has a very clear link. Oppression and repression, it all looks the same regardless of who is on the receiving end. But it's always about ensuring the powerless cannot do what they want to do.

...the question I'm raising is how we decide when that time is, not whether it exists at all. — Isaac

Almost all of these issues are about human dignity and class warfare and it looks like a powderkeg ready to explode to me. Does some of the flaming appear retaliatory? Well, no shit, it's poor people finding a voice to call out the Karens after they've been shit upon by Karens half of their lives. The local mom & pop store can't hire anybody anymore because they exploited their employees? Yes, that is personal. That's not cancel culture that's justice where you know you're not going to get it from the courts, politicians or companies you're working for.

Obviously, the term can be misused for political reasons, but that doesn't mean that the culture, trend, or phenomenon itself does not exist.

But I tend to agree on Starbucks .... :wink: — Apollodorus

That's one of many definitions of the phenomenon out there where we're allowing framing to distort what is happening. What is happening is holding companies and people publicly accountable.

Perhaps you care to reproduce those "warnings". If you're just going to allude to it, it's not interesting as a reply.

:rofl: Not being treated like slaves. No, not in the traditional sense but wage slavery is a thing. Especially in the US.

Of far more importance, I think, is addressing the concerns of women about safe spaces, reporting of crimes against women, the security of lesbians (and gay men) as protected identities... — Isaac

That is important but not quite the subject of this thread. Or am I missing something you're alluding to that I'm not understanding?

Notwithstanding, the more urgent issue is the degree to which the resolution of such issues is being dealt with in an increasingly hostile and partisan way, ensuring that moderate voices on both sides are muffled in favour of the more media-friendly dogmatists who seem to be increasingly the only voices given air. — Isaac

That's the nature of news. The news reports on negative divergences from the norm. Nobody cares about what the silent majority thinks. It's why complaints about "cancel culture" from right wingers who then turn around and prohibit the teaching of evolution theory or critical race theory should simply be ignored. Unfortunately, the narrative that appears to stick is that "right-wingers get cancelled by neo-Marxists" which they then get all the room in the world for to lie about.

The other nature of news nowadays is a lot reporting on opinions, instead of facts. "such-and-such said X" (OMG! SHOCK! HORROR!) without any consideration of whether it's true.

I try to not read the news anymore unless it's an investigative journalism piece.

I think the only worthwhile discussions to be had are what to do about bathroom stalls, sports and spa and the like. I think that particularly with sports there's a good argument to insist on classification by birth sex irrespective of gender expression. That's more about keeping it fair.

The rest can be a decision by the establishment and should be clearly communicated. Either by gender self-identification or sex, both are, from what I understand at this point, valid positions. I personally can't give two shits about being surprised at a urinal because someone shows up and whips out a dick when I thought she was a woman.

It pays to remember just how many WMDs were found in Iraq and what the intelligence community thought it knew and how that was spun by politicians and Powell in particular.

Edit: let me translate that "anybody who believes the US and UK narrative is an idiot".

What is the third character (number, letter, or symbol) you will type to solve this?

How many different characters will you type to solve this?

What is the first character you will type to solve this? — DavidJohnson

1. I can't answer the first question yet.
2. Assuming all questions ought to be answered. I can answer this one: 3
3. That gives me the answer to the third question, which will also be 3.
4. That leaves the first question open

So, my answer 33?

This is where Putin utterly failed. If he would have just stood back and patiently waited just as it did in Central Asia, let the Americans do their thing, and then he would be out. But I guess the lure to re-establish a greater Russia, snatch Crimea, was too seductive for him. You fail to notice that the US had bases all around the Central Asian states...and no it has none. — ssu

I disagree this was a failure. It was strategically a brilliant move. He ensured access to the Black Sea and it cost him almost nothing. Your idea of just "waiting patiently" leaves things to chance; it's not a real strategy. I also happen to think the Crimea annexation was a reaction to Western meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine when it refused to bend over and get anally shafted by the IMF.

I got more turtles when I got this error: Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again.

The Grundnorm first, indeed it is a sovereign act of law creation, the only one there is in the Kelsenian system. It is designed to end the ' turtles all the way down' one gets when following the steps of the legality of rules. It ends somewhere and it ends for Kelsen in a sovereign act of law creation. — Tobias

That's not how I understood Kelsen. Sovereignty is a norm itself so it becomes self-referential and, I'd argue, incoherent. So there's a turtle below sovereignty.

I think truth telling is more about habit than actual rational decision making where utility or parties' interests are effectively weighed. So always telling the truth to the point you're avoiding white lies, makes for a better person.

I'm not sure the measure should be how it continues to affect people but how it affects society and particularly the health care system. It might be we permanently need to increase health care capacity to manage both Covid and influenza seasonality.

Not that our newly formed government is thinking about that. They're actually planning on saving 6 billion in 4 years. How's that for a stab in the back after all the work doctors and nurses did in the past 2 years?

Why are you confronted with the Brno legal positivist school? Not that I have an inkling of what they think in Brno, but it sounds cool. I am interested, please tell me more! — Tobias

Well, I change the name of a company in the Netherlands and then refer to that new name in the share purchase documentation and resolutions approving that SPA. I then file it with the chamber of commerce, no problems. The proof of the name change is that first resolution. I just have to make sure everything is signed in the right order.

Now in Slovakia the new name doesn't exist until it's registered. Which takes about two weeks. If you're lucky. Legal facts only exist there if they're registered. Which is very annoying if nobody tells you beforehand and you're working on a time critical corporate restructuring.

Obviously I avoided the problem but it raised the following interesting question to me. If the SPA is between two Dutch entities and governed by Dutch law, what would've been the correct name of the Slovak company in the SPA if that would be signed between the Slovakian resolution to change the name and the registration in the public register?

the Grundnorm in Kelsen's system is based on justice. — Tobias

That can't be. The Grundnorm is the norm that all other norms, rules and law, derive from. By definition it cannot be based on something else.

I was reading discworld novels when studying Kelsen and I thought the "turtles all the way down" was an apt metaphor for his Grundnorm. He never defined it and I thought it was a cop out to try to avoid saying something like, it's based on divine law, it's natural law etc. I didn't particularly like him. I liked Hart better.

I'm confronted with the Brno legal positivist school in my daily work actually. Kelsen lives on in Slovakia which for practical purposes totally sucks.

Again. That's neither here nor there because we don't support Russia.

I think some things are worth discussing. I just hate discussing with idiots.

Any way, what is Kelsen's Grundnorm if not another name for justice?

The context was clear. Who we should support. If our support is predicated upon who has the least dirty hands, why does it matter where that dirt came from if the choice is binary? Who would you rather succeed as a nation Syria or Israel? If you have to support one or another, which do you support? — Ennui Elucidator

An idiotic question. The most obvious being that Syria and Israel aren't at war so there's no need to pick sides.

But yes, in a conflict between two entities, the choice is binary and we (western countries) have and continue to support the wrong one.

Even taking your confused position that the situation is complex that choice is insane. "yeah, it's really a complicated situation and both sides do terrible things, let's support one side with billions!" so, fuck you I guess, for supporting the obvious morally wrong status quo.

But for some reason, only one is murderous and aggressive while the other one, well, actually you don't care what happens inside it, you seem to think that it has a right to a sphere of influence and think it's just bullied/provoked by the West or something. — ssu

As I already explained sufficiently in the previous post, which you seem to not grasp : we're currently not supporting Russia. In fact, there are sanctions in place.

Where are the sanctions against Israel?

My word choice with respect to Russia merely reflects my lack of knowledge about the existence and extent of crimes. I'm familiar with his policy of removing political opponents but I'm not aware of a policy of genocide. There's a qualitative difference between the two though.

I didn’t say that the atrocities were perpetrated by them against Israel, I said they have done them and are not collectively responsible for less bad acts than Israel. The only country on that list that comes close to not having done more bad acts than Israel might be Palestine, and that is by virtue of its population size. I imagine if you counted the violations of human rights in the occupied territories by Palestinians, you might find that they are equal to Israel, but I won’t make that promise. — Ennui Elucidator

Which is all irrelevant within the context of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and surrounding states. I thought that context clear from the post itself which talks about aggression and war crimes. Ius ad bellum and Ius in bello.

Put differently, if I have a fight with you, then the fact that you also beat your wife is of no interest to me.

Oh, what was the argument then? Because your comment seemed totally irrelevant.

There is an easy and simple solution that ought to appeal to all of those who feel the Israelis are just a bunch of expletives-of-the-moment land-grabbers. Return to them what was theirs - all of it. Hmm. And where was that taken away from them, and what was taken? And under what circumstances? — tim wood

As if right wing political Zionism cares one way or another about those reparations. It's also an idiotic argument since there's absolutely no moral argument to be made that because Jews got shafted in Europe they therefore are free to shaft Palestinians. Even so, reparations have and continue to be paid even by countries that were innocent of the crimes committed by the Germans. So I also, in fact, have no clue what you're talking about. There's an interesting book on this holocaust industry as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry

I thought you were more intelligent than this. There's a difference between supporting a murderous regime and provoking a regime into an international war.

Syria, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, the U.A.E, etc. have each committed atrocities since 1945 that when combined far exceed anything that the Israelis have done, but for some reason get a pass when it comes to discussing Israel. — Ennui Elucidator

Please provide the numbers on how many atrocities were perpetrated against Israelis by those states and resulted in how many Israeli deaths. I'll wait while you get acquainted with the history of the area.

I think he's right in the sense that actual academic credentials, integrity, legal acumen and wisdom aren't relevant. Just look at the Brett Kavanaugh appointment and that crazy lady Barrett recently. Any black woman will do really... In fact, I think just picking people randomly is likely an improvement on the political farce it currently is

Thanks. I'm still not sure I want to be here again.