Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Podcasts / Re: Serial Podcast (WARNING: THE DUDE ABIDES)
« Last post by TheIrreverend on Today at 04:26:59 PM »
My trials are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a very recent (1982) rights document.  If there is some particular element of the ECHR you would like to point to, I'm happy to look.

If you're interested in the Canadian law on confessions, I recommend looking up Oickle (SCC, 2000).
Podcasts / Re: Serial Podcast (WARNING: THE DUDE ABIDES)
« Last post by Desert Fox on Today at 04:23:16 PM »
Required != important.  There are lots of rules of evidence which protect unreliable confessions from being admitted in court.

I should note, I am currently working on a file where the defence is claiming a false confession and I am seeking to admit it as reliable.  Just so my biases are out in the open.

How many of your trials would survive the ECHR if you were subject to them?
I consider that should be the standard you should work with.
Podcasts / Re: Serial Podcast (WARNING: THE DUDE ABIDES)
« Last post by PANTS! on Today at 04:21:48 PM »
Just to be clear, no one should have a problem with cops lying to witnesses or accused persons.  That's clearly a valuable investigative tool.

Lying in court, well that's perjury.
I have a problem with it.  Quick examples:  Telling a defendant that you have DNA evidence that will put them on death row, then plea bargaining a false confession.

Telling a defendant that they are not under arrest, so there is no need for a lawyer.
qualia isn't a conclusion, it's an observation.

An observation? "There's a cat on the ledge" is an observation. I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think you do either.

Qualia are a notion proposed (not a given, as you seem to think) to explain what experiential phenomena "are like" privately to the experiencer. They are defined in such a way as to be inherently private. That means that they are inherently logically indescribable. A category of items with no possible describable properties is at best trivial and at worst incoherent.

It doesn't presuppose dualism as an explanation.  It observes that there are two kinds of effects of mental activity, ones that are accessible to outside observers (e.g. neural correlates, behaviour etc) and ones that are accessible only to the mind.

If we don't presuppose mind body dualism, then we admit that the mind might be a function of the brain. If the mind was a function of the brain, then all of the experiences of the mind would be, in theory, accessible to an outside observer, observing the brain. If that is the fact, then qualia would not exist, as they are defined as strictly private.
TV & Movies / Re: DCTVU: Supergirl
« Last post by amysrevenge on Today at 04:16:27 PM »
Relevant to "what's the deal with Superman".  Warning, Max Landis can be a bit polarizing - I'm fascinated by him personally.

TV & Movies / Re: DCTVU: Supergirl
« Last post by Gerbig on Today at 04:04:27 PM »

I am biased though, I never found superman to be a compelling character, he sort of seems like the person who made him stopped half way through his creation and didn't bother to give him any interesting characteristics.

You've been reading/watching the wrong Supermans then. It's a tired argument that's often made by people who don't really know Superman or think Superman is the contrived old Reeves movie version.
Read "All-star Superman" or "Birthright". Man of Steel was also great in my book.

Ive read lots of justice league comics before, and I always found superman to be the least interesting, watched old animated series superman, I haven't even seen the Reeves movies. Ill read the ones you recommended, perhaps they will give me a perspective I haven't seen before.

The origin of superman, and the reasoning behind his powers, I like, but the execution of them, I haven't seen anything that was really compelling before.

But I will read on and get back to you. 
This thread has gotten really weird.

Meh, the same people keep bringing up race, over, and over, and over.  It's not so weird, it's a standard tactic that the left uses.  Much like attacking PETA as an argument against vegetarians.  It's not at all related, but they seem like they're the same people from an in group out group tribalistic political perspective.
General Discussion / Re: Pornography
« Last post by Harry Black on Today at 03:47:17 PM »
Someone could use game of thrones as porn. Someone could use the financial times as porn.
I believe the definition is in the intention, that does leave some things in a grey area where we need more information before applying a label but oh well.
Shadow of a Doubt- I dont find that very hard to believe. First off, why would you go out of your way to post a lie? Secondly, two of my most porn like sexual partners have never watched porn. In fact i know lots of people (women mostly) who rarely watch it at all but are incredibly highly sexed so I dont think it has anything to do with repression as some people just knowing it does nothing for them and being comfortable in that.
So what Im saying is you are probably super freaky deeky in the sack.
General Discussion / Re: Show us your pets
« Last post by Friendly Angel on Today at 03:44:32 PM »
Camo cats.

Now you see us. Now you don't.

Error 404 Not Found
Is that the joke?  They're not there?
Religion / Philosophy Talk / The Ends Justify the Means
« Last post by brilligtove on Today at 03:39:11 PM »
I've been quiet recently because I'm finishing up writing a short business workbook called Polite Politics: Succeed Without Selling Your Soul (we're using soul figuratively and alliteratively so don't twist yer knickers over it :) ). It will be part of a one-day course taking students through Lessons in polite politics - lessons that include various principles to guide your thinking and behaviour and practices (techniques to use at work and also things to practice to up your game). In one lesson, called "Play the Long Game" we discuss a Principle that I'm calling "Ends Can Make You Mean" "Ends and Means". In practice, most of our social systems embed "the ends justify the means" in there pretty rigorously, with a sliding scale of justification.

I have a basic understanding of the philosophical ideas of consequentialism, and recognize that the ends cannot be the sole justification for any given means. I'm struggling a bit to figure out how to get my students to internalize the idea that there is an ethical continuum. This idea applies to all sorts of things at home and a work. For example,
  • white lies - ends: social cohesion; means: lies by omission, minor fabrications
  • "...he sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake... - ends: behaviour modification of children; means: a global, mass conspiracy to conceal the truth from children.
  • spinning bad news - ends: stop messenger from being shot; means: biased presentation of the situation.
  • allowing a preventable failure to happen - ends: permanently fix a chronic problem; means: enable a crisis to gather attention and galvanize action.

Do these examples make sense to you folks? I want the class to pick up the discussion, working their way toward a point where they will share a story - a time when they chose a means to an end and it left them feeling dirty.

Edited to alter the principle to a catchier name.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10