Author Topic: Opening Arguments #TTTBE  (Read 22930 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8953
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2018, 07:58:01 PM »
You might be right. It may be the only way to parse the ambiguity of the question (they never state which type of murder) to just rule out murder altogether.

Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3203
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2018, 09:39:57 PM »
I’m going with “A”.

I recall from the Police Academy* the scenario of two people walking into a bank together. One robs it and they leave together. The bystander does nothing overt.

To charge the bystander, you must show he or she actually did something in furtherance of the crime - drove the car, served as a lookout, carried some of the cash...something. I do recall language similar to choice A - mere presence at the scene is not a crime in and of itself.


*That Police Academy was 9 months long, and a serious portion was on the law. Did not make me a lawyer (thank God) but it did give me a fair understanding of basic legal concepts.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7054
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2018, 05:32:02 PM »
Remember, Belg, that this is testing common law, not statute.

I think it’s A or B, and I lean toward A.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 05:34:49 PM by The Latinist »
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7736
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2018, 06:05:18 AM »
My brain is screaming RICO but I'm not sure the single murder is enough to have charged them under RICO, which would have made them all complicit in the murder.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline HighPockets

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2099
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2018, 06:27:28 PM »
Ok, all you smarty pants. The answer is up.

https://openargs.com/oa157-are-originalist-judges-qualified-w-guest-david-michael/

Discussion starts at 01:17:08

TLDL
(click to show/hide)
Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't.

Online Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2645
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2018, 07:40:44 PM »
Ok, all you smarty pants. The answer is up.

https://openargs.com/oa157-are-originalist-judges-qualified-w-guest-david-michael/

Discussion starts at 01:17:08

TLDL
(click to show/hide)

I see the logic now - makes sense.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11398
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2018, 08:22:43 PM »
I'd like to say I had eveey confidence that I had the right answer, but I'd be Trumping.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7054
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2018, 09:04:40 AM »
Anyone want to tell me where the ‘debate’ with David Micgaels begins and ends?  I have no desire to hear Andrew debate another layman; the last one was painful.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8953
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2018, 09:31:15 AM »
Anyone want to tell me where the ‘debate’ with David Micgaels begins and ends?  I have no desire to hear Andrew debate another layman; the last one was painful.

I'm a layman myself, but this guy seemed relatively well-researched though clearly not an expert.  I very much enjoyed the debate, enough so that I'm going to check out his new podcast, The Quorum, which seems to be basically a debate podcast where the debaters basically flip a coin before each topic to determine which side they will be on.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11398
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2018, 09:32:03 AM »
Anyone want to tell me where the ‘debate’ with David Micgaels begins and ends?  I have no desire to hear Andrew debate another layman; the last one was painful.

This one was actually much better.  Not sure if it will pass everyone's listenable threshold, but it did mine.  Maybe because the other guy wanted to listen to Andrew.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Online Sawyer

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2018, 11:08:23 AM »
Anyone want to tell me where the ‘debate’ with David Micgaels begins and ends?  I have no desire to hear Andrew debate another layman; the last one was painful.

This one was actually much better.  Not sure if it will pass everyone's listenable threshold, but it did mine.  Maybe because the other guy wanted to listen to Andrew.

I found the premise kind of silly though.  Towards the end of the episode he reverts back to criticizing Originalism rather than defending it which undercuts the idea that he's honestly defending it.  I know that this is what people do in debate clubs, but I don't think it worked here.  It's an impossible situation though, sort of like trying to have debates with Christian fundamentalists.  The only people you could find to have a real debate about Originalism are true believers, which by Andrew's standard automatically disqualifies them from talking sensibly about how to interpret the law.

Do we have any threads on this forum about Originalism?  It's one of the fronts where I'm pretty sure the rationalist (or even the traditionalist conservative) worldview is currently losing big time and will continue to do so for decades.

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8953
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2018, 01:37:10 PM »
I think the fact that they hadn't really discussed this between them before made the fact one side was playing devil's advocate a bit better.  Beyond that, the fact that he avoided the truly crackpot defenses of it helped as well.  As someone who doesn't know much about legal history in this country, especially in terms of Originalism, I found the discussion very illuminating and found myself actually being able to see some of David's points and then see them fall apart with Andrew's response.  Unless someone is willing to say that there are better arguments for Originalism that people like us might be able to identify with, then I think David played his part just fine and it didn't feel like a contrived play in the vein of "Darwinist" professors being bested by the astounding logic of the brave Christian Student ending in the whole class erupting in applause.

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11742
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2018, 02:36:18 PM »
Agreed with all the above.  The ‘debate’ this time around was quite a bit more honest in terms of listening to the other side and acknowledging when they made a good point. 

David did better than me in the discussion by keeping Andrew from talking a LOT (most of you probably didn’t hear my discussion with him as mine was over Serial and a patron only episode)
#non-belief denialist

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8953
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2018, 06:59:34 AM »
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
In January, a teacher contracted with a summer camp to serve as its head counselor at a salary of $10,000 for 10 weeks from the first of June to middle of August.  In March, the camp notified the teacher that they had hired someone else as head counselor and that the teacher's services would be not be needed.  In April, the teacher spent 200 travelling to interview at the only other nearby summer camp for a position as its head counselor.  The teacher was not chosen for the job.  The teacher then took a position teaching at a local summer school at salary of $6,000 for the same 10 week period.  Now; how much is the teacher entitled to recover as damages in a breach of contract action against the camp?

A.  $4,000

B.  $4,200

C.  $10,000

D.  $10,200

FYI, I transcribed this directly so it has all the information and wording that Andrew gave on the show.

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8953
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2018, 07:39:39 AM »
(click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 07:43:24 AM by Eternally Learning »

 

personate-rain
personate-rain